Starting 5
- Thread starter Halldan1
- Start date
Bud, would you choose different starting fives based on the opposition or would you rather have stability allowing the players to know their roles at the beginning of the game? That would also include the players on the bench.
Interested in hearing various opinions.
Dan
I have always believed that players play better when then know what their roles are and when there is stability in who starts and who comes off the bench. There would be those times however where because of a particular team strengths you would make a change by replacing one or two or your starters but you would have to make sure the starters who are being replaced understand why that decision is being made.
I would start whatever players most closely matchup in size to the other team, regardless of ability. Cheir Ajou v. Xavier is a great example. All of our small guys v. Division 3 teams is another example.
Lots of varying opinions about that and in truth I don't think there is a definitive answer as the question becomes do you let the opposition dictate to you or do you force the opposition to counter your strengths?
My take (of course depending on the game situation) is that defense and rebounding should take precedent over offense.
My take (of course depending on the game situation) is that defense and rebounding should take precedent over offense.
Go with your same starting 5 (best players imo) with the occasional switch here and there for various reasons (assuming no injuries).
A weakness will eventually appear and you adapt accordingly.
Is there any other way to do it?
A weakness will eventually appear and you adapt accordingly.
Is there any other way to do it?
Personally I agree. I like settled starting fives as well as known roles for all the players. But at times you have to adapt to what you see and you make changes accordingly.
But with that said, I don't like to do that too often unless my hand is forced.
But with that said, I don't like to do that too often unless my hand is forced.
Versatility is indeed important and I agree we need to prepare as best we can for every reasonable situation. But as I learned from my friends in the C-Suite, you also need to have a core competency. What will be ours? By definition you should not have too many core competencies, especially when the spectrum is as broad as play up tempo/play half court. I suspect we will not run as much as others on here would like.
I also agree teaching half-court offense is not like teaching rocket science. In fact it is the opposite. In basketball, everyone knows what is coming. Teaching half court offense is drilling the players so they become so proficient at what they do, the other team has a hard time stopping it, even when they know it's coming. That takes time and is the difficult part.
This is all true but a bit of an oversimplification. I bet you didn't become the CIO of your hedge fund simply because you "wanted it more". You learned things and put that knowledge to better use than those around you. It is the same with defense. Fighting thru a screen is a good thing. Knowing when to fight and when to switch takes time and practice.
Completely agree with this. And that's why I have been harping that the starting five should be
IW
Carrington
Singh
DRod
Delgado.
That's a solid starting five even if you have an undersized PF. I still like the balance offensively and I think that 5 gets it done on the glass.
Bud's point touches on what we already seen as the pattern for five years - the starting five in the very first game of the season is predictable but ceremonial at best, in as much as it immediately changes, does not come back for very much in the game at hand, and does not seem to repeat across more than a few weeks if that. I just don't think this current coach has a "starting five" mentality.
Instead, I think he believes that the best five guys in yesterday's practice should get the start. In some kind of theoretical universe, this seems like a "meritocracy" but it means in practice that team mates cannot migrate into well-defined roles and expectations as a norm.
I'll give an example - a team that has a well-defined set of starters and roles allows even a weekend TV commentator to intuit when a coach might either need to make a move / change or to muse with interest why a coach is making a daring change (out of the ordinary) and see the effect.
With us - the talking heads do not seem to intuit very much - since they cannot tell and one never knows.
Lest someone barfs up on this as a solely negative post, please note that I'm trying to elucidate side-effects of what I think is the current coach's primary philosophy - the last best practice five approach. Honestly though - I see this philosophy as something that an assistant coach can believe in because he can give an "effort recommendation" to the head coach with a clean conscience. One notes that one expects that the head coach should be more strategic in approach.
One might infer additional conclusions from that particular paragraph.
Instead, I think he believes that the best five guys in yesterday's practice should get the start. In some kind of theoretical universe, this seems like a "meritocracy" but it means in practice that team mates cannot migrate into well-defined roles and expectations as a norm.
I'll give an example - a team that has a well-defined set of starters and roles allows even a weekend TV commentator to intuit when a coach might either need to make a move / change or to muse with interest why a coach is making a daring change (out of the ordinary) and see the effect.
With us - the talking heads do not seem to intuit very much - since they cannot tell and one never knows.
Lest someone barfs up on this as a solely negative post, please note that I'm trying to elucidate side-effects of what I think is the current coach's primary philosophy - the last best practice five approach. Honestly though - I see this philosophy as something that an assistant coach can believe in because he can give an "effort recommendation" to the head coach with a clean conscience. One notes that one expects that the head coach should be more strategic in approach.
One might infer additional conclusions from that particular paragraph.
What I dont understand with this approach is it assumes we have starters every week that dont try hard at practice. I dont buy it. But if its true i think we need to look less at game time roster lineup and more at why the F our coach is running a team where even a few of his players dont try at practice.
Most teams dont even think about meritocracy, and if we have to then the problem is too big to fix.
Shouldnt be this hard
From a philosophy perspective I have good news for you guys. Last year the same lineup started the first eleven games. Delgado, Mobley, Whitehead, Gibbs and Sina. There was not a single lineup change in the OOC schedule before the Whitehead injury. I think it can be at least postulated that KW will indeed stick with a lineup if the situation warrants it.
I understand the coach rarely gets the benefit of the doubt and KW will never get it. The question is whether KW changes lineups indiscriminately. There is at least some evidence that he does not.
Indiscriminately? Maybe not... But ridiculous starts that make literally no sense multiple times every season? Yes.
456, good observation, yes, that's true - and we thought we had finally seen our way forward (and we did - for two months plus). I know I forgot that stretch (LOL - maybe the memory got suppressed). That should be a pretty unique stretch - those 11 games - again - if I'm not utterly wrong.
Anecdote is a lousy way to reason - but my predominant memory is that the starting lineups have been subject to volatility. I think there is something to the "practice" mentality at work - I think it's something this current coach states pretty regularly.
Ah well - we'll see how it goes. It's not unreasonable to expect that it must flip and flop for the next month - one hopes that it steadies up to something rational.
Another point - just riffing on the topic presented - if you're Kentucky, you can always start your top five because they're generally better than every one else. I get that sometimes you have to change things up so that the opponent does not automatically and easily have a game plan against your five (especially if you're middle of the pack and lower).
It seems like the over-thinking of the prisoner's dilemma happens though. Where's that awesome scene from the Princess Bride regarding the poisoned wine cups when you need it!
Anecdote is a lousy way to reason - but my predominant memory is that the starting lineups have been subject to volatility. I think there is something to the "practice" mentality at work - I think it's something this current coach states pretty regularly.
Ah well - we'll see how it goes. It's not unreasonable to expect that it must flip and flop for the next month - one hopes that it steadies up to something rational.
Another point - just riffing on the topic presented - if you're Kentucky, you can always start your top five because they're generally better than every one else. I get that sometimes you have to change things up so that the opponent does not automatically and easily have a game plan against your five (especially if you're middle of the pack and lower).
It seems like the over-thinking of the prisoner's dilemma happens though. Where's that awesome scene from the Princess Bride regarding the poisoned wine cups when you need it!
Indiscriminate was a poor choice of words on my part. We are talking philosophy. And while that 11 game stretch is relatively short in the grand scheme of things, it occurred in the part of the season where experimentation is more likely to happen. I don't think it is fair to say KW has little or no value for set lineups. There is some factual evidence that suggests otherwise.
As for anecdotes - Ajou started because Willard was concerned about Delgado getting too ramped up to play Stainbrook and picking up quick fouls early in the game. It turned out that Ajou played two minutes and whether it bothered Stainbrook or not I don't know, but he did have a relatively quiet game, at least for him.
Ish starting at Butler was, in my estimation, the highlight of KW season. It was the kind of desperate, out of the box thinking I like to see from my coaches. Jones dismantled Desi, Karlis and Manga in the first meeting (23 & 8). With Ish on the job, he was a much more manageable (12 & 7) in the rematch. We lost anyway, but not because Ish played.
As for anecdotes - Ajou started because Willard was concerned about Delgado getting too ramped up to play Stainbrook and picking up quick fouls early in the game. It turned out that Ajou played two minutes and whether it bothered Stainbrook or not I don't know, but he did have a relatively quiet game, at least for him.
Ish starting at Butler was, in my estimation, the highlight of KW season. It was the kind of desperate, out of the box thinking I like to see from my coaches. Jones dismantled Desi, Karlis and Manga in the first meeting (23 & 8). With Ish on the job, he was a much more manageable (12 & 7) in the rematch. We lost anyway, but not because Ish played.
456, perhaps we disagree on the root cause of why this currently employed coach makes changes - does he react to the unexpected with changes because he has planned well enough at the strategic level or because he's just plumb-plain-surprised time in and time out? I do not offer that to drive us down the infamous rat hole. I do want to point out that we may reasonably and even deeply disagree on what underpins what looks like a "philosophy".
So - back to philosophy - my take is that he is primarily driven by a "best guys in latest practice" approach, coupled with "trying to out-think the coach of the upcoming game". You've given evidence that for one stretch in his tenure, he stuck with the same lineup. What is your take on his overall philosophy in action across his time here?
Again - I hope you'll hear my voice as calm and inquiring and interested.
So - back to philosophy - my take is that he is primarily driven by a "best guys in latest practice" approach, coupled with "trying to out-think the coach of the upcoming game". You've given evidence that for one stretch in his tenure, he stuck with the same lineup. What is your take on his overall philosophy in action across his time here?
Again - I hope you'll hear my voice as calm and inquiring and interested.
I wanted Desi to play 3 last year and I want him to play 3 this year, either start or first off bench.
In no way do I want Desi to play the 4 unless when playing small teams and even then I think it might be a mistake bc we need our bigs more practice time to get better against small teams we should beat in our out of conference schedule.
also in no way do I want Gordon to start unless carrington comes off the bench. We need at least one capable guard coming in as a reserve bc of potential foul trouble and players getting tired.
In no way do I want Desi to play the 4 unless when playing small teams and even then I think it might be a mistake bc we need our bigs more practice time to get better against small teams we should beat in our out of conference schedule.
also in no way do I want Gordon to start unless carrington comes off the bench. We need at least one capable guard coming in as a reserve bc of potential foul trouble and players getting tired.
Friday's starting 5 according to a player.
Whitehead
Carrington
Singh
Ish
Delgado
Take it for what it is!
Whitehead
Carrington
Singh
Ish
Delgado
Take it for what it is!
I like that 5...if Willard believes Ish can handle big east power forwards and
not just smaller teams, I'm okay with it.
not just smaller teams, I'm okay with it.
I would be 100% shocked if this team walked out to start the game.
You might beat lower ranked teams. But you won't be able to compete against the big boys with this five getting serious and sustained minutes.
Disagree. If thru game play or practice you think another kid will be more valuable as a starter, you start them.
In the game Ish started, Jones scored 12 and we lost by 20. In the other Butler game, we pissed away a win while Jones scored 23.
Stainbrook was not a huge factor against us in either game last year.
We do disagree on the root cause. I looked at the eight BE games IW missed with his injury.
Sina, Gibbs and Mobley started every game. Delgado started every game but the aforementioned game at Xavier.
The only changes came trying to replace IW. If we are being honest IW was irreplaceable but we tried with Manga for two games, followed by Karlis for two games, followed by Ish, before settling back to a three guard offense with KC. Few people wanted more Manga/Karlis and while some preferred Desi over KC - KW stuck with his philosophy. People can disagree but there was little evidence that last year Willard was doing too much lineup juggling.
After the Gtown, the wheels came off because of what I consider the real root cause - Willard's inability to control a locker room. All this talk about lineups is window dressing, at least that is how I see it.
Picking a starting five for this year's team comes down to who starts at the 3, Singh or Desi and who fills the 4 from a list that includes Desi ,Anderson ,Ish, Nzei , Anthony and Carter. One problem I see in filling the 4 is that starting Desi would not work against the better teams and there is no clear cut choice among the candidates for that position. While the discussion on this Board as to who would fill the four this season initially focused on Anderson that does not appear to be the case as we open the season . While Desi is clearly among the top 4 players on this roster he's not a four and who plays the four and how well the player or players who get minutes there do will be one of the keys to this season.
The only change is Ish for Desi... HOW is that any better or even the same? Youre saying Ish over Desi is the key to compete against the big boys??
To me, you cannot do anything well without consistency and roles. We should do what we do and force others to adjust to that, not adjust to the every week. I don't think college teams can get away with that effectively because they're not deep and versatile enough to do that.
What are we going to be? Let's start there. Will we be a strong defensive team? Are we a spread-and-drive offense? Will Desi and Nzei be big rebounders behind Delagdo?
What are we going to be? Let's start there. Will we be a strong defensive team? Are we a spread-and-drive offense? Will Desi and Nzei be big rebounders behind Delagdo?
It was definitely more stable last year. In years past that has not been the case.
It really doesn't matter either way though because we've stunk.
That's probably the five best, but that also tells me we've wasted a lot of ships on a lot of big people.
That's where the problem lies. You are not beating quality teams with a 6-5 210 lb power forwarding playing a ton of minutes. Especially when he really doesn't want to play there in the first place.
We have size in Ish, Nzei and Anderson. It might not be with the quality of player we all want but it is what it is.
Having our PF's sit on the bench while Desi gets pounded by bigger and stronger players is not a recipe for success.
By the end of last year he was physically exhausted as was Delgado who often had to go it along with the opposition's big guys in the paint. So Desi playing the 4 effects more than just himself.
Don't agree. Match-ups will dictate and I think in tight games you'll often see Gordon in the game for his defense.
Doesn't all this debate about the starting lineup come down to the fact that our recruiting efforts have failed to produce a legitimate , high quality, starting center thus forcing Angel to play there not the four or to at least to bring in another high quality, ready yo compete player who could play either power position.
Similar threads
