I think you seriously underestimate the value of a good bench. What about Sam, Elie, and Bullard helping the Rockets win? The average NBA starter probably plays around 35 per game. That leaves at least 65 of the 240 minutes to be filled by bench players. That's over 25% of the game! That's a pretty long time. Not to mention what happens if injuries occur. What the Rockets could use is two or three or hell, even one player who can come off the bench and hit a shot on a semi-consistenst basis.
Last year was a blessing in disguise. The injuries allowed us to develop players that will be important in the future. Griffin, TMo, KT, and Moochie all had substantial minutes on the court. These players along with the ones that will return from injuries and the ones that will be drafted should prove to be formidable opponents. (Not to mention our starting center, the 13th highest scorer in the league and our franchise) Our team should look like this: Cato, Ming, Collier Griffin, MoTa, KT Rice, #15(Nachbar), Tmo Cat, Torres Franchise, Moochie Looks deep to me. Looks athletic to me. Looks like we have shooters. Looks like we could put together a combination that could score with anybody. Looks like we have the potential to become a very good defensive team.(Visions of Ming clogging the middle like Eaton) Give them time to develop! We might have something special developing.
HP, The difference is that in the new era where there are more teams, and the talent is watered down, the bench means less then ever. Chicago had a terrible bench.....The Lakers bench is awful, San Antonio had an awful bench. Sure, the Rockets had a decent bench...but really who won the games? Sam Cassell or Hakeem ? The starters are generally the ones who win and lose the games for you, while the bench is there to provide rest and to hold the line while the starters (BEST PLAYERS) are on the bench. The old addage about taking one of your best 5 and putting them on the bench is dead......no more Kevin Mchales or Bob Cousy type players. The bench is just a place to develop young talent and to have some contributions while the starters rest. Starters win and lose games these days boys....benches ARE overated. DaDakota
This new era? Watered down bench means less the ever? That is ridiculous. Since the league is "watered down" wouldn't it be more important to have a stronger bench?
BigBoy, It would be very beneficial, but that is not the case, for the most part teams benches are now a place for young players to train, and to gather experience until they are ready to be starters. There are a few exceptions, Portland, Sacremento etc...but for the most part benches are overated. If the bench plays 25% of the time, then who matters more the players who play that 25% or the players that play the 75%? The bench is a luxury but not a necessity. DaDakota
Uhhhhh, what about the LA Lakers? Seemingly, they are deep at almost every position...even center. I mean, you've got Shaq and Kobe, but the bench really is pretty strong. You've got guys like Devean George (who I think could be a really solid player given minutes), Shaw, Richmond, Walker, Hunter (who was a double figure scorer and starter with Detroit), and even Medvedenko and Madsen are capable post backups.
DaD- There is no question that the starters are more important. Don't disagree with you on that. However, most games in the NBA are won by less than 10 points. I actually do not know the standard deviations but I know we lost the majority of our games by 7 points or less. A stronger bench could give us an additional five victories.
Hoop T, Just becaue you recognize their names does not make them productive. Let's look at the finals total tally of points Lakers for 4 games averaged 106 for a point total of 424. Starters scored 374 points Bench scored 50 So the starters scored roughly 88% of the points in the series. What was it you were saying about the importance of the bench again? DaDakota
DaDakota, You make a good point about the bench and the playoffs. Yes, there seems to be a correlation between playoff advancement and players in the active rotation. Most coaches admit to shortening their roster once the playoffs begin, ideally around 8 or 9, and as a team advances the starters get a bigger portion of playing time. But then again, a team has to endure that meat grinder known as the regular season, i.e. you better have some capable players on the bench. Can't have one without the other.
Live, Agreed about the regular season, I am just emphasizing that the bench seems to be overated. It is better to have role players on the bench that can do spot duty, but they key to any team's fortunes rests in their starters. DaDakota
DaDakota, you are rewriting history to make your points. 80s was still absorbing the ABA, just like the 90's was absorbing the late '80s expansion, yet had no foreign players. Every title in the 80s was won by superior benches. It was "watered down" as much as this "new era" with its influx of foreign players, and only 2 new teams in 6 years. Kukoc was a vital bench player on 3 Chicago titles The Lakers first win had Horry, Fox, Fischer and Shaw on the bench (they won that on smothering, non-stop defense) Portland blew a 16 point lead in 7th game against the Lakers Kings are one bad bounce from a 3-1 lead That was some "bench luxury" we had when Vernon Maxwell QUIT on us and Herrara went down all at the beginning of the playoffs, yet the role players stepped in and helped Dream/Drexler survive. 2nd place teams like Drexler's Portland, Barkley's Sun (3 double digit bench players), Ewing's Knicks, Seattle, Indiana, Sprewell's Knicks were defined by their benches. These are not luxuries or anomalies. scores or second place teams were known for their bench. Basically, the teams with superstars and no bench who can win are the anomaly. your logic is weird. One can say that games are won in the 4th Q by superstars and still say benches are not overrated. One can say that leads are built by benches and cut into by benches while superstars play to a draw. dude!!! just make your case that superstars can win without much of a bench. You don't have to make a silly argument that benches are overrated or "luxuries". That's rewriting history.
The bench overrated?? Maybe in the playoffs where the rotation is shortened but in the regular season a team has to have a good bench. If a team has injuries the bench must be strong enough to produce points and play defense. If that doesnt happen...well you see whay happened to the Rockets.
Actually, my post referenced absolutely nothing about the importance of the bench. Maybe you were directing that comment to HP again. I said the Lakers were deep. They are. Just because their bench players don't score a higher % of points means very little in terms of being deep. The fact is that if you look at the players skills and productivity when given minutes (scoring is one thing, but how many other things can a player do to be productive in a basketball game???????), it's obvious that the Lakers could hurt you with their bench players. What were Walker's averages when he was given minutes? I remember them being close to if not a double double. If you want to look at scoring only, then you've got to look at the other teams too....check Dallas' numbers. I'd be willing to bet that their bench scoring % is relatively low for the most part too.
On a scale of 1-10 contribution to championship success Starters (especially the "stars") 9-10 Bench 2-3 The best benches are those who can help when a star is out for a short time. Take away the star player off a team and you will find that the bench is overated even if is the #1 bench in the league. You need a good bench if you have a great player taking you to the championship and there is an injury that puts him out for a short time. Another way of saying it is: benches contribute but the elite superstars must deliver the rings.
rhester, no duh that if you take a star away from its team, they won't win. But that does not make a bench "a luxury" as DaD, said. If stars play largely to a draw (like Magic vs Bird; Shaq vs Dream; Anfernee/Drexler) the bench wins it. If my bench (Detroit) is so superior to yours, I can nullify your stars, tire them out, and crush you when you have to sit them, and some 3rd year largely unknown starter like Joe Dumars can win Finals MVP over Isiah and Aguirre. Benches are the reason many stars can win 60 games. Few stars can get to the Finals by themselves. And often, the bench is the deciding factor, not two stars battling it out.
