Can you win a championship with horrible bench?

[SHAQATTACK]

those old Celtics teams had better top to bottom , todays teams most seem watered down to me . 

[Donoghus]

Y’all have some pretty ****in high standards for *bench* players.

That's what I was thinking reading thru some of the responses here.

[celticsclay]

Y’all have some pretty ****in high standards for *bench* players.

That's what I was thinking reading thru some of the responses here.

If you are referencing my original post there had been talk all season about how the 76ers bench being particularly weak and their roster really top heavy. This isn't a novel take by me. With respect to the Warriors, this has been in discussion all season locally where Iggy has averaged career lows in minutes, points and near career lows in numerous other stats. Livingston is basically in the same boat. Now the discussion has ramped up with cousins out causing their bench to get even weaker.

I also have what may be a bombshell for some of the posters discussing benches from 10-15 years ago. Benches are statistically more important than they have been in last the 40 years because the NBA is being played at the fastest pace it has been since the 1985 season. A guy like Embiid, is absolutely gassed (even when he is in his best shape, which he isn't) if he gets above 33 or 34 minutes. Shaq between his 94-2003 basically never averaged less than 37 minutes in the the playoffs. In the 99-00 finals Shaq's minutes were 44, 46, 47, 47, 47 and 42 in a blowout. Embid last season in a highly competitive series against us 35, 35, 36, 38 and 41 (overtime). Thats 10 more minutes of bench play for the 76ers in the most competitive games (and it is not like shaq was ever known as being the most fit center in the league).

So obviously benches more than ever and this is a valid question to ask this season. Even if people disagree whether our Celtics 2008 bench players were good, average or bad is pretty irrelevant to the current discussion (aside from the 39 point massacre Ray allen averaged about 43 minutes in the champ season finals despite being 32.

So again, do people actually want to try and discuss this or is just too painful?

[Boris Badenov]

those old Celtics teams had better top to bottom , todays teams most seem watered down to me .

Not all of them.

In 86-87 every one of our starters averaged more than 35 minutes per game. Bird averaged 41, McHale 40, Parish and DJ 37 and Ainge 35. Ainge was 5th in minutes played and would have LED the Celtics in minutes this year.

Our top 3 in terms of minutes played off the bench:

Jerry Sichting
Fred Roberts
Greg Kite

And in 87-88 the top 3 were:

Marc Acres
Fred Roberts
Dirk Minniefield

Now, those teams didn't win it all, but they were close. I'm not sure you could find any team in the league right now with a worse bench.

[Kuberski33]

Yes, the 2008 Celtics did

James Posey was our only quality reserve.

Everyone else was just serviceable

Eddie House and Glen Davis?

Eddie House was a vet min guy who's only NBA skill was his elite shooting.

Glen Davis was a 2nd round draft pick rookie.

I'd argue that Powe and Tony Allen were both solid reserves

Like I said Serviceable.

Powe was a garbage man hustler and effort type. Tony Allen was super inconsistent and not yet the grind father, he averaged 6 minutes per game in the finals and only played in 3 games. Sam Cassel and PJ Brown were both washed up vets and only got the opportunity because of our lack of quality on the bench. The 08 team was super top heavy.

Allen and Davis were quality reserves. If Allen had stayed, they'd have won another title.

[Kuberski33]

But to address the original question, the way the game is played now where the ball moves so much and defense is all about getting guys out to the perimeter to guard 3 pt shooters, depth is more important than ever.  Starters can't sustain the needed defensive intensity especially in a best of 7 series.  You also need some guys who can make 3's on the nights when your starters go cold.  You can't win a title without a bench right now.

[Monkhouse]

Y’all have some pretty ****in high standards for *bench* players.

That's what I was thinking reading thru some of the responses here.

If you are referencing my original post there had been talk all season about how the 76ers bench being particularly weak and their roster really top heavy. This isn't a novel take by me. With respect to the Warriors, this has been in discussion all season locally where Iggy has averaged career lows in minutes, points and near career lows in numerous other stats. Livingston is basically in the same boat. Now the discussion has ramped up with cousins out causing their bench to get even weaker.

