Non-traditional way of looking at basketball rotations
by Clevelander among roses on Oct 17, 2009 1:53 AM PDT
47 comments
Over the past couple of days I've heard much gnashing of teeth over Nate's proposed starting line-up of Blake, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, and Pryzbilla. People are up in arms and angry because it's been obvious that Miller is better than Blake and that Oden is better than Pryzbilla. The most common arguments defending this arrangement are the fit, with shooting balancing driving. I, however, believe that Nate is looking at his line-up in an unconventional, yet effective manner. He is deliberately not playing all of his best players at the same time in an attempt to maximize the number of shots taken by offensively efficient players, which is one of the reasons that the Blazers had one of the top offensive efficiencies last year despite not getting fast break points.
Let's take the starting lineup that most fans want - Miller, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, and Oden. If you start them together, then you have four offensively talented players (sorry Nic), but you still only have one ball to split between them. It's a waste of talent on that end. When they go out, Rudy, Blake, Travis, Joel, and Martell come in, and start dividing shots among themselves, which gets ugly since there's not a real penetrator among them - only Travis can really create his own shot among that group, and if you put the ball in his hands, then you get a stifled offense, as he doesn't have the distribution skills necessary to run the offense through him. There's no one in that line-up that really pressures the opponent.
On the other hand, Nate's proposed lineup of Blake, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, and Pryzbilla puts two of our top 4 scoring options in a position to be assertive right away, with no need to call plays for the other three. Then, when Miller, Rudy, Martell, Travis, and Greg come in, there are plenty of players to feature. There is never a moment when the Blazers don't have two primary options to call plays for by mixing the line-ups this way.
If you look at Nate's rotations last year, it becomes obvious that he doesn't have a traditional view of starting your best five players. On the other hand, I do think that he tries to play his best players the heaviest minutes, no matter when they come in the game. By not getting caught up in traditional basketball thinking, Nate gives this team the best chance to succeed. It may be frustrating when the other team races out to a lead because we don't have our best line-up to start the game, but I've checked the rule book, and baskets scored in the first couple of minutes of the 2nd quarter count just as much as baskets scored just after the opening tip.
Nate's rotation strategy is a whole-game view. It's not a coincidence that this team specialized in coming from behind, like marathon runners that outlast sprinters in a mile-long race, because that's what Nate has set this team up to do. He spreads his best offensive players out, instead of bunching them together, because that's the way he can maximize their shots over the whole game, which seems like a winning strategy to me.
8 recs |
47 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I've been saying the same thing...
…in one of the other discussions. Nice to see someone else agrees.
"I'm polymerized tree sap and you're an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns to its original projectory and adheres to you." - Sheldon
by TubbaDubba on Oct 17, 2009 3:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
There won't be two lineups.
Players usually get subbed in two minute stagered stretches, not as a platoon. It’s very likely that in the playoffs Roy or Adridge will be on the court at all time and the rotation will be shortened to 8 or 9 players.
Players have longer gaps between games so rest isn’t as much of an issue. For instance, Miller played 43 minutes a game for Philly during the playoffs last season and fatigue wasn’t a problem.
The idea of a white and black squad is great in practice, but it doesn’t actually make sense in a game.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 17, 2009 4:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I understand the staggering
My point is that the staggering works more to the Blazer’s benefit this way than a traditional line-up would on one condition: That Nate actually gives the most minutes to the most effective players, no matter when they initially come into the game. I saw evidence of that last year, when Travis and Rudy got more minutes than Batum, despite the fact that Batum was a “starter”, so I’m not worried that Nate is choosing his starting line-up based on who he wants on the court the most.
If you ever hear of someone punching out a girl scout and stealing her Samoas, it was me
- Mortimer
by Clevelander among roses on Oct 17, 2009 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
He should choose the starting lineup based on who starts the game the best. Last season we were terrible in first quarters, so it seems like the starting unit should probably change. Miller is good at starting games, dictating tempo, and establishing the low post, so starting him and Oden makes the most sense to me.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 17, 2009 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
well,
There we will have to disagree. If Nate’s goal was to win the 1st quarter, then I’m sure playing the 5 best right out of the gate would be the best plan. I’m sure, however, that his real goal is not winning individual quarters so much as winning games.
If you ever hear of someone punching out a girl scout and stealing her Samoas, it was me
- Mortimer
by Clevelander among roses on Oct 17, 2009 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The first quarter is part of the game.
