I have heard that but I’m just a Benny so I don’t know for sure
Does the starters matter?
- Thread starter LXWildcat
- Start date
I do believe it matters, which is how I voted. However, I don't think it matters as much as many other things- here are 3 of those things that matter more to me: 1. how many total minutes do players get in a game? 2. who is on the floor at crunch time? 3. how do players respond to starting or subbing in later?
1. If a guy starts but plays fewer minutes than others regularly, he's a starter in name only.
2. The players on the floor at crunch time are the REAL starters. They're the guys the coach trusts to get the job done the most.
3. Some guys are terrible as starters, or just not as good as they are off the bench. Maybe they psych themselves out or just need time to get a feel for the game. Some guys need that start perhaps because they just don't play as well from the bench or maybe because they've always started games and don't handle disappointment as well as others. Some guys probably don't care if they start or come off the bench and it doesn't change their play at all. As coaches learn their players, these things should definitely be taken into account.
1. If a guy starts but plays fewer minutes than others regularly, he's a starter in name only.
2. The players on the floor at crunch time are the REAL starters. They're the guys the coach trusts to get the job done the most.
3. Some guys are terrible as starters, or just not as good as they are off the bench. Maybe they psych themselves out or just need time to get a feel for the game. Some guys need that start perhaps because they just don't play as well from the bench or maybe because they've always started games and don't handle disappointment as well as others. Some guys probably don't care if they start or come off the bench and it doesn't change their play at all. As coaches learn their players, these things should definitely be taken into account.
If it doesn’t matter then why not just start Bradshaw, Ugo, Tre, Thiero, and Z? Maybe throw Horn in every now and then?
Minutes per game
Reeves 31
Mitchell 30
Sheppard 29
Wagner 27
Dillingham 23
Thiero 23
Edwards 22
Onyenso 18
Bradshaw 16
Ivisic 11
Burks 7
Keep in mind only Sheppard and Reeves have been available for every game due to injuries and Z has only been eligible since January. I mean, you can argue about who starts but this looks pretty good to me. The best players are playing
Reeves 31
Mitchell 30
Sheppard 29
Wagner 27
Dillingham 23
Thiero 23
Edwards 22
Onyenso 18
Bradshaw 16
Ivisic 11
Burks 7
Keep in mind only Sheppard and Reeves have been available for every game due to injuries and Z has only been eligible since January. I mean, you can argue about who starts but this looks pretty good to me. The best players are playing
I look at it as pure mathematics . The players who are statistically better should play all the minutes unless they need a rest or get in foul trouble. Let's say we are in the NCAA tournament and the Cats get behind at the beginning of the game 20-5. Rob and Reed come in and never go out and the Cats lose by 15. So the time Rob and Reed played the teams played dead even. For me it is an easy conclusion to reach that if Rob and Reed had played the other available minutes the game would have been very close and maybe the Cats win by a few. I have never ever seen a team who didn't start their best players.
This also makes no sense. Why didn’t Cal just bring Wall and Cousins off the bench?
The saying “ don’t argue with an idiot, because they’ll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience “ sure applies to anyone who says starting lineups don’t matter and the best players don’t need to start.
Cal knows who the best players on this team are because “most” lead in mins played. He just doesn’t start them out of loyalties, promises, or some agenda. He can’t stand to be questioned or proven wrong. So the minute the media and analysts started pointing out his starting five was one of if not his worst lineup I knew he’d dig his heels in. Putting Rob and Reed in at the 17-18 min mark just proves he knows.
What’s worse is morons on this board defending him.
Well that makes way too much sense for a lot of posters on here to understand.
I voted no because every coach I ever played for said that who finishes the game on the floor is exponentially more important than who is on the floor to start it.
Probably because they played well on both sides of the ball. They also played among the most minutes. They also weren't 1-4 as starters.
"I promise to start you and pull you after 3 minutes and then play you the 4th, 7th and 8th most minutes." 🤣
What if we start them and go up 15-5. We then put in the former starters and give up the lead. What then?
The “Bennie Lineup” fiasco from Cal last season taught you nothing about the type of guy that Cal is did it? His face should be in the dictionary beside Narcissist.
I mean it's senior night so I assume mitchell will start. Mitchell at the 5 is way better than ugona starting out.
It doesn't matter as long as we get off to a good start and if not replace them within 2 minutes of a bad start, plus it might help take the pressure off our real A- team players.
You can't be this obtuse.
Reed
Rob
Z
Reeves
Should all start!!
What is the record when they do?
^^^ This is the 100% correct answer.
The whining and debating “what’s our record when Reed starts“ is ludicrous.
The simple fact of this entire debate that’s drug on all year is: any coach who’s NOT JVC would START his best players, period. That’s not debatable except for the fact we have an idiot as a head coach.
There‘s been comments where it seems that Cal doesn’t play that exact starting five ANY in the games except for the 1st three minutes of each half - none. Why is that? Because it’s not a good lineup - period.
Every single person who’s ever watched a game can tell we start out games with a “handicapped” lineup. There is ONE, count them ONE player in our starting five that has to be guarded - Reeves. The other 4 the opposing team will give an open shot to any time they want it. If we make it to the 1st tv timeout without being down double figures we’ve gotten lucky.
It will 100% be our demise in the tournament. We will get behind 14-4 right out of the gate and battle back, but lose and it will be completely because Cal refuses to start his BEST players.
Why would you do that? You don't take Rob or Reed out unless they get in foul trouble or need a rest.
Down 12-4 most games before two of those come in to save us. But you do you, Boo Boo.
He was deferring to less skilled players than he would be with the Benny Line Up.
He was? How so? What is the alleged benny lineup this week? It changes so often I can't keep up.
I can’t remember the last time we scored off the opening tip, so does that extra .5 possession really matter. LOL!
So i went back and looked at all 28 games, and do you know how many times UK was facing a significant deficit(defined as being down 6 or more)? It was a grand total of 5 games. And even 6 is a pretty negligible number, but that’s what I went with.
So the narrative that Rob and Reed have to come in and save the day because UK is down game after game when they come in is false right off the top. Most games the score is close, and in many of them UK was leading.
You mean Kentucky had the lead on poop state?
You think we should give Cal a bonus for that?
Down 16 to 5 to Tennessee. Down 9 to 0 to Kansas. Down 15 to 8 to Texas a&m. Down 14 to 3 to Mississippi State. Down 9 to 3 at Arkansas. Down 11 to 4 versus Gonzaga.
Had the three R's started all of those games maybe those deficits wouldn't have happened. Later Z Aas well.
Last edited:
This is funny because if you had said way more important, then who starts could have 0 importance. However if it is exponentially more important then we have to assume that it does have some level of importance, because zero to any power is zero, so you should have answered yes.
I don’t believe coaches use language like that
The problem people have with our starting lineup is we are an offensive team. We only start 1/4 of our best offensive players. My offensive rankings for reference would be:
1. Reeves
2. Dillingham
3. Sheppherd
4. Ivisic
5-7: DJ, Edwards, Thiero
8. Mitchell
9. Bradshaw
10. Ugo
I think you have to start at least 2 of those top 4 listed above and if you want to mix and match with defense and have dillingham come off the bench that would be ok, but for a shooting team that plays 5 out to start with our worst shooters seems odd.
1. Reeves
2. Dillingham
3. Sheppherd
4. Ivisic
5-7: DJ, Edwards, Thiero
8. Mitchell
9. Bradshaw
10. Ugo
I think you have to start at least 2 of those top 4 listed above and if you want to mix and match with defense and have dillingham come off the bench that would be ok, but for a shooting team that plays 5 out to start with our worst shooters seems odd.
2 things.
1) Horn is plays 0 minutes, so your suggestion to start him is different (and ridiculous)
2) your lineup is all bigs with almost no bsllhsndling or outside shooting, so that is also very different.
From a statistical perspective, you assume scoring is uniformly distributed, so yes it does still mean an extra 0.5 possessions, but that extra 1/2 possession comes at the end of the game, not the start of it. But actually I think we often lose the tip.
Only the woke fringe of BBN would say it doesn’t matter who starts, when there’s over a 100 year sample size that suggests otherwise!
Clowns will be clowns I guess🤡🤡🤡
Clowns will be clowns I guess🤡🤡🤡
So would that 44% also agree that if would be normal for Bird or Magic to not start for their respective teams, or how about Jordan and Pippin coming off the bench during that 90’s run?
You all should be ashamed and embarrassed for suggesting anything of the sort! But you are obviously proud😩
You all should be ashamed and embarrassed for suggesting anything of the sort! But you are obviously proud😩
I agree and that’s why I named those players because it does matter. Those players together create an obvious weakness. The ones Cal starts do also but not as obvious.
That’s a damn good question Susan. Good question indeed. I always laugh when I see the “anti Reed and/or Rob start” crowd go ape shit about this subject. It doesn’t make sense?! It doesn’t matter who starts as long as it’s not Reed and Rob? Like, what the actual hell are they trying to argue? Just weird.
