CJ from the Bench?

[Boob-No-More]

See my previous post. He reduced his stars minutes starting in Kerr's first season.

2014-15

View attachment 16647

Due to the emergence of a third star. Draymond's minutes INCREASED by more than 10 MPG, and his role increased dramatically.

That was Kerr's real genius compared to Mark Jackson. Jackson tried to play Curry as a conventional PG. In that role, Curry was relied upon to be GSW's #1 scorer and their #1 facilitator. It wasn't just how many minutes Curry was playing that wore him down, it was how much he had the ball in his hands and how much he had to do. It also allowed defenses to really key on Curry.

Kerr realized that Curry could be much more efficient, and much "fresher" if he could play off the ball more. Without Draymond's emergence as their primary ball handler and leader in assists, Curry would probably have continued to play big minutes.

With Nurk, we may have the third piece of a legitimate Big 3. He won't play the same role as Draymond, but he can still make things easier for his teammates. Hopefully, that leads to more and bigger leads and more rest and less fatigue for Dame and C.J.

Since we clearly don't have four stars of the same caliber as GSW, we still need Dame and C.J. on the floor to win close games. Hopefully, with Nurk and an improved team defense, we will have fewer close games that need winning.

BNM

 

[Denny Crane]

They were also 67-15, with a 10.1 point differential.

View attachment 16648

Chicken or egg. Did he play less minutes because they were "diligent" about it, or were they able to be diligent about it because they were blowing teams out? I'd posit the latter.

Exactly. The Warriors are resolute that resting the players led to the blowouts.

Same players the year before, 51 wins.

 

[Denny Crane]

Due to the emergence of a third star. Draymond's minutes INCREASED by more than 10 MPG, and his role increased dramatically.

That was Kerr's real genius compared to Mark Jackson. Jackson tried to play Curry as a conventional PG. In that role, Curry was relied upon to be GSW's #1 scorer and their #1 facilitator. It wasn't just how many minutes Curry was playing that wore him down, it was how much he had the ball in his hands and how much he had to do. It also allowed defenses to really key on Curry.

Kerr realized that Curry could be much more efficient, and much "fresher" if he could play off the ball more. Without Draymond's emergence as their primary ball handler and leader in assists, Curry would probably have continued to play big minutes.

With Nurk, we may have the third piece of a legitimate Big 3. He won't play the same role as Draymond, but he can still make things easier for his teammates. Hopefully, that leads to more and bigger leads and more rest and less fatigue for Dame and C.J.

Since we clearly don't have four stars of the same caliber as GSW, we still need Dame and C.J. on the floor to win close games. Hopefully, with Nurk and an improved team defense, we will have fewer close games that need winning.

BNM

Green averaged 11 PPG. A fine all around player. They still played him 31 minutes, resting him per their plan.

 

[Denny Crane]

FWIW, one of the arguments for firing Thibs in chicago was that he played his players heavy minutes and did not emulate the Warriors plan. That sports science, wearables, and all that, dictates reducing player minutes leads to better health and results.

Also FWIW, I would argue that all the greats played really big minutes, be it Wilt or Kareem or Jordan or even LeBron.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Green averaged 11 PPG. A fine all around player. They still played him 31 minutes, resting him per their plan.

He played 21 MPG the year before Kerr took over as coach. How is increasing his PT to 31 MPG "resting" him?

And, as pointed out that GSW team had an average margin of +10.5 ppg. That makes it pretty easy to rest your stars in the 4th quarter of blowouts.

To really answer the chicken and egg question, you need to look at PT per quarter before and after Kerr. Also, factor in the score. Did, Curry and Thompson still play comparable of minutes over the first three quarters under Kerr as under Jackson. Is their extra rest coming primarily in the 4th quarters of games where they have large leads? I'll leave that exercise for you.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

FWIW, one of the arguments for firing Thibs in chicago was that he played his players heavy minutes and did not emulate the Warriors plan. That sports science, wearables, and all that, dictates reducing player minutes leads to better health and results.

Of course more rest leads to less wear and tear. The problem is, unless you are also blessed with four stars, including two MVPs and multi time league scoring champs, it also leads to more losses.

BNM

 

[Denny Crane]

Of course more rest leads to less wear and tear. The problem is, unless you are also blessed with four stars, including two MVPs and multi time league scoring champs, it also leads to more losses.

