With near equal talents at each position,

[2Dope15]

The main thing I'm worried about is if Skal and Lee get into foul trouble the same game.

 

[Poetax]

Will we platoon? I think we've likely seen the last of that experiment.

No we won't. But for that one year it worked because of the overload of talent we had. Anytime you win 38 out of 39 games using a plan it has to be called a success. Did we make it to the final game? No but the rest was a great ride. And again I don't care to see it again.

 

[JPScott]

I hope I never hear the word platoon uttered in conjunction with UK basketball again.

Not saying UK should platoon this season, but curious where this disdain for the platoon comes from?

Does being undefeated and playing at a offensive and especially defensive effectiveness that was not only the best seen from any Calipari team ever, but was amongst the greatest teams of all-time not good enough? In some measures the team was literally off the charts in terms of effectiveness playing the platoons.

I just don't get why after such a historically good season, so many people are anxious to get back to a rotation that has not been nearly as effective.

Makes zero sense to me. Again I'm not saying that it should be used this year. But if some day UK was blessed to have similar talent and depth as the 2014-15 team to go along with the same intangibles, they'd have to be clinically insane not to at least consider and try the platoon IMO.

And BTW I know Calipari said he wouldn't do it again but I have to believe that's an overreaction from a few recruiting losses. I tend to think rival recruiters would have been even worse if Cal had played only 7 or 8 and left a few McDonalds AA on the bench.

 

[docholiday51]

Not saying UK should platoon this season, but curious where this disdain for the platoon comes from?

Does being undefeated and playing at a offensive and especially defensive effectiveness that was not only the best seen from any Calipari team ever, but was amongst the greatest teams of all-time not good enough? In some measures the team was literally off the charts in terms of effectiveness playing the platoons.

I just don't get why after such a historically good season, so many people are anxious to get back to a rotation that has not been nearly as effective.

Makes zero sense to me. Again I'm not saying that it should be used this year. But if some day UK was blessed to have similar talent and depth as the 2014-15 team to go along with the same intangibles, they'd have to be clinically insane not to at least consider and try the platoon IMO.

And BTW I know Calipari said he wouldn't do it again but I have to believe that's an overreaction from a few recruiting losses. I tend to think rival recruiters would have been even worse if Cal had played only 7 or 8 and left a few McDonalds AA on the bench.

Jon,all you say is true,but it will stick in the craw of many Cat fans(me included) that we didn't cut down the nets when it was all said and done.We should have,we had one of the best teams ever assembled,we should have won it all,better to blame the platoon than a coach or player.

 

[JPScott]

Jon,all you say is true,but it will stick in the craw of many Cat fans(me included) that we didn't cut down the nets when it was all said and done.We should have,we had one of the best teams ever assembled,we should have won it all,better to blame the platoon than a coach or player.

Well of course the true response is that platoons had zero to do with the loss, since platoons weren't used except for a few minutes.

If anything it was the opposite as Cals decision to restrict the lineup led to UK ultimately not able to push the pace versus Wisconsin. Near the end of both halves Wisconsin was ripe to be ground into the dirt but UK was not able to put them away, largely because they didn't use their depth throughout the game.

 

[1 for the Blue]

Not saying UK should platoon this season, but curious where this disdain for the platoon comes from?

Does being undefeated and playing at a offensive and especially defensive effectiveness that was not only the best seen from any Calipari team ever, but was amongst the greatest teams of all-time not good enough? In some measures the team was literally off the charts in terms of effectiveness playing the platoons.

I just don't get why after such a historically good season, so many people are anxious to get back to a rotation that has not been nearly as effective.

Makes zero sense to me. Again I'm not saying that it should be used this year. But if some day UK was blessed to have similar talent and depth as the 2014-15 team to go along with the same intangibles, they'd have to be clinically insane not to at least consider and try the platoon IMO.

And BTW I know Calipari said he wouldn't do it again but I have to believe that's an overreaction from a few recruiting losses. I tend to think rival recruiters would have been even worse if Cal had played only 7 or 8 and left a few McDonalds AA on the bench.

..................................................................................................................................................................
EXACTLY, JP!
My question was a hypothetical that related to and originated from the extrordinary success the Cats had this year with the platoon system.

In actuallity, platoons are seldom rigid in the sense that players at any time may be interchanged between platoons without losing the integrity of each platoon. Cal demonstrated this several times.
The result speaks for itself.

 

[loucatfan]

The platoon system was a one time deal as has been pointed out above. Too many problems . If the best first five had averaged 30 minutes a game during the season instead of 20 we may have won it all. NO criticism of coach Cal who is the best coach in the game. My guess he would tell you this privately himself. A unique situation called for it. People came back who he didn't expect.

A ten man rotation does not work. A nine man rotation does not work. Your best players don't have time to develop their game (remember most are freshman) .

However if you put the numbers to eight you can make it work. Five get 30 minutes a game. that leaves 50 minutes shared by the remaining three . about 16 each more or less depending upon the need and how they perform. Difference in night and day from 20 minutes. The way we play ten minutes rest or sitting because of foul trouble will actually help the development of the first five rather than impede it like only twenty minutes did.. I think eight is the perfect number(f you have five five stars.(We have six) and the maximum number you want in the rotation.

 

[docholiday51]

It is hard to say that what we did during the season(some form of the platoon system) had zero to do with what we did at the end of the season(NCAAT) We just never found the next gear that I thought we had,for whatever reason we left a National Championship on the table.I wish it had ended differently.

 

[bucsrule8872]

By the end of the season, I think it will be a very tight 7-man rotation with either Matthews or Mulder emerging as the 7th man. I think it will be Matthews because he's already heralded as a great defender and Cal values defense.

