What is Roster Depth?

[DefenseWinsChamps]

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.

This is a fair point. Having more talent on the bench for the regular season would be nice and would take pressure off our stars. That does become less important in the playoffs.

Perhaps this equation focuses more on playoff depth then? Because the margins are so razor thin in the playoffs, that everyone has to have accepted an maximized their role perfectly for the team to function as a well-oiled machine.

[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.

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.

I think you're correct when it comes to your examples, but that's why I think you'd have to apply it across the board - because I think you could still make the argument that the Celtics have a deep team if Tatum was the only 100% irreplaceable player on the floor, as per your Hauser example. Denver is another team that might shake out similarly - their first big off the bench isn't going to be half the player Jokic is, but they could still have a deep team overall.

I don't really know if the C's are a deep team or not because it's still early in the year, so I haven't seen enough to say.

[BitterJim]

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.

I think I get what you're saying. Like if a team had a bench full of great scoring PGs (or great defensive centers) without other pieces, they would have great talent but the fit would be poor, and I think everyone could agree that while they had great depth in 1 particular role, they had poor depth overall (even though from a pure talent perspective they would beat out most benches that might not have any players that are as good)

[obnoxiousmime]

I just want 8 or more two-way guys that can play in most playoff situations without being a total liability, starting with defense.

The reason Pritchard doesn't qualify in my eyes is because his size is a big liability. Teams are going to hunt him on defense and either it's an easy one-on-one opportunity or you're forced to send help and all of a sudden you're giving up an open 3. Secondly, I still think he's best controlling the ball on offense, but it only works when it's garbage time lineups or the preseason. Against good teams he needs to be more of a role player and I still think it's kind of against his nature.

If Porzingis were Bam Adebayo in terms of durability and Horford were 32, I wouldn't care about Kornet. Also, if we do have to play two big lineups sometimes, that means Kornet is going to be the primary backup. He's not physical enough and has no foot speed. I would like a FC type that can move his feet, spell minutes at the 4 and 5, provide toughness and maybe some boards, and can at least shoot 35%-ish from 3 to keep our spacing legit. In other words, the role they wish Stevens or Brissett could play but they can't because they're not good shooters and are undersized when matched against 5s. We need someone who's like a Bobby Portis or Aaron Gordon or a young PJ Tucker type. Or, yes, a Grant Williams if you sacrificed the rebounding requirement (but made up for it with good 3 pt. shooting).

Because they unexpectedly got Holiday and pushed Horford to the bench, Holiday is actually in the role you'd usually give to your primary 3 and D wing or defensive-oriented PF. When Julius Randle comes to town, it's a guard in Holiday that is taking the assignment. That's because Porzingis can't deal with the physicality and you usually don't let your superstar in Tatum get worn down in such a matchup. In a way, they're kind of playing in an inverted fashion on defense where your most physical, jack of all trades defensive starter is a 6'4'' guard. Is that sustainable or ideal going into the playoffs or would it be preferable to have that Andre Iguodala-type who has even more versatility from a size perspective? Can Jaylen be that at 6'6''? Does he have the "dog" in him to do that? I'm not sure what to think because it's such an unorthodox setup.

[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.

I think I get what you're saying. Like if a team had a bench full of great scoring PGs (or great defensive centers) without other pieces, they would have great talent but the fit would be poor, and I think everyone could agree that while they had great depth in 1 particular role, they had poor depth overall (even though from a pure talent perspective they would beat out most benches that might not have any players that are as good)

Exactly. To be more accurate I'd say if you had a bench full of ball-dominate scorers, or 3-D defenders, or even shooters/floor-spacers. The piece have got to fit not only together as a bench, but around your best players for it to count as depth.

[Who]

Denver is the only contender I see with a terrible bench. They had a terrible bench last year as well but they pulled it off. They lost their 6th man though in Bruce Brown. They are in more trouble this year.

Cleveland and Phoenix are the two other high level teams I see with poor benches.

[tenn_smoothie]

Real interesting discussion. A few points to add:

1) The starters are playing way too many minutes in the high 30's/low 40's on a nightly basis right now. It's been great winning those games, but this will catch up with us eventually. Remember how exhausted Tatum was two years ago in the finals ? Mazzulla may just have to be willing to play the bench more, trying to find good combinations and hope for the best, but live with a few losses if it saves our core players too much wear and tear.

2) Hauser, Horford and Pritchard have been good to very good bench players, but we definitely need to add a talented post player who is strong on the boards and brings some bulk and toughness to this finesse team. I'm not so sure we are "just fine" for the playoffs as is.

3) There is also that nagging issue about the guy responsible for putting the right players in the right positions at the right times.

[BitterJim]

Real interesting discussion. A few points to add:

1) The starters are playing way too many minutes in the high 30's/low 40's on a nightly basis right now. It's been great winning those games, but this will catch up with us eventually. Remember how exhausted Tatum was two years ago in the finals ? Mazzulla may just have to be willing to play the bench more, trying to find good combinations and hope for the best, but live with a few losses if it saves our core players too much wear and tear.

2) Hauser, Horford and Pritchard have been good to very good bench players, but we definitely need to add a talented post player who is strong on the boards and brings some bulk and toughness to this finesse team. I'm not so sure we are "just fine" for the playoffs as is.

3) There is also that nagging issue about the guy responsible for putting the right players in the right positions at the right times.

Believe it or not, 4 of our top 6 are playing fewer minutes this year than last year (and the two that are playing more are White and Holiday):
Tatum: 36.5 this year vs. 36.9 last year
Brown: 33.7 vs 35.9
White: 30.7 vs. 28.3
Holiday: 34.1 vs. 32.6
Porzingis: 30.2 vs. 32.6
Al: 24.4 vs. 30.6

The blowouts have probably played a role in that, but no one is playing more minutes than they should be able to handle. 15 years ago no one would bat an eye are a 25 year old playing 36 minutes, and given that Tatum had the summer off I'm not worried about him being rested enough come the playoffs

[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

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.

The Clippers problem is the ill fitting poorly constructed starting unit not the bench unit.  If you took the Clippers first 5 off the bench i.e. Hyland, Mann, Powell, Tucker, and Plumlee and put them with the Celtics, the Celtics would have a better overall team than what they have now. 

And while you need talent, I've been saying for years that Boston would be better off trading Brown for lesser talented but better fitting pieces around Tatum so clearly I have no problem understanding fit, chemistry, etc.  You do need that guy though.  Without that guy at the top, it doesn't really matter what the rest of your team looks like, you just aren't going to be a consistent contender. 

I mean since Magic and Larry entered the league the only champions without a top 30 player all time are: the 04 Pistons and arguably the 19 Raptors (depending on where you put Kawhi).  That is also true of the 60's which every title was either Bill or Wilt.  The 70's are just weird because basically the only top 30 player to have his prime in the NBA in the 70's was Kareem and maybe Hondo (he is close to top 30 if not in it).  Even the early 50's were dominated by Mikan and Petit, who were the best player in the sport when they won, but didn't play all that long and was so long ago he is left off of the super high rankings.