Horford to start?

[Goldstar88]

A lot of those aren't correct.  Johnson or Okongwu start in Atlanta as an example.  Both bigger than Bey who starts at SF (so a big SF as well).  The Nets have essentially been starting Simmons at PF so far this year (Dinwiddie and Bridges also starting with Johnson and Claxton). So they are huge at basically every position.  See if they keep doing that or if they move Dinwiddie to bench and put Ben at PG. In Detroit Stewaet is their center and he is shorter but he is a massive man. 6'10" Bagley is their PF.

And it more than just height to being a big.  I mean Durant is one of the tallest players in the sport, but no one would call him a big.

What I posted is what ESPN has listed. Take it up with them. Looks like Durant will be playing PF this year. Further proving the point.

Durant is 7 feet tall. Since height is what you use to determine if a player is a big, Phoenix is clearly a 2 big lineup.

And ESPN has both Horford and Porzingis starting for Boston. So if you are going by them, then Boston is starting 2 bigs.

Right, Durant is a big wing. I never said that Horford isn’t going to start, said that the team would be better off having him off the bench.

Do you think, with all the "obvious" reasons people are stating for Al not to start would also be obvious to the coach?  If Al starts, it isn't because the coach went against something that was better.  It's because people thinking that Al should not start are missing something.  And that something is that starting Al is best.

We shall see soon enough. Hopefully Kornet looks better in the regular season. Wouldn’t bet on it, though.

[wiley]

A lot of those aren't correct.  Johnson or Okongwu start in Atlanta as an example.  Both bigger than Bey who starts at SF (so a big SF as well).  The Nets have essentially been starting Simmons at PF so far this year (Dinwiddie and Bridges also starting with Johnson and Claxton). So they are huge at basically every position.  See if they keep doing that or if they move Dinwiddie to bench and put Ben at PG. In Detroit Stewaet is their center and he is shorter but he is a massive man. 6'10" Bagley is their PF.

And it more than just height to being a big.  I mean Durant is one of the tallest players in the sport, but no one would call him a big.

Even though this trade works on the Trade Machine I seem to recall that Pritchard's new deal changes the amount of salary we can take back in a trade.

Anyway, let's say around the end of December that Gallinari is looking pretty good in his return from injury.  Wouldn't this trade help fix our need for a backup big?

Or would we then lament the lack of point guard depth?

We could even throw in one of our million 2nd rounders.

https://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yvtozdlj

what was the trade?  The link didn't work..at least for me.  Please get us Isiaah Stewart!  Thank you...

[No Nickname]

A lot of those aren't correct.  Johnson or Okongwu start in Atlanta as an example.  Both bigger than Bey who starts at SF (so a big SF as well).  The Nets have essentially been starting Simmons at PF so far this year (Dinwiddie and Bridges also starting with Johnson and Claxton). So they are huge at basically every position.  See if they keep doing that or if they move Dinwiddie to bench and put Ben at PG. In Detroit Stewaet is their center and he is shorter but he is a massive man. 6'10" Bagley is their PF.

And it more than just height to being a big.  I mean Durant is one of the tallest players in the sport, but no one would call him a big.

Even though this trade works on the Trade Machine I seem to recall that Pritchard's new deal changes the amount of salary we can take back in a trade.

Anyway, let's say around the end of December that Gallinari is looking pretty good in his return from injury.  Wouldn't this trade help fix our need for a backup big?

Or would we then lament the lack of point guard depth?

We could even throw in one of our million 2nd rounders.

https://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yvtozdlj

what was the trade?  The link didn't work..at least for me.  Please get us Isiaah Stewart!  Thank you...

It was:

Celtics: Receive Gallinari
Wizards: Receive Pritcard/Kornet

It worked in the Trade Machine salary wise.

[theswitch]

The other derivative question to me is the downstream impact on your rotation. In the extremes, if you're saying that Horford and Porzingis should only be on the court with another big (i.e., Tatum only plays small forward), then you really need to believe in Kornet to eat up 15-20 minutes. Your only real backup for Porzingis (if you call him the center) is Horford, and he would be eating his minutes at power forward, or the other way around if you flip them. So then Kornet becomes the backup center. That really squeezes Pritchard or Hauser because White eats all the backup guard minutes.

