on the talent on your team.adelman,ramsey, dunleavey all had deep teams.so substitutions was a players problem.but when you have the talent p.j. had with strickland,sabonis,cliffy, or the team nate has now.substitutions patterns could be a bit of a problem.why because of the lack of talent these teams have.if player c is not producing right off the bat.the way nate does his coaching,that player is getting the boot right away.that bothers players mentally and definately affects their play.bottom line more talented teams subs pattern is no problem.less talented teams subs*patterns is more of a problem.

Some specific examples will illustrate what folks mean by substitution patterns.  Brandon having a fantastic first quarter, really on a roll, and Nate subs for him with a couple of minutes left in the quarter.  He then doesn't bring him back in until halfway through the 2nd quarter, at which point he's cold and has to work his way back in the game.  Or, LaMarcus having a great game, then at the end of the game, subbing in Magliore, who of course is three steps too slow on the defensive end.  Overall, not enough minutes for the starting five, and too many minutes for the end of the bench.  If Brandon doesn't average 40 minutes a night, then something is terribly wrong.  LaMarcus should get 35 minutes a night.  But he just doesn't seem to leave them in to play -- instead subbing in ways that disrupt their game.  My dad often says that Nate has written down on a piece of paper when he is going to swap players in and out, and that he is not watching how they are playing on that particular night.  Instead of putting the five best players of the night on the floor, he keeps rotating players in, even if it's not their night, thus leaving the ones who should be in the game on the bench.  That's poor substitution patterns.

The way I see it, John Wooden used to coach his team to ignore the other team and focus on doing what you want to do. Now, it helped that his 2nd stringers were usually better than the other teams 1st stringers but I think the philosophy applies to "substitution pattern".

Good teams have the luxury of getting into a routine where certain players come in at certain points in the game to spell the starters and know they'll be on the court for a reliable length of time. This is a luxury due to them usually being up or still in the game and not having to take drastic actions to save the game.

The starters know they have some latitude to make mistakes, the subs know they aren't going to get yanked for jacking up a ridiculous shot or that they don't have to do something amazing right off the bat to stay in the game. Everybody can relax and in relaxing increase their chances of playing their best.

Having a "good substitution pattern" is a proactive state of being that is self reinforcing. Good play results in a good substitution pattern, a good substitution pattern results in good play.

Being a lousy team the last few years, the Blazers have constantly been in a reactive mode resulting in a lower chance of success.

In no way has Nate had a hope of establishing such a pattern because he hasn't had the horses. This year will be more of the same not because of a lack of talent but because of a lack of experience. This won't be the last we hear him criticized for his lack of a good pattern.

A regular substitution pattern has a lot of benefits, especially if you have the depth to platoon.  It keeps guys fresh, you aren't tired at the end of the game, it helps morale that everyone (or at least ten guys) contribute regularly, before garbage time.

It reduces injuries.  I absolutely disagree with the idea that you want your best players to play 40 minutes a game.  That leads to wear and tear, injuries, and shortened careers.

A regular pattern also helps your second unit mesh together better over time, which can be a good weapon.  It also gives your younger players opportunity to improve their skills consistently, rather than in a haphazard way.

Drawbacks are that, when a guy is unconscious, you don't want to slow him down.  Also, if your patterns are predictable, that makes the other teams' scouting job a little easier.  They know what to expect when Roy is playing with Blake and Oden, but they don't have to worry that much about combinations Roy, Pryz, and Sergio might use, because they won't be on the floor together that much.

Also, if your second team can't get the job done, you can get blown right out of a game.  The flip side to that is that if your second team does get the job done, and keeps you in it or even builds a lead for you, then your starters are rested, and you're ready to roll.

In general, I'm a believer in platooning and regular patterns in the first half, and responding to game situations in the second half.  But there's a lot to be said on both sides of this one.  

I don't consider it bad coaching if substitution patterns aren't regular.  It is bad coaching if bench players don't have a clue when they are going to come in and what their role is going to be.

the only question is what is the pattern.  A pattern has a discernable internal logic.  It is replicable and predictable.

