Starting Matters

[goldeneagle91114]

If i'm Wojo. I start our 3 walk-ons, Hedlt and waterboy. No one else deserves to start after last night.

[brewcity77]

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.

If the game were played on an infinite timeline, you would be correct. However, it is not. The problem with your argument is opportunity. From 0-0, all minutes are equal because ultimately you have to win the sum remaining minutes by 1. However from 19-4 with 35 minutes remaining, they are not because you have to win those 35 minutes by 16 to achieve the same result.

Sure, you could go on a run at any point of the game, but the less time you have remaining and the greater the margin, the less likely it is you will be able to make that run and the less likely it is that run will be significant enough to overcome the margin you need to ultimately win.

Again I will point to the Pomeroy graph. After 15:00 of gametime, our likelihood of winning had shrunk from 37% to 8%. What happened during that time made the remaining time significantly less important because of the margin of differential. We went from 0-0 to trailing 39-24 and because of that 15-point margin, the importance of the minutes that remained was significantly less. The statistical differential of a 29-percentage point swing bears that out.

By the time we reached 15:00 to go in the game, we trailed 61-40 and had a 1.2% chance of winning. So to argue that the first 15 minutes, where we began with a 37% chance of winning, and the final 15 minutes, where we began with a 1.2% chance of winning were equal defies all statistical laws.

We like to have these semantic arguments about how it doesn't matter who starts, it matters who finishes, or how every possession has equal value. In a zero sum game, that's true. However when the net results that preceded who finishes handed you a 21-point deficit to overcome, or the deficit is so great that you need to score more points than are possible in the possessions you have remaining, the stark reality is the possessions that came before WERE more important than the ones at the end of the game.

Last night was one of those nights. For all intents and purposes, the game was virtually over after 5 minutes, and the final nail was in the coffin with almost half the game left to play. We simply didn't do well enough in the early stages of the game to allow the late stages of the game to matter.

And it's not me saying that, it's the numbers: https://kenpom.com/winprob.php?g=533

[tower912]

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.

Rod Grosse, too, but referencing Dukiet to defend anything is a bad idea.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

And if they followed up that 15 point run with what happened the rest of the game they still would have lost. Being up 15 at the beginning of the game is irrelevant. All that matters is the final score. Whether you got those points in the beginning or the end does not matter.

[brewcity77]

And if they followed up that 15 point run with what happened the rest of the game they still would have lost. Being up 15 at the beginning of the game is irrelevant. All that matters is the final score. Whether you got those points in the beginning or the end does not matter.

What happens before impacts opportunity after: https://kenpom.com/winprob.php?g=533

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

What happens before impacts opportunity after: https://kenpom.com/winprob.php?g=533

You and I are having different conversations.

[brewcity77]

And if they followed up that 15 point run with what happened the rest of the game they still would have lost. Being up 15 at the beginning of the game is irrelevant. All that matters is the final score. Whether you got those points in the beginning or the end does not matter.

The reason it's relevant is because going on a 15-point run is unlikely. Let's say there's a 5% chance of it happening. If you need a 15-point run to take a lead, the odds of it happening are far greater with 35 minutes left because if you break the game into 5-point increments, you have 7 opportunities to do it, provided you play even the in the other 6. If you have 3 opportunities to do it, your odds go down significantly (15 minutes left). If you only have one opportunity to do it (5 minutes left) it's virtually impossible. That's why while increasing a margin will increase your chance of winning, maintaining a margin will also increase your chance of winning when you have a clock involved.

Your point only works under the assumption that the 15-point run is going to come. Last night, for us, it never did. And as the clock ticked down, the minutes remaining became far less significant than what had come before.

[brewcity77]

You and I are having different conversations.

As I understand it, your argument is that all minutes have equal value. Once a lead is built, I am arguing (with support from Pomeroy's graph) that it is simply not the case because of the opportunities lost. How am I misunderstanding your argument?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Again you and I are having different conversations. I understand how win probability works.

[79Warrior]

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.

I am not ready to say that we are not a very good team. Too early for that call. I am very disappointed in the coaching staff more that the players. Archie Miller told everyone what he was going to do and that is what happened. Right from the get go IU swarmed Marcus and got in his head. Markus is a liability at the point. Play JC and see if he can get it done. If not, pray Elliott returns.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

As I understand it, your argument is that all minutes have equal value. Once a lead is built, I am arguing (with support from Pomeroy's graph) that it is simply not the case because of the opportunities lost. How am I misunderstanding your argument?

I'm talking about the starting lineup mattering less than who plays the most minutes. By definition,  starters are who play the first possession. The coach could sub them all out after one possession and never play them again. They would still be starters. What's more relevant is who plays the majority of the remaining 60+ possessions of the game.

[Lighthouse 84]

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.

Whomever?  So you bring Markus off the bench?  The kid's body of work over the last two years trumps the bad game he had last night.  And don't tell me he also had a bad game against UMBC when he had 8 boards, 7 assists and only two turnovers.  I'm as frustrated as anyone about how he played last night but not sure how he doesn't start.

[#UnleashSean]

I'm talking about the starting lineup mattering less than who plays the most minutes. By definition,  starters are who play the first possession. The coach could sub them all out after one possession and never play them again. They would still be starters. What's more relevant is who plays the majority of the remaining 60+ possessions of the game.

When the first sub came in it was 8-2, Howard had turned the ball over and we had burned a timeout. Now the entire game is in Indiana's hands at this point. All the momentum, Howard is probably feeling down, and the crowd is completely amped up. Now maybe we started JC for Hauser (relax, its not really going to be that) and instead on two of those three possesions Howard gets open and hits two threes. Instead of being down 8-2 we might be up 6-4. Getting a great start matters big time.

[wadesworld]

I'm talking about the starting lineup mattering less than who plays the most minutes. By definition,  starters are who play the first possession. The coach could sub them all out after one possession and never play them again. They would still be starters. What's more relevant is who plays the majority of the remaining 60+ possessions of the game.

So we shouldn't ask the question of why not start a lineup of Marotta, Gardiner, Jaffee, Heldt, and Lelito if starters don't matter because we won't see a lineup like that this year, but we should talk about having 5 guys take the tip off and then calling a timeout to sub those 5 guys out immediately and not have them play another possession?

Come on now.  This is beyond silly.  I figured there would be some miniscule amount of simple common sense in that "starting" wouldn't consist of that, but I guess that's where the problem lies.

I'll stick to "starting matters quite a bit" and hope that most people don't think to themselves, "Well what if a coach starts 5 guys, wins the tip, and at 19:59 in the first half takes a timeout and subs them out and sends them to the locker room to shower and head back to Humphry Hall?!"

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So we shouldn't ask the question of why not start a lineup of Marotta, Gardiner, Jaffee, Heldt, and Lelito if starters don't matter because we won't see a lineup like that this year, but we should talk about having 5 guys take the tip off and then calling a timeout to sub those 5 guys out immediately and not have them play another possession?

Come on now.  This is beyond silly.  I figured there would be some miniscule amount of simple common sense in that "starting" wouldn't consist of that, but I guess that's where the problem lies.

I'll stick to "starting matters quite a bit" and hope that most people don't think to themselves, "Well what if a coach starts 5 guys, wins the tip, and at 19:59 in the first half takes a timeout and subs them out and sends them to the locker room to shower and head back to Humphry Hall?!"

Subbing out all five after a second is unlikely. But one player after a possession? Happens often. Couple players after a few possessions also happens. Starting three walk ons? Never happens unless it's senior day.

I'll be sure to tell Jae Crowder that you think Erik Williams starting was more key to our success than Jae playing 28 minutes a game.

[wadesworld]

Subbing out all five after a second is unlikely. But one player after a possession? Happens often. Couple players after a few possessions also happens. Starting three walk ons? Never happens unless it's senior day.

I'll be sure to tell Jae Crowder that you think Erik Williams starting was more key to our success than Jae playing 28 minutes a game.

Starting matters does not mean Jae's 28 minutes weren't important. But please do pass along that message to him.

[GB Warrior]

I would start with an empty court and sub them all in after the first bucket. Walk-ons clearly didn't do the team any favors with their scout team work

[NotAnAlum]

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.

I do think who is announced to the home crowd (ie starters) is important and while I don't like the way he has preformed at the #1 Marcus certainly deserves to be in the starting lineup.  I personally think Theo does as well.
I agree the book is out on Marcus and he is not a sufficiently good ball handler to play the point in games against decent competition.  So like it or not Wojo has to have Joe in the game and assuming he wants Marcus in the game as well that going to me slim minutes for some of the forwards.

[brewcity77]

I'm talking about the starting lineup mattering less than who plays the most minutes. By definition,  starters are who play the first possession. The coach could sub them all out after one possession and never play them again. They would still be starters. What's more relevant is who plays the majority of the remaining 60+ possessions of the game.

Then I think you are misunderstanding the point of the thread. wades was contending the importance not only of the starting lineup but the manner in which the game starts and the trends that are set by a bad start, whether that's the first handful of possessions from the starting five or the first handful of minutes from all those players. The OP was pretty clear in that regard. He specifically referenced the opening possessions and also the overall time period that led to an early 15-point deficit.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yes,  you and i do have different understandings of the point of this thread.

[skianth16]

I'm talking about the starting lineup mattering less than who plays the most minutes. By definition,  starters are who play the first possession. The coach could sub them all out after one possession and never play them again. They would still be starters. What's more relevant is who plays the majority of the remaining 60+ possessions of the game.

Your definition of a starter may be true, but we all know that in reality the starters actually play at least past the first media timeout in the majority of games. The starting lineup matters because those guys play the first several possessions of the game and set the tone early on.  When you get in a hole early, it is much harder to dig yourself out.

Anyone trying to make the claim that the starting lineup doesn't matter because a sub can come in 10 seconds into the game is just arguing for the sake of arguing. That doesn't happen, which makes the starting lineup important.