I also have what may be a bombshell for some of the posters discussing benches from 10-15 years ago. Benches are statistically more important than they have been in last the 40 years because the NBA is being played at the fastest pace it has been since the 1985 season. A guy like Embiid, is absolutely gassed (even when he is in his best shape, which he isn't) if he gets above 33 or 34 minutes. Shaq between his 94-2003 basically never averaged less than 37 minutes in the the playoffs. In the 99-00 finals Shaq's minutes were 44, 46, 47, 47, 47 and 42 in a blowout. Embid last season in a highly competitive series against us 35, 35, 36, 38 and 41 (overtime). Thats 10 more minutes of bench play for the 76ers in the most competitive games (and it is not like shaq was ever known as being the most fit center in the league).

So obviously benches more than ever and this is a valid question to ask this season. Even if people disagree whether our Celtics 2008 bench players were good, average or bad is pretty irrelevant to the current discussion (aside from the 39 point massacre Ray allen averaged about 43 minutes in the champ season finals despite being 32.

So again, do people actually want to try and discuss this or is just too painful?

Yeah I don't get the part where people think benches aren't important... With the increased pace of today's NBA, even the most conditioned athletes can wear and get tired easily. To think otherwise is pretty arrogant, and downright stubborn.

Embiid is someone most people criticize for his lack of conditioning, because he gets gassed way too easily, and their best back up big is who really? Boban?

[celticsclay]

Y’all have some pretty ****in high standards for *bench* players.

That's what I was thinking reading thru some of the responses here.

If you are referencing my original post there had been talk all season about how the 76ers bench being particularly weak and their roster really top heavy. This isn't a novel take by me. With respect to the Warriors, this has been in discussion all season locally where Iggy has averaged career lows in minutes, points and near career lows in numerous other stats. Livingston is basically in the same boat. Now the discussion has ramped up with cousins out causing their bench to get even weaker.

I also have what may be a bombshell for some of the posters discussing benches from 10-15 years ago. Benches are statistically more important than they have been in last the 40 years because the NBA is being played at the fastest pace it has been since the 1985 season. A guy like Embiid, is absolutely gassed (even when he is in his best shape, which he isn't) if he gets above 33 or 34 minutes. Shaq between his 94-2003 basically never averaged less than 37 minutes in the the playoffs. In the 99-00 finals Shaq's minutes were 44, 46, 47, 47, 47 and 42 in a blowout. Embid last season in a highly competitive series against us 35, 35, 36, 38 and 41 (overtime). Thats 10 more minutes of bench play for the 76ers in the most competitive games (and it is not like shaq was ever known as being the most fit center in the league).

So obviously benches more than ever and this is a valid question to ask this season. Even if people disagree whether our Celtics 2008 bench players were good, average or bad is pretty irrelevant to the current discussion (aside from the 39 point massacre Ray allen averaged about 43 minutes in the champ season finals despite being 32.

So again, do people actually want to try and discuss this or is just too painful?

Yeah I don't get the part where people think benches aren't important... With the increased pace of today's NBA, even the most conditioned athletes can wear and get tired easily. To think otherwise is pretty arrogant, and downright stubborn.

Embiid is someone most people criticize for his lack of conditioning, because he gets gassed way too easily, and their best back up big is who really? Boban?

TP Monk. I was kind of surprised with the level people downplay the bench cause the advanced writers like Lowe that many seem to respect routinely talk about teams bleeding points with specific players off the floor. I guess to be fair it is hard to keep track of stars playing ten minutes less a game in playoff series than they may have 20 years ago and not understanding the difference in bench value. The pace difference is also just insane. In the old days you could rest on defense some, especially as a big. Now if you are not running around closing out on 3's or switching you are giving up points in 5 seconds. It is mind boggling how different the game is.

[rondofan1255]

What teams have won a title because of their bench?  It's always about star power. 

Golden State should coast to a title.

This.

 There is no bench platoon where only bench players are on the floor. They should win the title barring a Durant or Curry injury.

[SHAQATTACK]

Y’all have some pretty ****in high standards for *bench* players.

That's what I was thinking reading thru some of the responses here.

If you are referencing my original post there had been talk all season about how the 76ers bench being particularly weak and their roster really top heavy. This isn't a novel take by me. With respect to the Warriors, this has been in discussion all season locally where Iggy has averaged career lows in minutes, points and near career lows in numerous other stats. Livingston is basically in the same boat. Now the discussion has ramped up with cousins out causing their bench to get even weaker.

