Jump to Comments

Over the last two games, the Spurs floored more traditional lineups, eschewing small-ball combinations for the better part of each contest. This has something to do with Gregg Popovich’s efforts to keep Richard Jefferson at small forward rather than power forward, where he languishes. Coach Popovich has not shown a complete aversion to small-ball, nor should he. But the last two games find the Spurs trending back toward two-big lineups.

After the Spurs’ recent victory in Indiana, Coach Popovich told me he elected to run small for the majority of the final three quarters because Jim O’Brian had done so first. Popovich simply adjusted his lineups to the opposition. But against Phoenix (who play small and fast) and New Orleans, the Spurs’ stayed true to more traditional 5-man units. The Spurs didn’t adjust so much as they forced the match-up issues. So far as this season goes, it’s a moment to mark.

It’s hard to quibble with Popovich. He’s won four championship and has one of the highest winning percentages in NBA history. If he wants to match lineups, he’s earned the right.

A philosophical debate between basketball enthusiasts is framed by the question of whether one should force the opponent to match your 5-man unit, or whether a coach is justified in matching the other coach’s personnel shuffles. Wayne Winston firmly believes that head coaches everywhere would “revolutionize the game” if they always preferred their best lineups, allowing for the need to shuffle through 5-man sets of varying favorability to provide the players with proper rest.

Wayne Winston sent me a list of suggested lineups (not including the data from Sunday or Monday’s games) for the Spurs-lineups he thinks the Spurs should stick with to improve their overall play, and a few the Spurs should avoid.

Here are a few high minute lineups that are, nevertheless, below average:

San Antonio’s Least Effective High Minute Lineups	Points Worse Than Average Per 48
Hill-Ginobili-Jefferson-McDyess-Duncan	-5.85
Mason-Hill-Ginobili-Jefferson-Blair	-4.54
Parker-Hill-Ginobili-Jefferson-Duncan	-0.68
Parker-Ginobili-Bogans-Blair-Duncan	-0.54

I start here to make a simple point. The question of whether the Spurs should play small or tall is not cut and dry, and combinations of each can be successful. There really isn’t a seat in this debate for any form of lineup fundamentalism. There are too many variables at play to form a priori assumptions. This is why Popovich has spent the majority of the season experimenting with lineups, and this why people like Wayne Winston are called upon by teams to amass data that helps sort through these questions.

Having said that, the season that lies behind us seems to indicate that San Antonio’s personnel is not equipped for long forays into small-ball. This team is clearly better when defaulting to more traditional 5-man combinations.

Numbers sometimes differ between advanced statisticians, but there is typically more consistency than discrepancy. And when the statistical smoke ascends from more than one camp, there is typically fire. For example, Winston’s list of should-play lineups includes only one relatively high minute small-ball set: Parker-Mason-Ginobili-Jefferson-Duncan (+24.73). Other than that, his recommendations feature two-big combos. Although, as pointed out above, it’s not simply enough to place two bigs on the floor. Some of those lineups fail too.

Aaron Barzilai, who is on the Grizzlies payroll and an important reason for their resurgence this season, provides numbers which support Winston’s lineup suggestions, although they are not filtered in terms of minutes played. Of all of San Antonio floor combinations this season, Barzilai finds that only seventeen of those combinations tend to outproduce the opponent. Of those seventeen winning combinations, Barzilai’s math finds that the Spurs have four effective small-ball lineups.

Effective Small-Ball (Barzilai)
Hill-Mason-Ginobili-Jefferson-Duncan	+27.29
Parker-Bogans-Mason-Ginobili-Duncan	+26.98
Parker-Ginobili-Bogans-Jefferson-Duncan	+12.20
Parker-Mason-Ginobili-Jefferson-Duncan	+10.83

As I mentioned in the space above, Barzilai’s numbers say the Spurs field seventeen positive APM lineups-seventeen lineups that outproduce their competition. But when one filters his information in terms of the seventeen most featured lineups (minutes played rather than most productive), the Spurs routinely play eight losing lineups. Eight out of their seventeen most frequently played units have a negative APM.

San Antonio’s third most frequent lineup-Hill, Ginobili, Jefferson, McDyess, Duncan-has a Barzilai APM of -16.39. That number looks quite a bit different than Winston’s, but don’t let the difference distract you. My point is that Barzilai and Winston, two professional statisticians who have been employed by Southwest division teams, both think that San Antonio is wise to avoid Hill-Ginobili-Jefferson-McDyess-Duncan, which is, for those keeping score, a traditional two-big lineup. This isn’t simply about small vs. tall. And it shows a consistency between the experts.

What has happened in the last two games is encouraging. The Spurs are finding their way, in part, by featuring lineups that better suit their personnel. It’s a subtle shift significant enough to fuel a late season push by the Spurs.