My conclusion is that having a top 10 lineup doesn't really correlate to having a good team.
Atlanta, Min, NYK, Boston, Ind...al teams with .500 or worse records.
It is interesting I guess to know the C's AT TIMES are very effective, but most of us can see that with an eye test.
I guess that is part of having a mediocre team. You will be good sometimes.
Having 2 top 10 lineups correlates to having 2 top 10 lineups. It means what it means, the Celtics have 2 lineups that measure among the best in the NBA.
There are plenty of reasons why it doesn’t correlate to a great record: chemistry, bench, coaching, system, health, etc.
The variables will be there (different opposing team, different opposing defense, offense, PG, SG, SF, PF, C, the temperature of the arena, one of the players might be hungover, someone in the lineup may be playing after having eaten ice cream even though their lactose intolerant 😂), the constants (the lineup) remain and that’s what’s being measured. Swapping Schroder for Brown is a +/- 40 point swing and then swapping Rob for Grant is another +/- 37.
Phoenix has 3 qualified lineups and all are positive; the Jazz have 5 and 3 are double digit positive with the 2 other being only -0.8 and -1.2 (last time I checked). The teams with health and chemistry will play the hits early and often and be rewarded for it.