I also have what may be a bombshell for some of the posters discussing benches from 10-15 years ago. Benches are statistically more important than they have been in last the 40 years because the NBA is being played at the fastest pace it has been since the 1985 season. A guy like Embiid, is absolutely gassed (even when he is in his best shape, which he isn't) if he gets above 33 or 34 minutes. Shaq between his 94-2003 basically never averaged less than 37 minutes in the the playoffs. In the 99-00 finals Shaq's minutes were 44, 46, 47, 47, 47 and 42 in a blowout. Embid last season in a highly competitive series against us 35, 35, 36, 38 and 41 (overtime). Thats 10 more minutes of bench play for the 76ers in the most competitive games (and it is not like shaq was ever known as being the most fit center in the league).

So obviously benches more than ever and this is a valid question to ask this season. Even if people disagree whether our Celtics 2008 bench players were good, average or bad is pretty irrelevant to the current discussion (aside from the 39 point massacre Ray allen averaged about 43 minutes in the champ season finals despite being 32.

So again, do people actually want to try and discuss this or is just too painful?

well done.  TP
Yeah I don't get the part where people think benches aren't important... With the increased pace of today's NBA, even the most conditioned athletes can wear and get tired easily. To think otherwise is pretty arrogant, and downright stubborn.

Embiid is someone most people criticize for his lack of conditioning, because he gets gassed way too easily, and their best back up big is who really? Boban?

[Moranis]

Y’all have some pretty ****in high standards for *bench* players.

That's what I was thinking reading thru some of the responses here.

If you are referencing my original post there had been talk all season about how the 76ers bench being particularly weak and their roster really top heavy. This isn't a novel take by me. With respect to the Warriors, this has been in discussion all season locally where Iggy has averaged career lows in minutes, points and near career lows in numerous other stats. Livingston is basically in the same boat. Now the discussion has ramped up with cousins out causing their bench to get even weaker.

I also have what may be a bombshell for some of the posters discussing benches from 10-15 years ago. Benches are statistically more important than they have been in last the 40 years because the NBA is being played at the fastest pace it has been since the 1985 season. A guy like Embiid, is absolutely gassed (even when he is in his best shape, which he isn't) if he gets above 33 or 34 minutes. Shaq between his 94-2003 basically never averaged less than 37 minutes in the the playoffs. In the 99-00 finals Shaq's minutes were 44, 46, 47, 47, 47 and 42 in a blowout. Embid last season in a highly competitive series against us 35, 35, 36, 38 and 41 (overtime). Thats 10 more minutes of bench play for the 76ers in the most competitive games (and it is not like shaq was ever known as being the most fit center in the league).

So obviously benches more than ever and this is a valid question to ask this season. Even if people disagree whether our Celtics 2008 bench players were good, average or bad is pretty irrelevant to the current discussion (aside from the 39 point massacre Ray allen averaged about 43 minutes in the champ season finals despite being 32.

So again, do people actually want to try and discuss this or is just too painful?

Yeah I don't get the part where people think benches aren't important... With the increased pace of today's NBA, even the most conditioned athletes can wear and get tired easily. To think otherwise is pretty arrogant, and downright stubborn.

Embiid is someone most people criticize for his lack of conditioning, because he gets gassed way too easily, and their best back up big is who really? Boban?

TP Monk. I was kind of surprised with the level people downplay the bench cause the advanced writers like Lowe that many seem to respect routinely talk about teams bleeding points with specific players off the floor. I guess to be fair it is hard to keep track of stars playing ten minutes less a game in playoff series than they may have 20 years ago and not understanding the difference in bench value. The pace difference is also just insane. In the old days you could rest on defense some, especially as a big. Now if you are not running around closing out on 3's or switching you are giving up points in 5 seconds. It is mind boggling how different the game is.

