Who starts at the 2 and 3?

[og15]

That is another likely scenario. The hard decision will be how to end games. Seems like you have to play Pierce, but do you go with Redick or Stephenson at the 2. Maybe the flow of the game will decide. Maybe sometimes you go small with Blake at C and the lineup of:

Paul / Redick / Stephenson / Pierce / Griffin

[nickhx2]

hard to see lance being in over jj at the end of games. actually no wait, doc is still the coach so that's totally a thing, unfortunately.

but i can see dj being taken out, even though i don't think it helps us most of the time.

[TucsonClip]

That is another likely scenario. The hard decision will be how to end games. Seems like you have to play Pierce, but do you go with Redick or Stephenson at the 2. Maybe the flow of the game will decide. Maybe sometimes you go small with Blake at C and the lineup of:

Paul / Redick / Stephenson / Pierce / Griffin

Without Pierce on the roster (or healthy) you go with Redick and then Lance/Crawford (if hes still around).

With Pierce around now (and healthy) you have plenty of options.

Other team in bonus (pre 2 minutes left): CP3 - Redick - Lance/Jamal - Pierce - Blake
Floor Spacing: CP3 - Redick - Johnson - Pierce - Blake
Defensive: CP3 - Rivers - Lance - Blake - DJ
Closer: CP3 - Redick/Lance - Pierce - Blake - DJ

As far as your initial question of Redick/Lance it depends on the matchups and how Lance/Jamal are playing. Redick gets the nod in the last 2 minutes, but you can make a case for Lance/Jamal before that.

[QRich3]

The fact that it is even a question baffles me. I don't know if I'm way too down on Lance, but expecting him to contribute more than Redick on a team he's a significantly worse fit is way too optimistic in my eyes. Even Jamal is a better option than Lance to play with the starters, at least he can spot up decently. And I'm not sure which one is more of a ballhog.

Wesley is still a major upgrade over our backup 3 from last season, which was essentially no one.

Don't talk about the man, the legend, Hedo Turkoglu like that

His sleeved t-shirt will be forever in our hearts

[TucsonClip]

The fact that it is even a question baffles me. I don't know if I'm way too down on Lance, but expecting him to contribute more than Redick on a team he's a significantly worse fit is way too optimistic in my eyes. Even Jamal is a better option than Lance to play with the starters, at least he can spot up decently. And I'm not sure which one is more of a ballhog.

The reason this is still a question is because we need a reliable defender to close out games. Take your pick between Lance, Rivers and Johnson or Redick. Pierce will be on the floor late. I think Redick closes out the remaining few minutes and we can go offense/defense with Pierce, but I fully expect Doc to embrace Lance as a defensive sub with the starters, while allowing him creation ability for the 2nd unit.

[BlzMwt]

That is another likely scenario. The hard decision will be how to end games. Seems like you have to play Pierce, but do you go with Redick or Stephenson at the 2. Maybe the flow of the game will decide. Maybe sometimes you go small with Blake at C and the lineup of:

Paul / Redick / Stephenson / Pierce / Griffin

if DJ doesn't finish games or gets a lack of touches/minutes he's probably not gonna be happy. I wonder what was promised to him to get him to come back to LA for 5 years, I would assume some assurance that he would be involved with the offense more as Dallas had promised him that role

obviously it's not in the team's best interest to indulge in that but do you not think this was the expectation given to him to get him to come back to LA?

The fact that it is even a question baffles me. I don't know if I'm way too down on Lance, but expecting him to contribute more than Redick on a team he's a significantly worse fit is way too optimistic in my eyes. Even Jamal is a better option than Lance to play with the starters, at least he can spot up decently. And I'm not sure which one is more of a ballhog.

