Bench those nasty thoughts
Sunday, April 13, 2008

Fellow basket-blogger PhDribble has tasked us and others with a bold mission: Do away with "the cult of the starter." Foster conversation about whether stars should come off the bench, or remove any stigma when writing about reserves. Perhaps this will spark a revolution, or at least a TrueHoop link.

We like PhDribble quite a bit--even if Doctor Dribbles is this close to sending a cease-and-desist--and we like going against the conventional wisdom, too. But this is kind of crazy, right? An NBA where coaches ask max-contract stars to give up starting spots? Which cuts the distinctions between starters and reserves? Perhaps we're mere cultists, but the idea struck us as sheer lunacy.

Naturally, we considered it.



Teams have won with this strategy. Ballhype's Jason Gurney points out the Spurs' success with Manu Ginobili; we remembered how the raw Ervin Johnson started and the aging Sam Perkins closed for the great mid-90s Sonics. Teams have lost by ignoring the strategy, too. PhDribble notes how Detroit--with an established core of veterans in 2003--erred by drafting Darko Milicic over Carmelo Anthony, largely to avoid the roster controversy of Melo pushing Tayshaun Prince for a starting spot.

Interestingly, PhDribble contends that some stars don't co-exist well; for example, the Rockets might be better if Yao Ming and Tracy McGrady played as little of the game together as possible. To some extent, that suggestion "feels" right--simply, Yao is slow, T-Mac is fast, and the Rockets could tweak their on-court quintet to maximize each star's skills. Plus, some stats and performance seem to bear the idea out. Houston won ten games in a row even without Yao, as McGrady boosted his scoring average; according to 82games.com, the pair have a lower winning percentage and adjusted +/- this year when playing together than playing apart.

In fact, unlike Deron Williams/Carlos Boozer, or Pau Gasol/Kobe Bryant, Yao/McGrady might be the most incompatible pair of stars in the NBA...which is why we think PhDribble's argument falters. Let's explain.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Performance

Looking at the bigger picture, most good NBA coaches can structure a system to feature multiple stars' strengths, such as Mike D'Antoni incorporating Shaq into the Suns or Don Nelson maximizing the Warriors' run n' gun. For their part, unless a player needs the ball in his hands--like an aging and one-legged Chris Webber--the greats can learn to complement one another, like the Celtics' or Wizards' trios. And even if Yao and T-Mac are particularly ill-matched, they still make for a more formidable combo together than apart.

First, the Rockets' +/- stats this year are thrown off by their massive winning streak with Yao injured. Looking back on similar figures from 2006 and 2007, the team clearly was better with both stars on the floor. Plus, Yao and McGrady were each more productive players this year when playing together; without Yao drawing the double team, T-Mac's FG% and 3P% measurably fell even as his shot attempts jumped up, while Yao's own performance slid and his turnovers went up 30% per game as he tried to do more without T-Mac.



PhDribble also proposes Melo and AI as another mismatched set of stars. Again, the +/- this year backs that up, a bit...but it was just the opposite last year. Given that the +/- data isn't conclusive, we'd contend it's the lack of talent around the stars that's kept Denver from clinching a playoff berth.

Frankly, most stars play better when they've got superior players surrounding them, creating more opportunities and allowing the star to do more within a role. Although Manu's devastating off the bench, even he's more productive as a starter than as a sub.

Pecking order

As goathair pointed out, bloggers can try and change perceptions, but there will always be five starters; with starting spots come minutes, as a coach wants his five best players on the floor in hopes of establishing an early lead--he's not looking to inject energy at the five-minute mark unless the team needs it.

And as we'd argued, this hierarchy is key; it incents reserves to fight for more minutes, not accept their place off the bench. Acknowledging such hierarchies, PhDribble wonders if having a pecking order is "necessary or a crutch?"--but we think even talent-laden teams need a rotation.

For example, the 1995-1996 Kentucky Wildcats were an unbelievably loaded college basketball team; the NCAA champs featured eight future NBA players (five starters, three reserves), even after coach Rick Pitino red-shirted one player (future 2nd round draft pick Jared Prickett) and ran off another (future NBA swingman Rodrick Rhodes) to further avoid team infighting. If there was ever a team that could blur the distinctions between starters and reserves, it was this one. And sure--ten guys ended up playing regular minutes, but only five players started 24 or more games, as even Pitino needed to establish a consistent rotation for game-planning purposes.

Perks

Having attended last night's Wizards victory, we were reminded yet again--it may not be the United Center circa MJ, but there's nothing like a crowd of thousands chanting your name during introductions.



