How good is the Suns bench?
There was a time when the Phoenix Suns bench featured Barbosa plus Diaw and, if it was really needed, a random towel-waver who could check in and play a few minutes replacing someone in foul trouble. Mike D'Antoni has always been a believer of the short rotation, something he's been criticized for (and probably rightly so) over the years. His Phoenix Suns never had more than an eight man rotation by design, not because of the actual quality of the roster. D'Antoni just didn't want to play more than eight guys. Alvin Gentry, his top assistant back then, has a completely different approach. He likes going ten or even eleven deep, he likes to give bench warmers a chance and he's not shy to keep a guy like Jarron Collins on the court during crunch time if he's playing well.
This new philosophy has given the Suns a reliable bench that can spell the starters and often outplay the opponent's bench players with energy and hustle. Players like Jared Dudley and Lou Amundson have become fan favorites and their solid performance has translated to the win column. Around the league, everybody admits the Suns bench has really improved and become a real asset. But, how good are they really playing? How do the Suns reserves rank among the other 29 teams in the league?
If you are obsessed by these questions just as much as we are here at "Bright Side of the Sun" (there are two ways of seeing it: our lives are that boring or we care too much about the Suns. Where's the truth? Where it always lies: in the middle), this is you lucky day. We have the answers!
Before we start I want to personally thank George Vardopoulos, from HoopsStats.com, for his inestimable job of keeping track of the stats we'll use in this article.

We'll adopt a very straight forward approach to compare our Suns bench performance to the other NBA teams. We'll simply dissect the numbers. There's no way of measuring energy, hustle, and stuff like that, which makes it really impossible to compare teams based on those "abstract" concepts. Obviously, stats don't always tell the truth, but they are still a great and valuable indicator.
We are going to take into account the classic stats: points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks per game but, to have a better idea of how the bench actually contributes we'll also calculate, on a percentage basis, how much the subs produce compared with the team's total.
Points
The Suns are the number one team in the league in points per game with 110.4. The reserves rack up 31.2, making them 10th best overall. If we consider the production on a percentage basis, 28.3% of the Suns points come from their subs, led by Barbosa and Dudley who score 10.9 and 9.6 respectively. The Suns rank 17th in the NBA on "percentage points from the bench", far from San Antonio's leading 41,6%. This comes as no surprise though; Gentry's bench is not known for its scoring prowess. Besides, Barbosa, consistently one of the top three or four Suns scorers over the last few seasons, is off to a slow start due to a wrist injury that's been nagging him since day one.
Rebounds
Even though it was supposed to be its Achilles' heel, Phoenix is unexpectedly doing a good job rebounding the ball, due in large to the excellent contribution of Grant Hill and Jason Richardson. In fact the team ranks 14th in the league and the bench ranks 9th. The subs grab 14.9 out of the 42.6 total team rebounds (35%), good for the 10th place in the NBA. San Antonio, again, is the best team in this department: 45% of the team's rebounds are corralled by their bench players. Still, the Suns are much better than Boston's bench (31,8%), Orlando's (30.2%) or even the Lakers' (25.9%).
Assists
Led by Steve Nash's NBA-best 11.6 assist per game the Suns rank 2nd overall with 24.1 per game. Even though most of the team's assist come from the same player, the bench production is still pretty good, ranking 13th overall. Percentage-wise, though, Phoenix reserves are 23rd on the list with 27%. And guess who's leading the NBA in "percentage assists from the bench"? Again, the Spurs, with 43,8%. The Suns rather modest ranking shows how much the team depends on Steve Nash, but one can argue that it's normal to suffer a drop-off when you take the league's best passer out of the court.
Blocks
Blocks are not something the Suns are known for, thus, it's no surprise that the team ranks a humble 18th overall. On the other hand, though, most of the teams blocks, almost 44%, are actually coming from the bench. Amundson leads the team and the reserves with 1.14 rejections. Lou alone blocks 23,8% of the Suns total, the rest of the bench tallies 20%, which makes the Suns the 4th best team in the league with 43.8% of the team's blocked shots coming from the subs.
Steals
If the Suns are not exactly renowned for their blocks, we can safely say nobody knows them for stealing balls. In fact, Gentry's team ranks third-to-last in this department, with only 5.4 per game. We should blame the starter's though, because Dudley (1.29 steals per game) and his fellow bench players amass almost half of the team's total strips (48,1%), 3rd best in the league behind only Portland (53.3%) and San Antonio (49%).
