ClutchFans Game Thread: Rockets @ Grizzlies 3/29/2013

"First, the argument that the Starters played poorly in the early quarters is determinative of their play in the 4th quarter is a flawed concept."

What's a flawed concept is your concept that no matter what the backups cannot perform as well as the starters. Can you guarantee that all 5 starters can bring the Rockets back and win the game? You can't. Can you guarantee that the starters will play better than the backups? You can't. Just because they are starters it doesn't mean jack.

"There is no shortage of games where Lin, Harden and Parsons were off to rough starts and turned it up in the 4th quarter. This is why there is complaints about "slow starts"."

There is also no shortage of games where Lin, Harden, and Parsons were off to rough starts and stayed that way the entire game. Actually, Lin has many more sustained bad games from start to finish than Harden and Parsons did.

"Second, the previous score from 17 to 9 points down means nothing. The Starters are rested and the Bench has played 10 straight minutes. You're 9 points down, who do you go with? If the answer is not a line up including at least SOME of the Starters, then your answer is flawed."

The starters were also rested at halftime but what happened? The starters increased the deficit to 15 pts towards the end of the 3rd quarter. So being rested or not is flawed in this particular argument. The Rockets were down 9 pts and who got them there? The backups. The starter played poorly and they expect to come back. NO. At that point, every starter played like crap so none of them deserved to play. It was obviously a statement game from McHale. He's not going to allow anymore lackadaisical games going forward despite losing the game.

"There is NO scenario where ALL of the Starters should have been benched unless you're actively trying to THROW the game."

Your favorite coach Popovich didn't even play 4 of the starters against Miami just to send a statement to the league, so is he trying to actively throw the game away?

"You can't possibly be arguing that NONE of the 5 starters should have been on the floor. Asik especially should have been on the floor if they wanted the team to have a shot at a win."

How do you know Asik is going to give them a shot? Again, can you guarantee it.

 

This is fake intellectual rigor.

Overall, you contradict yourself by saying the first quarter does not predict the fourth quarter, but then you say past play of Parsons, Asik and the starters is your basis for letting them play in the fourth. Make up your mind: do you want to look at past performance or not?

In your first point you claim the past doesn't predict the future. Not 100%, but it's a pretty good indicator. For example, I can bet you $1000, based on past experience, that Asik will not score 60 points tonight. Wanna take that bet? Let's hurry and set it up. The past is indeed a pretty good indicator of some stuff. Even you rely on past performance throughout your second point.

Second, you give no explanation of why you'll allow some starters to be benched and not others. Well, your explanation is that Asik had played well historically, after you say the recent past is irrelevant. So you allow some people to be benched but not all, with no explanation why.

Good luck arguing about basketball without looking at past performance.