I'm not sure you need to play Gobert more than 30 minutes per game, at least with a fully healthy squad. Gobert plays at a high energy level and can get worn down. Generally, when healthy, he HAD to get back in the game to stop the bleeding from our horrible bench. If our bench can hold its own or extend the lead on a consistent basis, I see no reason to not sit Rudy for longer stretches to keep him fresh for crunch time. A tired Rudy tends to do dumb things.
A bench that produces is going to make it easier to short the starters minutes, especially on extended road swings. Teams with depth win on the road. If the bench doesn't produce, then the minutes can be allocated more heavily to the starters. I'll just be happy to not see someone like Chris Johnson or Elijah Millsap checking in at the scorers table because we have no other options.
I had Rudy penciled in for 30 minutes myself, but my point is that we're only going to be able to cut down on minutes if we're winning. If we're behing or the game is close Hayward is playing 36 minutes that night.Having a great bench does make it easier to short the starter minutes, but from the little bit of research I've done, starters have more impact on starters getting rest. That sounded awful, but bear with me. The primary way for Hayward, Favors, and Gobert to get more rest is to blow out teams. The bench won't lose leads like last year, but having a sizable lead in the first place is the first step. If the starting unit can be a +10 (NET) lineup they'll get plenty of rest.
The only player I think that has to play big minutes each night is Hayward. He's easily the most indispensable player on roster imo. There will be nights where we can win small so Rudy or Favors doesn't have to play a lot, but Hayward is going to be needed unless it's a blowout. I'd go into every game prepared to play him 36 minutes. Hopefully there will be games you don't need him that much, but I think you get the idea.
Are there any teams from recent seasons with comparable depth we could look at?
Few teams came up:
First team to look at is the Spurs, every year. They are the golden standard. They usually have 1-3 guys who eclipse 30 MPG, but never more than 33. No one played more than 30 MPG in their most recent championship season. The Jazz starting lineup will be good, but I don't see them reaching the level of the Spurs. Our bench isn't as good either. Manu was a killer and extended leads like no other.
Next we have Spurs east, the Atlanta Hawks. It seems so distant now, but the Hawks won 60 games two years ago. Their bench doesn't sound that spectacular on paper (Antic, Scott, Thabo, Bazemore, Shroeder), but they also didn't have a starter play over 33 minutes. Their starting lineup was good (+8.6), but that's definitely something the Jazz can achieve. My takeaway from this team is that depth doesn't just come from the bench, it can also come from the starting lineup. The Hawks had 5 starters who you'd want to play big minutes. All of them are key players. Having a balanced team like this means that your starters will play more total minutes together and almost every lineup will include 1 or 2 key players. Having every starter play 30 MPG meant that no one had to play 36 MPG.
Lastly, the post-Melo Nuggets are a good team to look at. Another short lived era, but they did have goo success while it lasted. They really only had a 9 man rotation, but they also had a very balanced starting lineup and their 4 bench guys (Miller, Chandler, Brewer, McGee) all demanded a lot of minutes. Their highest MPG guys were Lawson and Igoudala at just under 35 MPG. I think this is where Hayward will be, somewhere between 32-34 minutes a game. Denver's starting lineup was decent (+7.0), but the Jazz should be better and be able to boat race teams more often.
The toughest part to figure out is going to be the backend. I can't think of a team who had a guy like Alec Burks as their 10th man.