If you don’t win the first quarter you have a much harder time winning the game, especially against the better teams like LA. It was also the worst quarter overall for the Blazers last season. The Blazers need to score more in the first quarter, dictate the tempo better, and establish a low post presence.
Fortunately, Miller is dynamite at all those things. Starting him is the easiest way to fix everything that was wrong with the way the Blazers started games. The “second unit” will be fine with lineups like Blake, Rudy, Webster, LMA, Przybilla. There is no second unit, so this idea that we need two separate cohesive units is silly. Miller will play with Rudy even if he doesn’t come off the bench.
People always bring up Ginobli coming off the bench, but ignore the fact that he starts more often tan not, and when he does start the Spurs have been very successful.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 17, 2009 11:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ginobli, Terry, Odom,
It seems like a lot of successful teams are playing possum with their best players. JR Smith and Dahntay Jones is another example from last year. In fact, you could reasonbly say that five of the top seven Western conference teams started players clearly inferior to their back-ups at some point last season.
As for the first quarter being part of the game, I agree. It’s a part of the game that is equally important to every other part of the game. Sacrificing 3 points of production in the 2nd quarter to win 2 extra points in the first is losing basketball, though. The Blazers proved time and again that they could come back from bad first quarters with later charges, even against the Lakers.
If you ever hear of someone punching out a girl scout and stealing her Samoas, it was me
- Mortimer
by Clevelander among roses on Oct 17, 2009 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's never multiple players and it's never the best PG.
Again, Ginobli starts more than half the time, so that argument doesn’t make sense. LA doesn’t have a de facto sixth man, so Odom actually has a legit role in that regard.
Portland already has Rudy, Webster, and Outlaw. We don’t need another offensive spark plug off the bench.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 18, 2009 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The idea of white and black squads is an excellent idea to start the season, and depth should help us win more games
and help from wearing down our team through out the season. I’ve said that crowding the starting line-up is not best for the team and is EGO based. If it’s EGO based start white one game and Black another that should keep everyone guessing, on other teams and keeping everyone in competition, plus as one or two players are changed out they get more comfortable with each other. Which will allow if needed a shorter line up in play offs.
by prof.mike on Oct 17, 2009 8:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
An imperfect example
Assume that there are five individual matchups that are exactly even. Each of the matchups will win 1/2 the time. Also assume that there is a distinct skill level difference between each of the five levels so that 1 always beats 2, 2 always beats 3, 3 always beats 4, and 4 always beats 5. The conventional wisdom is to match 1 and 1, 2 and 2, etc. But if you put 5 on 1, 1 on 2, etc., you are guaranteed to win 4 and lose 1. This is clearly the winning strategy, but often ignored.
We all know that it doesn’t work that way in real life, but I think it is interesting to consider the possibilities in basketball strategy. What if we have a starting lineup that is generally better than most other starting lineups, but our subs are clearly worse (because of skill sets, not individual talents). On the whole, our overall team results may be less than 50%.
But if we position our players so that our starting unit is about even with most other teams, but our subs are far better, then we come out far above 50%. This is the winning strategy.
I think that Nate does this. He looks at the starting lineup in the perspective of how does the entire team look on the floor understanding that he has to spread the minutes around. If he can make a distinct mismatch on the floor for a period of time while keeping the rest of the game even, then he should.
Another, unrelated factor, is if you keep the best team off the floor until it is needed (falling behind, end of close games), you limit the other team’s ability to make adjustments to you best group.
www.sumnerlawpc.com
www.CenterForVetRights.com
by NoGame on Oct 17, 2009 8:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The cherry on top of the sundae:
Nate uses the second unit as the starting one in back to back games.
by amlmart1 on Oct 17, 2009 11:24 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Good analysis
The Spurs are the perfect example for this philosophy. Manu comes off the bench while Parker and Duncan start. It keeps their bench from having scoring woes and maximizes the offensive potential of their three best offensive weapons: Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker.
by kajuayn on Oct 17, 2009 12:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Manu has started in over half the games he's played.
And he comes off the bench by choice not just because Pop wants him too.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 17, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd love to see something saying that.
I’ve never heard, and frankly have a hard time believing, that Ginobli went to Pop and said, “Hey I know you want to start me, but I’d rather come off the bench if it’s all the same to you.”
