Celtic 5-man units. The numbers so far.

by mmmmm on Mar 9, 2011 8:19 PM EST

In explaining his reasoning for The Trade, Danny Ainge alluded to how well the Celtics had played with players at the 5 other than Kendrick Perkins. I'm sure then, that many of you have been wondering, "Well, how well is that?".

Since then, a lot of articles and blogs have been bombarded with rebounding totals, points per game, etc.etc. for Kendrick Perkins, Nenad Krstic, Shaquille O'Neal, Glen Davis and every big man this side of the Mississippi.

The problem with those individual numbers is that they don't always tell you much because they have no context. They don't really give insight into Danny's thinking.

When your goal is to field a winning TEAM, it is important to not get too focused on individual numbers. Instead, you want to look at how the various players have performed as members of your team.

After the jump, here are some numbers that illustrate how the various 5-man units that the Celtics have put on the floor this year have performed.

Without further ado:

Unit	Min	Off	Def	margin per 100	eFG	Opponent eFG	% Close Shots	Opponent % Close Shots
Rondo-Allen-Pierce-Garnett-Davis	359.3	1.13	0.98	15	50.3%	44.9%	33%	31%
Rondo-Allen-Pierce-Garnett-S.O'Neal	265.9	1.17	0.99	18	58.2%	43.5%	42%	27%
Rondo-Allen-Pierce-Garnett-Perkins	169.7	1.14	1.00	14	50.4%	43.5%	30%	34%
Rondo-Allen-Pierce-Davis-S.O'Neal	160.3	1.22	1.07	15	55.6%	46.9%	29%	31%
Robinson-Allen-Pierce-Garnett-Davis	117.2	1.06	0.91	15	47.7%	38.5%	28%	25%
Robinson-Allen-Pierce-Garnett-S.O'Neal	110.1	1.11	0.90	21	51.5%	37.6%	35%	24%
Rondo-Allen-Pierce-Garnett-J.O'Neal	82.1	1.03	0.98	5	43.5%	40.1%	23%	35%
Rondo-Allen-Pierce-Garnett-Erden	79.3	1.14	1.04	10	55.5%	44.8%	36%	35%
Rondo-Allen-Pierce-Garnett-Krstic	68.6	1.23	0.93	30	54.1%	41.6%	32%	30%
Robinson-Allen-Daniels-Davis-Erden	56.5	1.09	1.27	-18	51.8%	53.0%	33%	27%
Robinson-Wafer-Daniels-Davis-Erden	53.1	1.01	1.00	1	46.5%	47.4%	41%	27%
Rondo-Allen-Daniels-Garnett-Davis	41.1	0.97	0.92	5	42.6%	43.4%	26%	23%
Robinson-Daniels-Pierce-Davis-Erden	31.0	0.87	0.85	2	36.6%	31.4%	17%	33%
Robinson-Wafer-Daniels-Harangody-Erden	27.6	0.86	1.11	-25	37.7%	51.4%	28%	38%
Rondo-Allen-Daniels-Davis-Erden	27.0	1.02	0.85	17	50.0%	43.2%	42%	32%
Robinson-Allen-Pierce-Davis-S.O'Neal	26.4	0.88	1.03	-15	48.6%	46.2%	49%	33%
Bradley-Wafer-Daniels-Harangody-Erden	22.7	0.90	0.96	-6	44.1%	38.5%	24%	41%
Rondo-Allen-Daniels-Davis-J.O'Neal	21.5	0.99	1.34	-35	43.2%	57.6%	30%	36%
Rondo-Allen-Pierce-Davis-J.O'Neal	21.2	0.84	0.91	-7	47.1%	41.7%	21%	33%
Rondo-Daniels-Pierce-Davis-Erden	20.4	0.92	0.94	-2	42.3%	36.0%	46%	32%

The key:

Unit : the 5 players on the floor

Min: The number of minutes played.

Off: The offensive points scored per possession. Higher is better.

Def: The defensive points allowed per possession. Lower is better.

Margin per100: The scoring margin per 100 possessions.

eFG%: The effective Field Goal percentage.

Opponent eFG%: The effective Field Goal percentage by the opponents.

% Close shots: The percentage of shots taken close to the rim. Higher is better.

Opponent % Close Shots: The percentage of shots taken by opponent close to the rim. Lower is better.

When I look at this, its pretty clear that our most effective 5 man unit all year has been The Big Five: Rajon Rondo + Ray Allen + Paul Pierce + Kevin Garnett + Shaquille O'Neal.