BNM

They won in 2014-15 with 2 actual stars, one who'd been injury prone.

We have 2 actual stars, and hopefully Nurk.

 

[Denny Crane]

He played 21 MPG the year before Kerr took over as coach. How is increasing his PT to 31 MPG "resting" him?

And, as pointed out that GSW team had an average margin of +10.5 ppg. That makes it pretty easy to rest your stars in the 4th quarter of blowouts.

To really answer the chicken and egg question, you need to look at PT per quarter before and after Kerr. Also, factor in the score. Did, Curry and Thompson still play comparable of minutes over the first three quarters under Kerr as under Jackson. Is their extra rest coming primarily in the 4th quarters of games where they have large leads? I'll leave that exercise for you.

BNM

Not playing him 38 minutes is resting him.

Kerr played none of his players excessive minutes. That's by design.

You can keep touting the result, but you're ignoring the cause.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Not playing him 38 minutes is resting him.

Kerr played none of his players excessive minutes. That's by design.

You can keep touting the result, but you're ignoring the cause.

Again, it's a LOT easier to rest your starters when your average margin is greater than +10 ppg.

The Warriors plan seems to be, build a 20 point lead early in the 4th quarter, rest our starters and coast to a win. Most teams, including the Blazers, don't have players to execute such a plan.

You're the one ignoring the "cause". The Warriors can rest their stars because they have more talent than their opponents. That superior talent leads to big leads, which then lets them rest that superior talent.

BNM

 

[BonesJones]

FWIW

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/14/4385776/

Steve Kerr and the Warriors’ stars diligent in their reduced minutes approach

Sports science has advanced since then. There is player tracking for games and practices. Teams prioritize rest better and trainers advise keeping a player’s minutes in the 35ish per game range. The league’s most-used players average near 38 per night — right around what LeBron is pushing — instead of logging 41 or 42.

But the careful teams try to keep their main guys in the 34 per game range. Golden State is one of the league’s most diligent, given the benefit of depth and a large number of fourth-quarter blowouts. The Warriors don’t have a player in the top 29 in minutes per game. Klay Thompson, 30th in the NBA at 34.2, leads the team.

“Mentally and physically you’re still exerting yourself in those minutes. I’m exhausted right now,” Curry said after a recent game. “But over the course of the season, you hope taking care of business, protecting leads, the amount of fourth quarters starters have missed for good reasons will help us down the road and keep us fresh for the playoffs.”

Curry averaged 38.2 and 36.5 minutes per game in Mark Jackson’s last two seasons. Kerr arrived, the team exploded, Curry won two MVPs and they were able to reduce his per game load to 32.7 and 34.2 the past two years. He’s at 33.5 per game this season, behind older players such as Carmelo Anthony (34.0) and Paul Millsap (34.3), just ahead of teammate Green (33.3 per, 42nd in the league).

“I think it’s made a difference,” Kerr said. “But then you look at last year and Steph averaged 33 per game and then got hurt in the first game of the playoffs and it knocked him back a bit. (Andrew) Bogut got hurt. But you’d like to think the cumulative effect of playing guys fewer minutes will keep guys fresh, but you never know. I do think playing guys 34 instead of 38 over the course of the year will keep our guys fresher than they would’ve been otherwise.”

6min of rest per half compared to 7min changes nothing in terms of my argument. Where's CJs rest coming from each half if he's brought off the bench?

 

[Boob-No-More]

FWIW

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/14/4385776/

Steve Kerr and the Warriors’ stars diligent in their reduced minutes approach

Sports science has advanced since then. There is player tracking for games and practices. Teams prioritize rest better and trainers advise keeping a player’s minutes in the 35ish per game range. The league’s most-used players average near 38 per night — right around what LeBron is pushing — instead of logging 41 or 42.

But the careful teams try to keep their main guys in the 34 per game range. Golden State is one of the league’s most diligent, given the benefit of depth and a large number of fourth-quarter blowouts.

Thanks, the bolded part is exactly the point I was making. It's easy to rest your stars when you have more stars than anyone else and you have a large number of fourth quarter blowouts.

BNM

 

[HailBlazers]

If CJ doesn't start giving effort on Defense then yes.

 

[KingSpeed]

CJ already comes off the bench but he plays first 4-5 minutes too. We did not get off to great start last night anyway. Didn't get going til Pat came in.

 

[ripcityboy]

Let's wait till we see how the defense does against Indiana with CJ starting.