Boban is actually a decent back-up big though.  McConnell is a pretty darn good back-up PG.  Scott has been a quality rotational player for years.  Simmons started 50 games last year and averaged 14 ppg while doing so.  Again a quality back-up.  They have Greg Monroe, their top rookie Zhaire Smith, along with rookie Bolden and Ennis (who started 25 games for the Rockets this year) on the deep bench.  The Sixers bench is actually pretty good as benches go.  Their bench, however, isn't good as starters or playing starter minutes.  That is where the top heaviness of the Sixers really comes into play because if a starter goes down (injury, fouls, or ejected) they don't have capable starters on the bench (whereas a team like Boston has plenty of players you would feel ok with as starters).  If the Sixers starting 5 can stay healthy and in the game, then their bench is just fine.

[celticsclay]

Y’all have some pretty ****in high standards for *bench* players.

That's what I was thinking reading thru some of the responses here.

If you are referencing my original post there had been talk all season about how the 76ers bench being particularly weak and their roster really top heavy. This isn't a novel take by me. With respect to the Warriors, this has been in discussion all season locally where Iggy has averaged career lows in minutes, points and near career lows in numerous other stats. Livingston is basically in the same boat. Now the discussion has ramped up with cousins out causing their bench to get even weaker.

I also have what may be a bombshell for some of the posters discussing benches from 10-15 years ago. Benches are statistically more important than they have been in last the 40 years because the NBA is being played at the fastest pace it has been since the 1985 season. A guy like Embiid, is absolutely gassed (even when he is in his best shape, which he isn't) if he gets above 33 or 34 minutes. Shaq between his 94-2003 basically never averaged less than 37 minutes in the the playoffs. In the 99-00 finals Shaq's minutes were 44, 46, 47, 47, 47 and 42 in a blowout. Embid last season in a highly competitive series against us 35, 35, 36, 38 and 41 (overtime). Thats 10 more minutes of bench play for the 76ers in the most competitive games (and it is not like shaq was ever known as being the most fit center in the league).

So obviously benches more than ever and this is a valid question to ask this season. Even if people disagree whether our Celtics 2008 bench players were good, average or bad is pretty irrelevant to the current discussion (aside from the 39 point massacre Ray allen averaged about 43 minutes in the champ season finals despite being 32.

So again, do people actually want to try and discuss this or is just too painful?

Yeah I don't get the part where people think benches aren't important... With the increased pace of today's NBA, even the most conditioned athletes can wear and get tired easily. To think otherwise is pretty arrogant, and downright stubborn.

Embiid is someone most people criticize for his lack of conditioning, because he gets gassed way too easily, and their best back up big is who really? Boban?

TP Monk. I was kind of surprised with the level people downplay the bench cause the advanced writers like Lowe that many seem to respect routinely talk about teams bleeding points with specific players off the floor. I guess to be fair it is hard to keep track of stars playing ten minutes less a game in playoff series than they may have 20 years ago and not understanding the difference in bench value. The pace difference is also just insane. In the old days you could rest on defense some, especially as a big. Now if you are not running around closing out on 3's or switching you are giving up points in 5 seconds. It is mind boggling how different the game is.

Boban is actually a decent back-up big though.  McConnell is a pretty darn good back-up PG.  Scott has been a quality rotational player for years.  Simmons started 50 games last year and averaged 14 ppg while doing so.  Again a quality back-up.  They have Greg Monroe, their top rookie Zhaire Smith, along with rookie Bolden and Ennis (who started 25 games for the Rockets this year) on the deep bench.  The Sixers bench is actually pretty good as benches go.  Their bench, however, isn't good as starters or playing starter minutes.  That is where the top heaviness of the Sixers really comes into play because if a starter goes down (injury, fouls, or ejected) they don't have capable starters on the bench (whereas a team like Boston has plenty of players you would feel ok with as starters).  If the Sixers starting 5 can stay healthy and in the game, then their bench is just fine.

Please correct calling Jonathon Simmons a quality backup if you want people to bother discussing your points. He has literally been one of the worst players to play in the entire league the last few seasons. -4.1 OBPM, -.6 DPM, -5.4BMP,  -.7VORP. 38% shooting, 27% from 3. Please correct this and we can continue, but right now it is hurting my eyes to see written. Quality backup lol.

[Moranis]

Y’all have some pretty ****in high standards for *bench* players.

That's what I was thinking reading thru some of the responses here.

If you are referencing my original post there had been talk all season about how the 76ers bench being particularly weak and their roster really top heavy. This isn't a novel take by me. With respect to the Warriors, this has been in discussion all season locally where Iggy has averaged career lows in minutes, points and near career lows in numerous other stats. Livingston is basically in the same boat. Now the discussion has ramped up with cousins out causing their bench to get even weaker.

