Page 1 of 1
More Important? Starters vs Bench
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:08 pm
by NuggetsWY
Golden State & San Antonio tend to not replace injured starters with their top bench players. They seem to prefer keeping their key bench players as a unit.
Which is more important; do start the very best players regardless of what it does to the bench, or keep the key bench players as a unit? Should the chemistry of the bench be considered when substituting for an injured starter?
*** *** ***
Which current Nuggets players make the best bench players?
Barton?
Lyles?
Hernangomez? When healthy.
Beasley?
How about Plumlee, Faried, Arthur?
What about Mudiay?
Who should be considered "key bench players"?
Re: More Important? Starters vs Bench
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:08 pm
by Mickey8
Only time when injured player have blatantly destroyed the team chemistry that I can remember , coming back from the injury is Chris Webber in 2003/2004 season, Sacramento Kings were playing one of the best basketball in the league and probably would have gone deep in the play offs that season if it wasn't for his return messing everything up.
I cant really relate this Nuggets team to that situation, because this team didn't play that great basketball and didn't have a great success while Jokic and Millsap have been out as Sacramento King did that season . Denver have been average team at best .
Re: More Important? Starters vs Bench
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:59 pm
by NuggetsWY
Mickey8 wrote:Only time when injured player have blatantly destroyed the team chemistry that I can remember , coming back from the injury is Chris Webber in 2003/2004 season, Sacramento Kings were playing one of the best basketball in the league and probably would have gone deep in the play offs that season if it wasn't for his return messing everything up.
I cant really relate this Nuggets team to that situation, because this team didn't play that great basketball and didn't have a great success while Jokic and Millsap have been out as Sacramento King did that season . Denver have been average team at best .
However, Millsap is injured, then Jokic is injured, then another veteran needs a game off and all of a sudden Malone is complaining about the bench - and so are the fans, including here.
Would it be better if the starters were Jokic, Faried, Chandler, Harris, Murray with the key bench as Plumlee, Lyles, Barton and use Arthur, Beasley, Mudiay, Hernangomez, maybe Craig, Lydon, even Morris to fill in for injured players?
Re: More Important? Starters vs Bench
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:45 am
by Mickey8
I think Lyles deserves some time at PF position , he's playing very well right now , but I would like to see Faried in the lineups as well , he's often forgotten man, either you play him or trade him.
Re: More Important? Starters vs Bench
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:02 am
by THE J0KER
Except in Jokic/Harris/Millsap case (+Murray since next season), I really don't care who will start the game or not, but what really often concerns me about Denver this season is minutes distribution. When guys like Ginobili, Terry, L.Williams, Crawford, E.Gordon... etc... coming from the bench as teams arguably at least TOP4 players, they all get team's at least TOP4 mpg in all those seasons where they are that good.
For example, I want to see Barton as our SF starter, but I respect current option where he is our prime backup solution for three (PG-SG-SF) positions, so despite coming from the bench, he is actually our TOP3 mpg player this season with over 31mpg, so no reason to complaining. But here is where I see the problem - Chandler played tonight in Portland his season-best match, but generally speaking, he is probably our biggest disappointment so far this season, so starter or not, SF or PF, how on Earth he is our TOP3 player in mpg (minutes per game)???
It is funny to talking about this tonight when Jokic finally gets minutes which belongs to franchise players, when Lyles finally gets minutes which she deserves this month, and when Chandler finally deserved all his minutes on the court, but I think you all understand what I'm trying to say. For me "minutes distribution" is what really should be reflected on players quality, current form, and team's current requests, not necessarily on formal Starters/Bench formations. Also, under Malone, we are one of those teams which often not finish halftime and match with all starting 5 players, which makes this Starters/Bench question less important than in most of the others league teams where the status of starter means much more by default.