G Ulis- 30-35mpg
G Briscoe- 30-35mpg
G Murray- 30-35mpg
F Poythress- 25-30mpg
F Labissiere- 25-30mpg
6 Lee- 20-25mpg
7 Matthews- 15-20mpg

Wynyard fills in when we have foul trouble inside. Mulder might see some minutes against zones.

Cal might split Matthews' and Mulder's minutes, with both getting about 5-10mpg, but I believe Matthews ends up all playing Mulder and earning all the backup guard minutes.

 

[Hoskins91]

In order to play that many people as a cohesive unit, you need more than one season. Since we're always young, we are much better off sticking to shorter rotations so our main guys have more time to mesh. If we could get 10 guys who were close to equal, who actually fit the position they played, and knew they would all be around for several years, then it would make sense.

 

[brianpoe]

Note: We have only had 2 players average around 35 mpg. Knight and Wall.

#3? Julius Mays 33mpg (& PPat)

 

[JPScott]

It is hard to say that what we did during the season(some form of the platoon system) had zero to do with what we did at the end of the season(NCAAT) We just never found the next gear that I thought we had,for whatever reason we left a National Championship on the table.I wish it had ended differently.

I think we never found the next gear because 1.) we started to go away from our advantage which was our depth and 2.) as the season wore on Calipari went away from a set lineup and the players never really gelled as well as they could have.

I know this seems paradoxical (especially to some commenting on this thread who oppose the platoons) but one of the beauties of the platoon last year was that it allowed UK to both utilize their depth AND to develop a tightly knit unit. How could those seemingly opposing goals both be achieved ? By developing TWO tightly knit units.

Before Poythress went down it clearly was a no-brainer that the platoons were working beautifully. After that, it was more a question how to proceed but the times UK stuck with full platooning (by using Hawkins) UK also performed great. I thought that because of the distinct advantages the platoons provided, that it was worthwhile to continue them, even without Poythress. (and beyond that because it would allow for two distinct squads to develop together through the remainder of the season).

The problem was that it was clear that the more UK went away from a set substitution pattern, the less effective UK played. It's clearly seen in the stats BTW.

Yet this happened more and more late in the season. Beyond that the further Cal cut his lineup, the less he was able to utilize his depth as an advantage which IMO was one of the main problems UK had versus Wisconsin.

 

[JPScott]

In order to play that many people as a cohesive unit, you need more than one season. Since we're always young, we are much better off sticking to shorter rotations so our main guys have more time to mesh. If we could get 10 guys who were close to equal, who actually fit the position they played, and knew they would all be around for several years, then it would make sense.

More than one season would be nice but you don't NEED it to be a cohesive unit. (Not to mention it simply is unrealistic at a place like UK where there's just too much turnover from year to year).

IMO playing 30 minutes a game of straight platoons for a full year (to go along with practice) is more than sufficient experience to develop two well-tuned squads by the end of the season.

(Note that I've always thought 30 minutes a game was enough time to wear down the opponent. The final 10 minutes could be used if necessary to go with the best players that night in order to win the game, or otherwise used to reward players who were playing the best, experimenting with different lineups, etc.)

 

[Hoskins91]

More than one season would be nice but you don't NEED it to be a cohesive unit. (Not to mention it simply is unrealistic at a place like UK where there's just too much turnover from year to year).

IMO playing 30 minutes a game of straight platoons for a full year (to go along with practice) is more than sufficient experience to develop two well-tuned squads by the end of the season.

(Note that I've always thought 30 minutes a game was enough time to wear down the opponent. The final 10 minutes could be used if necessary to go with the best players that night in order to win the game, or otherwise used to reward players who were playing the best, experimenting with different lineups, etc.)

If you're talking about strictly using the same five players in each group maybe. You start mixing and matching then you completely lose it. What you're talking about took the Spurs years to develop. You think a bunch of college kids can do it faster?

 

[Hoskins91]

Even if you don't think it takes that much time, we still didn't have two players for each position that were equal in talent. We were playing people out of position and playing people who didnt deserve to get more minutes than they were getting based on their play.

 

[bucsrule8872]

Maybe Cal should have played the eight guys that were expected to go in the draft. Play an 8-man rotation, then a 7-man rotation after the Poythress injury.

G Harrison/Harrison
G Harrison/Booker
G Lyles/Booker
F WCS/Lyles
F KAT/WCS

Ulis and Lee play 6-10mpg, maybe more when we have foul trouble.

Those main 7 then get the chance to really mesh.

Not sure it would have made a difference, though.

It's easier to look back and criticize after the fact, though.

I really liked the platoon idea before and during the season.

 

[JPScott]

If you're talking about strictly using the same five players in each group maybe. You start mixing and matching then you completely lose it. What you're talking about took the Spurs years to develop. You think a bunch of college kids can do it faster?

You don't lose it. That's like saying a coach should only play five guys strictly because once a sub comes in they lose everything they built on.

Of course the more a unit practices and plays together the better they and their chemistry will get, but it's not an all or nothing proposition.

As for the Spurs, UK didn't have to be good enough to win the NBA title, just the NCAA title (which happens to be against many teams themselves that didn't have the luxury of building over years and years either. )

As it was UK came very close to winning it all anyway.

 

[UKWildcats#8]

The problem with the platoons was once Poy went down you had guys like DJ, Lee and Hawkins in one line up of 5. If UK had played all those guys 20 minutes every game, I doubt they would have been undefeated going into the NCAA Tourney and definitely would not have made it as far in the NCAA Tourney. Taking Hawkins out, Lee and DJ could not do much on offense and were inconsistent at best on D later on in the year.