There's so little stigma associated with being a reserve in the NBA, when you think about it; the average bench player somehow deals with a multiple million-dollar contract, a huge per diem, fancy hotels, and indiscriminate groupies. It's a comfortable life for many players who never scratched their full potential...really, there should be more incentives for starting positions, not fewer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We do agree on one point, though: There's considerably more greatness coming off the bench than just Manu or Leandro Barbosa. So we'll do our part to help celebrate it.

As some folks know, we're hosting the final edition of this year's blogger NBA awards...and thinking of ways to better recognize the reserves, we've come up with the new "Seventh Man" award, which is exactly how it sounds.

It probably won't make TJ Ford feel better about losing his spot to Jose Calderon, or get John Salmons to stop sulking.

But when de-programming cultists like us...it's a start.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Crucifictorious @ 22:10,

15 Comments:

At April 14, 2008 1:49 PM, Anonymous Joe said...

Could Boozer and Kirilenko be the most mismatched duo? AK-47 lost his bread and butter when Boozer returned; he's still pretty good as a three, but what if he spotted Carlos as the 4 off the bench (and Boozer played some at 5, instead of Okur)?

 
At April 14, 2008 2:01 PM, Blogger Allen said...

In total agreement with you.

Who cares if you start, as long as you get "starter's minutes"?

On that note, a maximum of minutes played should be the criteria for the sixth man of the year, not how many games you didn't start.

 
At April 14, 2008 3:33 PM, Blogger Truth About It said...

It's all about the ego. Basketball players are just like lawyers.

The TJ Ford-Calderon thing is interesting.

Calderon has obviously become the better player, yet has volunteered to come off the bench.

Perhaps Mitchell actually "volunteered" Jose, but I think that everyone noticed that TJ was more effective as a starter...immediately jumping in the game and providing his little-man spark from the get-go.

Meanwhile, Calderon gladly comes from the bench to manage the game with his precise limp-wristedness.

It's no surprise that he's a Euro....where most all budding superstars, would-be NBA lottery picks, pay their dues coming off the pine.

As the easy out to this argument, it's a CB-squared situation(case by case basis).

Unfortunately, most NBA coaches do not have the pull, or gonads, to do what's right for their team....and in many cases, it's the need for some type of spark plug to come off the bench and put the ball through the net.

I feel like I'm rambling. That is all.

 
At April 14, 2008 9:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not who starts the game... it's who finishes. just ask the Mavs and Jason Kidd.

Manu finishes all the games and plays more than some of the starters.

 
At April 15, 2008 9:36 AM, Anonymous holder said...

the blazers call give themselves two team names - red and white - rather than starters and the bench.

Nate McMillan often talks about how the white team did.

helps reduce the felling of heirarchy

 
At April 15, 2008 10:52 AM, Anonymous fenster said...

the idea of one star coming on, another going off is nifty but not really feasible anyway. it's not like Yao Ming is going to play only 24 minutes and Tracy McGrady will play the other 24 minutes.

 
At April 15, 2008 2:02 PM, Blogger Justin said...

Longtime NBAer Scott Padgett also redshirted in '95-96.

 
At April 15, 2008 7:38 PM, Blogger www.ivblogz.com/reviewsandrants/ said...

You know what's great about the great We Rite Goode blog? Not only is it consistently great thanks to its great writing, great topics and great analysis, but it also uses the word "great" greatly. I had no idea so many things qualified as great, like the "great mid-90's Sonics". That's great!

 
At April 15, 2008 8:15 PM, Blogger Crucifictorious said...

Joe- It's a tiny sample size of 125 minutes, but a Boozer-Kirilenko-Millsap-Brewer-Williams lineup has been great for the Jazz over the course of the year (however, AK still plays the 3 in that scenario).

Allen and Anon, great points and totally agree. Manu plays nearly as many minutes as Kevin Garnett, as much crunch time as any star, and certainly more PT than half the starters in the league.

Truth, we forgot that TJ was back in the starting lineup...in part because he was less than great off the bench. An example of how sending starters to the pine doesn't always fly.

Holder, didn't know that--and makes perfect sense in Portland, which has been great with getting buy-in from younger players.

Fenster, you have to admit: When you can rotate players like that in NBA Live, it's great for their numbers.

Justin, that Wildcats team was great, wasn't it? But think Padgett had academic problems (so it wasn't just a redshirt to prevent roster problems).

IVblogz...you don't make a very goode point.

