Forget about winning, just play the entire bench

[Fafnir]

Anyways, it's all about balance. When Mikki and Marbury were playing overall awful basketball for us, we still managed to go 16-7 or something like that. We can manage.

But he had to play Paul/Ray an awful lot to do it. And have Marbury/House in the backcourt...

[nickagneta]

Anyways, it's all about balance. When Mikki and Marbury were playing overall awful basketball for us, we still managed to go 16-7 or something like that. We can manage.

But he had to play Paul/Ray an awful lot to do it. And have Marbury/House in the backcourt...

Heck at times he had Marbury guarding SF's.

[Fafnir]

Anyways, it's all about balance. When Mikki and Marbury were playing overall awful basketball for us, we still managed to go 16-7 or something like that. We can manage.

But he had to play Paul/Ray an awful lot to do it. And have Marbury/House in the backcourt...

Heck at times he had Marbury guarding SF's.

Fun times....

[JSD]

That's my recommendation for the next season.

I think it's safe to say that our starting five is fine and will be fine, more often than not.

With that in mind, I'd rather not try to make for another 62+ season, with the idea of playing the first 6-7 players for a vast majority of the games. I'd rather we play everyone, be down by 8-12 pts, entering the 4th, tighten the defenses as the primary players rotate back in, and try to win it close, or take the loss and stop worrying about it.

While I understand your logic, I think your underestimating the significance of home court advantage in the playoffs. In a head to head match-up against Cleveland, Orlando, San Antonio or the Lakers wouldn't you want the advantage of being home for the majority of the games?

[jasail]

i'd like to chime in on this.  i think there is one thing we are overlooking in terms of play the bench/rest the starters, is the middle road.

the c's have a great 9 man rotation and this is something we haven't had in the past.  the past two seasons the bench either gave a lesson in treading water or the offense fell stagnant and the lead deteriorated.  this resulted in doc having to put back in the starters, increasing their minuets and having them be tougher minuets.

this year i think we have a bench that will own second teams around the league.  this may allow doc to play the bench w/o sacrificing the lead and in doing so give the starters more rest.  imo this may depend on how good of a facilitator Daniels is, but i see this bench playing stellar defense and pouring it in in bunches. 

so i guess my point would be that i am optimistic that playing the bench and winning do not have to be mutually exclusive.

[mgent]

I'm assuming that the point of playing the bench more serves the dual purposes of getting the starters more rest and getting the subs more experience.

Here's the thing, though:  by playing the bench more, the team would be involved in a lot more close, grueling games.  Presumably, games like that are more physically and mentally wearing.

I think if the team goes out and tries to win games, it's going to open up enough leads, to the point where the starters can get rest and the subs can get extended minutes in garbage time.  This was largely the plan for much of Year One of the KG/Ray era, and it worked fairly well.

Also, I don't think most of our bench guys need to be force fed minutes.  Rasheed, BBD, House, and Daniels have all shown the ability to produce in limited minutes, and all are legit veterans (with BBD being the one guy with some room to grow).  That means, really, the question comes down to "do you give Bill Walker / J.R. Giddens minutes they haven't earned?".  The answer to that depends on what they're showing in practice.  I truly think that a 9 man rotation is sustainable over the course of a season, without burning out a team's starters.

If Walker and Giddens haven't stepped up yet, I don't really want to give them minutes they haven't earned.  But there's always Tony and Scal.  Scal has earned minutes in the past and has good experience with this team.  As long as Tony can stay healthy, he should be okay as an 11th man.  Even if we end up trading those two guys at the deadline, just giving those them limited minutes for the first half of the season will at least take some heat off the first 9 guys.

[RAcker]

Just to add my two cents (and that's probably generous to consider it worth that) I'd just admonish the starters (who are the best starting 5 in the league) not to dink around at the beginning of games this year as they did last year and get back to November 2007 mode where they were punking people by 15 or 20 before the bench even came in.

If they can do this, I am all for lots of 2nd and 3rd string minutes to find combinations that work.  It would come with less pressure and allow Doc a lot more room to experiment.

[dark_lord]

i say play to win, period.  the more wins we get, homecourt advantage in the playoffs will be the reward.  play the starters, but rest them when necessary/possible.

[TitleMaster]

Well, here's my starting 2nd unit: At the 4, BBD, 5-'Sheed, 3-Daniels and then Rondo & House. True, we don't have a PG who's as good as the rest of the bench so hence, Rondo will have to carry the most minutes of the big five. All and all, this unit can even start, flashback to the '86 Celtics, play the first quarter, and then rotate in Pierce, Ray Ray, KG, & Perks while more or less, keeping everyone in the league 100% engaged in winning the game. The key here is utilization and meaningful minutes than pure garbage time, with the exception of genuine blowouts where the opponents goes down by 24 in Q1 or 2.

[screwedupmaniac]

i say play to win, period.  the more wins we get, homecourt advantage in the playoffs will be the reward.  play the starters, but rest them when necessary/possible.

