Scoring off the bench — from a starter?

[Zombie]

Worrying about the offensive production of our bench seems wrong-headed imo. It was pretty awful last year and we have more weapons to mix and match lineups.

The concern to me is our defense, that's where we might end up missing Favors and Crowder the most.

 

[NAOS]

Well, not always. With the exception of Joe, there were a lot of times where it was just the bench in the game. In other words, a lot of times where we literally had no scorer on the floor (well, most times Donovan is off the floor), to the point where we really highly valued the Ingles/Favors PNR. But, yes, the assumption that these guys won’t be staggered, I believe, is fueled by our bias that once Donovan left the floor, there wasn’t any offense, starter or not, and the bemoaning of our loss of our go-to bench play is supplanted by someone who was a #1 option.

Tl;dr to say our “bench” lost offensive production will prove false.

Um, Ingles and Favors we’re both starters. And Ingles was our second most impactful player according to many advanced statistics.

 

[infection]

Um, Ingles and Favors we’re both starters. And Ingles was our second most impactful player according to many advanced statistics.

We’ve still got Ingles. And while I agree with you about them both being starters, people reference their pick and roll in bench units as something we’ll miss, presuming it won’t be compensated for because Conley and Bojan are “starters.”

 

[NAOS]

We’ve still got Ingles. And while I agree with you about them both being starters, people reference their pick and roll in bench units as something we’ll miss, presuming it won’t be compensated for because Conley and Bojan are “starters.”

The Ingles-Favors PnR turned into a great weapon. Q and the players sort of had to find it, since the offense had little else. Based on what I’m hearing, nobody is really worried about replacing offensive output in a general sense. And I’d argue with anyone who didn’t trust Q to find our best weapons and put them in their right spots.

We have a ton more weapons next season. Four legit PnR ball handlers, all of whom can shoot. **** yes. Stagger them. There are opportunities for roll men to step forward, but nobody should worry.

 

[infection]

The Ingles-Favors PnR turned into a great weapon. Q and the players sort of had to find it, since the offense had little else. Based on what I’m hearing, nobody is really worried about replacing offensive output in a general sense. And I’d argue with anyone who didn’t trust Q to find our best weapons and put them in their right spots.

We have a ton more weapons next season. Four legit PnR ball handlers, all of whom can shoot. **** yes. Stagger them. There are opportunities for roll men to step forward, but nobody should worry.

I’m not concerned about it. It seems like people have concerns about defense or offensive output from the bench. I’m on who doesn’t believe we’ve lost anything, other than a bit of possible defensive intensity/switchability in closing lineups. I think people really struggle with liking Favors and feeling that we’re better off. Like, if we don’t look for some way that we’re going to miss him, it means we didn’t appreciate him or don’t love him. The reality is just that we’re different.

 

[SCS]

I actually think we're going to miss him on offense and specifically in the pick and role with the second unit more than we will on defense. Ed Davis is a very good defender and rebounder but he's not even close to Favors level offensively.

But Bojan Bogdanovic is better than Favors offensively. And Jeff Green is good in the pick and roll.

 

[Lakers_Slapper]

We’ve talked about bench scoring this year and I listened to a bit of Locke’s podcast where he mentioned that we may miss the Ingles/Favors pick and roll from the bench (in the larger context of feeling like the pros far outweigh the cons of our changes).

Anyway, we’ve got three guys on the roster who were their team’s #1 option last year. Would there really ever be reason to not have one of them on the floor at all times? Even if all three start, you could sub out both Ingles and Bojan early (4-6 mins in) for Green and Royce. That would allow Royce to get more burn defending starters, and would allow Bojan to come back in as the scorer. You could assume Mitchell and Conley play the first and last 8 minutes of each half, with a couple times of subbing them each out for a minute to give them a breather. But, obviously, you don’t need Conley and Mitchell on the floor together at all times.

Anyway, despite losing one of our bench weapons on the offensive end, is this not made up for by virtue of the fact that the rotations will push someone into bench units who led their team in scoring last year? Would that not have been very, very valuable to us last year?

to answer your question, I don't think we should put a blanket solution/ blanket rotation in place game by game. Every game is different and substitutions on our starters are made based on many factors. Who's hot and who's not? Who are the defending, etc. We may lose the Ingles/Favors pick and roll, but we main gain an even more valuable play between two of the several guys we acquired. Truthfully, we're going to be a much better team so there's a lot more we gain than what we lose. There's a lot more positives to look forward to as to a single play that we may lose because of the loss of Favors. Bottom line is we get beat because we can't score, and with the team we assembled, we can now score without sacrificing our defense.

 

[gomretat]

Bogs off the bench.