laika wrote:I don't agree that McAdoo offers anything of net value. The 3.5 minutes he's been averaging in the first 3 quarters is time the Warriors are conceding to their opponen
It's really not, though. They played him and the line-ups performed well - there is simply no basis for your claim. And why would Kerr concede time to their opponents? Doesn't make any sense. It's pretty obvious that McAdoo sees minutes when Kerr sees fit. Mostly it's when a mobile big outhustles us or hits perimeter shots we are unable to defend. That's McAdoo's value. It's not much but it's not nothing either.
laika wrote:-The Warriors don't need to experiment. They need to give playing time to their likely playoff starting lineup and they are not doing this. Starting McCaw makes it all but impossible to give adequate minutes to a superior, but really inexperienced lineup. The two obvious choices for a playoff starting lineup are Iguodala/McGee and Iguodala/Pachulia. These lineups have very little experience, having playing 70 and 50 minutes together.
Their likely playoff starting line-ups includes a player who is currently injured, so they really can't give this line-up any minutes. Also, you don't seem to realize that Iguodala is the guy around everything evolves when we're making substitutions. Making him part of the starting five changes everything and that's beyond unnecessary in our situation. Durant is coming back and Iduodala is needed off the bench because he changes the dynamics of an already developed game as we see fit and that's invaluable. I would do exactly the same as Kerr and keep him coming off the bench. If anything you would play Barnes instead of McCaw with the starters.
laika wrote:-The Warriors don't rely that much on fixed rotations and they especially don't have any rotation since Durant's injury that needs to be strictly defined.
The Warriors absolutely do have established rotation patterns.
laika wrote:-You don't measure a lineup by if it is "net positive"(McCaw isn't net positive either- negative 2.5 oncourt since Durant out). You measure by how good the alternative is. The Warriors have been playing massively better without McCaw since Durant has been out.
Again: I don't care how line-ups with McCaw fare in garbage time and against the Spurs without our five best players and neither should you or anybody else. So yes, relevant McCaw line-ups are a net positive.
Secondly, you make assumption you cannot justify. The alternative is not only about the direct results of a given line-up but also - and even more so - about the ramifications for the entire game and even following games. Insert Iguodala into the starting five and hell yeah that line-up is going to perform better. The same was true with Harrison Barnes and Iguodala. So why did Kerr put Iguodala on the bench in the first place? And the answer to this is exactly the same as the answer to the question why he keeps coming off the bench. It's about in-game adjustments he allows, impact he's having on line-ups after one of the players in the starting five sits and mascerading other players' deficiencies by playing them with the starters.
laika wrote:-Possibly needing to rely on a player in no way implies that that player must start. McCaw has had plenty of playing time already, and will get more as a future backup.
But we must start Iguodala in order to be better prepared for the playoffs even though he'll continue to come off the bench? I really don't get the notion. If Kerr wants to use certain line-ups more then he can do it without starting Iguodala for the remainder of the season.
laika wrote:-Your 4 game sample doesn't make sense. Are you confident that Curry won't play any 4th quarters the rest of the year? Can you guarantee that Curry isn't tired right now?
It does make sense because you said the starters need rest and that playing McCaw doesn't help that. The reality is that they got rest with McCaw starting so your argument seems pointless as it stands. Is there any guarantee that Curry won't play any 4th quarters the rest of the year? Well it is guaranteed that he will no matter who starts. If Curry is tired then he needs to be rested. I trust Kerr and Curry here, no need to argue with pure hypotheticals.
But since you're into guarantees and hypotheticals: can you guarantee that the line-ups with McCaw won't perform better from here on? I mean, it seems likely that a Rookie inserted into a functioning line-up due to an injury in the middle of one of the toughest road trips in the history of the NBA won't work well immediately and that the line-ups will improve steadily.
laika wrote:-It certainly wasn't thanks to McCaw that the Warriors have had a decent minute distribution the last 4 games.
Nobody says that. I'm going out on a limb and say that maybe this guy Iguodala had impact off the bench and changed the games. We were dominant the last four games again - unsurprisingly it took some time given the circumstances - so it worked well overall. But you still see the need to make drastic changes hoping that everything will be even better while not taking into account how those changes affect the entire game and not only one specific line-up.
I mean, we can talk about adjustments and hypotheticals on this board as much as we want. But I totally understand the coach who just sticks with what has been generally working - especially since the adjustment you proposed considerably intervenes in something we've done for almost three years with great success. Not everything in basketball can be broken down into pieces and analyzed as single line-up data. Starting Barnes? If Kerr thinks it helps then go for it. Starting Iguodala? No thank you.