I only brought it up because the article offered some good points. Redick is by far the better fit with the starting lineup, giving them more space to operate and he ends up with clean looks from the attention of CP3 and blake. But with an offense that is and has been at the top of the league for the last few seasons, offense becomes a little redundant does it not? I thought that it was an interesting question. that IF stephenson were to play at a level close to his Indiana days (i know that's a big if) would he benefit the team more by helping the starting line up's defense more? CP and Stephenson would be a top defensive backcourt in the league. And redick provides some stability and consistency on a bench that could lack that for the first few months of the season if not longer

points have been made, particularly by Ramna, that clearly support redick starting (i didnt realize rivers and redick didn't have the best chemistry) but i thought it was an interesting question

if not atleast it is a bonus that we have some semblance of depth so we are able to pose the question in the first place lol

[QRich3]

We've already discussed this and I know most of you guys don't agree with me, so I won't beat on it too much, but Lance is a good defender in the same way Austin is a good defender. He has the body for it and can look intense and scrappy when the spotlight is on him, or when he's defending 1-on-1. But he's not an intelligent defender nor a guy that can make good reads on clutch moments. I'd much rather close games with Redick and Pierce, even for defensive purposes, as short/old as they are.

I think you guys are thinking too much, the starting/closing 5 has to be Paul/Redick/Pierce/Blake/DJ, for so many reasons. Anything other than that is overthinking for the sake of it imo.

[mattd13]

first, lance has proved nothing with the clippers. plus team defense is an important factor. sometimes one on one is overrated. rotations is the key in the nba. everybody gets beat. you need smart players who can execute the game play and make the right play at the end of games. also do not count out jamal. it looks like he will be in the mix. if lance can not make shots he will not last. I hope he does well for the clips but I have my doubts. l know many think jj is lacking on defense but he is surely underrated. do not forget about free throws.

[Neddy]

That is another likely scenario. The hard decision will be how to end games. Seems like you have to play Pierce, but do you go with Redick or Stephenson at the 2. Maybe the flow of the game will decide. Maybe sometimes you go small with Blake at C and the lineup of:

Paul / Redick / Stephenson / Pierce / Griffin

who plays the interior defense if the game is within just a few points and less than 2 minutes to go? it already takes out hack a DJ at that point, especially if we are the team that is up by a few points, I would much rather prefer a bigger lineup that works the clock while defending the rim.

[mttwlsn16]

DJ at the 2, Aldrich at the 3

[Ranma]

points have been made, particularly by Ramna, that clearly support redick starting (i didnt realize rivers and redick didn't have the best chemistry) but i thought it was an interesting question

Like I said before, this discussion is rife with possibilities. With regard to the Redick and Rivers chemistry, someone better than me needs to confirm or refute this. I can't say for certain that the particular duo is lacking in chemistry but it didn't seem like they played together all that much and nothing stood out to me when (if?) they did.

Something that seems to be overlooked right now is Redick's tendency to start off hot at the beginning of games before his perpetual-motion court movement takes its toll and renders him significantly less effective towards the end of games. Redick's floor-spacing presence along with this reliable free-throw shooting makes him a very attractive option to be among those to close out games. However, for a former Duke player accustomed to big-game situations, he has been relatively disappointing in his finishes as a Clipper.

I'm hopeful that Lance Stephenson's performance will allow Redick to conserve his body more to maintain his stamina throughout the game and season. The key will be to keep him warm and loose as well as rested and energized. Having said that, I still advocate for J.J. to be among the team's regular closers. I do agree that matchups and performances on a given night could change that on a game-by-game basis, but by in large, Redick should be out on the floor during crunch time.

Stephenson has exhibited a tendency of melting down or committing boneheaded plays during key moments in...ahem..."blowing" it (sorry, couldn't help myself), but the hope is that he will change his stripes under new leadership and with renewed opportunity. He just has to earn that trust my showing more discipline in his game in these situations before he can be counted on to do more. Like mattd13 said, Lance has proven nothing with the Clippers as of yet.

[QRich3]

Something that seems to be overlooked right now is Redick's tendency to start off hot at the beginning of games before his perpetual-motion court movement takes its toll and renders him significantly less effective towards the end of games. Redick's floor-spacing presence along with this reliable free-throw shooting makes him a very attractive option to be among those to close out games. However, for a former Duke player accustomed to big-game situations, he has been relatively disappointing in his finishes as a Clipper.

