You know the great thing about sports in 2025 is we have all the data.
This is every lineup the Lakers used last night.
Ability to view statistics and advanced analytics for any combination of 5-man, 4-man, 3-man, or 2-man lineups that a team has played throughout the season. Lineup information dates back to the 2007-08 season.
www.nba.com
The Lakers had 5 lineups that were a net positive. 4 of them included at least one of Gabe, Vando, Wood or Hayes.
The worst lineup was Bron, DFS, Luka, Rui and Gabe. There were 4 other lineups with reserves that outscored Minny while they were on the court and 2 others that played even.
This is what using stats without any regards to context looks like.
You'd think because you know cotdamn well Hayes has been a non-factor in this series and only played 4 minutes last night, you'd have the awareness not to mention him in lineups that were a net positive. Unless you're trying to argue that playing Hayes more minutes was going to be a positive for the Lakers? You even argued that Hayes has no value in this series, so why are you now choosing to use him in argument of these net-positive lineups? Seems a bit contradictory, don't you think?
Notice how you didn't reference the minutes played nor the exact number of how positive those lineups were, so I'm gonna do it for you -
27 minutes with a plus/minus of +3
4 minutes with a plus/minus of +1
3 minutes with a plus/minus of +1
3 minutes with a plus/minus of +1
2 minutes with a plus/minus of +1.
There's only ONE lineup there which is a large enough sample size that you can use in argument. You can't use a lineup with Hayes that was only on the floor for 4 minutes at the start of the game (when everyone is fresh), and then extrapolate that in your argument as reason for why they should've played someone like him to start the 4th quarter.
What makes it worse is not only are the sample sizes of minutes not big enough to take anything meaningful out of, but every single one of them (aside from the main one) only had a net-postive of +1.
You're crashing out on 3-minute lineups that had a +1, all during stages of the 1st half when everyone was relatively fresh, in relation. The only difference between those brief lineups being a positive and not was one FT. Any one of those players during those 2-4 minute lineups could've had negative actions, but it was the accompanying players which made up for it with positive actions.
The net-rating of +1 over such a small window is inconsequential that you can't possibly use it in argument. Following any basic statistical pattern will tell you as much.
JJ had options to rest guys and he had positive results from THIS game to inform that decision. He could've just bushed the worst lineup. Instead he bushed the entire bench in every combo for an entire half.
Positive net-rating =/= positive results.
Again, or are you going to tell me because in the 4 minutes at the start of the game when the Lakers had a +1, that playing Hayes was going to continue to have a positive result? If it was that simple, why hasn't Hayes been playing more minutes if the lineup he was in at the start of the game was a
positive?
This is what happens when you use "data" so recklessly.
He ran his best lineup into the ground for no good reason in a way that no coach (not even Thibs
) has done in modern NBA history.
Here's what you have to understand -
The main lineup that the Lakers ran for the entire 3rd quarter was a +13. Statistically, they had their best offensive quarter of the series. Now, because they've lost every single 4th quarter up to that point, and there was danger of them going down 1-3, why not roll the dice with the same lineup that just had its best quarter of the series and hope they can build a big enough lead that Minny can't overcome?
JJ was riding the hot hand, becaause whatever the Lakers were doing in all the other 4th quarters hadn't worked up to that point, that includes resting the starters. No matter what they tried in the previous three 4th quarters, they still ended up struggling to generate offense, yet you're trying to shape a narrative that resting the starters for
x-amount of minutes would've worked. There's literally ZERO evidence that was going to be the case. You're arguing about a method working and you have no data to back it up with, yet you're telling me
data speaks for itself.
JJ's logic was why not use some of the magic that lineup had in the 3rd and hope they can continue it to start the 4th. JJ even mentioned in the presser that he told that lineup he had extra timeouts so if they wanted to come out for a quick breather they could.
Seems like a reasonable strategy to me. Especially since nothing else they've tried up to that point had worked.
The Nuggets did more or less the same thing in the 2nd half of Game 4 (barring some brief subs for defensive purposes).
Now I know you hate to concede anything and you'll come up with some convuluted way to dismiss/ignore this and while I'm actually looking forward to it just for the creativity of it
, I won't be responding anymore.
The data speaks for itself.
The data does speak for itself, but not in the way you think it does.
Why don't you go and tell all those cats who dapped you that you believe playing Hayes more was going to equate to positive results and see if they're so giddy to fall for your reckless use of data then.