I also have what may be a bombshell for some of the posters discussing benches from 10-15 years ago. Benches are statistically more important than they have been in last the 40 years because the NBA is being played at the fastest pace it has been since the 1985 season. A guy like Embiid, is absolutely gassed (even when he is in his best shape, which he isn't) if he gets above 33 or 34 minutes. Shaq between his 94-2003 basically never averaged less than 37 minutes in the the playoffs. In the 99-00 finals Shaq's minutes were 44, 46, 47, 47, 47 and 42 in a blowout. Embid last season in a highly competitive series against us 35, 35, 36, 38 and 41 (overtime). Thats 10 more minutes of bench play for the 76ers in the most competitive games (and it is not like shaq was ever known as being the most fit center in the league).

So obviously benches more than ever and this is a valid question to ask this season. Even if people disagree whether our Celtics 2008 bench players were good, average or bad is pretty irrelevant to the current discussion (aside from the 39 point massacre Ray allen averaged about 43 minutes in the champ season finals despite being 32.

So again, do people actually want to try and discuss this or is just too painful?

Yeah I don't get the part where people think benches aren't important... With the increased pace of today's NBA, even the most conditioned athletes can wear and get tired easily. To think otherwise is pretty arrogant, and downright stubborn.

Embiid is someone most people criticize for his lack of conditioning, because he gets gassed way too easily, and their best back up big is who really? Boban?

TP Monk. I was kind of surprised with the level people downplay the bench cause the advanced writers like Lowe that many seem to respect routinely talk about teams bleeding points with specific players off the floor. I guess to be fair it is hard to keep track of stars playing ten minutes less a game in playoff series than they may have 20 years ago and not understanding the difference in bench value. The pace difference is also just insane. In the old days you could rest on defense some, especially as a big. Now if you are not running around closing out on 3's or switching you are giving up points in 5 seconds. It is mind boggling how different the game is.

Boban is actually a decent back-up big though.  McConnell is a pretty darn good back-up PG.  Scott has been a quality rotational player for years.  Simmons started 50 games last year and averaged 14 ppg while doing so.  Again a quality back-up.  They have Greg Monroe, their top rookie Zhaire Smith, along with rookie Bolden and Ennis (who started 25 games for the Rockets this year) on the deep bench.  The Sixers bench is actually pretty good as benches go.  Their bench, however, isn't good as starters or playing starter minutes.  That is where the top heaviness of the Sixers really comes into play because if a starter goes down (injury, fouls, or ejected) they don't have capable starters on the bench (whereas a team like Boston has plenty of players you would feel ok with as starters).  If the Sixers starting 5 can stay healthy and in the game, then their bench is just fine.

Please correct calling Jonathon Simmons a quality backup if you want people to bother discussing your points. He has literally been one of the worst players to play in the entire league the last few seasons. -4.1 OBPM, -.6 DPM, -5.4BMP,  -.7VORP. 38% shooting, 27% from 3. Please correct this and we can continue, but right now it is hurting my eyes to see written. Quality backup lol.

He didn't play well in Orlando this season, but he has been pretty darn good in Philly and was much better his prior 3 years, so I would tend to think his time in Orlando to start the season was a bit of a fluke.  Maybe he was playing out of position, maybe he wasn't a good fit with his teammates, etc. 

So yes, I maintain that Simmons is a quality player as the 8th or 9th person on the bench (clearly he is behind McConnell and Scott, and probably Boban). 

[celticsclay]

Y’all have some pretty ****in high standards for *bench* players.

That's what I was thinking reading thru some of the responses here.

If you are referencing my original post there had been talk all season about how the 76ers bench being particularly weak and their roster really top heavy. This isn't a novel take by me. With respect to the Warriors, this has been in discussion all season locally where Iggy has averaged career lows in minutes, points and near career lows in numerous other stats. Livingston is basically in the same boat. Now the discussion has ramped up with cousins out causing their bench to get even weaker.

