Valanciunas needs to come off the bench.

[Gonzz]

Shaolin, man, you got absolutely crushed on this thread. The turnaround started almost like clockwork after you posted it. Probably has more to do with Ibaka playing well, than anything else.

Would you mind starting another Costanza "opposite" thread? lol. Or maybe we should save some of that magic for the playoffs.

How about a send Norm to 905 and bring up Bruno?

[Maury]

How about a send Norm to 905 and bring up Bruno?

Your post alone seems to have done the job.

[DanH]

You just contradicted yourself. If he's lost the crunch time minutes (about 5mpg, which is about how much his minutes have decreased) then he's playing LESS against starters not more and it's not the transitional minutes that he's lost.

What? He barely had closing minutes to lose. He's closing about as often now as he ever has - rarely, and when the matchup suits him. It's those minutes he used to get with Patterson, where the team was always dominant, when Pat was the first sub for whatever useless PF was starting that season, those are the minutes he's lost, as he's basically playing exclusively with the starters this year.

[3inthekeon]

JV's crunch time has been almost non-existent since Casey started going to Amir-PPat back in 13-14.

[DanH]

JV's crunch time has been almost non-existent since Casey started going to Amir-PPat back in 13-14.

Except in specific JV-ideal matchups, which is kind of the point. He hasn't lost those occasional ideal matchup closing minutes, and he had no other closing minutes to lose. The minutes he's lost are those transitional minutes.

[Shaolin Fantastic]

Shaolin, man, you got absolutely crushed on this thread. The turnaround started almost like clockwork after you posted it. Probably has more to do with Ibaka playing well, than anything else.

Would you mind starting another Costanza "opposite" thread? lol. Or maybe we should save some of that magic for the playoffs.

I'm good, thanks.

[Shaolin Fantastic]

The evidence did support JV coming off the bench at the time the thread was made anyway. OG seems to have been a huge boost to that lineup and Ibaka has started playing a lot better so it's become a good regular season lineup now.

I don't think it was wrong to suggest that two lineups that were significantly negative after 20 games were not working and needed to be changed.

[DanH]

The evidence did support JV coming off the bench at the time the thread was made anyway. OG seems to have been a huge boost to that lineup and Ibaka has started playing a lot better so it's become a good regular season lineup now.

I don't think it was wrong to suggest that two lineups that were significantly negative after 20 games were not working and needed to be changed.

There was plenty of reason to suggest not over-reacting at that point, with the starting lineups having limited samples even at 20 games due to injuries, and there being a bunch of weird bad starts to halves that seemed to have little to do with who was out there, and the alternatives not really performing very well either (some significantly worse).

I think it's quite clear now that saying the lineups that were performing poorly NEEDED to be changed was definitively wrong. Just because you didn't want to listen to the counterarguments doesn't mean there weren't any.

What's that? Ibaka (and JV... and Lowry) started playing better (read: more like themselves) as the season went along and the schedule shifted away from among the most difficult in the league, and the lineup started playing better as a result? The most shocking, unforeseeable turn of events! Who could have predicted such a thing?

[Shaolin Fantastic]

It wasn't an overreaction. Valanciunas is still going to end up coming off the bench in any playoff series we play bar Philly or maybe Washington.

By that logic he still should come off the bench actually, because we're going to be starting lineups we have never started in playoff games.

[Shaolin Fantastic]

And I listened to the counterarguments they just weren't any good and still aren't. JV should be coming off the bench. We'll get by like this in the regular season but we're going to pay for it in the playoffs. We'll go into a series, keep our starting 5 the same, drop 2 of the first 3 games and then be in a hole like we usually are, and then make changes and hope that a Frank Vogel hands us the series again.

[DanH]

It wasn't an overreaction. Valanciunas is still going to end up coming off the bench in any playoff series we play bar Philly or maybe Washington.

By that logic he still should come off the bench actually, because we're going to be starting lineups we have never started in playoff games.

Starting lineups that have never started is not an issue. Playing lineups that haven't played together is an issue. No is arguing we shouldn't be playing some small ball.

If the argument was that we had to start someone else regardless of the success of the lineup, that was the argument you should have made. But it wasn't the argument you made. You laid out how the numbers showed that the lineup was failing, and because of that, it needed to be changed. Now that the numbers don't show that, you move the goal posts and say the lineup should be changed regardless of their success.

[KeonClark]

And I listened to the counterarguments they just weren't any good and still aren't. JV should be coming off the bench. We'll get by like this in the regular season but we're going to pay for it in the playoffs. We'll go into a series, keep our starting 5 the same, drop 2 of the first 3 games and then be in a hole like we usually are, and then make changes and hope that a Frank Vogel hands us the series again.

Ah, the foundation of any reasonable debate. "I've heard all other points of view, they just all suck except the one I have"

[GLF]

Starting lineups that have never started is not an issue. Playing lineups that haven't played together is an issue. No is arguing we shouldn't be playing some small ball.

If the argument was that we had to start someone else regardless of the success of the lineup, that was the argument you should have made. But it wasn't the argument you made. You laid out how the numbers showed that the lineup was failing, and because of that, it needed to be changed. Now that the numbers don't show that, you move the goal posts and say the lineup should be changed regardless of their success.

Exactly. We play small ball all the time. So starting Ibaka at the 5 in the playoffs if the matchup dictates it won't hurt us because we've done it before in the regular season. Just like it didn't hurt us when we did it against Milwaukee in the playoffs and that year we probably tried Ibaka at the 5 less that we did this year. You don't have to do it for a full 82 games for it to work in the playoffs. It's not like we're going to be starting a lineup we've never started before or play players together that have never played before.

[golden]

It wasn't an overreaction. Valanciunas is still going to end up coming off the bench in any playoff series we play bar Philly or maybe Washington.

By that logic he still should come off the bench actually, because we're going to be starting lineups we have never started in playoff games.

Most EC playoff teams are starting a C that we need JV to match up with. Of the top 10 current playoff contending teams, only the Bucks, Pacers & Cavs have tough match-ups at C for JV. And of those 3 teams, only the Cavs give us any real trouble. And if by chance, we made it all the way to Finals vs. the Warriors, we'd still have to start JV to match-up with Zaza.

So, starting JV in the playoffs is a much higher probability than not, if only to match-up with the opposition.

[GLF]

Most EC playoff teams are starting a C that we need JV to match up with. Of the top 10 current playoff contending teams, only the Bucks, Pacers & Cavs have tough match-ups at C for JV. And of those 3 teams, only the Cavs give us any real trouble. And if by chance, we made it all the way to Finals vs. the Warriors, we'd still have to start JV to match-up with Zaza.

So, starting JV in the playoffs is a much higher probability than not, if only to match-up with the opposition.

Exactly. And Turner can't handle JV in the post just like when we played pacers years ago so you might not have to start Serge at the 5 against them either. But yea, as Dan H has been saying, most teams start a traditional C. Those 3 teams you've named are probably the only one's who don't. So this thing that JV can't start is over blown. Most of the C's JV can't handle that start neither can Serge, but for different reasons.