I think more than him being disappointing at the end of games you don't remember him doing a lot stuff, but that's mainly because he doesn't get the ball, he doesn't get plays called for him like he does at the start of games, and a lot of the times he's riding the bench because of the Jamal show.

But I do remember him hitting the 3 that killed the game with 2 minutes left against San Antonio in game 6. I remember him hitting back-to-back threes that got us back into game 7 when we were struggling to score with like 5 minutes left. I remember him being tasked with guarding the MVP runner-up in the second round, and doing as great a job at it as anyone's done.

I think we should be giving him more responsibility at the end of games, not less. On both ends too. Plus, he's a guy that helps your team off the ball a great deal, something none of the others can do. And that's, again, on both ends.

do not forget about free throws.

That is a great point too. End of games, it's pretty important to have guys who can get to the line and be automatic, and that's one of the reasons I can understand the case for the Paul-Redick-Crawford line up at the end of games. Those three are among the top 10 FT shooters in the league, and that's the quickest, most efficient way to get points at the end of close games.

[Ranma]

I think more than him being disappointing at the end of games you don't remember him doing a lot stuff, but that's mainly because he doesn't get the ball, he doesn't get plays called for him like he does at the start of games, and a lot of the times he's riding the bench because of the Jamal show.

But I do remember him hitting the 3 that killed the game with 2 minutes left against San Antonio in game 6. I remember him hitting back-to-back threes that got us back into game 7 when we were struggling to score with like 5 minutes left. I remember him being tasked with guarding the MVP runner-up in the second round, and doing as great a job at it as anyone's done.

I think we should be giving him more responsibility at the end of games, not less. On both ends too. Plus, he's a guy that helps your team off the ball a great deal, something none of the others can do. And that's, again, on both ends.

Oh, I remember his end-of-game contributions including his underrated defense where he stuck to the opposing shooter right up against him without fouling and extending his arms up to force a tough miss to win the game for us. He's also come up empty in individual games against San Antonio and Houston these past playoffs. Against the Spurs, he was the focus of their defense so that was excusable. Against, the Rockets he was just as cold as everyone else, but it's moments like those where he should step up when, again, he's been used to big game situations in college.

Of course, J.J. has had his moments, but like I said, he hasn't really lived up to expectations as a clutch player as he's not exactly Ray Allen. He's surprisingly also missed quite a few late-game free throws last season. The point being is that he has not been that consistent and, as I mentioned before, his late-game production doesn't match up with his numbers to start games.

Just look at his 2014-15 regular season statistics broken down by quarter below. Click on the images of each table for the direct links to the source material.

NBA.com 1st Quarter Statistics


NBA.com 2nd Quarter Statistics


NBA.com 3rd Quarter Statistics


NBA.com 4th Quarter Statistics


NBA.com 1st Overtime Statistics



As the numbers for his scoring average, FG%, 3P%, and even FT% show, he is not as effective at the end of games as he is to start them. His 1st quarter numbers are his best while his 4th quarter and OT numbers are his worst. He did show a little more life with his 3rd quarter numbers after the half-time break, but again, his performance fades as the game winds down towards its conclusion.

You can argue that his limited opportunities in those circumstances have contributed to lower production and I do think there is some truth to that. However, as his shooting percentages for overall field goals and 3-pointers clearly show, he just hasn't made the most of the opportunities given to him during the 4th quarter and overtime. This is most likely due to the aforementioned stamina issue I cited with regard to his constant motion in the offense.

You're welcome to look up his numbers for every year, but I briefly compared his 2013-14 season and they broke down in similar fashion and I suspect they'll be just as consistent throughout his career. In any case, his most recent seasons are more telling, anyway. Like I said, Redick's numbers at the close of games scream anything but clutch and are disappointing to say the least.

[QRich3]

I still think all of that is more related to volume and situation than it is to any sort of inability to perform late. He doesn't get shots late, he didn't last season or the previous one, and the ones he gets are off broken plays where the shot is a lot tougher, so naturally his percentages are also lower. Stamina might play a part, but not any more than it would for any other player, JJ's conditioning has always been superb.

