HarthorneWingo wrote:JayTWill wrote:HarthorneWingo wrote:The team had two new starters to the rotation (40%) and no rim protection. We were inconsistent on both ends of the court. Maybe that’s why Thibs wanted them to get more minutes together?
But shouldn't they have performed better together over time if that was his plan?
The lineup he played most had a net rating +6.6 before January 1st. They had a net rating of -1.4 from January 1st to the end of the season but different starters missed time in that period which may have interrupted Thibs' plan.
At full strength in the postseason they had a net rating of -0.9 against the Pistons in the first round. They had a net rating of -9.5 against the Celtics in the second round and a net rating of -12.5 against the Pacers in the conference finals.
Better? We went to the ECF for the first time in 25 years in year-1 with this group.
Even LeBron-Wade-Bosh didn’t win a ring in Year-1 of their squad.
We were discussing the high minutes given to the starters. How can you look at the numbers posted and not think things could have possibly been done better or differently? I agree that the team didn't have the most talented bench but they weren't the ones consistently losing their minutes on the court. They lost game 1 of the ECF by going back to the starters that were already -10 on the court together before that late game collapse.
So , yes I would want to do better than having a -12.5 net rating for my most used lineup in the ECF especially when I watched them struggle for months prior to that. I'm not judging the team solely on how far they made it in the postseason and it clearly wasn't because of some amazing strategy where you play a negative lineup together as much as possible.
* We have a Brunson Burner™ * 
RIP mags
