Mixing and matching vs. establishing routine, that is the question. During Morey’s last radio interview, he said that the Rockets’ small ball lineup was proven as effective, and its twin towers lineup was unproven but had potential. He suggested that the lineups with a more traditional 4 weren’t as effective and wouldn’t be used as much. But the team also wants to have 48 minutes of good rim protection, and that in turn means that the Rockets should actually mostly be playing small ball, with a maximum of 20 minutes or so when Omer and Dwight are both on the court. What happens if the Rockets’ coaching staff can tell that the twin-tower minutes will be most effective against certain members of an opposing team’s front-court rotation, but not as effective against other members of that rotation? Will they tailor substitution patterns to create the best matchups for the Rockets? It’s not entirely clear that they will, because McHale has also suggested on several occasions that although the coaching staff will be trying different lineups early on, it will eventually settle on a set lineup and rotation, so that a routine will be established and everyone will know their roles. I’m not sure I agree with that approach—not when the best lineups for the Rockets are so radically different. Let’s take the Mavericks. Dejuan Blair is Dirk’s backup. Right now the Mavs are using a three-big rotation since Brandon Wright (Dalembert’s backup) is injured, but let’s assume they end up playing four bigs when Wright returns. Blair does not shoot threes, so it would seem that it would make most sense to use the twin towers when he was on the floor. The twin towers would shut down the lane against that such a lineup, as Dwight could simply sag off of Blair, daring him to shot from long range. And Parsons might be best suited to chasing Dirk around the three-point line. That’s arguable, but let’s assume that the numbers point in that direction. What kind of substitution pattern would make most sense in that case? With a four-big (rather than the current three-big) rotation for the Mavs, so that Blair would be coming in for Dirk after 10-12 minutes, I think it would make sense to start small with Parsons at the four and Dwight at center, then sub Asik for Dwight after five or six minutes and then finally bring Dwight back in for a twin-towers lineup when Blair subs in for Dirk. I kind of doubt, however that McHale will take that approach, both for reasons of establishing routine generally and for keeping Dwight happy, because Dwight might regard being subbed out so early in a game as a slight. And there’s certainly something to be said for routine. Take baseball closers. Sabermetricians have long argued that the most important late-inning at-bats often do not fall in the ninth. Just looking at things statistically, many have suggested that your best reliever should come in, say, with one out and two on in the seventh, rather than with the bases empty and no outs in the ninth. But attempts to use clubs’ best relievers when the outs are most important have failed. Relievers seem to like routines, and almost all clubs, even ones that emphasize advanced stats like Oakland and Boston, have ended up using their best relievers almost exclusively “to close.” Nevertheless, to maximize the strengths of the Rockets, I would prefer McHale emphasize flexibility aimed at getting the best matchups over routine. What do you guys think?
OK, no one responded to this thread when I first posted it. But the issue clearly remains: Should the team take a more flexible approach to using the twin towers, starting them only when the matchups make the most sense? (My original post was too long winded. I apologize for that.)