The only reason he's not Ray Allen (or close to him when it comes to big shot making) is because he hasn't been put in the same situations Ray did to success, I have no doubt. He's a good shooter that will knock down shots at a good rate if he gets them.

In any case, as much as you can not like his scoring late in the game, I suggest you go look at the numbers for the alternatives (Lance, Austin, Wes, even Crawford). You'll love Redick's bad percentages after that

[mattd13]

the good news is that the team looks to be much more balanced and ready to compete for a title. barring any long term injuries, they look to be in a great place. I can't wait get started.

[nickhx2]

Something that seems to be overlooked right now is Redick's tendency to start off hot at the beginning of games before his perpetual-motion court movement takes its toll and renders him significantly less effective towards the end of games. Redick's floor-spacing presence along with this reliable free-throw shooting makes him a very attractive option to be among those to close out games. However, for a former Duke player accustomed to big-game situations, he has been relatively disappointing in his finishes as a Clipper.

I think more than him being disappointing at the end of games you don't remember him doing a lot stuff, but that's mainly because he doesn't get the ball, he doesn't get plays called for him like he does at the start of games, and a lot of the times he's riding the bench because of the Jamal show.

But I do remember him hitting the 3 that killed the game with 2 minutes left against San Antonio in game 6. I remember him hitting back-to-back threes that got us back into game 7 when we were struggling to score with like 5 minutes left. I remember him being tasked with guarding the MVP runner-up in the second round, and doing as great a job at it as anyone's done.

I think we should be giving him more responsibility at the end of games, not less. On both ends too. Plus, he's a guy that helps your team off the ball a great deal, something none of the others can do. And that's, again, on both ends.

do not forget about free throws.

That is a great point too. End of games, it's pretty important to have guys who can get to the line and be automatic, and that's one of the reasons I can understand the case for the Paul-Redick-Crawford line up at the end of games. Those three are among the top 10 FT shooters in the league, and that's the quickest, most efficient way to get points at the end of close games.

yes. almost positive this has everything to do with doc's reliance on jamal crawford and/or ISO heavy play. jj is still a beast no matter what stage of the game.

if things don't work out for him here, i will forever be a jj redick fan and would love to see him on a team like the spurs that would let him maximize his talents every step of the way.

[madmaxmedia]

That is another likely scenario. The hard decision will be how to end games. Seems like you have to play Pierce, but do you go with Redick or Stephenson at the 2. Maybe the flow of the game will decide. Maybe sometimes you go small with Blake at C and the lineup of:

Paul / Redick / Stephenson / Pierce / Griffin

I think it's totally situational. Do we have the lead? Are our starters gassed? Is it a slow game, or an up and down the court game? Is the other team playing small ball or big ball? Do we need scoring punch, or do we need to try to slow down the other team's leading scorer?

We have a great mix of different guys to choose from. If you could combine the best attributes of Redick and Stephenson you'd have a perennial all-star. We don't have that, but we can at least choose between them (and the other guys) based on what's going on in the game.

[madmaxmedia]

I don't have much expectations or hope regarding Wesley Johnson. Pierce and Stephenson are the 2 additions that will play ahead of him, to me Johnson is bench filler type. If he ends up being more significant, then I will just take it as a pleasant surprise.

has johnson ever played with the kind of coaching and veteran presence that this team has? Or a winning environment?

his best form of leadership likely came from an injured kobe who wasnt interested in the team, a pau gasol who wanted out, and kevin love who wanted out?

im not saying he will make a complete turnaround but the different circumstances and context could definitely be a boost for him

He could, and I hope you're right.

But in 5 years (and now at the age of 28) he hasn't shown anything noteworthy on an NBA court, at least with any real consistency. He is athletically gifted enough that there always could be potential. I think maybe if you really got him to focus on doing 1 or 2 things really well, he could be an effective sub. The great thing about him is that his birthday is only 1 day away from mine.

[mj_shoefanatic]

Redick & Pierce w/o a doubt!

[nickhx2]

eh, we just gotta get lucky. fortunately it's a great spot for WJ to figure himself out and become a consistent nba player.

don't forget that matt barnes took many years before he learned how to NBA.