For one thing, if Pop didn’t think it was best for the team he wouldn’t do it, regardless of what Manu wanted. More likely, Pop went to Ginobli and asked him to do it, and Ginobli bought into it.
But regardless of who’s idea it was, it wouldn’t happen if they didn’t believe it was best for the team, and they were pretty succesful doing it for a long time.
And what difference does it make that he did it in less then half his games, no one is saying Miller and Oden will never start again, it might not even last past the first month of the season. But it worked when they did it and it very well may work now with the blazers.
"I'm polymerized tree sap and you're an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns to its original projectory and adheres to you." - Sheldon
by TubbaDubba on Oct 17, 2009 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He starts most of the time.
Therefore I consider Ginobli a starter. Clearly Ginobli starting works, arguably just as well if not better than him coming off the bench. Consider this:
In 2006 Ginobli started nearly every game and the Spurs went 63-16, the best record in franchise history. The previous season he started every game he played in (72) and the Spurs won a championship.
“Sometimes I prefer coming off the bench.” -Manu Ginobli
In compairing the Blazers to the Spurs, Andre Miller would be Tony Parker, a no-range PG capable of drawing fouls. Brandon Roy would be Manu Ginobli, the all around talented shooting guard. It would actually make a little bit of sense to have Roy come off the bench. Oden and Miller not so much.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 17, 2009 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would actually make a little bit of sense to have Roy come off the bench
The problem is, Brandon seems to like to “ease” himself into the game, and a 6th man traditionally needs to come off the bench ready to strike a match
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 17, 2009 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That could be true.
But then what’s the problem with Miller or Oden starting since Roy eases himself into it anyway? Also, don’t teams only traditionally have one sixth man? I don’t see how you can have Rudy, Miller, and Oden all getting enough touches coming off the bench.
It’s the same problem.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 17, 2009 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
don’t teams only traditionally have one sixth man?
Yes. I just don’t think Roy would be a good choice for that role. I don’t think Nate would ask him to do it, and I doubt Brandon would embrace it like Manu has
We’re in agreement re: the RAMBO lineup. I don’t think Portland has or particularly needs a 6th man who can light it up. (Travis has been the “closest” candidate for that role in the last few years, but we saw that his game does not translate well in the post season.) I’d rather see reserve players like Blake, Webster and Przybilla rotated in and out of the lineup to give the starters a break. (Rudy too, when he’s healthy.) But the “white unit” concept is just window dressing: the team has talent, but they need clearly defined roles and to toughen up their defense more than worrying about being “2 deep” at every position
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 17, 2009 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
The idea of two units is just something Nate keeps saying so the the reserves won’t get jealous or something.
I can’t remember him ever using platoon squads.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 17, 2009 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the only time I remember Nate using platoons
was at Seattle. He had a “defensive trapping” bench unit that would come in the game as a change of pace. Obviously, he doesn’t have the personnel to do that here in Portland
Sergio was kind of a change-of-pace PG, I suppose. And that may make people think the Blazer’s bench unit should still be a “running” unit. But shoehorning Miller into Sergio’s role is a waste of Andre’s talent, he’s got so much more to his game than Sergo ever will have.
Nate said it again today at practice, the goal is to get a stop, then get the ball to the PG, and score early in the clock if it’s there. If not, set it up and score late in the shot clock. Miller and Blake can both do this, even though their styles are different. Andre is more of a “traditional” PG who dribbles the ball up the middle and dishes, or finishes the play himself (Portland needed this kind of player, so bad) Steve will take a couple of dribbles and look up the court and throw a kick-ahead lob pass, especially if LMA has beaten his man to the rim.
Both are effective, but Miller needs to be the starter. And the Blazer’s style of play doesn’t have to speed up or slow down when either PG is in the game. If the team plays better defense, they’ll get more opportunities to get easy baskets, early in the shot clock. If they don’t play good defense, they’ll get beat by contending teams and be boring to watch. (Except when Brandon’s in attack mode or when Greg is doing chin-ups on the hoop…)
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 17, 2009 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then how do you see...
…Miller, Roy, Aldridge, and Oden all getting enough touches with the first unit?
Doesn’t make sense.
"I'm polymerized tree sap and you're an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns to its original projectory and adheres to you." - Sheldon
by TubbaDubba on Oct 18, 2009 2:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy pick and pop with LMA
Miller PnR with Oden
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 18, 2009 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And actually...
