Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

  1. #1
    Member Frank Slade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Chaos
    Age
    35
    Posts
    6,019

    Question Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

    Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination?


    Monday, Oct. 2, 2006


    QUESTION OF THE DAY
    Conrad Brunner


    Q. Early reports have us starting Jamaal Tinsley, Stephen Jackson, Jermaine O'Neal, Al Harrington and Danny Granger. It's easy to argue that those are our best five players, but starting your best five doesn't always create the best rotation. In a playoff situation where the rotations are shortened, this lineup works. However, look what happens when you try to construct a 10-man rotation.

    The second unit-backcourt is easy. Saras Jasikevicius and Marquis Daniels are a nice combination. Saras is the shooter. Daniels is the slasher and the defender and is enough of a ballhandler to save Saras from backcourt pressure. However, unless you go with a rookie small forward, your remaining frontcourt options are all bigs. Surely, you can't play Jeff Foster, David Harrison, and Maceo Baston together. You have no perimeter threat and no one to guard wing players. Compare that second unit to the one you get if Foster starts in place of Granger. Now Granger is the second unit small forward and Baston is the power forward. We even eliminate the first-unit question about Harrington's ability to be a center.

    Do you think we can afford to start the reported lineup? (From Frank in Indianapolis)

    A. As usual, you make an excellent point. It's not unusual at all for a team's best five players to not necessarily comprise the most effective starting unit. The 76ers of the early 1980s had Marc Iavaroni, who would start but quickly give way to Bobby Jones. The Showtime Lakers had Kurt Rambis. More recently, the Spurs kept Manu Ginobili on the bench for a time with role-players like Malik Rose, Hedo Turkoglu – or Jackson – in the lineup.

    It's a formula, depending on a team's construction, that can work quite well.
    If I'm reading you right, you're suggesting using Foster in a form of Iavaroni/Rambis role, starting and playing the first rotation. Though Granger would come off the bench in that scenario, he would play starter's minutes and in all likelihood be on the finishing unit.

    There is merit in this suggestion and it's possible that's how things will play out. That's going to be one of the many intriguing subplots to the preseason as we all learn about not only the skill sets and personalities of so many new players, but how these various parts weave into the fabric of the team.

    The implied concern about the projected starting lineup is the possibility of too many scorers and not enough role-players, as well as the necessary balance between first and second units. Though I understand that concern, I tend to think there's a pretty good chance the projected lineup could work.

    Essentially, the only major personality change would be Granger for Foster. Harrington replaces Peja Stojakovic, so that's a scorer-for-scorer trade, with a little more defense and rebounding thrown in for good measure.

    Granger is a much bigger offensive threat than Foster but isn't a player that needs to be fed a steady diet of touches to be effective. His presence strengthens the perimeter defense, which relieves pressure from the big men to provide help defense. His mid-to-long-range shooting ability won't necessarily stretch a defense, but does give the Pacers the ability to keep the floor well spaced. It also gives defenses one less player it can leave in order to double-team elsewhere.

    The second unit could take shape nicely at the wing positions because there are a number of players that can interchange at shooting guard and small forward depending on matchups and hot hands: Jackson, Daniels and James White are all legitimate options at either spot.

    The frontcourt presumably will always feature either O'Neal or Harrington in order to keep a low-post threat on the floor, with Harrison a third possibility in that department. Foster and Baston would fill the other spot with the second unit, providing the necessary energy and rebounding.

    Using the San Antonio analogy, the Spurs won a title with Ginobili as the sixth man, and they won a title with him in the starting lineup. Either approach can work, provided all involved accept and fulfill their roles.

    Pacers.com

    Why Not Us ?


  2. #2
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    45
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

    I'd rather swap Daniels for SJax and keep the Danny-Al-JO frontcourt.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  3. #3
    White and Nerdy Anthem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,741

    Default Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

    I wish Daniels could shoot.

  4. #4
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    45
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

    Yeah.... and I wish SJax could shoot. Or knew that he can't, either.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  5. #5
    Well lubricated Skaut_Ech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,397

    Default Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthem View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I wish Daniels could shoot.

    I just took a quick glance, so don't go crazy on me statisticians, but Marquis has a better career FG percentage than Baby Al, Stephen Jackson, Granger and Tinsley. Interesting, huh?
    Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

  6. #6
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    45
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

    But look at his 3pt FG%. Yuck. However, look also at his 3pt FGAs. He knows he can't shoot them so he generally doesn't, thus his overall FG% is respectable.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  7. #7

    Default Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

    There is this goofy fallacy that you need an entire second unit of five guys that fits together great.

