golden wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Valanciunas needs to come off the bench.
Collapse
X
-
Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View PostYou 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.
Comment
-
3inthekeon wrote: View PostJV's crunch time has been almost non-existent since Casey started going to Amir-PPat back in 13-14.
Comment
-
golden wrote: View PostShaolin, 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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View PostThe 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.
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?
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View PostIt 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.
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.
Comment
-
Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View PostAnd 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.9 time first team all-RR, First Ballot Hall of Forum
Comment
-
DanH wrote: View PostStarting 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.I relish negativity and disappointment. It is not healthy. Somebody buy me a pony.
Comment
-
Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View PostIt 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.
So, starting JV in the playoffs is a much higher probability than not, if only to match-up with the opposition.
Comment
-
golden wrote: View PostMost 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.I relish negativity and disappointment. It is not healthy. Somebody buy me a pony.
Comment
Comment