So something like:

Two-Big Extreme:
PG -- Jrue Holiday (32), Derrick White (16)
SG -- Jaylen Brown (34), Derrick White (14)
SF -- Jayson Tatum (34), Sam Hauser (14) -- note, you could also move these minutes to Pritchard and play Brown at small forward for 14 minutes
PF -- Al Horford (28), Oshae Brissett (20)
C --  Kristaps Porzingis (30), Luke Kornet (18)

One-Big Extreme:
PG -- Jrue Holiday (32), Payton Pritchard (16)
SG -- Derrick White (32), Payton Pritchard (16)
SF -- Jaylen Brown (34), Sam Hauser (14)
PF -- Jayson Tatum (34), Oshae Brissett (14)
C --  Kristaps Porzingis (30), Al Horford (18)

I don't like the first one because I think Luke Kornet is useless. I don't like the second one because it cuts down too much time for Horford and gives too much playing time to Pritchard instead. So I would prefer a happy medium:

PG -- Jrue Holiday (32), Payton Pritchard (16)
SG -- Jaylen Brown (16), Derrick White (32)
SF -- Jayson Tatum (14), Jaylen Brown (18), Sam Hauser (16)
PF -- Al Horford (10), Jayson Tatum (20), Oshae Brissett (18)
C --  Kristaps Porzingis (30), Al Horford (18)

Maybe to preserve Horford you shift down some of his minutes but I think that's about right based on last year. Shows opponents multiple looks, preserves everybody, and keeps the backups in that 15-20 minute range where they belong. And keeps Luke Kornet mostly as an emergency option rather than a deep one. If needed, Danton takes Pritchard's minutes, Svi takes Hauser's, and Stevens takes Brissett's.

I'm not too worried about who starts. My preferred lineup probably starts Horford at power forward but ends up playing him mostly at center. You finish the game based on the matchup and who is vibing that game.

[droopdog7]

The other derivative question to me is the downstream impact on your rotation. In the extremes, if you're saying that Horford and Porzingis should only be on the court with another big (i.e., Tatum only plays small forward), then you really need to believe in Kornet to eat up 15-20 minutes. Your only real backup for Porzingis (if you call him the center) is Horford, and he would be eating his minutes at power forward, or the other way around if you flip them. So then Kornet becomes the backup center. That really squeezes Pritchard or Hauser because White eats all the backup guard minutes.

So something like:

Two-Big Extreme:
PG -- Jrue Holiday (32), Derrick White (16)
SG -- Jaylen Brown (34), Derrick White (14)
SF -- Jayson Tatum (34), Sam Hauser (14) -- note, you could also move these minutes to Pritchard and play Brown at small forward for 14 minutes
PF -- Al Horford (28), Oshae Brissett (20)
C --  Kristaps Porzingis (30), Luke Kornet (18)

One-Big Extreme:
PG -- Jrue Holiday (32), Payton Pritchard (16)
SG -- Derrick White (32), Payton Pritchard (16)
SF -- Jaylen Brown (34), Sam Hauser (14)
PF -- Jayson Tatum (34), Oshae Brissett (14)
C --  Kristaps Porzingis (30), Al Horford (18)

I don't like the first one because I think Luke Kornet is useless. I don't like the second one because it cuts down too much time for Horford and gives too much playing time to Pritchard instead. So I would prefer a happy medium:

PG -- Jrue Holiday (32), Payton Pritchard (16)
SG -- Jaylen Brown (16), Derrick White (32)
SF -- Jayson Tatum (14), Jaylen Brown (18), Sam Hauser (16)
PF -- Al Horford (10), Jayson Tatum (20), Oshae Brissett (18)
C --  Kristaps Porzingis (30), Al Horford (18)

Maybe to preserve Horford you shift down some of his minutes but I think that's about right based on last year. Shows opponents multiple looks, preserves everybody, and keeps the backups in that 15-20 minute range where they belong. And keeps Luke Kornet mostly as an emergency option rather than a deep one. If needed, Danton takes Pritchard's minutes, Svi takes Hauser's, and Stevens takes Brissett's.

I'm not too worried about who starts. My preferred lineup probably starts Horford at power forward but ends up playing him mostly at center. You finish the game based on the matchup and who is vibing that game.

This isn't the other derivative question.  It's pretty much the primary or secondary reason people say Al should come off the bench.

[theswitch]

The other derivative question to me is the downstream impact on your rotation. In the extremes, if you're saying that Horford and Porzingis should only be on the court with another big (i.e., Tatum only plays small forward), then you really need to believe in Kornet to eat up 15-20 minutes. Your only real backup for Porzingis (if you call him the center) is Horford, and he would be eating his minutes at power forward, or the other way around if you flip them. So then Kornet becomes the backup center. That really squeezes Pritchard or Hauser because White eats all the backup guard minutes.

