I recall posting, jokingly, a month ago in an old thread, that our 2nd unit could beat the Nets. Yesterday, thats pretty much what happened in the second half. The second half of last season, the 2nd unit was responsible for a lot of close wins. That trend has pretty much continued throughout this pre-season. At least for a couple of games. Theres another current thread arguing whether Bud should start over Battier. Also theres the ongoing discussion over whether Lowry could start over Brooks. So my question is not only could the 2nd team start, but should they?
No. Their job is to bring in an instant impact at different parts of the game. They are back ups for a reason and that's because they can't have that impact for most of a game or for more than the starter. Just because we took leads or stretched them with our back ups doesn't mean they necessarly won the game for us. The starters deserve alot of credit for keeping up with other teams' starters and giving the 2nd team the opportunity to have an impact, which isn't difficult as theyre better than most 2nd units int he league (but not better than our starters).
They do well in smoking other teams benches and giving us back leads or adding more. They gain more value if our talent is spread out onto the bench and in the starting lineup at the same time. Budinger is becoming a valuable starter in this league and so is Lowry. Lee already was.
Wow, great question, I don't even have the response to this. so you wanna bench Yao, Scola, Battier, Martin, brooks, and start Lowry, Lee, Hill, Hayes, and Miller. hmmm, NOO..!!
Unless it's a clear cut backup is better then starter decision, you always want to maintain the status quo. Especially for the Rockets now that they are in the market for a star player. You don't want to move Lowry into the starting lineup only to trade him and put Brooks back in. At the same time, you don't want to do that at SF either...it just creates unnecessary tension with your team.
The reason that our 2nd unit is so successful is because they are better than other team's 2nd unit. The reason the starters sometimes struggle is because there is a smaller difference in talent between our first and second units. But there is a difference. That difference is why when we lost part of our first unit and the 2nd unit fills in we struggle.
Well, you have to think about how awesome Yao/Scola/Battier/Martin/Brooks would be against the other team's 2nd unit. In fact, I bet they'd be so good they just might be able to start for us.
Well put. Most posters do not understand that at all. I read too often if this guy or that guy started he would do this and so and so is holding him back from starting so we should trade the starter. The reason most backups excel is they are better than the competition they face on second units on a nightly basis. As you so aptly pointed out!! If the backup was better, say like AB over Rafer, the starter would be gone!!
The whole 2nd unit is good because they play against the 2nd unit is only somewhat true. It's not like both teams due mass substituions at the same time near the end of the 1st qtr. However, they do tend to play against 2nd unit and gased 1st unit guys.
Actually, i think Yao coming off the bench is not a bad idea. Also, the 2nd team is not always playing the other bench when they come in. Example, in the Orlando game, Hill did well against Howard. He said himself that Howard was stronger, but he(Hill) was quicker. Lee was also good against Carter. In the last game, Patterson held his own against Lopez. So these are not scrubs coming off our bench. Even players on other teams(Granger) are saying that our bench could start. Besides, the bulk of our defense is coming off the bench.