So in a substitution pattern what you want is something that makes sense, something that is predictable.  So, if you can't guess who a coach will put in the game, and if that player often does poorly compared with other alternatives it's a poor substitution pattern.  Good substitution patterns are when everyone knows what's going on and it works.

...refers to generally common situation in basketball, where you swap out one or more players for one or more players in order to gain a defensive or offensive advantage.  One of the most common situations occurs when a team is trying to make up points quickly at the end of the game, where a coach will substitute a "defensive stopper" for a "three point shooter."  This will also happen for big men, where someone like Shaq will come out on the denfensive end if he has five fouls, and they would put someone like Chris Mihm in order to foul.

I don't use the term "substitution pattern," but I think many fans (including me) question the coach's "substitution pattern" when our favorite player(s) doesn't get the minutes we think they "derserve"; when the player(s) seemingly get jerked out of the game after some mistake; when the player is "unproductive" because we don't think anything has been run for him; or when the results don't meet our fantasy outcome (e.g., Sergio does not get 5 assists in 5 minutes with innumerable fast breaks).

Coaches have a tough time pleasing fans whether it is in the sixth grade or the NBA.

Even if the player is someone most everyone likes (e.g., Brandon Roy), there will be someone who thinks he should play 40+ minutes a game and others who think anything over the low-30's risks burn-out and injury, and the failure to play the "right" number of minutes is evidence of poor substitution patterns.

We have a young team and it will take quite a while before everything jells (probably more than a year).  When one tosses in injuries, various mental distractions, mis-evaluating talent, and plain ol' mistakes (always more apparent with 20/20 hindsight), there will be lots of people complaining about poor "substitution patterns" (i.e., my player didn't get to play enough).

Obviously we fans don't see the whole picture, so here's hoping that Nate allows criticscm roll off like water off a duck's back (and he devines what is just the right amount of playing time for all players -- but especially for my favorites and we win 43 games as the best benchmark of good substitution patterns is winning more games).

For the shout-out, even if it is on a controversial subject.  Nice to see the mastermind behind these blogs taking time to view reader responses.  

As you stated, the phrase "substitution pattern" sounds a bit odd and the meaning is not clearly defined.  I agree with EnglandDan's separation of the two into Poor Sub Patterns/Good Sub Patterns.  I would recognize a good sub pattern based on time and score.  Having such a young team allows Nate more flexibility, but 40 games into this season it is vital Nate choose a core 5 to be playing the final few minutes of a seesaw battle.  Player mistakes are inevitable, especially with our youth.  Some readers have pointed out Nate's readiness to "yank" a player over a bad play.  This type of situational substitution is poor for the team in my belief.  Rhythm becomes nearly impossible and fragile psyches such as Outlaw's and Webster's (in my opinion) might suffer more than we know.  Above all though, the most unpredictable subsitutions from Nate come at the center position.  I noticed this in Seattle and then again in Portland.  This year Nate will be managing the most solid front-court of his coaching career.  I am confident he will make the right decisions.

of substitutions (and I am not a complainer because the coaches know far more than me). But this year may be an interesting kaleidescope of substitutions while Nate plays with his new toys. My memory of Jack Ramsey's first year (championship) was that he or maybe Shonz let us know that he platooned and would play 2 teams of 5 with an occasional substitution beyond the 10. That strategy was not that successful during the regular season but somehow jelled in the playoffs when we were able to outwork our opponents and the second unit took on a character of its own. This year we do have talent and we do not have experience with how they mesh together.

The versatility of this team in intriguing. Coaches might have a different starting lineup and a different platoon each night based upon the opponent. Some will work out. Some will not. But as the guys get more comfortable with each other and more confident in their game at this level I can see how effective the platoon system could be. There is not a team in the league that goes as deep talent wise as the Blazers. There is also not a team in the league that is as inexperienced as the Blazers. If we can avoid serious injuries (sometimes caused by playing too many minutes) and gain experience for the core 10 or 11 guys we will begin to win more games. That is the progress most of us will settle for this year and next. The future begins now and building for it is not the fan's job but the GM and the Coaches' job. I think we have been fortunate to have really good men in those jobs and they will get the job done without criticism from me about their substitutions.

One final thought - Nate seems to mean what he says about earning your minutes. This earning apparently happens in practice as well as in games.