So something like:

Two-Big Extreme:
PG -- Jrue Holiday (32), Derrick White (16)
SG -- Jaylen Brown (34), Derrick White (14)
SF -- Jayson Tatum (34), Sam Hauser (14) -- note, you could also move these minutes to Pritchard and play Brown at small forward for 14 minutes
PF -- Al Horford (28), Oshae Brissett (20)
C --  Kristaps Porzingis (30), Luke Kornet (18)

One-Big Extreme:
PG -- Jrue Holiday (32), Payton Pritchard (16)
SG -- Derrick White (32), Payton Pritchard (16)
SF -- Jaylen Brown (34), Sam Hauser (14)
PF -- Jayson Tatum (34), Oshae Brissett (14)
C --  Kristaps Porzingis (30), Al Horford (18)

I don't like the first one because I think Luke Kornet is useless. I don't like the second one because it cuts down too much time for Horford and gives too much playing time to Pritchard instead. So I would prefer a happy medium:

PG -- Jrue Holiday (32), Payton Pritchard (16)
SG -- Jaylen Brown (16), Derrick White (32)
SF -- Jayson Tatum (14), Jaylen Brown (18), Sam Hauser (16)
PF -- Al Horford (10), Jayson Tatum (20), Oshae Brissett (18)
C --  Kristaps Porzingis (30), Al Horford (18)

Maybe to preserve Horford you shift down some of his minutes but I think that's about right based on last year. Shows opponents multiple looks, preserves everybody, and keeps the backups in that 15-20 minute range where they belong. And keeps Luke Kornet mostly as an emergency option rather than a deep one. If needed, Danton takes Pritchard's minutes, Svi takes Hauser's, and Stevens takes Brissett's.

I'm not too worried about who starts. My preferred lineup probably starts Horford at power forward but ends up playing him mostly at center. You finish the game based on the matchup and who is vibing that game.

This isn't the other derivative question.  It's pretty much the primary or secondary reason people say Al should come off the bench.

Maybe -- but in any case nobody had shown the minutes distributions and then how they might suggest playing it so I thought my post would be incremental. If not, that's okay. And the most recent conversation was around whether the primary question (which I agree is the primary question) is how to maximize Tatum. I'd think the secondary question is how to maximize Jrue, Brown, and Porzingis, your other stars. That's way more important than optimizing for Luke Kornet.

[Vermont Green]

I am in favor of Horford starting or at least being part of the most used line up (which probably is the same thing but not necessarily).  I don't mind some use of 1-big combinations throughout the course of the game, I think that is inevitable, even if we end up getting another solid big.

I concede that this means playing Brissett at the Swing/PF, perhaps not his natural position, and that Kornet or Gabriel or Queta will get some minutes in the regular season.  But if Brissett is out there as the Swing/PF, it allows you to keep Tatum at SF, let Tatum focus on scoring and playmaking, let Brissett focus on defending a PF and rebounding.  Let Brissett be the one playing out of position, keep Tatum at SF.  I feel that Brissett is going to be in the regular rotation in any case.

The complaint seems to be that it is less minutes for Pritchard and more minutes for Kornet/Gabriel/Queta.  This is fair, but I don't feel this is reason enough to dictate the rotation of our top 5-7.  If there are 450 players in the NBA, Pritchard is what, #350?  And our end of the bench bigs more like 400-450?  This is not where you win or lose games.  Just hold down the fort until we find another decent big to add to the bench.

[No Nickname]

I am in favor of Horford starting or at least being part of the most used line up (which probably is the same thing but not necessarily).  I don't mind some use of 1-big combinations throughout the course of the game, I think that is inevitable, even if we end up getting another solid big.

I concede that this means playing Brissett at the Swing/PF, perhaps not his natural position, and that Kornet or Gabriel or Queta will get some minutes in the regular season.  But if Brissett is out there as the Swing/PF, it allows you to keep Tatum at SF, let Tatum focus on scoring and playmaking, let Brissett focus on defending a PF and rebounding.  Let Brissett be the one playing out of position, keep Tatum at SF.  I feel that Brissett is going to be in the regular rotation in any case.

The complaint seems to be that it is less minutes for Pritchard and more minutes for Kornet/Gabriel/Queta.  This is fair, but I don't feel this is reason enough to dictate the rotation of our top 5-7.  If there are 450 players in the NBA, Pritchard is what, #350?  And our end of the bench bigs more like 400-450?  This is not where you win or lose games.  Just hold down the fort until we find another decent big to add to the bench.