I also have what may be a bombshell for some of the posters discussing benches from 10-15 years ago. Benches are statistically more important than they have been in last the 40 years because the NBA is being played at the fastest pace it has been since the 1985 season. A guy like Embiid, is absolutely gassed (even when he is in his best shape, which he isn't) if he gets above 33 or 34 minutes. Shaq between his 94-2003 basically never averaged less than 37 minutes in the the playoffs. In the 99-00 finals Shaq's minutes were 44, 46, 47, 47, 47 and 42 in a blowout. Embid last season in a highly competitive series against us 35, 35, 36, 38 and 41 (overtime). Thats 10 more minutes of bench play for the 76ers in the most competitive games (and it is not like shaq was ever known as being the most fit center in the league).

So obviously benches more than ever and this is a valid question to ask this season. Even if people disagree whether our Celtics 2008 bench players were good, average or bad is pretty irrelevant to the current discussion (aside from the 39 point massacre Ray allen averaged about 43 minutes in the champ season finals despite being 32.

So again, do people actually want to try and discuss this or is just too painful?

Yeah I don't get the part where people think benches aren't important... With the increased pace of today's NBA, even the most conditioned athletes can wear and get tired easily. To think otherwise is pretty arrogant, and downright stubborn.

Embiid is someone most people criticize for his lack of conditioning, because he gets gassed way too easily, and their best back up big is who really? Boban?

TP Monk. I was kind of surprised with the level people downplay the bench cause the advanced writers like Lowe that many seem to respect routinely talk about teams bleeding points with specific players off the floor. I guess to be fair it is hard to keep track of stars playing ten minutes less a game in playoff series than they may have 20 years ago and not understanding the difference in bench value. The pace difference is also just insane. In the old days you could rest on defense some, especially as a big. Now if you are not running around closing out on 3's or switching you are giving up points in 5 seconds. It is mind boggling how different the game is.

Boban is actually a decent back-up big though.  McConnell is a pretty darn good back-up PG.  Scott has been a quality rotational player for years.  Simmons started 50 games last year and averaged 14 ppg while doing so.  Again a quality back-up.  They have Greg Monroe, their top rookie Zhaire Smith, along with rookie Bolden and Ennis (who started 25 games for the Rockets this year) on the deep bench.  The Sixers bench is actually pretty good as benches go.  Their bench, however, isn't good as starters or playing starter minutes.  That is where the top heaviness of the Sixers really comes into play because if a starter goes down (injury, fouls, or ejected) they don't have capable starters on the bench (whereas a team like Boston has plenty of players you would feel ok with as starters).  If the Sixers starting 5 can stay healthy and in the game, then their bench is just fine.

Please correct calling Jonathon Simmons a quality backup if you want people to bother discussing your points. He has literally been one of the worst players to play in the entire league the last few seasons. -4.1 OBPM, -.6 DPM, -5.4BMP,  -.7VORP. 38% shooting, 27% from 3. Please correct this and we can continue, but right now it is hurting my eyes to see written. Quality backup lol.

He didn't play well in Orlando this season, but he has been pretty darn good in Philly and was much better his prior 3 years, so I would tend to think his time in Orlando to start the season was a bit of a fluke.  Maybe he was playing out of position, maybe he wasn't a good fit with his teammates, etc. 

So yes, I maintain that Simmons is a quality player as the 8th or 9th person on the bench (clearly he is behind McConnell and Scott, and probably Boban).

Simmons was awful for 1.75 seasons in Orlando. Philly fans considered Brown giving him 11 minutes of playing time in game 1 for a bench worst -16 a fireable offense. Brett Brown got the memo, and didn't put in Simmons game 4 until it was a 30 points game in the 4th quarter (he was out of the rotation).

He has been objectively one of the worst basketball players in the league for 140 games across two seasons. And even in his 15 games you are citing as better with the 76ers he was still a negative player on OBpM, dbpm and BMP. You really stepped in it with your comment, do you really want to keep digging? I may have to bring in some philly posters for this if you do.

[Moranis]

In 17-18, Simmons was worth 1.9 WS, he had a TS% of 55.5 (33.8 from 3 and 51.2 from 2) and a PER of 12.7.  He scored 13.9 ppg, grabbed 3.5 rpg, and dished 2.5 apg.  In Philly this year he is shooting 42.9% from 3 and in his 15 games contributed 0.5 WS.  Again that is all fine for a 9th man.