…Miller, Rudy, and Oden are a perfect Combo for an efficient offense. It gives you a ballhandler, a post presence, and a 3 point shooter in the same lineup. What’s not to like about that?
"I'm polymerized tree sap and you're an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns to its original projectory and adheres to you." - Sheldon
by TubbaDubba on Oct 18, 2009 2:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um...
poor perimeter defense.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 18, 2009 2:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
So? like any of our combos are going to leave us with excellent perimeter defense?
If you ever hear of someone punching out a girl scout and stealing her Samoas, it was me
- Mortimer
by Clevelander among roses on Oct 18, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Partial quotes are great, lets look at the context.
Five games after Popovich announced Ginobili would be a starter “in perpetuity,” the league’s reigning Sixth Man of the Year would be headed back to the bench against Atlanta.
Ginobili accepted that familiar news with a familiar shrug, and a familiar sound bite.
“Whatever is best for the team,” he said. “Sometimes I prefer coming off the bench.”
Returned to his old role, Ginobili also returned to being himself.
In his ninth game since returning from ankle surgery, Ginobili turned in his finest outing of the season, pouring in 27 points and five 3-pointers to help the Spurs hold off Atlanta 95-89 at the AT
This just proves my point. It wasn’t Ginobli’s call it was Pop’s. Manu just did the good solidier thing and went along with it. It also reenforces the idea that Pop believed that was what was best for the team at the time. Ginobli has for a long time been the primary initiator of the offense when Parker wasn’t in there. Pop wanted the ball in one of their hands at all times.
Sound familier?
I agree with that part of this plan. I don’t want the ball in anyone elses hands running the pick and roll, which is the biggest part of virtually every teams offense.
Here is the bottom line for me.
I don’t care who starts. But the best offense is one with multiple options. I believe that boils down to three things.
1. A primary ball handler.
2. A post presence.
3. 3 point shooting to stretch the D.
If you can start RAMBO and still keep either Miller and Roy, and either LaMarcus or Greg on the floor at all times, thats a step in the right direction. Pop obviously felt it was easier to do with Ginobli coming off the bench. Otherwise you’ll have one or the other heading out early in the first any way so they can come back in when the other is coming off the floor.
Here’s my problem with RAMBO.
It’s not so much Greg and LaMarcus as that seems like a match made in heaven. It’s Miller and Roy that bothers me. If Miller starts you need a 3 point shooter starting at small forward in order to stretch the D. Miller will not give Roy or the post players as much room to operate because no one respects his shot from beyond the arc. That means Webster starts at the 3. That also means pretty awful perimiter D and the danger of leting the opposing teams best perimiter player get into an offensive rhythm early. If on the other hand you start Batum to add some D you don’t have that solid three point threat, unless Nicolas has really improved that in the offseason. Batum wasn’t bad last year, but Blake was the threat playing off Roy. I believe Nic shot 36% from three, and the vast majority of those were wide open. Blake shot mid 40’s most of the year with those same wide open shots. Miller shoots what, mid 20’s, at best.
The reality is none of us know best what combos are gonna work best until they’re actually given some time together during the season. But it’s not like Nate is crazy for even suggesting this. I fully support what I think is his reasoning behind this move. And if it doesn’t work, he’ll try something else that hopefully will.
P.S. – Please stop bringing up the fact that Ginobli started over half the games he’s played. Who cares? No one’s been saying that he always was, or always should come off the bench. Only that at times in the past that seemed to them to be their best option. and they were pretty succesful at it. Comparing one season to another when he did start and when he didn’t is also ridiculous. Many things change from one year to another whether it be with their own team or their competition. But if you want to play that game, in 2006-07, midway through the season Ginobli again went to the bench to help the Spurs to the best record in the leauge over the second half of the year, and, oh by the way they swept the finals that year too.
"I'm polymerized tree sap and you're an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns to its original projectory and adheres to you." - Sheldon
by TubbaDubba on Oct 18, 2009 2:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course it was Pop's call, he is the coach after all.
However, Ginobli also likes coming off the bench. If he didn’t, it probably wouldn’t work. Miller does not want to come off the bench. That’s the problem.
And yes, Ginobli usually starts, which is an important point. The Spurs are have NOT been better with Ginobli coming off the bench. I love Popovich, but to me it seems a bit like a gimmick. Even so, having one sixth man makes sense, having a platoon of 6’th men does not.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 18, 2009 2:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Nate's in charge of strategy, not BEdgers."
