The Myth of the Second Unit

[Hoopvortex]

There is no "second unit".

There are players who are not starters. But when they were in the game last season, they were almost always on the floor with not one, not two, but at least three starters.

If we call last season's starters: Irving/Brown/Tatum/Horford/Baynes...

...the unit without any of them that played the most minutes (Rozier/Smart/Ojeleye/Morris/Theis) played a total of 41 minutes during the whole season. Every unit that played more minutes than that had at least three starters on it.

By the way, I see a sentiment around here for adding a scorer to the "second unit"; for what it's worth, that unit I just mentioned scored 1.20 points per possession, which is pretty good. If you argued that the sample size on that unit is tiny, I would gladly concede your point, since it supports my main point: The Second Unit is a myth.

[headcase]

Yep, this isn't hockey with entire line changes, a good coach will rotate who is on the floor, and who they are out there with.  A good bench is valuable, but the same people that talk about "9 player playoff rotations" are talking about "second units".

SSDD

[droopdog7]

Yet, some teams have a good bench and others do not.  It doesn't matter that they are not on the court at the same time.  The starters are still the starters and the bench is still the bench.  They can help or hurt the prospects of the team just the same.

[Hoopvortex]

Yep, this isn't hockey with entire line changes, a good coach will rotate who is on the floor, and who they are out there with.  A good bench is valuable, but the same people that talk about "9 player playoff rotations" are talking about "second units".

SSDD

One way that Brad Stevens is at the forefront of thinking on rotations is that the starters get significant rest during the long season. The corollary is that the bench players get more minutes. Apart from the meteor that is Jayson Tatum, Stevens gave Theis and Ojeleye, two rookies, rotation minutes, so that they got developmental minutes that wouldn't have been available if they'd been rookies 20 years ago, or on a team with a less progressive coach than Stevens.

[Hoopvortex]

Yet, some teams have a good bench and others do not.  It doesn't matter that they are not on the court at the same time.  The starters are still the starters and the bench is still the bench.  They can help or hurt the prospects of the team just the same.

Great point - it is still significant that Boston has their vaunted Depth, especially over the long season and playoffs.

"It's a marathon, not a sprint."

[apc]

The short life of B.W.A. 

[bellerephon]

Yet, some teams have a good bench and others do not.  It doesn't matter that they are not on the court at the same time.  The starters are still the starters and the bench is still the bench.  They can help or hurt the prospects of the team just the same.

This is true, but I think the OP's point is well taken. There are many who talk about the second unit as if there was one group that comes in when the starters sit. People even go so far as to suggest that one of the presumptive starters should be moved to this second unit to improve its scoring. The fact that there is no second unit that regularly takes the floor when all the starters sit demonstrates that this suggestion is deeply flawed. There are almost always starters on the floor, there is no need to put one of the starters on the bench to improve the scoring of the second unit, Brad will keep a few starters on the floor almost all the time. This is of course different from arguing that Baynes should start because of his defense, although I also don't think that is a good idea either.

[Surferdad]

The short life of B.W.A. 

Um, no.  The bench is the bench, defined as "not starters".  The OP is simply saying they are unlikely to play together without one or more starters at all times.

The '86 team won with 8 players taking almost all the minutes.

[Hoopvortex]

The short life of B.W.A. 

I'm skeptical that the brand will last, at least by that name, at least for fans.

But that kind of thing has a value for the players to say to each other and to hold each other to account for.

The ferocity of Morris', Smart's, and Rozier's defense, getting in their man's airspace, will likely continue. A lot of us have high hopes for the second-year players, Theis and Ojeleye, and they could both use some of that ferocity in their defense and screen-setting at the next stage of their development.

[Chris22]

The short life of B.W.A. 

B.W.C.S.T.

Backups Who Can't Shoot Threes.

[Hoopvortex]

The short life of B.W.A. 

B.W.C.S.T.

Backups Who Can't Shoot Threes.

Somehow I suspect that that won't catch on, either.

 

[OhioGreen]

Really hoping Semi doesn't see the court much this year.  Brad loves him, supposedly for his D, but besides being very physical, IMO his D isn't all that great.  His shooting was terrible, and this preaseason seems to have taken a step backwards(if that is even possible).

[Roy H.]

I don't think people use "second unit" literally.  The majority of coaches -- excepting Doc Rivers -- don't take the "line change" approach.

That said, our leading starter (Kyrie) played 32.2 minutes per game last year, with the other starters in the vicinity of 30 or 31 minutes. We're going to need roughly 80 - 90 backup minutes per night.

[Hoopvortex]

I don't think people use "second unit" literally.

Props to you for recognizing that it's a myth. That was my point. I guess the next step is that we drop the term in favor of something that fits reality better. I’m not holding my breath.

But the argument by some fans that this "second unit" needs a scorer suggests that others do not use it literally.

That said, our leading starter (Kyrie) played 32.2 minutes per game last year, with the other starters in the vicinity of 30 or 31 minutes. We're going to need roughly 80 - 90 backup minutes per night.

Or indeed less than that. But of course it's guaranteed, unfortunately, that front line players will miss games, so a whole "second unit's" (!!!) worth of players may hope to average rotation minutes, as they did in fact do last season.

What you say about the starters is true - but of course even the term "starters" on the Boston Celtics is a bit mythical as well. Because if you literally mean "the players who start the game", then you'd have to include Baynes, who averaged only the 9th most minutes on the team (8th if you don't include Greg Monroe) per game, but who started 67 games - and who seldom got crunch time minutes; even Ojeleye got more.

And if that's your definition of "starters", it's arguable how meaningful that term is, either. As I recall, it was Red Auerbach who said, "It's not who starts, it's who finishes." (If not, it surely sounds like him.)  So maybe we ought to start talking about "finishers" instead of "starters".

A modest proposal.

[playdream]

This is a vert good post

Stevens has said he will change the lineup from game to game, half to half depend on the matchup and player condition, and that's what i think should be used,too

Even in playoffs a hot role player can impact a game more than stars and stars may suck sometimes

It's such a blessing to be a fan of your team which both your GM and Coach thinks alike you