You make an interesting point.  If Horford starts, and Brissett comes off the bench first for him... then Tatum stays at SF.   

Horford then comes in later for Porzingis.  Maybe Tatum plays 10mins at PF, but he'd play 25mins at SF.

[theswitch]

I am in favor of Horford starting or at least being part of the most used line up (which probably is the same thing but not necessarily).  I don't mind some use of 1-big combinations throughout the course of the game, I think that is inevitable, even if we end up getting another solid big.

I concede that this means playing Brissett at the Swing/PF, perhaps not his natural position, and that Kornet or Gabriel or Queta will get some minutes in the regular season.  But if Brissett is out there as the Swing/PF, it allows you to keep Tatum at SF, let Tatum focus on scoring and playmaking, let Brissett focus on defending a PF and rebounding.  Let Brissett be the one playing out of position, keep Tatum at SF.  I feel that Brissett is going to be in the regular rotation in any case.

The complaint seems to be that it is less minutes for Pritchard and more minutes for Kornet/Gabriel/Queta.  This is fair, but I don't feel this is reason enough to dictate the rotation of our top 5-7.  If there are 450 players in the NBA, Pritchard is what, #350?  And our end of the bench bigs more like 400-450?  This is not where you win or lose games.  Just hold down the fort until we find another decent big to add to the bench.

You make an interesting point.  If Horford starts, and Brissett comes off the bench first for him... then Tatum stays at SF.   

Horford then comes in later for Porzingis.  Maybe Tatum plays 10mins at PF, but he'd play 25mins at SF.

If you wanted to expand where I was going with that, you could squeeze down Pritchard / Hauser into smaller roles and then give Kornet some time at center to make it work. Otherwise I think you'd either need to run Brissett 25-30 minutes or Tatum has to play power forward.

PG -- Jrue Holiday (32), Payton Pritchard (16)
SG -- Jaylen Brown (16), Derrick White (32)
SF -- Jayson Tatum (14), Jaylen Brown (18), Sam Hauser (16)
PF -- Al Horford (10), Jayson Tatum (20), Oshae Brissett (18)
C --  Kristaps Porzingis (30), Al Horford (18)

becomes

PG -- Jrue Holiday (32), Derrick White (4), Payton Pritchard (12)
SG -- Jaylen Brown (20), Derrick White (28)
SF -- Jayson Tatum (22), Jaylen Brown (14), Sam Hauser (12)
PF -- Al Horford (18), Jayson Tatum (12), Oshae Brissett (18)
C --  Kristaps Porzingis (30), Al Horford (10), Luke Kornet (8 )

Pretty big rotation but that gets closer to maximizing everyone. In the playoffs you probably down-select to something like:

PG -- Jrue Holiday (38), Derrick White (10)
SG -- Jaylen Brown (20), Derrick White (28)
SF -- Jayson Tatum (22), Jaylen Brown (18), Sam Hauser (8 ) <--- or you could move these 8 minutes to Pritchard and transfer more SF minutes to Brown
PF -- Al Horford (18), Jayson Tatum (16), Oshae Brissett (14)
C --  Kristaps Porzingis (34), Al Horford (14)

[Surferdad]

What has been neglected in this conversation is match-ups. Joe has stated that match-ups would dictate things to some extent. Yes, some posters here will say "let the other team match up to us". While this could be true, there's no guarantee it will work. Any decent coach HAS TO account for match-ups.

[michigan adam]

One of the strengths of this team IS the position versatility in its star players.  JT is elite at SF and PF.  JB is elite at SG and SF.  KP is great at PF and C.  Hortford is great at PF and C.  DW is great at PG and SG.  JH is elite at PG and can play some SG if needed.  PP is good at both PG and SG.  Others on their bench can easily play up or down a position from their "natural" position.  So what position SHOULD they play.  That is driven by match ups.  There will be times where the opposing team just has a bad match for a certain lineup.  Bucks (Giannis) just have a good matchup that should keep JT out of the PF slot when the starters are out there.  He will wear JT down.  JT will make him work extra on D, but I think that is a bad fit.  The PF position in general though is weak in the league.  JT will exploit most PF in the league on O, and hold his own on D.  I'm not afraid of that matchup most times.  I'd rather the C's maximize their talent on the floor most nights which means 25-35 minutes for each of the big 6.  The other players will have to earn those minutes through their play, and it will raise and fall partially due to matchups.  Against the bucks, Brisett, Kornet, and maybe stevens will get higher minutes, at the expense of Hauser, PP, and Blanton.  The C's will need the bigger bodies against Giannis.  Against Golden State...it will be the other way around, as Dramond Green doesn't demand as big a body to check him. 

