I'm sure ancient orators like Demosthenes and Cicero are impressed with the modern internet debating styles and comments, such as "rolleyes". And the jury must be on the edge of their seat with this kind of showmanship. Whatever floats one's boat. I do recommend reading that article I sent you, as this pertains to your point about "The individual players and combination of players that is most effective at any given time toward winning".
A cursory glance of that huge article did not reveal anything about lineups or substitutions or performance-based minutes. It did talk about topics that are quite tangential to my point (and yours), such as AK, CJ, Giricek <<sigh>>, and Brewer. It was more a commentary (unjustified, IMO) on KOC than on coaching. Feel free to point out parts where I missed those subtleties.
This is what I referred to as pussyfooting. If we win 3 more games because of this strategy, but only play favors 25 minutes; we have failed.
But if we lose 3 games (or more) because we didn't have a legit (backup) center and/or solid interior defense, then we have failed--just like we have failed repeatedly in previous years when the Sloan regime completely ignored the concept of developing bigs--however marginal--to fill in holes, even after they had demonstrated some semblance of ability to contribute.
This team is not winning anything by developing Millsap. And yes Millsap is still developing.
Yes, but he's not developing at the same rate as a rookie would. That's exactly my point.
I'm not sure what the logic behind statement is, "OK, then, he doesn't need as many minutes to develop".
It's a matter of minutes allocation. Going from 10 minutes to 15 minutes for a rookie is more valuable developmentally than for a veteran to go from 25 to 30 (or 30 to 35).
The logic is once a person is no longer developing they shouldn't get minutes? I assume you didn't mean this?
No I didn't; that's why I didn't say it. I stated that minutes are crucial for development, that 5 (or probably 10) minutes per game is an insufficient minimum to develop (especially for a big), and that giving Favors 30+ minutes for "development" purposes (instead of 20 or 25) is insane if it comes at the sacrifice of NOT developing Kanter, who is a legit center.
You have good and valid points (1-3). What seems to be the assumption is that Favors and Kanter are competing for playing time. We already have Millsap and Jefferson penciled in for minutes. My point is that we should already have Favors penciled in for minutes--not Millsap and Jefferson (again the article). Who knows with Kanter. He seemed promising, but we'll see. If Kanter shows that he can step right in and is the future, then we should trade one of our current big men or put Millsap permanently at the 3 and let him try to work this out over a season because his future with the Jazz is not at PF. If he can't do it, then trade him. If Kanter sucks in both adjusted and real-time stats and general play then you cut his minutes.
The related crux is that you find 10 MPG for the crucial youngins, without sacrificing wins--something that Sloan was terrible at doing. And when the youngins are helping, you give 'em more; you don't robotically throw Favors back in to meet some arbitrary 30-minute minimum if Kanter is getting the job done and has barely gotten 10 minutes.
No one on the team should be given anything, but what are we waiting to see with Favors.
OK, then allocate the minutes on a minimum below 30 minutes and let them earn the extra 5 or 10.
We already know he lives in the gym, he's one of the most athletic bigmen in the league, adjusted and advanced statistics show he's effective etc
Millsap lived in the gym, and he only got 20 MPG in his second year.
And you're helping my argument again. If Favors is already effective, then the team doesn't have to work hard to find him development minutes (which is really not an issue at, say, >20 MPG, which is that Millsap was developed at for years 1 and 2). They can use him more for production minutes--and the additional development will come naturally.
If we want to go down the path of lets see if we can win 1 1/2 more games with our most experienced team, then cut Favors' numbers and lets play Paul and Al 35 and 35 at the center and PF position and let Favors and Kanter develop slow enough so that they are just peaking when they're coming out of their contracts and are bitter that they received miniscule playing time.
I am not a fan of the timing-peak-at-contract-expiration thing, and the problem has been that several young players have not even gotten the minimum minutes to peak at their contract expiration. Such a strategy does potentially sacrifice wins in the short term because the supporting cast is underdeveloped and can contribute less.
Imagine if OKC would have tried to play a few veterans over KD just to win 3-5 more games a year, would KD have developed the confidence and leadership he now has.
I simply don't think that shaving 5 minutes off a 30- or 35-minute average shatters confidence much, and the benefit of having a more developed supporting cast far outweighs any hypothetical confidence boost that you're imagining. You want confidence (for your Durants and Favors and everyone else)? Develop a legit center alongside them, plus giving 10-15 MPG to Burns on the wing so that you have a legit shooter / perimeter defender, and watch the confidence of Favors (and everyone else) rise.
Even at less than 30 minutes per game for your "Little Superman".
