Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Is the Timme/Holmgren lineup over, or is it too soon to tell?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,236

    Default Is the Timme/Holmgren lineup over, or is it too soon to tell?

    From Evanmiya.com:



    It's still pretty early and there isn't a big enough sample size for some of these lineups, but his metrics say that our most-used lineup is just so-so compared to other lineups we've thrown out.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Irving, TX
    Posts
    10,660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scrooner View Post
    From Evanmiya.com:



    It's still pretty early and there isn't a big enough sample size for some of these lineups, but his metrics say that our most-used lineup is just so-so compared to other lineups we've thrown out.
    Slow news day?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,236

    Default

    Whoops, thought I was in the GU discussion forum!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scrooner View Post
    Whoops, thought I was in the GU discussion forum!
    Missed the fork in the road?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scrooner View Post
    From Evanmiya.com:



    It's still pretty early and there isn't a big enough sample size for some of these lineups, but his metrics say that our most-used lineup is just so-so compared to other lineups we've thrown out.
    Probably too early still, coupled with the fact the Holmgren, for all his gifts, is still a freshman and is learning his place in the system. It certainly will be interesting to see where this stacks up at the end of the season, though.

    My hope is that Dom is able to get back and into playing shape by the start of conference play; having a guard that consistently demands attention on the 3pt line would do wonders for the inside game.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,677

    Default

    Looks like the team fares better with Bolton in the lineup. That’s the main takeaway given the data IMO

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Interesting statistics.

    Don't see where it really accounts for the circumstance of the game. For example, is the highest rating lineup only playing at less crucial times?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZagsObserver View Post
    Looks like the team fares better with Bolton in the lineup. That’s the main takeaway given the data IMO
    And clearly Hickman too

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,974

    Default


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20,293

    Default

    This starting lineup is immutable, forget it. That’s the Few way. And why last year’s insertion of Nemby for Watson was so shocking.

  11. #11

    Default

    Data says holmgren should sit. Should we redshirt him?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    1,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jazzdelmar View Post
    This starting lineup is immutable, forget it. That’s the Few way. And why last year’s insertion of Nemby for Watson was so shocking.
    +1
    America's Team!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zagsfanforlife View Post
    Data says holmgren should sit. Should we redshirt him?
    Is it too late to rescind his scholarship offer? Same with Strawther?

    Asking for a friend

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    1,095

    Default

    Classic paralysis by analysis, I think

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Bolton is the straw that stirs the drink apparently. Would be interesting to see this after 5 more games or so. No sure why all the shade thrown from some corners, this is fascinating, IMO.

    ZZ

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Edgewood, WA
    Posts
    1,601

    Default

    If they could just play the starting lineup the entire game +41.5 AEM would be the greatest team in hoops in the past fifty years, so it doesn’t appear to be a Timme/Chet issue so much as a small sample size for all but one of the lineups.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,236

    Default

    For comparison's sake, here are the best adjusted effeciency margins of primary lineups from his site. I have to say, I don't know how these are adjusted and they look pretty iffy to me at the moment, based on who is ranked where.


  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,236

    Default

    Here's an update 6 weeks later:



    The 4 most-used Timme/Holmgren lineups are highlighted in black. Our main lineup has moved up in efficiency from 41.5 to 48, presumably because they've gotten better at playing together.

    What happens when Timme or Holmgren sit and Watson comes in? You get one of the lineups highlighted in green.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    14,061

    Default

    Speaking as a data guy... statistics are what you as the consumer make them. That being said... I take a different take on it. All but one of the top 8 include Watson. JMHO... says to me that Watson is more the cog that turns the wheel.
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Great stuff! Thanks for doing the work.

    Actually the 3 top lineups include Watson and either Chet or Drew. I'm trying to decide how to think about this. One conclusion is that Anton's production has increased greatly and so the rise in the efficiency number of his lineup is driven more by him being on the floor.

    Said another way, Few doesn't use any lineup where Anton plays and with both Chet and Drew on the floor, therefore any combo that excludes Anton suffers by comparison.

    The thesis of the OP was that there was some poor chemistry with Chet and Drew both on at the same time. I don't agree. The efficiency numbers of all the lineups are pretty darned good. Just Anton's are better right now.

    Conclusion: Anton has earned more minutes.
    Question: At whose expense?

    Discuss....

    ZZ

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zagzilla View Post
    Actually the 3 top lineups include Watson and either Chet or Drew. I'm trying to decide how to think about this. One conclusion is that Anton's production has increased greatly and so the rise in the efficiency number of his lineup is driven more by him being on the floor.
    Top 4, but yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by zagzilla View Post
    The thesis of the OP was that there was some poor chemistry with Chet and Drew both on at the same time. I don't agree. The efficiency numbers of all the lineups are pretty darned good. Just Anton's are better right now.
    There's no thesis in my OP, except that the Timme/Holmgren lineup might not turn out to be the best one. I'm not making any statements about chemistry.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    Speaking as a data guy... statistics are what you as the consumer make them. That being said... I take a different take on it. All but one of the top 8 include Watson. JMHO... says to me that Watson is more the cog that turns the wheel.
    Yes, also a good observation!

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    1,275

    Default

    Am I way off base thinking that lineups like those featuring Watson are getting more second half minutes in games that most often are won early? Hence the lineup that Watson is seeing is perhaps somewhat different from that which our starting lineup faces. Any thoughts in this regard are welcome.
    SLOZag
    "Kids come here to better their own lives, not ours. If you take a player’s failures as a personal affront…. check yourself." - Chick-Stratino'sUrDaddy

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,236

    Default

    The two lineups at the top are with all 4 other starters, so they aren't garbage-time minutes, they are only the minutes where he is in for Timme or Holmgren.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lacrosse, Washington
    Posts
    8,176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SLOZag View Post
    Am I way off base thinking that lineups like those featuring Watson are getting more second half minutes in games that most often are won early? Hence the lineup that Watson is seeing is perhaps somewhat different from that which our starting lineup faces. Any thoughts in this regard are welcome.
    Not from my view…he gerally comes in at the under 15 timeout and starts the 4 minute break rotations so he gets about 12-13 meaningful minutes in first half and more if there is foul trouble
    Basketball...The Toy Department of Life

    Don't mess wth happy...Coach Few

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •