Starting Matters

[wadesworld]

Can't go on the road against a decent opponent and turn the ball over 3 of the first 4 possessions. Runout opportunities galore for IU early and often. It's very, very tough to come back from down 15 against a decent opponent. Not every minute is created equally. If you're down 20 for the last 60 seconds those 60 seconds are unquestionably far less important than the first 60 seconds were when the game still could've gone to either team.

I'm hoping to see a lineup of Chartouny, Markus, Sam, Joey, and Theo. Wouldn't hate going small and bringing in Sacar for Theo early, especially because Theo tends to get into foul trouble, but want Theo in for the tip. Sacar, Jamal, Morrow, Bailey in that order off the bench.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I wasn't aware that a team could get down 15 in one possession.

[GGGG]

Marquette was down 6 when the first subs came in so....

[#UnleashSean]

This starting no matter thing is such a dumb argument. If course it does.

[wadesworld]

I wasn't aware that a team could get down 15 in one possession.

Huh?

[wadesworld]

Marquette was down 6 when the first subs came in so....

To complete your statement, "...if we kept that pace we would've lost the game by 60."

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Huh?

Are you not talking about starting in terms of the starting lineup?

[wadesworld]

Are you not talking about starting in terms of the starting lineup?

Correct.  I'm a little confused where the down 15 in one possession comment comes into play here.

The tone was set early and often.  When you give a decent (and that's all IU is) opponent a ton of momentum to start a game, you have a heck of a battle just trying to stay in the game, let alone win it.

Starting is incredibly important.

[tower912]

Not really.   Getting off to decent starts is important.  MU did not respond to an amped up home team coming out with fire in their eye.   Otule started, Gardner came off the bench.   Williams started, Crowder came off the bench.   McHale, the microwave, McAdoo, Bobby Jones.      Balance and understanding your personnel is more important than starting.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The starting lineup is responsible for one possession. After that it is about how the coach manages substitutions. There is nothing magical about playing the first possession of the game.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Not really.   Getting off to decent starts is important.  MU did not respond to an amped up home team coming out with fire in their eye.   Otule started, Gardner came off the bench.   Williams started, Crowder came off the bench.   McHale, the microwave, McAdoo, Bobby Jones.      Balance and understanding your personnel is more important than starting.

This guy gets it

[wadesworld]

The starting lineup is responsible for one possession. After that it is about how the coach manages substitutions. There is nothing magical about playing the first possession of the game.

Let me know the next time a coach makes a sub after the first possession of the game.

Not really.   Getting off to decent starts is important.  MU did not respond to an amped up home team coming out with fire in their eye.   Otule started, Gardner came off the bench.   Williams started, Crowder came off the bench.   McHale, the microwave, McAdoo, Bobby Jones.      Balance and understanding your personnel is more important than starting.

...right.  Everything else is window dressing.

[dgies9156]

Since Presbyterian is nothing more than a glorified exhibition game and tune-up for the NIT pre-season, lets use the game to work out the kinks.

My idea of a starting line-up: Chartouney, Morrow, Bailey, Hauser and whomever. Let 'em play and let Chartouney find his shot, Morrow work the kinks out and Bailey work his way in.

Of course, I'm not Wojo and I'm not a basketball genius but at the very least this would be a good time for Chartouney and Morrow to figure it out in a very harmless way.

[brewcity77]

If starting didn't matter at all, Marotta, Lelito, & Jaffee would be out there. Of course it matters. But more important than who's out there for the first possession is the tone the beginning of a game can set. Yes, we made a sub early when Cain came in, but starting the game in a 15-point hole can easily be more important than how you finish or who's out there at the end if you never make the game competitive.

[wadesworld]

If starting didn't matter at all, Marotta, Lelito, & Jaffee would be out there. Of course it matters. But more important than who's out there for the first possession is the tone the beginning of a game can set. Yes, we made a sub early when Cain came in, but starting the game in a 15-point hole can easily be more important than how you finish or who's out there at the end if you never make the game competitive.

Exactly.  The starting lineup isn't responsible for a single possession.  That is silly.

We have a shining example of this that shares our home building.  Do we think if the Bucks were starting Henson and Snell like they were last year over a guy like Brogdon that the Bucks would be 10-4 and looking like one of the better teams in the NBA?

Some here will say yes...

[tower912]

Let me know the next time a coach makes a sub after the first possession of the game.

Mike Deane used to.  As well as take a timeout after the first possession.   And sub for any of his role players who allowed a basket.   But, he was trying to play games in the 40s and 50s, so it was all part of a plan.

[warriorchick]

Mike Deane used to.  As well as take a timeout after the first possession.   And sub for any of his role players who allowed a basket.   But, he was trying to play games in the 40s and 50s, so it was all part of a plan.

And I might be remembering incorrectly, but I am pretty sure that Chris Otule would start for the tip and was almost immediately replaced by Davante Gardner.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

If starting didn't matter at all, Marotta, Lelito, & Jaffee would be out there. Of course it matters. But more important than who's out there for the first possession is the tone the beginning of a game can set. Yes, we made a sub early when Cain came in, but starting the game in a 15-point hole can easily be more important than how you finish or who's out there at the end if you never make the game competitive.

1. Your first sentence is a ridiculous argument. That isn't a lineup that would get played in a game ever so it is irrelevant to the conversation.

2. Like #FTsnomatta people are forgetting what it means. Sure, starting (like team FT%) matters on some cosmically low level. But other things (like eFG%) matter a helluva lot more. In this case, minutes played matters a helluva lot more than who plays in the first possession. That's why people who make arguments like:

Exactly.  The starting lineup isn't responsible for a single possession.  That is silly.

We have a shining example of this that shares our home building.  Do we think if the Bucks were starting Henson and Snell like they were last year over a guy like Brogdon that the Bucks would be 10-4 and looking like one of the better teams in the NBA?

Some here will say yes...

Just don't get it. The Bucks didn't improve because Brogdon became a starter and Henson and Snell went to the bench. The Bucks got better because Snell's minutes dropped from 27.4 a game to 16.4 a game and Henson's dropped from 25.9 a game to 13.4 a game and those minutes were taken by better players. Not to mention Brogdon being healthy...new coach....new scheme...players developing...signing Brook Lopez....signing Illyasova

Minutes matter. If 1-30 seconds of those minutes come from the first possession great. If they come from the bench, great.

[Goose]

IMO who starts or who does not means little in the big picture. That said, some of the examples cited are not apples to apples in comparison to current situation. Tower noted some special players that were on very good teams. There are no special players not starting at MU and they are not a very good team.

The one silver lining for all the optimists out there, there might not be a need to find ample playing time for 8-10 guys on this team. A lot of folks seemed concerned that there would be enough minutes for all the talent assembled. It is mid November and I could shorten this bench quite easily.

[brewcity77]

The point is that if you find yourself down 15 early, or in a 42-17 halftime hole like Nova was in, the rest of those minutes don't really mean squat.

On a statistical level, all minutes matter equally, but when the game is never competitive, that simply isn't true.

Think of it like the Pomeroy graphs. Last night we started with about a 40% chance to win. After 5 minutes it was down to 10%, and no matter what we did, it never got much above 20% and was never even at 5% in the last 18 minutes of the game. The hole we created early was too big, and the minutes later became less important because that initial hole had already effectively decided the outcome after 5 minutes.

Not all minutes are equal if you bury yourself in the first 5.

[wadesworld]

The point is that if you find yourself down 15 early, or in a 42-17 halftime hole like Nova was in, the rest of those minutes don't really mean squat.

On a statistical level, all minutes matter equally, but when the game is never competitive, that simply isn't true.

Think of it like the Pomeroy graphs. Last night we started with about a 40% chance to win. After 5 minutes it was down to 10%, and no matter what we did, it never got much above 20% and was never even at 5% in the last 18 minutes of the game. The hole we created early was too big, and the minutes later became less important because that initial hole had already effectively decided the outcome after 5 minutes.

Not all minutes are equal if you bury yourself in the first 5.

Yup.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The point is that if you find yourself down 15 early, or in a 42-17 halftime hole like Nova was in, the rest of those minutes don't really mean squat.

On a statistical level, all minutes matter equally, but when the game is never competitive, that simply isn't true.

Think of it like the Pomeroy graphs. Last night we started with about a 40% chance to win. After 5 minutes it was down to 10%, and no matter what we did, it never got much above 20% and was never even at 5% in the last 18 minutes of the game. The hole we created early was too big, and the minutes later became less important because that initial hole had already effectively decided the outcome after 5 minutes.

Not all minutes are equal if you bury yourself in the first 5.

Until the walk ons come in all possessions are equal in value. Building a big lead early, losing it late and winning by one is no better than building big hole early, coming all the way back, and losing by 1. It's also no different than a back and forth game that you lose by 1.

Also, it's a different argument. If you want to say not getting buried in the first 5 minutes is important I'd agree with you. But 4 minutes and 30 seconds-4 minutes and 59 seconds of those first 5 minutes is decided by the coach's ability to manage a game and substitutions. More important than who played in the first possession.

[wadesworld]

Until the walk ons come in all possessions are equal in value. Building a big lead early, losing it late and winning by one is no better than building big hole early, coming all the way back, and losing by 1. It's also no different than a back and forth game that you lose by 1.

Also, it's a different argument. If you want to say not getting buried in the first 5 minutes is important I'd agree with you. But 4 minutes and 30 seconds-4 minutes and 59 seconds of those first 5 minutes is decided by the coach's ability to manage a game and substitutions. More important than who played in the first possession.

So your argument is that the players on the court don't matter, the coaches are just playing the game with a remote control?

The first 4 minutes segment of the game last night were much, much more important than the under 16 timeout to under 12 timeout in the 2nd half last night, and our walk ons were not in the game at that point.  The game was over.  It was a formality.

I continue to be very confused about why you think starters are only responsible for a single possession.  But oh well.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So your argument is that the players on the court don't matter, the coaches are just playing the game with a remote control?

The first 4 minutes segment of the game last night were much, much more important than the under 16 timeout to under 12 timeout in the 2nd half last night, and our walk ons were not in the game at that point.  The game was over.  It was a formality.

I continue to be very confused about why you think starters are only responsible for a single possession.  But oh well.

They are responsible for whatever possessions they play in. After the first possession, what possessions they play in is dependent on the coach. And no they weren't more important. You just make them more important in your head because you're a fan. Marquette has just as much ability to go on a run at the under 16 and under 12 timeouts of the second half as they do at the beginning of the game.

[wadesworld]

They are responsible for whatever possessions they play in. After the first possession, what possessions they play in is dependent on the coach. And no they weren't more important. You just make them more important in your head because you're a fan. Marquette has just as much ability to go on a run at the under 16 and under 12 timeouts of the second half as they do at the beginning of the game.

And yet if we went on a 15-0 run out of the under 16 timeout of the second half we still would've been losing.  Whereas if we did that to start the game we would've been ahead by 15.