Why start your starters?

[JTrain]

OK, don't laugh yet. This is a real question. In 95% of the NBA games I've seen over the past several years, the results of the first quarter seem to have almost no impact on who wins the game. I've seen countless times when the Suns rush out to a 10-15 point lead in the first quarter only to have it wiped out by halftime, or the other way around.

Basketball, and particularly the NBA, has this phenomenon more than any other sport I know of. Someone with access to STATS LLC will have to figure out the exact numbers, but I would imagine, in cases where teams are fairly evenly matched (i.e. the line is within five points), a team with a 8-12 point lead at the end of the first quarter will usually lose that lead at some point later in the game.

If you checked the results for a similar early lead in the other sports (a seven point lead after one NFL quarter, a two run lead after three MLB innings, a one goal lead after one NHL period, etc.) I think the leading team probably wins in the 70-80% range, and often without losing the lead.

So the question is, why spend 10-12 precious minutes fatiguing your best players in a quarter who's results only stand a 10% or so chance of mattering? Granted, if your backups blow, and you go behind 32-11, that would matter. But our backups don't blow. And of course it wouldn't have to be all backups, so we could keep Bledsoe or Plumlee starting if need be.

It may be that we are often losing by a score like 25-20, but we would hold a huge advantage for the remaining three, most important quarters.

OK, fire away.

[lilfishi22]

Because if you start your 6th best players down, you're going up against the other teams best starting 5 which more often than not means you're fighting an uphill battle the rest of the game. Which means you're leaning on your best 5 players more as they try to chip away the lead.

[SUN]

Wanted to call you and idiot an question your sexuality but I thought that paragraph was a good read. I think lilfishi summed it up pretty good though.

[JTrain]

Because if you start your 6th best players down, you're going up against the other teams best starting 5 which more often than not means you're fighting an uphill battle the rest of the game. Which means you're leaning on your best 5 players more as they try to chip away the lead.

But one of my main points was that the NBA almost never works that way ("uphill battle the rest of the way"). First quarter leads, as long as they are not outrageous, are almost always wiped clean by mid-third quarter (usually earlier), since the NBA is a game of runs and momentum swings.

Let's say we start IT, Bledsoe, Green, Tolliver, Len and finish the quarter down 25-19. Well, given the nature of the game, there is a very high probability we will catch a run and tie the game/take the lead at some point in the second or third quarter. In other words, there are almost always lead changes in the NBA, more so than any other major sport. Let's say we tie it at a few minutes into the 3rd quarter, 63-63. Now we have the huge advantage of having Dragic, PJ, Plumlee and Keef more fresh than their starting five, and we can run them out of the arena for the remaining 20 minutes.

It was frustrating seeing us look really sharp out of the gate in many games, but give it all back in the second quarter. And on the flip side, it was equally frustrating (especially the second half of the season) seeing the guys we needed the most (Dragic, PJ, Bledsoe) mentally and physically lose steam in the fourth quarter. If a group primarily made up of backups can keep it very close in the first quarter, it seems like we could have a big advantage the rest of the way. Of course, I wouldn't try it against the Cavs, Thunder, Warriors, etc. who have the capability of running away from you fast. But against the less explosive teams, it might be worth a try. A way to win games and potentially keep your star players fresher for longer into the season.

Or not. But it's still the preseason, and this is still the internet.

[lilfishi22]

Let's say we start IT, Bledsoe, Green, Tolliver, Len and finish the quarter down 25-19. Well, given the nature of the game, there is a very high probability we will catch a run and tie the game/take the lead at some point in the second or third quarter. In other words, there are almost always lead changes in the NBA, more so than any other major sport. Let's say we tie it at a few minutes into the 3rd quarter, 63-63. Now we have the huge advantage of having Dragic, PJ, Plumlee and Keef more fresh than their starting five, and we can run them out of the arena for the remaining 20 minutes.

Without real statistical evidence, you could just as easily say we would finish the quarter down 15-40 and there's a just as high probability we won't take back the game.

Look at any starting line up of any bad team last year like LA, Philly, Bucks and they downright suck. But if you stick that same starting unit onto any decent team, and that's a solid, if not GREAT bench unit. Now these same bench units are giving up on average 8ppg. I'd imagine a team with an average but not great bench unit like ours, that negative point differential could easily be in the double figures against opposing starters.

It was frustrating seeing us look really sharp out of the gate in many games, but give it all back in the second quarter. And on the flip side, it was equally frustrating (especially the second half of the season) seeing the guys we needed the most (Dragic, PJ, Bledsoe) mentally and physically lose steam in the fourth quarter. If a group primarily made up of backups can keep it very close in the first quarter, it seems like we could have a big advantage the rest of the way. Of course, I wouldn't try it against the Cavs, Thunder, Warriors, etc. who have the capability of running away from you fast. But against the less explosive teams, it might be worth a try. A way to win games and potentially keep your star players fresher for longer into the season.