That’s crazy talk.
by Kaboomm on Oct 17, 2009 3:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nicely done
I would HATE being the opposing coach trying to match up with that second unit.
by Roadblazer on Oct 17, 2009 4:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think you want your 4 best offensive players in the game from the start, and at the end (unless you're protecting a lead)
and it’s a good idea to have a 6th man who can light a spark off the bench
I can think of a few championship teams over the years that used this approach, mostly Celtic and L*ker teams, but also the ‘88-90 Pistons. While it’s true that you want a player (or players) in the game at all times that can force a mismatch (then a double-team) either by his post play or penetrating ability, it’s also important that all 5 players on the floor be involved in the offense, or at least be considered a threat to score.
In Portland’s case, I like the RAMBO lineup because it provides a lot of offensive versatility, but it also includes a superior defensive player (Batum) who I think is going to become a long-time Blazer starting SF. As others have said, I’m not “as” concerned about a bench unit of Blake-Rudy-Martell-Travis-Przy because I seriously doubt those 5 will all be in the game together, unless the outcome has already been decided or there’s a rash of injuries or foul trouble to the starting 5. It’s very possible to start Miller and Roy and still keep the guard rotation “staggered” so one of them is on the floor during most of the meaningful minutes.
I also think it’s possible to use more ‘motion" in the offense and not rely on PnR, or one player in ISO and penetration for the entire 48 minutes. Again, the goal should be to diversify the offense and make it “less predictable” That’s a big reason why Andre was brought in…because what “worked” during the regular season last year wasn’t good enough in the playoffs. Nate can either learn from that post season experience, or stick with “what’s comfortable” for Brandon and LMA.
I’ve had high hopes for Miller and his BBIQ since hearing about his dinner conversation in Vegas, and I’d like to see him out on the floor with Roy, LMA and Greg as much as possible
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 17, 2009 5:44 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
There's a problem with RAMBO
Even though you are right, that there aren’t hockey style line changes, so that Miller or Roy can always be on the floor, if you use RAMBO, then the player who stays on the floor is also the player out there who’s already spent the most time without a breather, and that’s the person who would be the one most likely to initiate the offense while the other is out, which tends to be physically draining. Stagger the best players in, though, including starting our 7th, 8th, & 9th best players, and you will always have an offensive initiator who not only has to be game-planned for, and who can accentuate the skills of the people around them, but also who is rested and fresh.
If you ever hear of someone punching out a girl scout and stealing her Samoas, it was me
- Mortimer
by Clevelander among roses on Oct 17, 2009 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Miller played 43 minutes a game in the playoffs last season.
Philly runs way more than the Blazers, but Andre didn’t look fatigued at all to me. The man is a rock and minutes are not going to be a problem for him.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 17, 2009 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There aren't any back to backs in the playoffs
In fact, since Andre didn’t get out of the first round, most of his games were played with 2 days rest between them. It’s not the same as regular season games.
If you ever hear of someone punching out a girl scout and stealing her Samoas, it was me
- Mortimer
by Clevelander among roses on Oct 17, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.
How are you going to start Blake in the regular season and then play him 15 minutes or less per game in the post-season? Whatever the rotations are, in the end it’s going to be the best PG (Miller by a mile) getting the vast majority of the minutes.
It’s just not feasible having your best PG coming off the bench and I can’t remember a team that’s ever done it successfully. Dictating the tempo is part of a PG’s job and Miller does it beautifully. There is really no reason to bench him, especially if you are concerned about the flow of the game, which is the main reason I hear people say Blake should start.
Roy, Oden, and LMA are all going to start out stronger if Miller starts. Whatever spacing or familiarity Blake brings is completely negated by Miller’s ability to dictate tempo and establish the low post.
Nate’s pretty smart and I’ve got a feeling he’s just paying lip service to Joel and Blake. In the end I’m convince Miller and Oden will start, with Rudy as a offensive spark plug off the bench. If he wants to keep his job he won’t over think this too much. Heck, even Pop starts Ginobli more than half the time, and that’s just one guy. Benching both Oden and Miller is incredibly stupid IMHO, and probably won’t happen much if at all.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 18, 2009 12:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If by best point guard you mean the person that best initiates the offense
Then let’s get something straight: That’s not Miller. That’s Brandon Roy.