Of the units with the most minutes, it has generated the widest scoring margin by being better offensively than the units with either Glen Davis or Kendrick Perkins in them without giving an inch on defense. In fact while the defensive efficiency ratings with Shaq are just as good, arguably the impact on the opponent's shooting is even better. With Shaq in the 5, opponents shied away from the rim, shooting only 27% of their shots from in close. Correspondingly, their eFG% was as low (43.5%) with Shaq as it is with Perkins. And with Shaq in the post, our offense is clearly much more dominant, able to take 42% of our shots from in close, resulting in an astounding eFG% of 58.2%!

But I think we all knew that. That's 4 HoF players plus Rondo - arguably one of the top 2-3 PGs in the NBA today.

What if Shaq is not available? Lets look at some of the other lineups.

Well, one nice thing that this table shows is that Glen Davis has been doing just fine filling in at the 5. Even though opponents shoot at a shade higher eFG%, probably because Davis is not a great shot blocker, overall, they are generating slightly fewer points against per possession. This is probably due to Davis' abilty to stop possessions by taking a charge. That results in a turnover by the opponent and thus zero points on that possession.

With our late, great Perkins, the starters did put up very nice numbers. But not really better than the numbers put up with Shaq or Davis. In particular, the defensive numbers just aren't that different.

Not surprisingly, when you pull KG from the starters - THAT is when you first see a real jump in the defensive numbers.

What IS surprising is that if you take KG out and leave Davis in with Shaq (at the 4 and the 5, respectively) the unit is still very, very good - primarily because of offense.

Sliding down the table a bit, at 68.6 minutes played, we come to our more recent vintage starting 5, consisting of The Big Four plus Nenad Krstic. The sample size is not as large, and certainly has been against some less than stellar teams. But if an expectation is that they should crush poor teams, well then, this unit has delivered on that expectation. With a whopping Margin Per 100 of +30 points, this has so far been the most dominant lineup we've fielded, generating both extremely good offensive AND defensive efficiency numbers.

Against tougher competition, it is impossible to say whether those trends will continue. On one hand, the opponents will be, as stated, tougher. On the other hand, with time it is hard to think that this unit won't get more and more efficient working together.

One final bit that deserves mentioning. With a healthy sample of 227 minutes played with the Big 3 and either Shaq or BBD in the post, Nate Robinson actually played, I think, much better than a lot of us give him credit for. On the other hand, without all three of the Big 3 on the floor, Nate's play was much worse. I think what was happening was clearly that with those guys all on the floor, Nate played more in control, deferring to their leadership. With very positive results. This is not to say we should have kept him. He would not be the starter on this team. We need a bench PG who can play better with the bench players. But it does indicate that Nate does have talent.

I hope you all find this interesting. I will try to revisit this topic later on when we have more numbers with the new guys.

All data courtesy of http://www.82games.com.

Be respectful and keep it clean. Thanks.

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

mmmmm!!!!!

I read everything you write because you just have an absolutely astounding basketball I.Q. This should be on the front page here. Somebody move this to the front. Thanks so much for taking the time to do this. I’ve personally learned a lot from you and like the way you can look at the whole picture and put it all together for us.

Also glad to see that Nate is actually a pretty good player because I always thought so and didn’t quite understand why so many didn’t see it.

You should be a sports writer for espn, nba, boston newspapers and all the other sports outlets because you got the stuff! Keep on writing and wowing us!

by mmbaby on Mar 9, 2011 10:36 PM EST reply actions

Aw shucks.

You are making me blush ….

Thanks for the kind words.

"We will take it easy, and walk on down our road at our pace with our focus ahead, and your focus on us." - Warrior Spirit, on what Celtics' Ubuntu is.

by mmmmm on Mar 10, 2011 12:11 PM EST up reply actions

There's a lot of promise in that number for the core 4 plus Krstic

It is small sample size and low strength-of-schedule, but we can expect them to improve defensively in the coming weeks

by sofutomygaha on Mar 10, 2011 3:11 PM EST reply actions

Good stuff

- Funny how Nate instead of Rondo in with the Big 3 + any decent big creates no appreciable falloff at all… and even better D. Yikes. Could it be that Rondo is NOT the sine qua non we (ok, I) think he is on this team??

- And what would happen if you put West in instead of Rondo? My guess: no appreciable falloff.

- What jumps out for me is the apparent truth of the general belief that any decent big thrown in with the Big 4 gets good results. This bodes well, since Krtic is pretty clearly a “decent big.” With Baby back, we just need Shaq (preferably) or JO back…. or, I suppose, though highly doubt, maybe even Murphy (ugh so far).

by DRJ1 on Mar 10, 2011 3:43 PM EST reply actions

I agree...