What you said X2...homecourt was very important for us two years ago, and i think it will be again this year. and there is no way you can ask or expect coaches or players to only give 75% . . . they are out there to compete every night, not estimate how they are going to feel after the game.

thankfully, i think our team is good enough and deep enough that we can give the Big Three different nights off one at a time against lesser oponents and get them some rest. we can start a lineup against a lesser team that looks like this:

Perk/Williams
Sheed/Davis
Pierce or Daniels/Scal/Walker
Ray or Daniels/House
Rondo/House/FA pickup

[mgent]

I think you guys are way underestimating our team.  These guys play basketball for a living.  30-40 minutes a night is no problem for these guys.  Sitting on the bench for an extra couple minutes isn't gonna make them more "fresh" for the playoffs.

It'd be one thing if players were constantly complaining about being tired all the time in games.  But typically during interviews and whatnot, I hear them say fatigue is not an issue.

If our guys can't play reasonable minutes for a couple nights a week, then they need more conditioning.  Doc does a fine job of giving guys the right amount of rest during the games, so I think the fans should trust him and stop stressing.

[TitleMaster]

These guys play basketball for a living.  30-40 minutes a night is no problem for these guys.

Yes, but a lot of them take their physical health/stamina for granted. I mean think about it... how many times have you worked for a company which was simply fighting fires, instead of planning ahead to prevent them?

Honestly, despite what everyone here says, NBA players, on the average do not have a personal program like John Stockton or Kareem Abdul Jabbar. The reason why those two guys lasted into their early to mid-forties was consistent workout and a diet regimen. For them, esp when they were less than 35 years of age, playing 30+ mins a night was nothing. Kareem had both a yoga and martial arts regimen, he was both flexible and had a lot of endurance. I suspect that a lot of NBA players sip on a few Sam Adams and Jack Daniels, from time to time, but unlike a lot of us in corporations, we don't need to run around for our livelihood so it really doesn't affect us except in the long run.

[nickagneta]

These guys play basketball for a living.  30-40 minutes a night is no problem for these guys.

Yes, but a lot of them take their physical health/stamina for granted. I mean think about it... how many times have you worked for a company which was simply fighting fires, instead of planning ahead to prevent them?

Honestly, despite what everyone here says, NBA players, on the average do not have a personal program like John Stockton or Kareem Abdul Jabbar. The reason why those two guys lasted into their early to mid-forties was consistent workout and a diet regimen. For them, esp when they were less than 35 years of age, playing 30+ mins a night was nothing. Kareem had both a yoga and martial arts regimen, he was both flexible and had a lot of endurance. I suspect that a lot of NBA players sip on a few Sam Adams and Jack Daniels, from time to time, but unlike a lot of us in corporations, we don't need to run around for our livelihood so it really doesn't affect us except in the long run.

I simply can't believe even a word of that last paragraph. Sorry.

[jasail]

I think you guys are way underestimating our team.  These guys play basketball for a living.  30-40 minutes a night is no problem for these guys.  Sitting on the bench for an extra couple minutes isn't gonna make them more "fresh" for the playoffs.

It'd be one thing if players were constantly complaining about being tired all the time in games.  But typically during interviews and whatnot, I hear them say fatigue is not an issue.

If our guys can't play reasonable minutes for a couple nights a week, then they need more conditioning.  Doc does a fine job of giving guys the right amount of rest during the games, so I think the fans should trust him and stop stressing.

My feeling would be that if you keep them off the floor for two or three minuets per game you are reducing their chance of sprains, twists ect. by a couple %.  Over the course of the season by reducing these chances you reduce the chances of them playing through nagging injuries, which IMO do take a lot out of them. 

With this new depth I'd be in favor of a Popovich approach, where you sit individuals with nagging injuries for a game or two around days off to give them more time off their feet. 

These guys play basketball for a living.  30-40 minutes a night is no problem for these guys.

Yes, but a lot of them take their physical health/stamina for granted. I mean think about it... how many times have you worked for a company which was simply fighting fires, instead of planning ahead to prevent them?

Honestly, despite what everyone here says, NBA players, on the average do not have a personal program like John Stockton or Kareem Abdul Jabbar. The reason why those two guys lasted into their early to mid-forties was consistent workout and a diet regimen. For them, esp when they were less than 35 years of age, playing 30+ mins a night was nothing. Kareem had both a yoga and martial arts regimen, he was both flexible and had a lot of endurance. I suspect that a lot of NBA players sip on a few Sam Adams and Jack Daniels, from time to time, but unlike a lot of us in corporations, we don't need to run around for our livelihood so it really doesn't affect us except in the long run.

 

[Vermont Green]

I don't have stats to back it up but it seems that the best regular season team very often wins the title in the NBA.  In baseball and football, it seems like a wild card team can get hot and win it all.  I further don't think that playing 32 minutes average vs 36 minutes average will meaningfully lessen the risk of injury.

I say play every game to win, stick to reasonable rotations, and everything will be fine.  If we are healthy, look out.  Injuries can derail any team but I don't think we will lose in the playoff because Pierce tired from playing 36 min instead of 32.  If someone is nursing an injury, then rest them to get 100% healthy but if they are healthy, play 'em and expect them to play hard.