Nate will keep his job because he’s a winner and one of the best coaches in the league; he’ll probably be in danger of losing his job if he concerns himself with appeasing fans over making what he believes to be the best basketball decisions.
If you ever hear of someone punching out a girl scout and stealing her Samoas, it was me
- Mortimer
by Clevelander among roses on Oct 18, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blake initiates the offense, regardless if Roy is in the game or not
OTOH, Brandon runs high ISOs and PnRs from the top of the key
There’s a huge difference between what a point guard does and what Roy does. They make look similar, because Roy is dribbling out top and driving down the middle, but Roy is a scoring guard first and foremost and only distributes the ball when his path to the basket has been completely cut off by the defense. Roy’s favorite targets in these situations are shooters in the corners
Miller will make a believer out of you, playing alongside of Roy. You just haven’t seen enough of Andre/Brandon, yet.
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 18, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me straighten something out
I’m from Cleveland. I watched the Cavs draft and develop Andre Miller, and I believe that Andre Miller is a heck of a player — definitely better than Blake, just like I believe that Oden is better than Pryzbilla. I also understand that there are advantages to starting your best 5: it becomes easier to maximize their time in the game, as you just play them from the start of the half, give them a rest in the middle, and then play them until the end of the half again. Players develop some synergy, momentum builds, lots of different advantages.
What I believe, though, is that there are also advantages to playing ‘possum, too, and, say, subbing Andre in at the 6 minute mark with GO, having them play 15 minutes together, and subbing back out for the other 3. Whichever way Nate goes, I’m sure he’ll have good reasons, and that he’ll be trying to maximize his roster’s potential. And frankly, I trust Nate’s basketball sense and roster management skills. He’s a very good coach in this league. All I’m trying to do with this post, really, is to discuss what the possible reasons are for choosing not to start your best 5, and whether that is a viable basketball strategy, mostly because I don’t want people calling for Nate’s head if he employs it, since I believe strongly that he’s as good or better than all of the other coaches available, especially for this particular team.
If you ever hear of someone punching out a girl scout and stealing her Samoas, it was me
- Mortimer
by Clevelander among roses on Oct 18, 2009 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, tonight Miller played 38 minutes
and didn’t start either half. Foul trouble took Roy out of the game and the two of them only played together for less than 1:20 seconds until the 4th quarter…that’s not good
Sure, tonight’s game was an anomally but it does go to show that Andre is very capable of playing 16+ straight minutes in a half, just like Havlicek used to, ‘way back in the day. I’d rather see the 33 year old PG start, and get regular shifts and rest during each half, but if he can suck it up and play long minutes like that in the regular season, Steve Blake is going to be a short-minute reserve PG, and Rudy is going to become an afterthought
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 18, 2009 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
As I have posted before . . . Miller needs to be on the court when Roy isn’t. And Miller needs to be on the court when Oden is.
Of course I might be nuts. Or you might be, seeing as you are from Cleveland where you have to have a hunting license to catch mice.
~ visualize whirled peas
by BlazerMunky on Oct 19, 2009 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
depends when you rest 'em
Roy is used to playing around 10 minutes, at the beginning of each half
Miller is 33, so Nate can tell him play hard for 6-7 minutes, then send in Blake
At the 10 minute mark, in comes Rudy for Brandon. Let Steve and Rudy play together for a couple of minutes, ’til the quarter break. If the offense is stagnant, send Miller back in
For me, I’d rather have Brandon and Andre playing together for those initial 6-7 minutes and take the risk of the offense stalling for a couple of minutes at the end of the quarter. Because why? Because I want Roy and Miller to have played 6-7 minutes together at the beginning of each half so they’ll be sharp for crunch time, when they really need to be on the same page.
It’s going to be difficult (if not impossible) to get Roy and Miller those corresponding 12-14 minutes if Andre is coming in off the bench. (At least, not without seriously extending Brandon’s “shifts” to overlap with Andre.) Starting them both insures that they get the necessary time to gel, and eventually succeed in the most important time of the key games and ultimately be ready to win playoff series as a backcourt
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 18, 2009 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Best Five and The Extras
You make the premise that 4 offensive talents can’t play effectively together. I don’t agree. Just sitting here typing I’m thinking of the lineup of Drexler, Porter, Duck, Kersey, and Buck. I’m also thinking of the championship Celtics. I can also think of the original Dream Team. It seems like teams are able to work through that. I remember that the rockets having Olajuwon and Barkley on the same team had a little bit of crowing in the high post but even that seemed to work itself out.
