The importance of the starting lineup is overblown. In a league which is becoming increasingly fluid and where positions are harder to define, where permutation of lineups change the style of play many times during each game, the concept of your starters defining your team is archaic. I’m writing this in the context of the recent power forward debate (if you can call it that) of whether Patrick Patterson should start ahead of Luis Scola, as Dwane Casey had hinted that Patterson is best suited to come off the bench.
The biggest benefit of having a set starting lineup is predictability. Everyone has a general idea of when they’re going to play, when the first sub will happen, who the first sub generally is, and what stretches of play the bench unit will be responsible for (at least in the first half). I get it. At the same time, this sort of predictability can come back to bite you because it’s also easier for the opposition to scout a set pattern. Why would you show your cards at the start of the game if you didn’t have to?
The focus on basketball #analytics has changed a few things, and probably the biggest one is highlighting the value of the three-point shot. One area where it’s hinted at disrupting but hasn’t yet is the concept of starters. If you look at most teams, their most efficient lineup is often different than their starting lineup. For example, in terms of Win%, the Raptors starting lineup last season wasn’t even close to their ‘best’ lineup, yet played the heaviest minutes. I know, there are many other variables at play here, but the point I’m trying to make is that having a defined set of starters and sticking to them is counter to putting out the lineup that’s best for the moment.
On most teams the starters generally consist of your five best players and they tend to start all five together, as if the game is decided in the first quarter. To me, it never made sense to start out with a lineup where all your talent is concentrated when it’s a 48-minute game. If anything, the talent wealth should be spread evenly in the game, and perhaps be more concentrated in the fourth quarter. After all, a basketball game is closer to a marathon than a race. If you happen to have ball-needy players in the starting lineup, you’re also decreasing their effectiveness by playing them all together since they’re basically competing against each other for possessions. Just look at Jonas Valanciunas, we all complained all season how he wasn’t getting enough touches when the real problem was that he was playing with players who need the ball just as much, and are higher in the pecking order. If you move a guy like Valanciunas to the bench, perhaps you can afford to give him the time on ball he deserves?
I get the idea of a starting lineup in something like soccer, where you’re only allowed three substitutions and your starting eleven needs to be carefully picked in anticipation of what the opposition might do. The margin of error there is low. If you start a lineup where your wingbacks like to overlap, but the other team have players who are efficient at operating in wide areas and cutting in, you’ve set yourself up to fail, or at least put a tremendous amount of pressure on your midfielders. Better use a sub, and oh, it’s a 90 minute game where fatigue kicks in real soon and there aren’t any official stoppages of play.
Those constraints don’t exist in basketball. You can make unlimited subs and have a concept of timeouts which afford you tactical flexibility. I’m a little surprised that a coach out there hasn’t debunked the myth that you need to have your 4 or 5 best players in your starting lineup, as if playing them gives you a massive lead at the end of the first quarter which you ride home the rest of the way.
Maybe that’s the next step in basketball. We’ve already done away with differentiating between positions and instead have placed an emphasis that a team should consist of interchangeable parts rather than specialized players who can only be successfully in select settings. Maybe the next bold move is to start Kyle Lowry one game, and Cory Joseph the next. It’ll take some getting used to, but if as a coach you have a plan, it’s the other sideline that’ll be left scratching their head.