 

[WillG]

3 blocks or no, Dames defense last night was still atrocious. He was trailing the plays woefully.

If the defense was better, it was because we inserted a 6'7" SG next our point guard.
If CJ was the PG, then the defense would be even better - he's a better defender than Lillard.

 

[ripcityboy]

3 blocks or no, Dames defense last night was still atrocious. He was trailing the plays woefully.

If the defense was better, it was because we inserted a 6'7" SG next our point guard.
If CJ was the PG, then the defense would be even better - he's a better defender than Lillard.

There are people maniacally obsessed with the idea that Dame/CJ can't contend. In order to win you need both scorers on the floor, but they are too much of a defensive liability. It's the Curry/Ellis scenario that keeps getting brought up. So how do you keep both happy without losing too much on D? Start Dame and sit CJ but then switch CJ out at PG..... then have Turner the primary ball handler and run Dame off screens? I think it's crap but the dialog is out there.

 

[WillG]

I actually think our system and coaching does no favors for either guy. Watch how easily CJ & Dame are 'shed' by the opposing PG in play. Its just flat out woeful.
That it hasn't been addressed in years now is on the coaching staff as much as the players.
The execution is just not there.

 

[Sinobas]

CJ is our BEST scorer in the 1st quarter and Y'all want him to come off the bench.

Goats
Trot
Far
Overseas

 

[GrandJury]

3 blocks or no, Dames defense last night was still atrocious. He was trailing the plays woefully.

If the defense was better, it was because we inserted a 6'7" SG next our point guard.
If CJ was the PG, then the defense would be even better - he's a better defender than Lillard.

Yea that makes a lot of sense, but let’s bench CJ right? Smh

 

[dviss1]

I actually think our system and coaching does no favors for either guy. Watch how easily CJ & Dame are 'shed' by the opposing PG in play. Its just flat out woeful.
That it hasn't been addressed in years now is on the coaching staff as much as the players.
The execution is just not there.

I don't know what game you were watching but Dame played excellent D last night.

Your post has absolutely no clue of what it's talking about.

 

[WillG]

I don't know what game you were watching but Dame played excellent D last night.

Your post has absolutely no clue of what it's talking about.

Well if my post has no clue, then, typical of a ref, you're post is blind.

Re-watch the game, particularly all of the replays where they are lauding Dame for 'Getting back into the play' - after he has been left in the wind.
A decent defender wouldn't be that far behind the play in the first place.

 

[dviss1]

Well if my post has no clue, then, typical of a ref, you're post is blind.

Re-watch the game, particularly all of the replays where they are lauding Dame for 'Getting back into the play' - after he has been left in the wind.
A decent defender wouldn't be that far behind the play in the first place.

First off, I'm not your "typical ref". And anyone who would say "typical ref" must be a "typical fan". And we all know what fan is short for...

Now to address the idiocy of your post. Did you play basketball?? What position did you play? I played PG which is a position that continuously has to fight over ball screens. I also, on every team I've played on, been the best on the ball defender.

Now, He wasn't "left in the wind"...

He was getting over a screen and forcing the shooter in to a semi contested, mid range shot. And he got 3 blocks doing it while creating many missed shots. Was he out of position a few times? Sure. That happens to every on the ball defender. But on the whole, he was excellent on D.

 

[Nikolokolus]

That's sorta like saying the Celtics should have traded McHale.

The question really is whether CJ would embrace the 6th man role. At what point is starting over what's best for the team a bad reflection on the player?

Why would he? He's established himself as a starter, he's relatively young, and he's still got a couple of more contracts to play for. My guess is that he'd do better for himself being either a starter on this team, or the lead guard on another team. Taking a subservient role this early in his career isn't maximizing his earning potential.

So like I said, if you're going to have him come off the bench, your gambling that he'd be OK with that. I think that's unlikely, but who knows? To me, the most logical way to make sure you get an outcome you can live with is figure out a way to make it work with Damian in the starting lineup. If you can't do that, then trade him. If you can't get decent value in a trade, then broach the subject of trying juggle his role and try to bring him off the bench as a last resort.

 

[BBert]

This is silly

 

[Pinwheel1]

Why would he? He's established himself as a starter, he's relatively young, and he's still got a couple of more contracts to play for. My guess is that he'd do better for himself being either a starter on this team, or the lead guard on another team. Taking a subservient role this early in his career isn't maximizing his earning potential.

