A radical tactical change

[mattd13]

blake coming of the bench, really. good luck with that. not happening.

[madmaxmedia]

I think if Blake plays better with a certain unit then you make all THOSE guys starters, and move everyone else to 2nd unit.

Well that unit would end up being the current starters

I was going by OP's suggestion (actually the Finnish commentator's):

why not put Blake to Lance Stephenson's Pacers role, where he starts but plays with the 2nd unit. That way Blake would have more room inside, when DeAndre isn't there, and he could use his great athleticism even more. Your thoughts?

If Blake were hypothetically more productive without DeAndre, you would be more likely to move DJ to the 2nd unit than Blake. But maximizing Blake's production by moving other starters to the 2nd unit won't necessarily maximize the team's production.

I also heard Michael Jordan would be a great 'instant offense' guy to bring off the bench and give your team a spark.

[QRich3]

The premise of the OP is not bringing Blake from the bench, it's altering rotations a bit so he gets to play with the bench players more.

Doing that is not about maximizing Blake's production, it's about maximizing the team's as a whole. You have two clear things: the starters without Blake are doing very well, and our bench players do well when Blake is anchoring the offense for them. By those two things you can hypothesize about the possibility of Blake maintaining our bench afloat (our biggest weakness by far) while the starters are still good. That would make us a better team, no doubt.

The possibility of that working and the intricacies of how it'd happen is what this thread is all about. Thought I'd make it clear cause at first I didn't understand the premise myself either.

[janmagn]

I think if Blake plays better with a certain unit then you make all THOSE guys starters, and move everyone else to 2nd unit.

Well that unit would end up being the current starters

I was going by OP's suggestion (actually the Finnish commentator's):

why not put Blake to Lance Stephenson's Pacers role, where he starts but plays with the 2nd unit. That way Blake would have more room inside, when DeAndre isn't there, and he could use his great athleticism even more. Your thoughts?

If Blake were hypothetically more productive without DeAndre, you would be more likely to move DJ to the 2nd unit than Blake. But maximizing Blake's production by moving other starters to the 2nd unit won't necessarily maximize the team's production.

I also heard Michael Jordan would be a great 'instant offense' guy to bring off the bench and give your team a spark.

Blake isn't the problem in his own, just part of it. Pierce and Mbah a Moute are way better when playing with DJ vs. any other center. It's called maximizing your potential.

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

[madmaxmedia]

I guess I just don't see any scenario where moving Blake to the 2nd unit is going to maximize the potential of the team. But that's not to say there aren't problems with the standard rotations. I could see moving other guys to the second unit to create new combinations.

I don't think we've played a team over .500 in our win streak. But Miami and Cleveland are coming up, and 5 of the next 8 games are against >.500 teams. Let's see how it goes then- if we somehow won 7 of those next 8 without Blake (I guess he'll be back before then though), I'd be willing to try anything.

[clip set]

The lineups with Blake and mostly bench/no Chris Paul, generally don't perform very well, looking at net rating: http://stats.nba.com/league/lineups/#!/advanced/?sort=MIN&dir=1&Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612746&CF=MIN*GE*15.

One has a positive net rating: Crawford,Jamal - Griffin,Blake - Johnson,Wesley - Rivers,Austin - Smith,Josh, and it's with an ortg of 94.6. This pretty much matches my eye test. I thought staggering him with the bench would be a good move earlier in the year, but the problem always ended up being one of Austin, Jamal, or Josh Smith freewheeling most possessions away. The other with a positive net rating doesn't really exist anymore, since Doc has banned Lance from the court.

It could be worth a try with Pablo, which was part of my original idea, but I wouldn't get too excited about it. While the Blake bench units look like they perform better than some of other mostly bench lineups, it isn't even that clear.

[Ranma]

Zach Lowe, ESPN.com (1/12/16)

2. The J.J. Redick-DeAndre Jordan Super Catch-and-Roll

For the second straight season, the Clippers are managing just fine without Blake Griffin. The Clips have scored nearly 115 points per 100 possessions in eight games without Griffin -- about nine points above their season-long mark.

This is not to say L.A. is better without him. The Clips have feasted on cream-puff defenses, and they'll need every path to points and lineup flexibility to even think about competing against the Western Conference juggernauts.

But as the Clippers move forward, they have to at least think about how well they seem to function with Chris Paul, DeAndre Jordan and J.J. Redick zipping around in a smaller, spacier, spread pick-and-roll system -- without Griffin cluttering up the elbows. Look how much strain Redick places on an opposing defense simply by curling around a Jordan pick and catching a pass from Paul:



All five Charlotte defenders scrunch inside to neuter this threat. Redick has been sizzling all season, and both Cody Zeller and Kemba Walker lunge toward him to shut off Redick's jumper. Zeller's rotation leaves Jordan uncovered, forcing both Marvin Williams and Jeremy Lamb to slide down toward the paint -- and risk posterization.

Williams' rotation is at least five feet longer with Paul Pierce in Griffin's place; Pierce is at the 3-point arc, while Griffin would be around the elbow. That extra few feet means everything. If Williams can rush to Jordan more quickly, everyone else can stick closer to their assignments.

Again: Griffin is a legit superstar, and the Clippers are better with him. Griffin's post game, and especially his killer passing, allow the Clips to thrive in tight spacing that would strangle most teams. And remember: Two years ago, Griffin carried the Clips when Paul missed a month with a shoulder injury. Paul is also 30, with a history of knee injuries, and he's shooting at career-worst levels from almost every spot on the floor. If the Clips eventually decide to deal one of their three stars, you could make a strong case that it should be Paul.

They don't have to deal any of them -- at least not yet. This is a really good team. But they're in Year 3 of proving they can hang with just two of them, and they should be wondering how much they'd lose allocating one of those three max-salary slots to a couple of solid rotation guys.

Looking to Leap in Toronto