I think your point can still be theoretically true… but it ignores some of the pragmatic realities of basketball. Balancing units in the way you suggest only makes sense if you actually want to play your second five an equal amount of time.
I just don’t think that’s the case. I don’t think many coaches and management find it desirable to give up but fractions of time to players after the first 6 or 7 and probably not even that much in the playoffs. The discussion over minutes and lineups implicitly recognizes the reality that these starting five players are going to get 30-40min a game (but for the curious case of Nicolas Batum) and after that: filler.
So to return to your post, your lineups would have to be “non-traditional” in the sense that the units of players would have generally equal minutes and that coach/mgmt would:
1) Agree that dividing the five best offensive talents would yield more points in total than playing together (a tough sell, I think)
2) That the talent gaps are not so egregious in either unit that they can be exploited by the opposition
3) This will not create problems in the psyche of the various players
4) That the pay-scale can somehow justify these lineups as well as the players being ok with the adjusted pay scales (this is your biggest problem, I think).
For me, I’d rather start RAMBO. Get the best five on the floor, play them generally the majority of minutes, and fill in. It makes little sense to have starting caliber players on the roster after about the #7 position unless it’s part of succession planning (let’s hope that’s the case with Bayless).
Buck Williams for the hall of fame
by Phizbin on Oct 18, 2009 3:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's possible that Miller might not match Roy
You make the premise that 4 offensive talents can’t play effectively together. I don’t agree. Just sitting here typing I’m thinking of the lineup of Drexler, Porter, Duck, Kersey, and Buck. I’m also thinking of the championship Celtics.
I think the worry is about the KIND of offensive talents. Last year we saw Bayless drive the lane with the ball, sometimes effectively, but take the ball right out of Roy’s hands. Miller also seems to be a ball-in-his-hands leader, which ordinarily can be a good thing. But if it shuts Roy out of the offense, it is not. This is, at minimum, a big coaching challenge. It’s also possible that Blake should start alongside Roy.
When you compare to the ‘90s Blazers and the ’80s Celtics, don’t forget that Porter was an excellent outside shooter, and the Celtics also had Johnson, Ainge and Bird all excellent from outside. That shows you the potential problem of not having shooters out there to help Roy.
by Kaboomm on Oct 18, 2009 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
as we heard tonight
Miller and Roy played together down the stretch and Andre was able to set Brandon up for some late-game heroics. Nic also hit a big three, so the RAMBO lineup could provide enough “spacing” to get the job done at the beginning of each half, if need be
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 18, 2009 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Remember, starting doesn't guarentee minutes
As Batum could tell you last year. In fact, I think that one of the ways that Nate can keep people happy is by starting some and giving the majority of the minutes to others.
I believe that no matter who starts at the 1-3-5, that the top minutes on the club are going to Aldridge, Roy, Miller, Oden, and Rudy (in that order). The ARMOR lineup is tough to pierce, even for RAMBO.
If you ever hear of someone punching out a girl scout and stealing her Samoas, it was me
- Mortimer
by Clevelander among roses on Oct 18, 2009 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Possibly...
but the economics demand minutes. You need five main players playing the majority of minutes at a budget of $x/minute… leaving you with 2-3 additional players at $y/minute. Everyone else at a practical minimum.
It’s simply not cost effective in the league economy to do otherwise… unless you assume that talent is more widespread than current conventional wisdom would have us believe.
Buck Williams for the hall of fame
by Phizbin on Oct 19, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not talking about a hypothetical team,
I’m talking about solutions for this Blazer squad. I don’t understand what that has to do with salary or economics, since the salary structure for this Blazer squad is in place for the 09-10 season.
If you ever hear of someone punching out a girl scout and stealing her Samoas, it was me
- Mortimer
by Clevelander among roses on Oct 20, 2009 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just wanted to say
to Larue, Clevelander and Nick — that was some great discussion. All three of you made legitimate points that had me nodding in agreement, and the discourse was civil the whole time even though you weren’t always in lockstep. Conversations like that one are what brought me to this site initially and keep me coming here. Thanks guys.
"I just sort of know that around the water cooler they talk of reality tv stars, and I strictly drink coffee." -- EvilKaramazov
by BlazersOrBust on Oct 19, 2009 9:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
