Why start your starters?

[Wannabe MEP]

I don't think there's anything to the "let's start crap because it doesn't matter anyway" idea. But the kernel idea here, which is incredibly valuable, is that the first 10 minutes of the game, or each half, are not MORE important than the rest of the minutes. Good teams figure out how to play good basketball for 48 minutes, perhaps in part by limiting the quality of the starting crew in order to save some quality for later.

The Spurs are an excellent example to look at here. They had a consistent starting crew throughout the season and most of the playoffs: Parker-Green-Kawhi-Duncan-Splitter. But take a look at their minutes breakdown in the playoffs...

Spurs 2014 playoff minutes
752 -- Tim Duncan
736 -- Kawhi Leonard
719 -- Tony Parker
604 -- Boris Diaw
586 -- Manu Ginobili
529 -- Danny Green
516 -- Tiago Splitter
356 -- Marco Belinelli
351 -- Patrick Mills
136 -- Matt Bonner
101 -- Aron Baynes
87 -- Cory Joseph
65 -- Jeff Ayres
6 -- Austin Daye

Diaw and Ginobili weren't "starters" most of the season, but they were de facto starters. The go-to unit wasn't the starters -- it was Parker-Manu-Kawhi-Diaw-Duncan.

I think there are three things going on here:

1) Pop wants two of TP, Duncan, and Manu on the court at all times. If they each play 32 staggered minutes, that's easy to do: 16 with TP-Duncan, 16 with TP-Manu, and 16 with Manu-Duncan. (It's never that exact, but that's the basic idea.) The Spurs are at their best with all three of these guys on the court, but they know they can't do that for 48 minutes, so they're not gonna start that way. But they'll play that card when they need to.

2) When you play the Spurs, you know you're going up against the big Duncan-Splitter frontcourt, so you've got to prepare for it. Some teams even go big to match. But then Pop swaps in Diaw for Splitter, and it's a completely different offense. I think there's a bit of a sleight-of-hand trick at play here. But it's also just about forcing teams to defend two very different styles.

3) The Spurs played 7 de facto starters, and then 2 more guys play consistent backup roles. In important games, it's a 9-man rotation, with two guys under 20 min and the other seven circa 30 min (e.g., game 1 of the NBA Finals: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=400559374). There are 240 regulation minutes, which is 8 guys playing 30 min each. The Spurs did roughly 7 guys playing 30 minutes, and then split those last 30 minutes between two players.

[JTrain]

a.) In order to get their required minutes, then they must play the rest of the game with little to no rest. So, when we get the mid way point of the 4th, the opponent has subbed in rested starters vs. our unrested starters who havent sat since the 1st quarter.

The idea would be, in games where you were employing this strategy, to play your "starters" less than they would typically play. So a player that would typically play 36 minutes would only need to play about 28-30 minutes under this strategy. So in quarters two through four, you have your "starters" available for 28-30 minutes, while they have theirs for 23-25 minutes. If the strategy works, you still win the game while keeping your "starters" fresher later into the season.

Again, the only way it could work is if a) your bench unit is not a significant drop off, and b) you aren't playing a great team with an explosive offense. You keep it within reason after the first, then the psychology of the game naturally leads to a swing to tie it in the second or third, at which point you have the advantage of fresher "starters" from that point forward.

[BurningHeart]

I hate the notion that the first quarter doesn't matter. In the NBA, where you can have corrupt officiating take your star player out with two quick fouls in the first, complexions of games change big time in the first quarter or first half.

[NavLDO]

I hate the notion that the first quarter doesn't matter. In the NBA, where you can have corrupt officiating take your star player out with two quick fouls in the first, complexions of games change big time in the first quarter or first half.

All the more reason to start while playing "small ball" for us. Start:

IT
EB
Dragic
Green
Marcus

Set the pace and put up as much as possible early on--then sub out Dragic for Warren, Green for Tolliver, Marcus for Randolph, and finish out the 1st Qtr.

IT
EB
Warren
Tolliver
Randolph

Start the 2nd Quarter:

IT
Green
PJ
Kieff
Plumlee

Let Plumlee rack up a couple of PFs, then sub in Len for Plumlee, EB for IT, Dragic for Green, Warren for PJ, Marcus for Kieff:

EB
Dragic
Warren
Marcus
Len

There's your first half, and hopefully, at that point, no player has more than 2 PFs. Then you play whoever gives you the best chance to win from there on out, but I'd at least start the 3rd Qtr with your best offensive group:

IT
EB
Dragic
Green
Kieff

So then you set the tone for the 3rd Qtr and either hopefully build upon any lead you have, or erase the debt you have...either way, you get the momentum swinging in your direction. And by that point, IT has about 22-24 minutes, so he has a reputable amount of minutes. But I would hope that Hornacek is able to average close to 32 minutes each for our 3 PGs, but still gets minutes to Green--at least 24 or so. I would like to see our best scorers get at least 25 minutes (IT, EB, Green, Dragic, Kieff, and hopefully, Warren) Defense is nice and all, but keep the pace up and put up 112-115 pts a night and make them score to win. Yeah, I know, sounds funny, of course you have to score, but I mean force them to put up 113-116 to win. Some teams just won't be able to. Sounds, easy, right!

[JTrain]

Not really related, but I'd like to see how an All-Defensive Team would fare.

Bledsoe
Archie
PJ
Keef
Plumlee

I imagine they have probably been on the court together at some point, but I don't remember it specifically.

[WorldBeFree]

If your the theory would work on paper i still dont believe in a game this would work. Some players are starters the play better when they play right after warming up, they feel better when they start and some players are better bench players, they have a way to change the game while coming of the bench (manu). Also i dont believe stars would want to come of the bench

Sent from my D2303 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[phrazbit]

Not really related, but I'd like to see how an All-Defensive Team would fare.

Bledsoe
Archie
PJ
Keef
Plumlee

I imagine they have probably been on the court together at some point, but I don't remember it specifically.

Thats a pretty rough "All Defensive" team. The only two of that group that I'd say are plus defenders are Bledsoe and PJ. Plumlee is up and down, Archie is an unknown and Keef is pretty bad on that end.

[lilfishi22]

My All-Defensive team:

Goran
Bledsoe
PJ
Shav
Plumlee