Re: If incumbent starters are inconsistent, what should we do?
posted at 8/14/2013 6:11 PM EDT
In response to DaCeltics' comment:
I think if Green or Lee or Wallace are inconsistent scorers, we should plug Brooks into that Paul Pierce role in the offense as a starter.
I don't care if its at the 2 or 3.
Bradley we may have no choice but to stick with him. If Rondo isn't ready to go at the start of the season, we HAVE to get another floor general. Especially with Bradley's injury history.
But, if we had to start Pressey and back him up with Lee, that would be GREAT for losing!
If Bass lays bricks and goes through the motions, that's the easiest call. Start Sully or Olynyk.
Hump mails it in, you start Sully or any 7 footer we have win lose or draw. Always play the people who play HARD when you're a mediocre team. It keeps the boos away.
Starters are not necessarily "finishers" and the fast pace of today's NBA mandates a substitution system.You go with the hot hand or where the chemistry seems best. Defensively one must also change personnel because of match-up vulnerabilities. Sometimes we can dictate the matchups for the opposing team as, for example, a small but fast unit making the opponent change personnel.
After the first 10-12 games the resident statistician should begin to discern a trend in how the team performs best when certain combinations of players are on the floor. With more data we can begin to compare the effectiveness of individual players at particular positions. Is Olynyk a point forward who plays best at the "3" or "4" ....when should he play at the "5".
Thus we eventually settle on starters, 6th man etc., second unit etc. What we'd like to see is consistency because we then have a "known" quantity which reduces uncertainty. One must always respect the hot hand and position miss-matches too.
Some of these decisions can be tentatively made in preseason and adjusted over time. With DA at the helm one must also be aware of personnel changes (trades) and their impact on team chemistry.