What is Roster Depth?

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I may have a somewhat controversial opinion here, but I wanted to get everyone's thoughts.

What is roster depth? Because I don't think it's about having 8-9 guys who could potential start on half the teams in the league. A team like that could have depth, but that's not the core thing that depth is.

Take the Clippers right now for example. Obviously they have Harden-Westbrook-George-Leonard-Zubac, but now they have Plumlee, Theis, Powell, Hyland, Tucker, and Mann off the bench. I really like the talent on that team, but I wouldn't consider them deep.

Compare them to the Nuggets, who have their starters, but have Jackson, Nnaji, Braun, and Watson off the bench. In a straight head to head, I like the Clippers players better. If you put those four on the Clippers roster, I don't think they would be as talented. But great coaching and star players help those bench players to be effective, giving them depth.

Or compare that to the Celtics roster from several years ago. Irving-Tatum-Hayward-Horford-Baynes with Theis, Brown, Rozier, Morris, and Smart off the bench. Talent-wise, that's one of the best benches ever.

So this is my equation for depth

depth= talent x ability to fit team role.

In other words, while the Clippers have better talent on their team, the Nuggets depth is better because their players fit within their roles better.

Bringing this back to the Cs - I like our depth. I think we not only have decent talent on our roster, but more importantly, all our guys are bought into their roles. They don't try to do too much, and they aren't afraid to fulfill their role. To fulfill their role well, bench players need a few things:
1. Stars they can orbit around
2. A clear expectation given from their coaches
3. Talent/skill necessary to fulfill their role from their coaches

I'm still of the opinion that I would like one more guy, but I like the roles that our starters have with Horford, Pritchard, Hauser, and Kornet. I also think that one more guy could come from our current roster throughout this season. Banton, Stevens, Brisset, and even Svi could step up.

[Kernewek]

Good post!


I think another good heuristic for depth might be looking at a team's depth chart and thinking 'when a starter goes to the bench and his first substitute is put into the game, how much worse is the squad on the floor overall'?

If the answer is 'not very much' for the majority of the positions, you probably have a reasonably deep team.

[Donoghus]

It's a really good question. 

I always considered depth the quality of the players you're substituting in and the amount of drop-off between the starter and bench player. 

Are you straining the starters because the drop-off is large or are you getting a good return on substitution (i.e. 60% of the starter or whatever)?   How many of your bench players are giving you a solid return of replacement?

If that makes sense.

[wdleehi]

I think good depth is one to two players who can step in an be a starter in case of injuries and the rest of the bench being players with skills that can fill a particular role.   

[Roy H.]

I agree with your definition.  Role confusion can hurt a locker room, for sure.

That said, I still don't like the Celtics depth.  Everybody seems happy with where they slot in, but I worry about the talent level (i.e., the first part of the depth= talent x fit equation).  Horford is obviously a great piece to have.  I've long been a fan of Hauser because he's elite at what he does.  But, I wonder about whether Pritchard and Kornet are reliable post-season pieces. 

Good depth also means that you have guys who can step into different roles off of the bench.  I don't think we have all of the roles filled.  I'd love to see a scorer off the bench, and an above-average rebounder who brings toughness.

[BitterJim]

There's definitely a couple of factors: not just the top 8 or 9 that play every game (as others have mentioned), but also having a number of players that can fill different roles when they are needed. A big defensive/rebounding big for when you need that; a knockdown shooter for when you need space or a 3; a microwave scorer when you just need some points. Basically, the ability of your team to adapt to different situations when needed (in addition to the skill/talent of the "everyday" players).

I think that's somewhere that this team is seriously lacking, but a defensive/rebounding 3rd big would take care of most of that issue.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Good post!


I think another good heuristic for depth might be looking at a team's depth chart and thinking 'when a starter goes to the bench and his first substitute is put into the game, how much worse is the squad on the floor overall'?

If the answer is 'not very much' for the majority of the positions, you probably have a reasonably deep team.

This is interesting, and I think someone else posted something like this, but I don't think it's a great way to determine depth.

For example, if we sub Hauser in for Tatum. Hauser is way worse than Tatum, but we aren't really just comparing those two. We are comparing the offense running through Tatum with other guys playing off of him to the offense running through Brown with other guys (including Hauser) playing off of him. When you have elite players, you don't necessarily need starters as your 7-9 guys. You need guys with good abilities that compliment your stars.

In this way, Hauser is awesome depth, because he knows his role, performs it well, and stretches the floor for our playmakers. Still, if I was picking a team today, I'd rather have Norman Powell or Terrance Mann. But I'm not sure that makes our depth worse with Hauser.

I would say something similar to this with Kornet. Kornet knows his role and does it fine. Would it be awesome to have a guy that can rebound or score a bit more? Maybe. But everytime a guy in that role shoots is a time we take the ball away from Tatum, Brown, Holiday, Zinger, and White. Is that really what we want with bench depth? I don't think so.

