playa-hater wrote:Smart2Nesmith43 wrote:playa-hater wrote:Serious question. Is there anyone who is OK playing 8 players in game 3 of a long season?
It's better to play 8 guys in October to stack up wins early and have the possibility to rest guys down the stretch than to have a 12 man rotation early on, drop games you shouldn't and be forced to play your top 8 players 40 minutes a night in March/April. Besides it's not like they were overly taxed by the previous two games (or the amount of effort they put in tonight).
I am not advocating for a twelve man lineup... But eight is the extreme on the other end.even if stacking up wins early is the main goal,
I jus dont see how Queta for and example hurts that cause..same for Walsh playing in the 2nd quarter..My belief is a 9 man.Rotation or ten may actually strengthen our ability to win. All while getting players like Queta and Walsh more experience down the road in case of injuries.
Because they are significantly worse than any player that saw the floor for the Celtics in that game. Considering it was like a tie game with a minute to go, it's not crazy to think that giving even a few minutes to worse players during the course of the game would have flipped the outcome.
Fun fact, the minutes for all five starters are down from last year (significantly so in Tatum's and Holiday's case) and the Celtics are unbeaten. Seems to me that Mazzulla is doing a great job of balancing winning and keeping guys fresh for a long playoff run. That's the part that matters. Whether the bench minutes are distributed between three, four or five guys so we can say we run a rotation with x, y or z number of players in it doesn't really matter.