…with your post. Back to the old refrain, the biggest thing that the Celtics need is health. Even modicum health, since there is depth now. The 5-man stats look great with Shaq, Krstic and Baby. Likely would look just as good with a mobile Jermaine. And with Arroyo/West and Green we even have a bit of depth at PG and on the wing like we’ve never had. Just stay reaonably healthy with no cataclysm, and things look solid.

by drza44 on Mar 11, 2011 1:21 PM EST up reply actions

The 5 man stats don't look so good for that Krstic lineup any more

Current stats: Off Rtg: 118.10 (very good), Def Rtg: 106.13 (pretty bad)

http://basketballvalue.com/teamunits.php?year=2010-2011&team=BOS

Let’s give this one some time to play out before we make any conclusions.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on Mar 11, 2011 1:50 PM EST up reply actions

Certainly

I think it is important to note that the updated data probably swings so wildly because in this last game against the Clippers we did not have BBD available as 4-5 depth and that Doc thus made the strategic decision that KG & Krstic should avoid getting into foul trouble early. That clearly had a huge impact on the defense in that first half.

Deandre Jordan is a .436 FT% shooter. IF we are playing our normal physical game, we definitely would have been hacking at him and not letting him slam all those uncontested dunks in that first period.

This is the kind of odd bit that makes it important to be patient and wait for a longer stretch of data before drawing strong conclusions.

All we can say so far is that for a short stretch of 5 games, against weak opponents, when we DID have BBD able to come off the bench, the current starters played very well.

We need guys to get healthy!!!!!

"We will take it easy, and walk on down our road at our pace with our focus ahead, and your focus on us." - Warrior Spirit, on what Celtics' Ubuntu is.

by mmmmm on Mar 11, 2011 3:49 PM EST up reply actions

Great stats breakdown. Thanks.

I did notice a few things. If you take the top five perfomances per catagory a few things emerge. First, Robinson, Daniels, Perkins and Erden are listed in aprox. 50% of those lineups, also, Shaq figures prominently in aprox. 33%.

We know we don’t have Perkins and Erden, but, we also don’t know if we’ll have Shaq, and if we do, if he can play more than just a few games.

The other thing I’ve noticed (and haven’t broken it down) is how oppossing centers, power forwards, and guards, get to the paint without Perkins. Last night was a great example. DJ is a fun player to watch, but he destroyed the Celtics in the paint.

I’m still not sold on getting rid of Perkins. I know I’m in the minority and don’t have the same access to games (being on the WC). But I think the Celtics miss Perk more than we may think.

by eastie Rich on Mar 10, 2011 3:52 PM EST reply actions

The column you are interested in is the last one.

The “Opponent % Close Shots” is the percentage of opponents’ shots that are taken in close (which I think is basically inside the paint area – dunks, layups and short jumpers).

Keeping the starting 4 constant (RR, RA, PP & KG) :
With Perk, opponents took 34% of their shots in close.
With BBD → 31%
With Shaq → 27%
With Erden →35%
With Krstic → 30%

Krstic’s number may have moved a little based on yesterday. Its hard to tell without diving into the data, which I haven’t had time to do yet. Yes, Jordan had a big day. But he only took 10 shots out of LAC’s 75 total. We’d need to know how many shots total out of that 75 were taken in close.

Krstics number will probably shift both up and down until we have about 100 minutes with that 5-man unit. So we need another week or so, at least.

Don’t try to measure team defensive performance too much based on how individuals performed. It truly is no big deal if you let one guy light you up if you shut everyone else down. What hurt against the Clippers was not Jordan or Williams lighting us up for big personal games. What hurt was both of them doing so.

I suspect Jordan’s performance was due to a strategic decision. I thnk they had KG so locked in on Griffen (whom he did smother) that this caused him to be slow in rotations to take Jordan whenever Krstic was rotating to help defend the attacker. Normally, Jordan sucks on offense and its worth the risk. But he had a career day. It happens. I don’t think that is really a reflection of Krstic’s abilities so much as just a strategic decision that didn’t work. They changed things up in the 2nd half and Jordan’s productivity dropped off.

"We will take it easy, and walk on down our road at our pace with our focus ahead, and your focus on us." - Warrior Spirit, on what Celtics' Ubuntu is.

by mmmmm on Mar 10, 2011 5:52 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks for the response. I'm only a very basic stats guy,

meaning I don’t really know how to crunch anything but the most basic numbers. I’m not saying Kristic is bad (he isn’t). I do think (from the limited amount of play I’ve seen) that the lack of Perks presence makes a big difference in itself.

The % of opponents close shots makes sense.

by eastie Rich on Mar 10, 2011 6:02 PM EST up reply actions

Here's what I've seen, and while it's not complete, it's just meant as

a counterpoint.
Celtics 99, Clippers 92.
Kaman goes for 16, 9 & 3 while his average is 11, 7 & 1.

Celtics 107, Jazz 102
Al Jefferson goes for 28, 19 & 1 while his average is 18, 9 &1.