So like I said, if you're going to have him come off the bench, your gambling that he'd be OK with that. I think that's unlikely, but who knows? To me, the most logical way to make sure you get an outcome you can live with is figure out a way to make it work with Damian in the starting lineup. If you can't do that, then trade him. If you can't get decent value in a trade, then broach the subject of trying juggle his role and try to bring him off the bench as a last resort.

You think CJ would start at PG for other teams? I think he is an adequate back up PG but I think he excels as a SG.

I think CJ would be fine coming off the bench if there was a good reason for it. Assuming he was still getting his minutes. And because this team does not have an abundance of great shooters, he needs to be on the floor as much as possible. So I am not sure it makes a difference if he starts or comes off the bench, he still needs to play 30+.

 

[Trackjack]

One thing I know CJ will be the starter for this team until they decide that it doesn't work and they make a trade.

 

[BonesJones]

I think CJ would be fine coming off the bench if there was a good reason for it. Assuming he was still getting his minutes.

So where does his rest come from reach half? Nobody seems to answer this question when they're talking about keeping his minutes the same and bringing him off the bench.

 

[blue9]

This is silly

I haven't read the thread, so I can only assume you're responding to the idea of bring CJ off the bench. "Silly" is putting it nicely.

The only way you could even think of it is if you had a stud 3/D SG. Evan Turner is not that player. He's okay defensively, but not nearly good enough to think about bringing CJ off the bench. The worst player I'd consider starting over CJ would be Avery Bradley. And then, only if CJ gave his blessing.

 

[Boob-No-More]

So where does his rest come from reach half? Nobody seems to answer this question when they're talking about keeping his minutes the same and bringing him off the bench.

We beat this horse to death last year and the only thing that has changed is Dame and C.J. now have a beast backing them up on defense. It makes even less sense to bring him off the bench now than it did last year.

The pro C.J. as a 6th man pundits like to point to Manu, Crawford, Jason Terry, etc. as examples of how C.J. would make a great 6th man.

None of those guys came off the bench at such a young age. Crawford did not move to the 6th man role until 29. Manu and Terry did not become 6th men until they were in their 30s (Manu was an all star as a starter at 33). None came close to averaging 23 ppg as a starter, like C.J. did last year. C.J. is younger and better than all of those guys were when they "accepted" the 6th man role.

Has there ever been a player who averaged 23.0 ppg at the age of 25 that was moved to the bench the following season? I can't think of a single example of anyone that comes close. Crawford probably comes closest. He averaged 19.7 ppg as a starter at 28 and was moved to the bench at 29, but he was also traded to a team that already had an all star starting at SG.

But, none of this matters anymore because we beat a crappy team by 48 without C.J.

BNM

 

[BonesJones]

We beat this horse to death last year and the only thing that has changed is Dame and C.J. now have a beast backing them up on defense. It makes even less sense to bring him off the bench now than it did last year.

The pro C.J. as a 6th man pundits like to point to Manu, Crawford, Jason Terry, etc. as examples of how C.J. would make a great 6th man.

None of those guys came off the bench at such a young age. Crawford did not move to the 6th man role until 29. Manu and Terry did not become 6th men until they were in their 30s (Manu was an all star as a starter at 33). None came close to averaging 23 ppg as a starter, like C.J. did last year. C.J. is younger and better than all of those guys were when they "accepted" the 6th man role.

Has there ever been a player who averaged 23.0 ppg at the age of 25 that was moved to the bench the following season? I can't think of a single example of anyone that comes close. Crawford probably comes closest. He averaged 19.7 ppg as a starter at 28 and was moved to the bench at 29, but he was also traded to a team that already had an all star starting at SG.

But, none of this matters anymore because we beat a crappy team by 48 without C.J.

BNM

Exactly.

But here's my point. It makes no sense to bring a player off the bench instead of start them unless you bring them in at least 5 minutes into each half. There's 10 minutes of rest.
It's also bad to play a player 18-19 minutes straight, and when subbed out, they should rest for at last 3 minutes. Therefore, CJ would need an additional 6 minutes of rest over the course of the game (3min a half). That means he would only be able to play 32 minutes at the most, or he'll be gassed at the end of games, or the purpose of bringing him off the bench in the first place will be defeated by bringing him in too early.

It makes no sense from a rotational/minutes perspective, and that's not even getting into other things.