Or not. But it's still the preseason, and this is still the internet.

I agree. I just don't know starting our 6th-10th "best" players is the answer.

[phrazbit]

Even if the idea that early leads don't matter had merit, it still wouldn't make a difference. You want to put your starters in first because it sets up the cycle of subs easier. You "rest" your starters off an on as the game goes, if they come off the bench partway through the game you're giving yourself less time to rest them before the 4th when you really need them.

Not to mention how screwed you'd be if your now starting backup quality players put you in a big hole, your legit starters have to bust their balls to make up for it, and your left in a crappy situation, if the starters can't recover the deficit you might as well give that game up, if the DO recover the gap... now what? Start them in the 2nd half and basically put them in a situation where they have to play the final 75% of the game?

I can't think of any real benefit for using your backups first.

[JTrain]

Even if the idea that early leads don't matter had merit, it still wouldn't make a difference. You want to put your starters in first because it sets up the cycle of subs easier. You "rest" your starters off an on as the game goes, if they come off the bench partway through the game you're giving yourself less time to rest them before the 4th when you really need them.

Not to mention how screwed you'd be if your now starting backup quality players put you in a big hole, your legit starters have to bust their balls to make up for it, and your left in a crappy situation, if the starters can't recover the deficit you might as well give that game up, if the DO recover the gap... now what? Start them in the 2nd half and basically put them in a situation where they have to play the final 75% of the game?

I can't think of any real benefit for using your backups first.

If the theory that the first quarter doesn't matter (assuming the lead is under 11 points) has merit, then the advantage is clearly demonstrable by math. Going into the second quarter, they have used their starters around 10 minutes perhaps, while you have not used yours. So for the three quarters that matter, you will have fresher starters than them.

Now if your bench is not good enough to keep it within 10 points, then the whole experiment fails. I like our bench so I hope they would keep it close against the bottom half of the league at least.

I should say that I started looking at the stats and empirically my theory is in deep doo doo. But I still think there is some significant change to be had in how the first quarter or half is handled substitution-wise, in order to restrain the physical and psychological forces that lead to so many big runs and lead changes in the NBA.

[Frank Lee]

We only start two real starters anyway

[phrazbit]

I don't agree with you about your starters being "fresher" the rest of the game by not using them in the 1st, I think it would have the opposite effect. You're now playing them roughly 30-32 minutes on the court in a span of 36 minutes of game time. They'd have to play virtually the entire remainder of the game in order to log the minutes that a starter expects to get. Which would probably leave them completely gassed by the time the clutch rolled around. Not to mention the heavy odds that they'd enter the game with the pressure of overcoming whatever hole was built as the bench quality guys built up in the first quarter.

Let me preface this next thought by saying that 1st quarter and half deficits DO matter. Sure, there are plenty of games where leads get erased, but there are more where they don't, and constantly playing from behind wears on teams.

However, I think that when leads do get erased and the momentum swings it has far less to do with substitutions or fatigue than the fact that teams get complacent, get flat footed and a lead will dwindle, and on the other hand sometimes teams come out the gate flat and it takes them a bit to get into the flow. And then you have teams like Miami of recent years and OKC that know they have an extra gear that most other teams don't, and they will coast early with the knowledge that they can turn it on later.

In any of the above situations I think leading with bench players would only compound the problem. Rather than building a lead against a team that came out flat, you don't have the guys who can take advantage of it out there, and then you also risk you starters coming out flat in the 2nd and now the game is completely in the tank.

I cannot see any advantage at all to using your reserves to open the game.

[boomershadow]

I am actually partial to the idea of a 6th man that better in a lot of areas than your 5th best starter/role player. There are plenty of examples of this.

[2Mas]

OK, don't laugh yet. This is a real question. In 95% of the NBA games I've seen over the past several years, the results of the first quarter seem to have almost no impact on who wins the game. I've seen countless times when the Suns rush out to a 10-15 point lead in the first quarter only to have it wiped out by halftime, or the other way around.

Basketball, and particularly the NBA, has this phenomenon more than any other sport I know of. Someone with access to STATS LLC will have to figure out the exact numbers, but I would imagine, in cases where teams are fairly evenly matched (i.e. the line is within five points), a team with a 8-12 point lead at the end of the first quarter will usually lose that lead at some point later in the game.

If you checked the results for a similar early lead in the other sports (a seven point lead after one NFL quarter, a two run lead after three MLB innings, a one goal lead after one NHL period, etc.) I think the leading team probably wins in the 70-80% range, and often without losing the lead.

