Why are we starting our starters?

by irishgold35 on Feb 6, 2012 11:07 PM EST

Aside from how dumb this sounds, starting (by this i mean giving large minutes) our five best (and old) players for every bobcat/wizard/detroit etc to come our way also seems dumb.

wouldn't it be best to to give our bench the experience of starting those games, letting them work through the grind of meaningful minutes and seeing how it all plays out? if they win then it is a morale boost to the entire rotation, while simultaneously slapping the other team in the face. and if the we are losing, then our starters can come in and do work before it gets out of hand

my starting lineup against piss poor teams:

note: our bench is pretty versatile, so don't focus on position (aka moore as pg, quiz as sg)

rondo

dooling or moore

pav or quis

bass or JJ

steamer or wilcox

and then our "bench"

bradley/moore

ray

i decided to keep rondo with "starters" for athleticism purposes, and AB or moore with starters because we clearly were sufficient with that lineup when rajon was out.

another note: obviously in tight situations, games against the top tier, etc our usual lineup should be used. but you have to admit that this makes sense for games against the sub .500.

jusayin

Be respectful and keep it clean. Thanks.

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

tur buti think Doc starts the starters to get a big lead then bring benchers to finish the game. I rather have my bencher help finsh the game rather than start it

by EXER123 on Feb 6, 2012 11:31 PM EST reply actions

No

As you have seen often in the young season, piss poor teams have beaten, or nearly beaten top contenders (happens at least once a night). If you approach a team with the attitude that a less than maximum effort is required, you’ll get just that—- and a loss to go with it. i’m more for mixing the old and new as we progress into the road back-to-back games. Start Rondo, Pierce, Pietrus, KG, Wilcox—— then 2nd unit of Bradley, Moore, Allen, Bass, JO.
If anyone has a minor injury— fill in Pav / JJJ/ Steamer. Then do what you have to do in the 4th quarter if its close, depending on who is playing better.

by P stoff on Feb 6, 2012 11:40 PM EST reply actions

Yep

That’s the way it works, if you start the bench players against the Kings or Bobcats you may find yourself down by 10 at the end of the first then playing the “starters” even more minutes trying to stay in the game. Even if your matching the score at the end of the first you’ll still have to put the “starters” in to grow the lead. It makes more sense to have the starters start, get that double digit buffer then put the bench in to maintain it. If they can maintain it they can get extended minutes.

by AussieGreen on Feb 7, 2012 12:07 AM EST reply actions

the rationale is to

WIN as many games early this season when you are assured of playoff spot or a spot they want to be then they play their bench to rest the starters for the playoffs.

by kheldar52077 on Feb 7, 2012 5:55 AM EST reply actions

Your theory makes sense…just not this year. With the bad start. With injuries you need every game. The only person I would take out is JO and replace him with Wilcox. Chris has been energy and I think with his offensive rebounding hustle he could be a better fit to start. JO can work with bass off the bench

by jdunn123 on Feb 7, 2012 10:17 AM EST reply actions

I think you maximize the young guys by rotating them in with the starters.

The young guys will benefit the most from the minutes they get with the core four.

That said, I don’t think we have to start games with our old-timers unit as opposed to, combos like, say, Rondo-Allen-Pierce-JJ-JO, Rondo-Moore-Pierce-Garnett-JO, or Rondo-Allen-Pierce-Garnett-Wilcox

by sofutomygaha on Feb 7, 2012 4:52 PM EST reply actions