Jump to content

2/27 8:00 Pistons @ Bulls


Recommended Posts

Good to see a win despite Monty's attempts to bungle it. Starters were +24 and the bench was -14.

This coach can't figure out how to stagger his two best creators so we have to watch the Malachi Flynn creation show with 4 other bench guys. It's just a mind boggling level of ineptitude from this coaching staff.

And now Muscala's has been waived, making that trade even worse, but also clearing the way for Wiseman to play heavy minutes for the remainder of the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Betrayer said:

Good to see a win despite Monty's attempts to bungle it. Starters were +24 and the bench was -14.

This coach can't figure out how to stagger his two best creators so we have to watch the Malachi Flynn creation show with 4 other bench guys. It's just a mind boggling level of ineptitude from this coaching staff.

And now Muscala's has been waived, making that trade even worse, but also clearing the way for Wiseman to play heavy minutes for the remainder of the year.

It was a good trade (getting rid of B&B in itself was good) but, yeah, Monty's rotations are baffling.

Edited by NYLion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, NYLion said:

It was a good trade (getting rid of B&B in itself was good) but, yeah, Monty's rotations are baffling.

muscala trade wasnt the b&b trade, it was the bagley salary dump that we had to give two picks away to do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Betrayer said:

This coach can't figure out how to stagger his two best creators

I haven't been a big enough basketball fan over the years to have a sense over this, but I'm pretty sure all the years I followed basketball more closely when I was younger, substitutions were mostly always individual, coaches would give one or two players a blow, or sub for match-ups in for length or shooting  - e.g the way Vinnie J was used. So I can't say that I have any memory of the concept of complete 1st and 2nd teams having traditionally been a thing in basketball. It makes me curious what drives the concept. Is there some evidence more successful team have gone to it? Or maybe just with so many guys that come into the league without long college careers players don't have the game experience to have learned how to adjust to playing with more than one set of teammates?

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, buddha said:

muscala trade wasnt the b&b trade, it was the bagley salary dump that we had to give two picks away to do.

Damn, my bad. I think I just blocked that trade out of my memory. I think that was a fine trade too to get Bagley off the team for one and, two, to get his extra year contract off the books. Nothing groundbreaking but getting rid of these one dimensional defensively deficient players (The Team Ball Killer B's) can only be a good thing. On the other hand, getting Bagley in the first place and then doubling down on stupidity by paying him is another story.

Edited by NYLion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I haven't been a big enough basketball fan over the years to have a sense over this, but I'm pretty sure all the years I followed basketball more closely when I was younger, substitutions were mostly always individual, coaches would give one or two players a blow, or sub for match-ups in for length or shooting  - e.g the way Vinnie J was used. So I can't say that I have any memory of the concept of complete 1st and 2nd teams having traditionally been a thing in basketball. It makes me curious what drives the concept. Is there some evidence more successful team have gone to it? Or maybe just with so many guys that come into the league without long college careers players don't have the game experience to have learned how to adjust to playing with more than one set of teammates?

Actually, quite the opposite. Most successful teams stagger the substitutions so one of their top 3 players are in the game at all times. I have no idea what drives this mindset from Monty (or from Casey, who used to do it as well). I can only imagine it's because it's easier to manage. I guess you can't pay a guy 78M and expect him to be able to figure out something that every coach from high school on is smart enough to handle.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing he does that because the starters are the future core.  The bench against NYK was Grimes, Flynn, Wiseman, Fournier, and Evbuomwan.  Only one of those guys has a future with this team.  He probably views the core playing heavy minutes as a unit is more important for future development than 2-3 extra wins this year you get by staggering the lineup.

Edited by Deleterious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Deleterious said:

I'm guessing he does that because the starters are the future core.  The bench against NYK was Grimes, Flynn, Wiseman, Fournier, and Evbuomwan.  Only one of those guys has a future with this team.  He probably views the core playing heavy minutes as a unit is more important for future development than 2-3 extra wins this year you get by staggering the lineup.

This is the only rationale that makes sense.  I can see that angle of the argument.  If this is a development season, and record be damned, then play the core together as much as possible now to realize the fruits of it later on.

But it’s just a tough look right now in the present.  I don’t know if he’s done this in the past with younger teams or not.  Hopefully it works if that’s the madness behind it.

It also runs contrary to keeping playing time earlier in the season for guys like Ivey and Sasser.  Perhaps don’t go so heavy on Sasser because this is his rookie season, and the transition going from 35 college games to 80 pro games can be tough.  But you still want him to break that wall this season, not next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, casimir said:

If this is a development season,

Counter arg is that as part of their development, Cade and Ivy should both learn how to optimize their own and each other's game both together and apart since if they both stay each should be on the floor when the other isn't but also mostly together - QED.

Edited by gehringer_2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Counter arg is that as part of their development, Cade and Ivy should both learn how to optimize their own and each other's game both together and apart since if they both stay each should be on the floor when the other isn't but also mostly together - QED.

Yep. That's why I don't buy the "core" argument, especially from a coach that had to be told to play Ivey instead of Killian. As you said, their future roles involve them starting and finishing together, but also being staggered. Plus, Monty has done this full line change stuff since the start of the season, so it just seems to be his thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Counter arg is that as part of their development, Cade and Ivy should both learn how to optimize their own and each other's game both together and apart since if they both stay each should be on the floor when the other isn't but also mostly together - QED.

That's true as well.  Its a matter of which theory one wants to subscribe to.

Edited by casimir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      251
    • Most Online
      186

    Newest Member
    Terrible1345
    Joined
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...