Conclusion
Overall, we can say that the Suns bench is in the top 5 for blocks, a remarkable feat considering the team's lack of size, and top 10 for steals and rebounds. Even when we account for the modest assists and points rankings, the Suns reserves are, on average, still top 10 in the league. It's been a while since we could boast a top 10 bench. Probably we should all thank Alvin Gentry for believing in some unproven youngsters like Dragic and Dudley or almost unknown NBA-vagabonds like Lou Amundson.
3 recs |
35 comments
|
Comments
Maybe I missed it, but this article doesn’t appear to be adjusted for the percentage of total time each team’s bench spends on the court. I’d also be curious to know how in depth these stats go, as far as who’s consider a “bench” player. Is it going game-by-game to see who were the 6th thru 13th men that night and then grabbing their stats? Or is by who traditionally is not part of the starting rotation? If it’s the latter, then teams like San Antonio and Dallas, who’ve been pretty much killed by injuries to starters, would be near the top since they have a lot of bench players playing a starter’s minutes.
by jburning on Nov 23, 2009 3:37 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
The stats are taken on game-by-game basis. I asked it personally to George Vardopoulos, from HoopsStats.
I didn’t want to take into account the minutes per game cause I didn’t think it was really relevant. Plus it would make it really difficult to compare with the percentages I came up with. Besides, if your bench players play little time there’s gotta be a reason and it will affect your stats anyway. Not sure I explained clearly…
by Lorenzo Franceschi Bicchierai on Nov 23, 2009 3:49 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
Cool fact of the day: Cleveland's bench is statistically better at shooting 3's than it is at 2's...
First off, great article. Way to take the time and effort necessary to put up something like this.
“I didn’t want to take into account the minutes per game cause I didn’t think it was really relevant. "
I see the San Antonio bench up there a lot, and every single time they are listed, they are in the 40’s percentage-wise. I’d be interested to see if, due to their stars being injured, Pops has been giving his bench players more PT. This would, obviously, inflate their stats.
Per 48 minutes, the Suns’ bench scoring is listed at 7th in the league (18.9). So that’s a pretty good improvement right there.
Our bench’s efficiency is ranked 5th overall per 48, but our defensive efficiency is 20th (-1.5).
I’d love to go more into this, but i’ve gotta get going.. Good post tho.
by bigredd1987 on Nov 23, 2009 4:40 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
stretch of boring games ahead
Has anyone noticed that Suns have over a week’s worth of uninteresting games coming up? The next two opponents are the Memphis Pandas and the Minnesota Tmberwolves, and they’re teams not worth caring about this season. Toronto is okay, but I don’t particularly enjoy Euroball. And then the Knicks, and they’re still awful.
Immediately following that is a long string of games in a short time against the best opponents. As though the season has been reset with the bad teams kicked out.
by species8473 on Nov 23, 2009 5:00 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
No Suns game is a boring game to me
They say "don't swim with the sharks", but I'm faster than sharks so it's not a big deal...
by Eutychus on Nov 23, 2009 9:04 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess not, but I won’t pretend that I care about games against the Timberwolves, the Pandas, the Bobcats, the Knicks, or the Kings.
by species8473 on Nov 23, 2009 9:39 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
You better care
Those are the games we have to win. That’s ridiculous.
Fanaticism is not logical
by SunDolphin on Nov 24, 2009 6:42 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I actually tend to watch the games the Suns should win, because I don’t generally have to be nervous watching them. Sometimes I can’t watch close games, because I get unnecessarily stressed, and I have to remind myself that my happiness should not depend on what 5 strangers are doing on a basketball court.
by jburning on Nov 24, 2009 9:16 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
+1
I hate the fact that when the Suns lose I get all grouchy and it ruins my night.. and the next morning… and if there is isn’t a game the next day it ruins my week… man I’m pathetic.
They say "don't swim with the sharks", but I'm faster than sharks so it's not a big deal...
by Eutychus on Nov 24, 2009 9:25 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
It's funny
I was much more this way years ago when I had season tickets. Now that I these 5 (or 13) guys aren’t strangers I am far less anxious or emotional about their performance.
not sure what to make of that…
Blogging Suns Basketball . twitter: @phoenixstan
by Seth Pollack on Nov 24, 2009 9:41 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
You should try to make something of that...
I’m curiously interested to know what changed and why
They say "don't swim with the sharks", but I'm faster than sharks so it's not a big deal...
by Eutychus on Nov 24, 2009 10:06 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
3 quick guesses
1. With more insidd knowledge, you’re guessing and wondering about what’s going on to a much lesser degree.
2. “Working” on this site makes you a little more professionally detached.
3. You’re not worrying about paying to see them lose.
Mmmmm ... Guinness
by JSun on Nov 26, 2009 9:32 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Per 48 minutes
That’s the only way to accurately compare teams’ benches. Otherwise, the Spurs’ numbers are inflated because their reserves are playing, on average, a league-most 22 minutes a game – nearly 40 percent more than the Suns.