[Who]

Nah. I am a talent guy. It is up to the coach to define player's roles and to build systems that allow a team to take advantage of that talent.

[Who]

I have Boston ranked as a middle of the pack bench.

One elite bench player in Horford. One good bench player in Hauser. One serviceable bench player in Pritchard. And a bunch of very poor ones in Kornet, L Stevens, Banton, Brissett, Svi, J Walsh.

They have enough depth as they are now to win the title.

[Celtics2021]

I’m not worried about Pritchard.  He entered this season as a career 40% 3-point shooter on 650 attempts.  Suddenly he’s down to 23% — that’s just not going to last.  He’s generally doing the other things just fine, or even great (a 5:1 assist-turnover ratio and leads the team in assist percentage and assists per 36.).  It’s interesting in that prior to this year he looked like a microwave scoring guard who couldn’t run the traditional PG spot, and this year the shot has vanished but now he’s got the distribution stats of a classic PG.  Thats going to keep him getting minutes, and the shot will come back some time soon.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Nah. I am a talent guy. It is up to the coach to define player's roles and to build systems that allow a team to take advantage of that talent.

I don't disagree with you there. It's on the coaches and stars to help players fit into the system.

My argument is that talent doesn't equal depth. A team can have depth with less talent if all the pieces work together correctly.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I’m not worried about Pritchard.  He entered this season as a career 40% 3-point shooter on 650 attempts.  Suddenly he’s down to 23% — that’s just not going to last.  He’s generally doing the other things just fine, or even great (a 5:1 assist-turnover ratio and leads the team in assist percentage and assists per 36.).  It’s interesting in that prior to this year he looked like a microwave scoring guard who couldn’t run the traditional PG spot, and this year the shot has vanished but now he’s got the distribution stats of a classic PG.  Thats going to keep him getting minutes, and the shot will come back some time soon.

I agree. Pritchard is a rotation piece. I love his attitude when he comes into the game. He can play with the ball or without the ball. Solid bench player.

[Moranis]

We had a season long discussion on this a few years ago.  Depth in sports implies a level of talent and skill. A lot of mediocrity doesn't make you deep. There has to be a level skill or talent i.e. the depth has to be good.

Now there is certainly wiggle room in how you define good. In that fit, role, and other factors outside of talent or skill definitely come into play.

There is virtually no definition of deep that is going to convince me this Celtics team is deep.  There just isn't enough talent on the bench for that to be accurate

[Vermont Green]

I think one of the reasons that this is hard to define is that what is good depth during the regular season is different than what is good depth in the playoffs.  As others have said, I think we are fine for our playoff depth with Horford, Hauser, and Pritchard.  Would love to see one solid bench big added but even if not, I think we are fine.

As for regular season, I think the most important thing is to have versatility.  The needs for the bench or depth are going to change as different people have injuries or whatever.  Week to week or even game to game, the needs can change completely.  Not team is going to have near equal replacements for starters who might be out so it is the bench players that need to adjust to whatever need may come up.  The better the collective bench can do that, the more successful the team will be. 

[DefenseWinsChamps]

We had a season long discussion on this a few years ago.  Depth in sports implies a level of talent and skill. A lot of mediocrity doesn't make you deep. There has to be a level skill or talent i.e. the depth has to be good.

Now there is certainly wiggle room in how you define good. In that fit, role, and other factors outside of talent or skill definitely come into play.

There is virtually no definition of deep that is going to convince me this Celtics team is deep.  There just isn't enough talent on the bench for that to be accurate

I don't recall that discussion, but good info.

I do think this reveals that you focus heavily on the "talent" portion of the equation from above. This actually makes sense to me given the interactions we've had. I know you would have like to keep the talent of Grant Williams, for example (and maybe we should have). I seem to think that in other previous conversations we've had, you've always preferred talent to chemistry. That's not to say you didn't want chemistry/fit, but that you took the philosophy of "get talent and figure it out later."

I think to a certain extent, you are right. However, if you listen to interviews from great coaches and GMs over the last several decades, they seem to value both the talent and the fit. Chemistry is such a fragile thing on championship contending teams, even with the best coaches in the game. Every year there are a couple teams that have as much talent as anyone, but their chemistry and fit together dooms them.

My contention in this post is something like this:

If the Clippers bench talent is 10 (best in the league), but their fit together as a team is a 2, then their depth is overall a 20.

If the Celtics bench talent is a 3 (bottom third in the league), but their fit together as a team is an 8 (top third chemistry/fit), then the Celtics would have better depth at 24.

I don't want to quibble over numbers. I know those are subjective numbers and my equation may not even be perfect. My point is that I do think talent can enhance the fit to equal depth, and that fit can enhance the talent to equal depth.