    Few teams have a 10 man rotation and it's certainly unnecessary. Coaches also never substitute all 5 guys. The backups will always be with a few starters.

    When "the bench" of Saras/Marquis/Jeff and/or Hulk is on the floor they can be complemented by Al or Danny still being on the court at SF.

    You don't need a 1st five and a second 5. You need 8-9 dependable players with 2 or more having some positional flexibility.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  8. #8
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,843

    Default Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

    I disagree with the overall assumption that JO, Al, DG, Jax, and Tinsley are our 5 best players. I'm certainly expecting Marquis to be better than Jackson.

  9. #9
    It Might Be a Soft J JayRedd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,158

    Default Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

    I think it's a pretty silly idea to not start either one of your two best perimeter defenders.

    Why would you want SJax or Al Harrington to start the game guarding the Kobes, Lebrons, Wades, Pierces, Arenas and TMacs of the world when you have Quisy and The Gift riding pine?
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs


  10. #10
    Member jcouts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Age
    35
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

    My biggest reason to support putting Granger in the starting lineup would be stronger perimeter defense, which in all likelihood would assist in keeping JO and Harrington out of early foul trouble.
    Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    4,013

    Default Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

    I think I agree with everything in the poster's question.

  12. #12
    Pacers Need A Better GM. !Pacers-Fan!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    139

    Default Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

    S-Jaxx Will have a Big Year In 06-07 Season.

    i wish They Traded Tinsley

  13. #13
    Diesel_81
    Guest

    Default Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

    Personally If I was coach I would run a starting five of
    PG-Tinsley
    Sg-Granger
    SF-Al
    PF-JO
    C-Harrison
    I would go big.I want to have a physical team, this unit has some weaknesses obviously lack of long range shooting is a big one but again if this unit is used right it could cause a ton of mismatches on the other end.

    Of the bench we then come out with
    G-Saras
    G-Daniels
    Sf-Jackson
    PF-Al, JO,Granger(depending if we want to go small, or big)
    C-Foster

    Rick Carlisle has many options in terms of mixing and matching and I hope Rick uses it to his advantage.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    4,630

    Default Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

    I'm going to try to look at it a little differently.

    We know that Tinsley & Jackson will start in the backcourt.

    I would hope that Granger & O'Neal are the starting forwards. So that leaves Foster, Harrison or Harrington as the final starter.

    If you start Foster then you have a "2nd unit" of .....
    Harrison, Harrington, Daniels & Sarunas

    If you start Harrison then you habe a "2nd unit" of .....
    Foster, Harrington, Daniels & Sarunas

    If you start Harrington then you have a "2nd unit" of .....
    Foster, Harrison, Daniels & Sarunas

    Looking at those 3 choices, option 3 is by far the worse. I think comes down to who you want to pair with Harrington. Not that he would be out there only when Harrington is on the floor but I think Harrison makes the most sence.

    That would mean, Foster gets the start. He shouldn't play anymore than he did last season but with the other 4 guys on the floor & the players assigned as "the bench", Foster makes the most sence to me.

    Maybe I shouldn't have done this, I want Harrison to start!

  15. #15

    Default Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

    Quote Originally Posted by Diesel_81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Personally If I was coach I would run a starting five of
    PG-Tinsley
    Sg-Granger
    SF-Al
    PF-JO
    C-Harrison
    I would go big.I want to have a physical team, this unit has some weaknesses obviously lack of long range shooting is a big one but again if this unit is used right it could cause a ton of mismatches on the other end.

    Of the bench we then come out with
    G-Saras
    G-Daniels
    Sf-Jackson
    PF-Al, JO,Granger(depending if we want to go small, or big)
    C-Foster

    Rick Carlisle has many options in terms of mixing and matching and I hope Rick uses it to his advantage.

    Im not sure I would start Harrison....as a matter of fact Ive covered that in my own thread about him. I can tell you though that I agree with this "jumbo" lineup as one Im excited about seeing together on the floor. I love Granger on the perimeter ( I know Im in the minority), I love the idea of being the biggest, meannest, most physical team we can be, and I even love (except for Foster) how your projected second unit looks together. I like the idea of playing Jackson off the bench as a primary scorer against weaker defenders....I think that fits his game and uses his strengths better.

    Good job diesel, in my opinion.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •