Starting Lineups

[Warthog]

Does anyone realize that we have played 20 games now and have had 18 different starting lineups? This is ridiculous to me. Seems to me that this is a major reason we cannot find any consistency with this team. Twelve times a player has started a game but then played 10 or less minutes for the entire game.

There has been 15 games this year where 11 or more players have seen minutes. Sautrday was the 20th game of the year and we had 13 different players (that is every single player that dresses) see at least one minute of action. I know the argument is that we must have some depth on our roster. My counter point is to agree that we have a depth of players who lack talent to distinguish themselves over others that also lack talent.

Or maybe our coach is just clueless regarding how to use players. Anybody follow Phoenix much? They fast break up and down the court and have access to the best players in the world. Know how many guys they have in thier rotation. Seven, sometimes eight. I don't know how many guys are in our roation since we obviously don't have one.

[orangeandbrown]

Or maybe our coach is just clueless regarding how to use players. Anybody follow Phoenix much? They fast break up and down the court and have access to the best players in the world. Know how many guys they have in thier rotation. Seven, sometimes eight. I don't know how many guys are in our roation since we obviously don't have one.

Clueless? Like totally without a clue? I doubt it. Dan Dakich isn't getting results right now, but the man does have a clue about how to coach basketball.

In the past, he has been criticized for having too small a rotation, now apparently for too big a rotation. I will concede that it is difficult to discern the rationale behind a player not playing at all in one game and then starting in the next, but I think if we had the ability to look closer, we'd find there is a clue in there somewhere. At least one.

And we can start counting the days until Phoenix is bounced from the NBA playoffs.

[Warthog]

Here's a little more. Only sixteen times this year has a healthy player dressed for a game yet not played. Most teams probably have two, three, maybe four guys on the bench that haven't played in 16 of their teams games. We have only had that happen 16 times all year. Couldn't we have redshirted Bland and Polk or Larson instead of wasting them playing a couple of minutes each game? Thereby giving other guys a chance to see more meaningful minutes and help them develop instead of yanking them around game after game.

Here is Clements minutes by game this year: (s) indincates he started

21, 27s, 4, 29s, 12s, 6, 10, 23s, 17, 23s, 14s, 6s, 0, 5, 6, 8, 22, 28s, 24s, 1

[Jacobs4Heisman]

It's not just Phoenix. Almost every good team has a relatively set starting lineup and rotation (not including injuries/foul trouble). Plenty of coaches will tinker with the rotation up to about 3/4 of the way through a season, but there's a big difference between tinkering and blowing up the lineup every day like we're doing. Scott Skiles has gone 11 deep a few times this season, but he's trying to showacase P.J. Brown for a possible trade, and get the two rookies plenty of PT so he'll know in what situations he can use them in the playoffs. He, and more importantly, his players, know that Nocioni is first off the bench, and then Duhon or Thabo is going to give Hinrich a blow in the second quarter. Tyrus Thomas knows he'll be counted on to rebound and block shots when Wallace goes to the bench midway through the second quarter.

If you follow any big-time college or NBA team closely, chances are you know who's going to be the first person off the bench, about what time he's coming in, when the starting PG is going to get a blow, who will come in if your starting big man gets in foul trouble, etc. The players know this too, and players thrive when they know their role. It's hard to argue more than 1 or 2 guys on this team know what their role is. My biggest complaint about Dan over the years (even though I think he's a good coach), has been his schizophrenic approach to PT, especially with younger players. I think it's led directly to many of the transfers we've seen. I also think it's impossible to develop a young team when you're jerking around the lineup so much. We're seeing that first hand this year.

[CrazyFan]

I think this is just another case of "your damned if you do and damned if you don't". A lot of people have been bitching the last couple years (when DD was using a 7-8 man rotation) about all the transfers and how were not getting them the PT to keep them here. Now DD is playing everyone (maybe attempting to change his coaching philosophy a bit like everyone says he won't do) and people are still bitching. Let's fire DD; bring in a new coach which 50% of people will agree with; have his new coaching philosophy which 50% of people will agree with and start this cycle of bitching and criticizing all over again. I'm game!!!

[Jacobs4Heisman]

I think this is just another case of "your damned if you do and damned if you don't". A lot of people have been bitching the last couple years (when DD was using a 7-8 man rotation) about all the transfers and how were not getting them the PT to keep them here. Now DD is playing everyone (maybe attempting to change his coaching philosophy a bit like everyone says he won't do) and people are still bitching. Let's fire DD; bring in a new coach which 50% of people will agree with; have his new coaching philosophy which 50% of people will agree with and start this cycle of bitching and criticizing all over again. I'm game!!!

It's not about doing it one way or the other, it's about doing it one way consistently throughout the year. A consistent and sensible rotation is one of the biggest keys to a winning basketball team, and it's one thing we've lacked for a long time.

[hammb]

I don't think there was much criticism about Dan not playing enough players way back when. I think the problems were that he was playing players like Floyd, Ryan, or Phillips (all struggled at times) while young, more athletic, more highly regarded recruits sat the bench.

Either way I don't think Dan's strange subsitution patterns this year are really a part of the problem. I think he's just trying to find some combination of players that actually works. I think the underlying problems with this team are a lack of talent, and not properly utilizing the talent we do have. The strange subs are more him trying to throw a bunch of things at the wall and see if anything sticks. Unfortunately I think we're throwing plastic tipped darts into a bristle board, and we're using our left hand to boot.

I really think the biggest failing that Dan has had in his time at coach is his absolute insistence that you don't need a true PG to run the motion offense. Right now we have ZERO true PGs on scholarship; Guerin is the best available. This steadfast belief of his seems completely insane when you look back and see that the best years our offense had was when we had an awesome PG. Since then we have relied on some of the worst PGs in the MAC year in and year out, and the results have been ugly.

Looking at this roster there is some talent, but it is not enough. Samarco is a good catch & shoot scorer, but he's pretty one dimensional with little to offer with the ball in his hands and little defensive abilities. Hamblet is a good combo type guard, but is a little too careless with the ball to play PG full time. Miller is a stud at SF. Marschall can score against most PFs in the MAC, but is a liability on defense and takes himself out of games with bad fouls. Polk is a good defender in the post and I think he may have some offensive abilities, but we haven't seen them yet, he's young. Bland seems to be a good defensive sub.

Other than that we've got this roster full of guys who can best be described as "nondescript". Moten, Clements, Sims, Dusan, & Larson. All of them seem to be confused out there. Perhaps these guys were all just bad jobs of scouting and recruiting, but it really looks like they're just confused on the court. Now they're all SO/FR, so perhaps they just need time, but right nwo they seem to have no idea what their role on the team or even within the offense is. I've seen Clements drive the lane a couple times and he seems to have the ability, but we see it very rarely. Sims & Moten have made some jumpers, but seem afraid to shoot at times. I just know next to nothing about these guys, and I'm not sure why. Perhaps the erratic sub patterns are an underlying reason for this, but I'm more inclined to think that the players are just lacking confidence for some reason.

As I look at this team I see the needs as:

1. A new offensive system. I'm not a fan of the motion offense at all, even when it works I think it's usually success in spite of the system rather than because of it.
2. A legit PG
3. More athleticism at SG.


I really like our front court possibilities with Miller/Marschall/Polk, but our guard play is sorely lacking. I think if you got a legit PG, Hamblet might make a good, athletic SG...he looked promising early in the year but I think the injury is really hurting his shot.

[BleedOrange]

If you look at the box scores, we're typically playing 8 players 10+ minutes. What's different this year is that players 9-13 are getting 1-5 minutes rather than 0.

a) It's great that DD's playing everybody, even if it's for only 3 minutes. When a player KNOWs that he'll see the court in every game, even if it's only a short stint, it greatly enhances his attitude and how he practices during the week. Over the course of the season, this can make a real difference in his development. When a player rots on the bench for games on end, he's useless when he's needed and not ready to help in high foul situations or as injury replacements.

b) As mentioned, the eight differ starkly from one game to the next, and it hurts us. How does Clements goes from playing almost the whole game against Kent and to playing only 1 minute during the next game? (By the way, Clements played with gonads against Kent, and his defense was very disruptive.) Player A will play 30 minutes and player B will player 5 in one game, just to see those number flipped the next. We'd be much better off if both players played 15-22 minutes in both games.

I disagree that this team lacks athleticism. It's there, we're just not seeing it asserted. Moten and Sims play scared, but I still say they have talent. Polk and Larson aren't playing enough to become a confident, full-time 5s by tournament time. There is a severe lack of overall confidence outside of our main 4.

This team is sort of an enigma. When I look at our main four, I see nucleus to a team that should be MUCH better than 1-6 in the 16th best conference in the country. We have capable support players in Clements, Sims, Polk, Moten, Larson, Guerin. DD may be pounding nails in his coffin faster than ever.

[Warthog]

A lot of people have been bitching the last couple years (when DD was using a 7-8 man rotation) about all the transfers and how were not getting them the PT to keep them here. Now DD is playing everyone (maybe attempting to change his coaching philosophy a bit like everyone says he won't do) and people are still bitching.

I think the 7-8 man rotation is previous years was out of necessity. Between injuries and tranfers, it seemed liked we went three consecutive years with only 7 or 8 scholarship players dressing most games. He was forced to only play 7 or 8 because that is all we had.

[Warthog]

b) As mentioned, the eight differ starkly from one game to the next, and it hurts us. How does Clements goes from playing almost the whole game against Kent and to playing only 1 minute during the next game? (By the way, Clements played with gonads against Kent, and his defense was very disruptive.) Player A will play 30 minutes and player B will player 5 in one game, just to see those number flipped the next. We'd be much better off if both players played 15-22 minutes in both games.

That is probably my biggest issue. Minutes go up and down and starters change from game to game for some unknown reasons. I understand rewarding players that work hard in practice with some game minutes. But those minutes should come around the 5 to 12 minute mark of the first half. To give that player a start, play 3 minutes, then sit on the bench the rest of the game, what kind of a reward is that? And all it does is disrupt any chemistry this team might be developing.

FWIW, I would be starting Hamblet, Samarco, Miller and Marschall every game. (So far this year, only 9 times have we had a starting line-up with even three of three guys. Akron and Kent are the only two games where these four were in the starting lineup together) The fifth position can be decided based on matchups. If the opponent is guard-oriented, then Guerin, Sims, or Clements. If they are big, then Lefeld or Polk. And then deveolp some kind of rotation with Miller, Marschall, Lefeld, Polk down low and Hamblet, Samarco, Sims, Guerin, Moten, Clements at guard. But starters should be all playing at least 25-30 minutes a game.

[BleedOrange]

I'm a big believer in using depth and distributing playing time. Just for fun, this would be my personal ideal for distribution of playing time, varying roughly 5 minutes per game for any given player.

Miller 30
Samarco 25
Hamblet 25
Marcshall 25
Polk 15
Clements 15
Sims 15
Moten 15
Larson 10
Guerin 10
Lefeld 10
Bland 5
Rad 0
TOTAL 200

(The potential problems are that there might be too much rotation at the guard positions, and too much time with 3 guards on the floor.)

[kollege stewdent]

I'm going to love this responce.

Why Guerin 10 min and Sims, Clements, and Moten 15?

Is it that combined those 3 have 35 points to Guerin's 29
Is it that combined those 3 are shooting 33% from the floor to Guerin's 818
Is it that combined those 3 are shooting 0 for 15 3's to Guerin's 5 for 6
Is it that combined those 3 have 14 assist's to 27 TO to Guerin's 21 to 5

What is difference?
Why would you give those 3 more playing time than Guerin?
I back my opinion on the stats. What about you?

[BleedOrange]

I'm going to love this responce.

Why Guerin 10 min and Sims, Clements, and Moten 15?

Is it that combined those 3 have 35 points to Guerin's 29
Is it that combined those 3 are shooting 33% from the floor to Guerin's 818
Is it that combined those 3 are shooting 0 for 15 3's to Guerin's 5 for 6
Is it that combined those 3 have 14 assist's to 27 TO to Guerin's 21 to 5

What is difference?
Why would you give those 3 more playing time than Guerin?
I back my opinion on the stats. What about you?

Fair points. Actually, I have a high opinion of Guerin and would be happy to see him get a scholarship here.

Clements brings a lot of toughness on both ends of the floor. He's a junkyard dog. I think he's should be first off of the bench for the forwards. I'd like to see him less at the 1, but on the floor more consistently. Too bad his jumper isn't better.

For me, a significant part of a young player's minutes would be based the player's top end. What is the investment quality of a player's minutes? Simply, I believe that Sims and Moten have a higher top end than Guerin, so playing them a little more now may have a bigger payoff down the road (without costing us too much right now). However, this is speculative and I could be wrong. Also, my willingness to wait for Moten to step up would be waning towards by the end of this year. Anyway, we're only talking about 5mpg difference.

I've made this argument before, and I'll make it again: to measure a player's ability based PURELY on stats, you need a MUCH larger sample size than what you're using to argue for Guerin (and again, I like Guerin quite a bit). To base a young player's minutes on stats in lieu of a more qualitative judgment of ability, you simply need stats from a larger number of games and a larger number of minutes. In our case, comparing stats of these players is pseudo-scientific. The basis for objective choice just isn't doesn't exist and is generally unrealistic in sports anyway.

So there.

[Globetrotter]

I don't think there was much criticism about Dan not playing enough players way back when. I think the problems were that he was playing players like Floyd, Ryan, or Phillips (all struggled at times) while young, more athletic, more highly regarded recruits sat the bench.

Either way I don't think Dan's strange subsitution patterns this year are really a part of the problem. I think he's just trying to find some combination of players that actually works. I think the underlying problems with this team are a lack of talent, and not properly utilizing the talent we do have. The strange subs are more him trying to throw a bunch of things at the wall and see if anything sticks. Unfortunately I think we're throwing plastic tipped darts into a bristle board, and we're using our left hand to boot.

I really think the biggest failing that Dan has had in his time at coach is his absolute insistence that you don't need a true PG to run the motion offense. Right now we have ZERO true PGs on scholarship; Guerin is the best available. This steadfast belief of his seems completely insane when you look back and see that the best years our offense had was when we had an awesome PG. Since then we have relied on some of the worst PGs in the MAC year in and year out, and the results have been ugly.

Looking at this roster there is some talent, but it is not enough. Samarco is a good catch & shoot scorer, but he's pretty one dimensional with little to offer with the ball in his hands and little defensive abilities. Hamblet is a good combo type guard, but is a little too careless with the ball to play PG full time. Miller is a stud at SF. Marschall can score against most PFs in the MAC, but is a liability on defense and takes himself out of games with bad fouls. Polk is a good defender in the post and I think he may have some offensive abilities, but we haven't seen them yet, he's young. Bland seems to be a good defensive sub.

Other than that we've got this roster full of guys who can best be described as "nondescript". Moten, Clements, Sims, Dusan, & Larson. All of them seem to be confused out there. Perhaps these guys were all just bad jobs of scouting and recruiting, but it really looks like they're just confused on the court. Now they're all SO/FR, so perhaps they just need time, but right nwo they seem to have no idea what their role on the team or even within the offense is. I've seen Clements drive the lane a couple times and he seems to have the ability, but we see it very rarely. Sims & Moten have made some jumpers, but seem afraid to shoot at times. I just know next to nothing about these guys, and I'm not sure why. Perhaps the erratic sub patterns are an underlying reason for this, but I'm more inclined to think that the players are just lacking confidence for some reason.

As I look at this team I see the needs as:

1. A new offensive system. I'm not a fan of the motion offense at all, even when it works I think it's usually success in spite of the system rather than because of it.
2. A legit PG
3. More athleticism at SG.


I really like our front court possibilities with Miller/Marschall/Polk, but our guard play is sorely lacking. I think if you got a legit PG, Hamblet might make a good, athletic SG...he looked promising early in the year but I think the injury is really hurting his shot.

This may be my favorite post of the year. Your point about Sims, Moten and Clements is perfect. "Nondescript" I said after the OU game that I could not even tell them apart for the affect they had on the game. Which was none. You are right to say that they all lack confidence. That is what happens when you are not put in positions to succeed. Great post.

[Warthog]

Saturday was starting line-up #20 out of 22 games. Guerin gets a start, is out by the first media time-out and never plays again.

Coach, how about giving these kids some consistent playing time? How are you helping Clements develop when his last six games are: 22, 28(s), 24(s), 1, 5, 3 ? What does it do for Guerin to start him and only let him play three minutes? Sims didn't play at all agaisnt Ball St (a game we won, btw) and then gets 16 mins Saturday, basically replacing Geurin's minutes when you let Guerin start? Why didn't just start Sims and let Guerin get his three mins spelling Sims?

Samarco, Miller and Hamblet getting 35+ mins is about right. Marschall should be getting close to 30 minutes, but he fouls too much so only gets about 20. Clements and Moten should each be getting 15-20 mins per game Lefeld and Polk can split about 20 mins. Figure out if you like Sims or Guerin better and let the winner play 15 mins a game. Nine man rotation. Why is this so hard to figure out?