Using a per-48 adjustment, Phoenix puts up numbers (and rankings) of…
Points – 18.9 (7th)
Rebounds – 9.0 (6th)
Offensive – 3.2 (1st)
Defensive – 5.9 (13th)
Assists – 3.9 (11th)
Steals – 1.6 (11th)
Blocks – 1.3 (5th)
That, folks, is a fine bench – the best Phoenix has had in a long while.
by Gold Star for Robot Boy on Nov 23, 2009 5:48 PM MST reply actions 5 recs
Thanks Robot Boy ;)
The problem with per-48 minutes stats, to me, is that they are not reliable stats cause they don’t take into account reality that much. For example, Barbosa doesn’t play as many minutes this year cause he is (and always haas been) kind of a defensive liability. How “fair” it is to project his production on a 48 minute basis? Obviously, the more your bench plays, the more they produce (at least on paper). I just thought that the best way to compare benches was to do it with my “percentage bench points/reb/ast…”. Because it actually compares the bench to the starters.
by Lorenzo Franceschi Bicchierai on Nov 24, 2009 1:15 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
Per 48
also doesn’t take into account fouls and turnovers – two reasons why a bench player may be a liability in any kind of extended minutes.
There are two main purposes for a bench 1) to give the starters a breather and maintain viability on the court and 2) to step up in the case of injury/suspension/foul trouble and contribute.
I think we are doing better than we ever have in the first point, but it remains to be seen how well we do in case of the second. What happens if Amare or Nash misses a week? or how about the inevitable Amare foul trouble?
April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?
by Hawk42 on Nov 24, 2009 7:23 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
"two reasons why a bench player may be a liability in any kind of extended minutes."
The point of the per 48 minutes is not to for you to think “hmmm if I play this guy all 48 minutes these are the results I’ll get!” Of course foul trouble, tiredness, basketball IQ and whatever else will affect your real world results. Most bench guys that are not used to the exertion (physical/mental) of extended minutes and clutch time minutes.
The point of comparing per 48 minutes is to use a standard comparison tool. You can then divide the per 48 of each guy and say well realistically if we play him 24 minutes we might get these type of numbers or 12 minutes. You can’t really base all your franchises hopes on guaranteed results of taking a small sample of minutes and “over-projecting” them.
by eagleheart on Nov 25, 2009 12:34 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Also
You can project fouls and turnovers per 48 to get an idea of how much or little of a liability those factors are.
Contributor: Bright Side of the Sun Twitter: @MikeLisboa
by Mike Lisboa on Nov 25, 2009 1:14 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
But per-48 is the only way to equalize across the league...
…Because some coaches rely on their benches far more than others. Of course the Spurs’ reserves are leading the league in percentage of points, rebounds and assists, compared to the starters – they play more minutes. If Memphis brings up the rear in those same categories, then it seems obvious this stat is dependent on minutes played.
There are other factors that may skew a starters-to-reserves comparison. Consider the bench like a baseball team’s bullpen. A team leading the majors in relief innings may have a very good bullpen, or it may have a lousy rotation. But if you judge that bullpen’s ERA (baseball’s version of per-48) against the rest of the league, there’s your apples-to-apples comparison.
Also, I’d disagree with your theory Barbosa’s defense is keeping him off the court. It seems Dudley has proven himself, early on, to be the more effective weapon off the bench; therefore, he’s getting sixth-man minutes. (Take out LB’s two starts, and he’s averaging 18 minutes per game; Dudley’s playing time is full 25% higher, at 22.5 mpg.)
by Gold Star for Robot Boy on Nov 24, 2009 10:31 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
for instance
The Spurs bench ranks as the best in the business, bu this is only because Pop plays games wiuth lineupsm and a Spurs team rarely has the best 5 players on the team starting. Also, what has it gotten them? They are 6-6.
April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?
by Hawk42 on Nov 24, 2009 12:11 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
More usage is a sign of a good bench
right? So if the Spurs are going deeper than other teams it is a sign of them having a better bench. If a team’s reserves aren’t getting minutes then by definition they aren’t good.
Blogging Suns Basketball . twitter: @phoenixstan
by Seth Pollack on Nov 24, 2009 12:58 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Injuries true.
But also what about mixing starters with bench players. You have to account for who they are playing with. I’m sure our bench would be at least a little bit more productive if you played Nash with them…. We like the spurs do a lot of mixing during the game. That can skew numbers can’t it?
