Brooklyn Nets: Should the team embrace “small” lineups?

There are definitely downsides to playing smaller lineups, but the Brooklyn Nets might benefit from utilizing them on occasion.

January 23rd’s 128-113 home loss to the Los Angeles Lakers was seemingly void of many positive takeaways for the Brooklyn Nets. There was one under-the-radar lineup development, however, that could come in handy in games and perhaps seasons to come.

With both DeAndre Jordan and Nicolas Claxton out due to injury, Kenny Atkinson was forced to deploy small lineups when Jarrett Allen was off the floor. To avoid extreme vulnerability inside, Atkinson largely mirrored Allen’s rest with that of Anthony Davis.

In the first half, a small lineup of Spencer Dinwiddie, Garrett Temple, Caris LeVert, Rodions Kurucs, Wilson Chandler had a lot of success, outscoring the Lakers 27-16 in six minutes.

Unsurprisingly, the Lakers had success offensively in this stretch, particularly inside the arc (7-of-12 from 2-point range). Brooklyn was able to trade twos for threes, however, generating a ton of open looks and hitting 6-of-9 from downtown. The Nets thrived inside the arc as well though, making 10 of their 13 shots.

In total, Brooklyn played its small lineups 18 minutes against Los Angeles. Roughly four of these minutes came in garbage time and included seldom-used bench players. More notable Chandler-Temple-Irving-LeVert-Prince and Chandler-Irving-Dinwiddie-Harris-Prince lineups played three and two minutes respectively. In what was an infinitesimal sample size, the latter lineup had more success than the former.

As discussed, Kenny Atkinson was in a sense forced to use these lineups due to the Claxton/Jordan injuries. In fact, including the 18 minutes of the Lakers game, Brooklyn has only deployed these small lineups ~59 minutes all season, with roughly a fourth of these consisting of garbage time lineups.

While Jordan missed several games due to injury, Claxton was available to replace his minutes in all but the one game he missed against Los Angeles. Without the circumstances necessitating it, Atkinson has almost entirely steered clear of small lineups (have only been used in two garbage time minutes in the five post-Lakers games).

With all three big men now back healthy, should the Nets continue to use these smaller lineups on occasion? No one is suggesting going small for an entire quarter for example, but in certain spurts, is it possible it could be of value?

Going small could cut into some of Jordan’s 21 minutes per game, but with a net rating of -6.1 on the season, his absence might not be missed too much. It would also make it more difficult for a developing Claxton to see minutes, but he’s largely been riding the bench when Allen/Jordan are available anyway. Let’s run through some pros and cons of these lineups.

Pros and Cons

Pros:

-With five 3-point shooters, the Nets can really stretch the floor and create a ton of space inside the arc. If the ball-handler can force just a single defender to help off their man, solid ball movement should be able to generate a quality shot.

-With defenders largely attached to shooters, there isn’t much resistance at the basket if the ball-handler can beat their defender off-the-dribble. Check out all the space inside the arc below.

-Three is greater than two, so even if these lineups give up points on the other end, the math should favor this 3-point strategy if shots fall at a decent rate.

-It often takes defenses at least a few possessions to adjust to guarding these lineups, which can give the Nets a short-term edge.

-Defensively, the team is often able to switch across all positions, which can have its advantages depending on the opposition.

Cons:

-If Brooklyn’s shots aren’t falling, the math might not work out so well. This gets even trickier when the opposition has a player (LeBron/Giannis being most extreme examples) on the floor that can punish these groups inside. Even against the average offense, it’s very difficult for these lineups to protect the paint.

-Even though the small lineups have five capable shooters on the floor, Brooklyn isn’t an especially strong shooting team (currently 26th with a 3-point percentage of 34.0 percent). When one takes this into account, going all-in on the 3-pointer might not be the best approach.

-Although defenses might have to adjust to smaller lineups, Brooklyn has to adjust as well. Given that the team hasn’t deployed these groups much, are they really that comfortable playing together?

Conclusion

No one is suggesting the Nets use smaller lineups all game long, but using them on occasion might provide the team a temporary advantage. In a sense, it’s similar to when a team breaks out a zone defense for a few possessions. The offense might eventually adjust, but it often provides the defense an edge for a while, and every edge counts. The same can be said for smaller lineups.

When Kevin Durant gets back into the fold next season, this approach could be especially successful. At 6-10, it might be tough to call a lineup with Durant at the 5 small ball, but with five shooters on the floor, the results could be incredible in spurts. Durant’s former Golden State Warriors squad had a death lineup, but an Irving-Dinwiddie-LeVert-Prince-Durant grouping sounds quite deadly as well.

(Credit to NBA.com for statistics and House of Highlights for GIFS)