 
At April 16, 2008 2:47 PM, Blogger www.ivblogz.com/reviewsandrants/ said...

crucifictorious, do you mean to tell me that you're OK with GP and Kemp's Sonics being called great?! I understand every basketball fan feels for the Sonics these days, but great teams don't get run out of town in the first round of the playoffs by low ranking teams -- TWICE!

Would you call Dirk's Mavericks a historically great team?

Would you mention the mid-90's Sonics in the same sentence with the Showtime Lakers? ... The '86 Celts? ... Jordan's Bulls?

 
At April 16, 2008 8:57 PM, Blogger Crucifictorious said...

Putting aside several oddities--such as why a site built around misspellings is arguing semantics with a blogzer--yes, those Sonics were great. Not "historically great"...which wasn't what was written...but great. We'll stand behind that.

Between 1992 and 1998, the average Sonics team went 60-22--the same record the Bulls averaged over that span--with several statistics suggesting that the Sonics were the more dominant regular season team.

Obviously, the playoff failures kill the comparison--beyond the first-round losses, the Sonics had zero titles to the Bulls' four. But Payton and Kemp took a pair of Finals games from the winningest team ever--and lost two game 7s to extremely good Suns and Rockets teams. And even if they underachieved in the postseason, does that mean discounting the 82+ games that came beforehand?

The Mavs comparison is a good one, as they're arguably this decade's Sonics (although, we'd argue that a pre-cocaine Kemp/Payton/Schrempf/Hawkins core was stronger than Dirk/Howard/Terry/Harris). And, with a little distance, we'd think those 60-win Mavericks teams were pretty great, too. But not historically so.

Obviously, we differ on the definition...greatness seems a few levels below transcendence. And does it only accompany titles? We'd argue that the 1996 Sonics--rallying from crushing first-round losses to win 64 games and challenge the Bulls--achieved a measure of the word.

Moreover, can't multiple teams be great in the same season, even though only one can take the crown?

 
At April 18, 2008 2:51 AM, Blogger www.ivblogz.com/reviewsandrants/ said...

This post has been removed by the author.

 
At April 18, 2008 3:00 AM, Blogger www.ivblogz.com/reviewsandrants/ said...

Ha ha! First off, I had no say in my site's silly name.

Second, while I'm no English major, when someone talks about a team that disbanded a decade ago, I think it can only be a discussion of their place in history. And referring to GP's Sonics as, "[THE] great mid-90's Sonics", is unwarranted.
I’m sure we can all agree those Sonics teams underachieved, right? Those Sonics can't be described as both great and underachieving anymore than Renee Zellweger can be described as both hot and ugly. The mid-90's Sonics were underachievers and nothing more.

The fact that you have to describe truly great teams as "transcendent" in order to call teams like those Sonics "great" is crazy! That's what I've been saying all along. Calling the mid-90's Sonics great cheapens the word.

I think we're seeing several great teams play this season, and it's the most exciting season I've watched in the past 14 years. We'll look back at this one for a long time. But I think there is a huge difference between a team that has a great season and a team the is great.

The '96 Sonics had a great season. The '06 Mavericks had a great season. Those weren't/aren't great teams (but the Mavs still have a chance to change that).

 
At April 20, 2008 1:44 PM, Blogger Crucifictorious said...

IV, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Your own response illustrates the semantic difficulties--so there are "several great teams" this season...but there's a "difference between a team that has a great season and a team the is great." Clearly, "great" is a useful catch-all word...and when comparing the Sonics and Bulls, most fans know to make a distinction.

Of course, we share your opinion--we would never say "the great Miami Heat teams of the mid-2000s"...championship aside, that squad has lost more games than won over the past seven years. But even if we followed your methodology and specified a year, say, "the great Sonics of 1995-1996"...it sounds like you'd disagree on principle, given your antipathy toward that team.

We appreciate your well-argued thoughts, though, and hope you'll challenge us on other things we've written. Since debating etymology isn't a great use of any fan's time--especially during the playoffs--we hope you'll find something more discussion-worthy in the subject of one of our posts, rather than keying on a throwaway reference.

 
At April 21, 2008 4:13 PM, Blogger www.ivblogz.com/reviewsandrants/ said...

Oh, absolutely. I like this blog. I had never heard of it until True Hoop linked to it last week. I'll be reading regularly.

(And I'm glad you mentioned the Heat. I agree that a championship title doesn't make a team instantly great. I'm wondering how history will treat the Pistons if they lose more games like they did against the Sixers.)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


link to onlinedegreeadvantage.com
online degree programs guide