[Vermont Green]

What has been neglected in this conversation is match-ups. Joe has stated that match-ups would dictate things to some extent. Yes, some posters here will say "let the other team match up to us". While this could be true, there's no guarantee it will work. Any decent coach HAS TO account for match-ups.

I am one of those posters.  But it is particularly related to the top 6 or 7 players.  We should play our best guys the way we want to play them.  When it comes to Pritchard or Hauser or Kornet, sure, adjust their roles in the rotation based on match ups or whatever.  If we are playing a small team and can get away with playing Pritchard more and Kornet less, great.  But don't change Tatum's role in the rotation.

If we have the better core rotation and have the advantage (which should be the case pretty much always), why should we change what we do?  Did the 1984 Celtics change their core rotation?  Minor adjustments maybe but nothing major.

Again, we should play our top 6 in their best roles, whenever possible (injuries and rest notwithstanding).  I am expecting Brissett to be a kind of intermediate guy, I think he is going to get very regular minutes, say 20 min, but his role in those 20 min may change some night to night.  Then the rest, their minutes and roles will likely vary night to night based on match ups and also based on who is injured or being rested.  And that it totally fine.  It comes with the territory for that level of bench player.

[BitterJim]

What has been neglected in this conversation is match-ups. Joe has stated that match-ups would dictate things to some extent. Yes, some posters here will say "let the other team match up to us". While this could be true, there's no guarantee it will work. Any decent coach HAS TO account for match-ups.

I am one of those posters.  But it is particularly related to the top 6 or 7 players.  We should play our best guys the way we want to play them.  When it comes to Pritchard or Hauser or Kornet, sure, adjust their roles in the rotation based on match ups or whatever.  If we are playing a small team and can get away with playing Pritchard more and Kornet less, great.  But don't change Tatum's role in the rotation.

If we have the better core rotation and have the advantage (which should be the case pretty much always), why should we change what we do?  Did the 1984 Celtics change their core rotation?  Minor adjustments maybe but nothing major.

Again, we should play our top 6 in their best roles, whenever possible (injuries and rest notwithstanding).  I am expecting Brissett to be a kind of intermediate guy, I think he is going to get very regular minutes, say 20 min, but his role in those 20 min may change some night to night.  Then the rest, their minutes and roles will likely vary night to night based on match ups and also based on who is injured or being rested.  And that it totally fine.  It comes with the territory for that level of bench player.

Agreed. And I think in a tight playoff series we might need to change based on matchups (like more size vs the Bucks), but against a team like the Pistons on a random regular season game we shouldn't be letting them dictate how we play

[SHAQATTACK]

What has been neglected in this conversation is match-ups. Joe has stated that match-ups would dictate things to some extent. Yes, some posters here will say "let the other team match up to us". While this could be true, there's no guarantee it will work. Any decent coach HAS TO account for match-ups.

I am one of those posters.  But it is particularly related to the top 6 or 7 players.  We should play our best guys the way we want to play them.  When it comes to Pritchard or Hauser or Kornet, sure, adjust their roles in the rotation based on match ups or whatever.  If we are playing a small team and can get away with playing Pritchard more and Kornet less, great.  But don't change Tatum's role in the rotation.

If we have the better core rotation and have the advantage (which should be the case pretty much always), why should we change what we do?  Did the 1984 Celtics change their core rotation?  Minor adjustments maybe but nothing major.

Again, we should play our top 6 in their best roles, whenever possible (injuries and rest notwithstanding).  I am expecting Brissett to be a kind of intermediate guy, I think he is going to get very regular minutes, say 20 min, but his role in those 20 min may change some night to night.  Then the rest, their minutes and roles will likely vary night to night based on match ups and also based on who is injured or being rested.  And that it totally fine.  It comes with the territory for that level of bench player.

Agreed. And I think in a tight playoff series we might need to change based on matchups (like more size vs the Bucks), but against a team like the Pistons on a random regular season game we shouldn't be letting them dictate how we play

Bravo BJ !   

[droopdog7]

What has been neglected in this conversation is match-ups. Joe has stated that match-ups would dictate things to some extent. Yes, some posters here will say "let the other team match up to us". While this could be true, there's no guarantee it will work. Any decent coach HAS TO account for match-ups.

I’ve considered it.  I’m of the opinion that starting horford is best against pretty much every team.  So that’s part of the disconnect I think.  I believe some people think that white starting is best but in some cases, you need to match up against bigger front courts.

I don’t believe that to be the case.