So the question is, why spend 10-12 precious minutes fatiguing your best players in a quarter who's results only stand a 10% or so chance of mattering? Granted, if your backups blow, and you go behind 32-11, that would matter. But our backups don't blow. And of course it wouldn't have to be all backups, so we could keep Bledsoe or Plumlee starting if need be.

It may be that we are often losing by a score like 25-20, but we would hold a huge advantage for the remaining three, most important quarters.

OK, fire away.

I do think your wrong, but I get the point of it. I too think that teams should save their players more. No need to have your best players playing 12mins in the first quarter. Play them like 8 & save them more for the later parts of the game, because as long as it's close, the game is far from over in the 1st.

[Phystic]

Well because it keeps your starters warm and in a rhythm. Instead of having them sit there for the first quarter. Not to mention you aren't going to play your starters for the next 36 minutes so what's the point in doing it that way?

Why play from behind after the first quarter than play with a lead? There are plenty of games where teams hold leads throughout the game. Not to mention there is the mental aspect of starting off well vs starting off from behind.

[lilfishi22]

Playing your starters less minutes in the 1st quarter, so 6min for starters and 6min for bench would essentially do the same thing you proposed but much less extreme.

[NavLDO]

Of all the stupid, hair-brained ideas I've seen on message forums, this has to be THE, absolute dumbest thing I've ever read...I mean, I truly am now dumber for having read this complete and utter pile of poo!

OK, j/k, I too, get what you are trying to say. The thing is, the way our team is set up, we don't really have set in stone starters at but one position...SF. I mean, we could start:

IT
Green
Tucker
Tolliver
Len

And no one could really say we weren't fielding a competitive team, even though we will likely start:

Bledsoe
Dragic
Tucker
Tolliver/Kieff
Plumlee/Len

See what I mean? At PF and C, we have two guys at each position that could conceivably be considered starters, depending upon what team we are facing and what our initial game plan is (but unfortunately, it's not because we have too many studs at those positions, it's that they are all relatively mediocre. ) At "SG", we likely start Dragic, but Green started over half our games last year. At PG, we could start EB or IT. (And depending upon EB's up-and-down health status, would anyone be surprised if IT has to start to fill in for EB, anyway?)

So SF, and Tucker, is really the only absolute, no question starter (well, unless you start Green there). And who knows, maybe Warren supplants Tucker sooner than many suspect.

We aren't the only team with this flexibility, but I'd say we are one of the most flexible teams, in this situation. So, as far as your point goes, we could easily get away with starting any number of different line-ups, anyway...right?

[Wannabe MEP]

"Why start your starters?"

Because, by definition, the people who start the game...are your starters.

So no matter how hard you try, you can't get around it: YOU HAVE TO START YOUR STARTERS!!!

[Wannabe MEP]

But seriously, a lot of excellent teams over the years don't start their best unit. They stagger their best players.

1. Manu Ginobili

2. Dallas championship team brought Terry off the bench: they always had either Terry or Dirk on the court. Dirk without Terry crews were good, Terry without Dirk crews were ok, and Dirk + Terry crews dominated.

3. Lakers championships from a few years ago were best with on Odom-Gasol frontcourt, but they started Bynum-Gasol. They key was always playing two of those three.

[JTrain]

"Why start your starters?"

Because, by definition, the people who start the game...are your starters.

So no matter how hard you try, you can't get around it: YOU HAVE TO START YOUR STARTERS!!!

Yeah, I wanted to add a little humor prior to the massacre. Plus it was just catchier than "Why start your best players?".

[aIvin adams]

"Why start your starters?"

Because, by definition, the people who start the game...are your starters.

So no matter how hard you try, you can't get around it: YOU HAVE TO START YOUR STARTERS!!!

hesperus is phosphorous!

[King4Day]

Actually a cool debate to juggle around (even if the answers may be onesided)

[asudevil]

The average starter players lets say 3/4 of an NBA game or 36 minutes. The thought is that if you rest a starter the entire 1st quarter then, you can play them the rest of the game when it matters. In theory it works. But i see a few problems.

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.

b.) You are consistently playing from behind. Think of a basketball game like a 4 man relay race. Do you EVER start your slowest runner/swimmer? No. Giving up a lead enforces 2x things. 1.) its defeats moral to know that you are ALWAYS trying to play catch-up. 2.) You give teams the incentive to pounce early and as hard as possible.

Imagine every night relying on your starters to player from the second quarter onward, consistently down HUGE to start the 2nd. It would be defeating.

If you were to REALLY pay attention to who starts and why, and REALLY analyze when and why players are subbed throughout the game you would probably find that its more than "a" is tired so lets bring in their sub, or "b" has 2 fouls so we have to take them out. There are a lot of strategy as to why subs come in and how each substitution affects the flow of both the offense and defense.