TO THE NBA - " Yeah, you have created a rift within me ; Now there have been ; several complications ; that have left me feeling nothing ; I might say, you were ; wrong to take it from me ; Left me feeling nothing " - Disturbed, "Numb"
by antiw0rm on Nov 24, 2009 3:02 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Why the NBA is so hard to quantify
Absolutely. It’s one of the reasons it’s hard to drill down into the numbers for truly revelatory “deep” statistics in the NBA. Line-up shuffles, injuries, match-ups all combine to “skew” basketball statistics in a variety of directions. No stat is ever going to tell the whole story, but adjusting for things like pace and “per 48” at least attempt to give some sort of baseline for a team’s or player’s performance.
Contributor: Bright Side of the Sun Twitter: @MikeLisboa
by Mike Lisboa on Nov 24, 2009 3:23 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Lots of minutes for the bench is a sign of...
…A coach who heavily uses reserves and not much more, I’d say.
Here’s a good essay* by 82games.com about teams’ use of their benches: http://www.82games.com/simmons2.htm
To quote:
In fact, the correlations between pure number of substitutions and winning percentage is practically zero over the past two seasons.The essay also shows there’s a negative correlation between winning and the number of 5-man units used.
*-Prompted by a Bill Simmons’ complaint about Doc Rivers going to his bench too often, in a season when the Celtics finished with 49 losses.
by Gold Star for Robot Boy on Nov 24, 2009 9:55 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks, Robot Boy
You get what I am trying to say
April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?
by Hawk42 on Nov 25, 2009 6:48 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
not really
On the Mavs, Jason Terry is really a starter, but he is not good enough to get his 20 points against starters. Ginobli really is a starter. It skews the results.
Remember the Lakers starting Kurt Rambis? Was he better than Wooleridge, McAdoo, or whatever guy theat LA trotted out as their frontcourt sub? No. A bench is also determined by how the coach plays it. What if the Suns started Lou and brought Hill off the bench. Then Hill, as a bench player, would start more than Lou, the starter. Does that make the bench better? I would argue it makes it worse, even though Hill would play more minutes and score more points than Lou the sub.
April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?
by Hawk42 on Nov 25, 2009 6:47 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I agree we should start Lou and take Grant Hill off the bench in order to test this theory.
by eagleheart on Nov 25, 2009 10:26 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Per 48
I dont like per 48 or the sort because its basically a made up number….its a projection….at least this post deals with the actual numbers…
by NSU Stud on Nov 25, 2009 6:33 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
There's nothing made up about the number 48
It’s how many minutes are in a basketball game.
This is like saying you don’t understand why, in baseball, earned runs are multiplied by 9 when determining ERA.
by Gold Star for Robot Boy on Nov 25, 2009 7:09 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but...
What NSU meant is that per 48 is an abstract projection and nothing guarantees that the player would be as productive over 48 minutes (or 40 or whatever other more realistic number of minutes). I mean, there are some players that are only good for 20 mins for a variety of reasons (bad D, bad conditioning, too much booze the previous day…). Projecting per 48 minutes is not bad, but it’s not as accurate as some think. It doesn’t take into account so many things that it’s really just an artificial stat.
by Lorenzo Franceschi Bicchierai on Nov 26, 2009 3:56 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
What NSU meant is that per 48 is an abstract projection and nothing guarantees that the player would be as productive over 48 minutes (or 40 or whatever other more realistic number of minutes).
And Mariano Rivera’s ERA would be higher if he was a starter. Or if he pitched at Coors Field.
ERA can be misleading, if you don’t take into account various factors, but it’s a good place to start. Same with per-48.
by Gold Star for Robot Boy on Nov 26, 2009 9:19 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
Ok...
I’m pretty sure I posted a reply to this but it must have gotten deleted or something….I’m not going to write it all again because Go7 already made my point for the most part….
I will say again that baseball is full of formulas for pointless stats(slugging % to name one)…This is not a baseball blog….Per 48 is merely a projection…It doesn’t prove anything better…Plain and simple….
by NSU Stud on Nov 27, 2009 12:20 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
it's a projection...
and i agree with what go7enks said about it not being accurate, but i agree with robot boy on it being a good place to start.
no one is going to think that if lou amundson’s per 48 projections are higher than say, kevin garnett’s (i doubt they are, but you never know with crazy number crunching), that he’s a better player. he’s all hustle. if he went all hustle for all 48 minutes, he’d be burnt out in a week.
but still, per 48’s are a decent place to start, and can give you a little insight into what a player MIGHT be capable of. they’re probably not, but hey, stranger things have happened.
Bright Side of the Sun, where Suns basketball never looked so good.
by iamtrevorpaxton on Nov 28, 2009 12:38 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

by 





