Celtics 115, Suns 103
Gortat goes for 13, 13, 0 while his average is 8, 7 & 1.

Celtics 107, Warriors 103
David Lee goes for 26, 12 & 2, while his average is 16, 9 & 3.

Bucks – Bogut was out and I wasn’t sure how to break this down – however meagerly.

Celtics 108, Clippers 103
DeAndre Jordan goes for 21, 9 & 0 while his average is 7, 10 & 0.

While this is not quite scientific, it points to a trend.

by eastie Rich on Mar 10, 2011 4:28 PM EST reply actions

see my comments up above.

"We will take it easy, and walk on down our road at our pace with our focus ahead, and your focus on us." - Warrior Spirit, on what Celtics' Ubuntu is.

by mmmmm on Mar 10, 2011 5:54 PM EST up reply actions

I did. Thanks.

by eastie Rich on Mar 10, 2011 6:02 PM EST up reply actions

Spencer Hawes, Sixers

goes for 14 & 10 while his average is 6 & 5. We are definetly weaker at the 5.

by eastie Rich on Mar 12, 2011 1:36 AM EST up reply actions

So, can we conclude that Nate is a significantly better defender than Rondo?

Stats can be very interesting, but I think sometimes we have to trust our eyes, too. I’d love to see a breakdown of each of these lineups in context (i.e., who were the opponents, what were the game situations, etc.) It doesn’t mean that the stats are invalid, but rather that they need to be examined below the surface.

Nice job putting this together; it’s good to look at objective facts in examining a situation. I do think, though, that stats sometimes don’t provide full context, and that needs to be looked at more closely.

(Also, I’ve got to think that the stats for the “big 4 + 1” lineup that includes Krstic looks a lot less impressive after last night’s game.)

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on Mar 10, 2011 8:26 PM EST reply actions

No, these are 5-man unit stats. They are _team_ performance metrics

and indeed they are limited to the context of who they were playing at the time. Also, the relative health and level of performance of the ‘constant’ factors (the Big 3) is not truly constant.

Ideally, with enough minutes, those contextual differences should wash out, but with these sizes, you have to assume some noise still exists in the data.

So no, I would not use this data to “conclude that Nate is significantly better defender than Rondo”.

I would use this data to conclude that WHEN WORKING WITH THE BIG THREE PLUS SHAQ/BBD that Nate did a fine job and that it raises the question of whether that’s a better defensive unit. There is not enough data to provide a conclusive answer.

Regarding the impact of last night’s game on Big 4 + Krstic. The first half looks to have negative impact, but the second half washed out a lot of that by the final score. I don’t have minute breakdowns and we’ll have to wait until next week for 82games.com to update their data to see the result, but I’m estimating, based on the minutes played and the +/- numbers in the box score that the effect on the MarginPer100 should only be a few points. It should still be in the high-mid 20s.

"We will take it easy, and walk on down our road at our pace with our focus ahead, and your focus on us." - Warrior Spirit, on what Celtics' Ubuntu is.

by mmmmm on Mar 10, 2011 11:50 PM EST up reply actions

And why did we trade Erden?

Not sure I understand what Murphy brings to the table. Different player than Erden for sure; but Erden had potential. Murphy looks soft and ineffective.

by Green is Good on Mar 10, 2011 8:40 PM EST reply actions

You won't see Murphy's full value for at least a couple of weeks.

Not only is he playing himself back into individual game shape, but like the other 5 new guys, this is basically like being back in summer training camp. There is a LOT to learn and just like with the new guys last late summer / early fall, don’t expect it to be without bumps and set-backs.

But Murphy is a good player. He definitely isn’t ‘soft’. This guy knows how to go after rebounds.

"We will take it easy, and walk on down our road at our pace with our focus ahead, and your focus on us." - Warrior Spirit, on what Celtics' Ubuntu is.

by mmmmm on Mar 10, 2011 11:54 PM EST up reply actions

I've heard a lot lately about Rondo's defense being overrated

The defensive numbers with Robinson at point are provocative. It’s ironic that Robinson was having such a terrible offensive season at the same time. I just have two quick questions about Rondo’s numbers, though. If I had more time I would try to test myself with numbers, which is much more useful and we are all grateful to Mr. M

1) Isn’t there an anti-correlation between total minutes and defensive intensity? With Rondo playing super long minutes, his D is bound to fall off because he needs wind (particularly with us playing a faster pace as of late).

2) Our defense is slower to rotate down low than it has been in the past, owing to age and personnel. Rondo’s super-aggressive ball pressure is based on opposing PGs getting swallowed up if they go by him. Without a regular center, shouldn’t we expect Rondo’s D to suffer because his previously productive gambles will be punished?

by sofutomygaha on Mar 11, 2011 11:06 AM EST reply actions