2nd Platoon reporting for duty?

[LineSkiCat14]

Actually you need a third thing, the second into talent should be comparable to the first unit, that's not even close to being the case this year

1. You can very easily spread the talent across the first two units. I don't know why you think that the 1st platooon *has* to have the top5 players. Make sure you have a serviceable guard to run the offense, someone who can hit the outside shot at a decent clip, and a body down low. Fill in the rest as needed.
2. Our 2nd platoon, basing this on your logic, is still good enough to be a top50 starting5. Tai, Gabriel, Hump, SKJ, Hawkins (again based on talent, not position). It's not as good as the the 1st, but I'd also argue that the first has almost all freshman. Who's to say how good that 1st platoon would be?
2. Stop pretending to be a Kentucky fan..

 

[jimmyjslc6]

I think there will be too much talent drop off to do anything like this.

Your top 4 guys are going to play a lot. After those 4, you have guy's who are talented in certain areas, but also flawed.

Logically, Willis is the next guy to jump up and get major minutes. Then guys like Humphries, Gabriel, and SKJ will get their chances.

Truthfully, any of those last three guys could be getting 20 minutes a game by March - or none. We really don't know enough yet to make that judgment.

Hawkins has shown himself to be a dependable reserve, and barring injury, that's what he'll be again. Pencil him in for 10 minutes a night.

Mulder will have to be more valuable as a reserve than Hawkins to get any run. Theoretically, Mulder could rob Willis of minutes, but that seems less likely than taking minutes from Hawkins.

Mulder won't get any of Gabriel's minutes, unless we get to March and he has drastically underperformed. The young guys will always get their chances early and often.

This is very similar to my train of thought. 4 guys 30+ minutes. Hopefully, Bam has the conditioning to play 30+ (has missed some conditioning in offseason with injury). Willis could get close to 30 if he plays well or he could drop down a tier.

Humphries, Gabriel, and SKJ are down a tier. 10-20 minutes. From this group, if you play well, you get 15-20. If you don't, looking at around 10. Have to play them at least some to bring them along for next season (if they don't jump for the pros).

Hawkins and Mulder - one is gonna play 6-8 minutes the other very little to none. Shooting versus experience and defense. Need based.

 

[UKGrad93]

Defense and foul trouble would be a reason to not use the platoon system. I like the idea of going 8 deep. Two guards and two bigs that can be subbed in for 5-10 min at a time with 4 of the main guys. This keeps the most talent on the floor and gives us plenty of options.

 

[morgousky]

Cal may think that playing 6 guys is more effective but if the 2014-15 platoon experiment showed anything, it's that this idea is demonstrably false. (At least in cases where you have quality depth and the unique advantages that team had which were conducive to playing platoons.)

Again, the 2014-15 team when platooning played at a significantly higher level of effectiveness (especially defensively) than any other Cal team has ever performed before or since. In fact they were playing at a level rarely seen in colllege basketball history.

The one thing which was frustrating was that Cal actually had a guy on staff in Joel Justus who was supposed to be their analytics guy that year. Between the statistics, analytics and things like heart-rate data etc. one would think they would have done a better job sticking with and improving on what was clearly working, yet it didn't happen and they went the opposite direction.

Instead Caliparii went more and more to pulling individuals at random, mixing and matching his lineup continually and shortening his bench as the season wore on, and it clearly negatively impacted the team's effectiveness for anyone paying attention.

The reason he did that is because cal, like most others in his profession, believe the shorter the rotation the better your team will be. Statistics and heart rate don't really mean anything to me. Cals only championship had a core of 6 guys. The proof is in the result.

I do agree we were worse as we went away from the platoons. But we don't really know why as far as proof goes. It could easily be the continuity I was talking about. The team was used to playing that way. It doesn't mean it was the best way to go from start to finish. The shorter the roster, the easier the management aspect is, the more time your best players receive etc. cal only platooned because he was forced to platoon.

If platooning was better than a short rotation, cal would have picked up that by now. He knows it's not, and that's why he won't do it again, without a ton of returnees. We will play a small rotation.

 

[UK90]

In the title game last year Carolina had six guys who did anything. Villanova had five.
.

Wrong. Did you even watch the game? That assessment is so *** backwards from the truth.

For starters, Villanova's leading scorer and star of the game was a NON-starter. You know, Phil Booth, the guard who came off the bench to light up UNC for 20 points and turned the game around--did you forget about him? And Villanova had eight guys playing double digit minutes in that game and throughout the entire tournament--Bridges, Reynolds and Booth were important parts of their rotation all year long. Villanova would've been screwed without its bench.

 

[JC CATS]

Okay, before you roast me, at least consider this:

With the lavish praise Wenyen, and now Killeya-Jones are getting from Cal, it opens the door a crack to a two-platoon system that would have intriguingly different strengths. If not full platoons, at least a 'Blue Team' that would come in for 3-4 minutes a half and force teams to completely alter the defense.

1st: Fox, Monk, Briscoe, Bam, Humphries. Full-on attacking the basket, with tenacious 'ball-mauling' defense a hallmark. Bam and Humphries give you much needed rebounding and rim defense. This team would force opponents to pack back into a zone.

2nd: Then come in with Hawkins, a senior who has certainly shown adequate PG ability, Mulder, who looked really good shooting the other night, Willis, ditto on the shooting, and a pair of lively, aggressive 6'10'' forwards in Gabriel and SKJ.

That second line-up would have real shooters and force an entirely different defensive look...at which point you go back to platoon 1. It would give Cal a way to get some really talented players on the floor and keep the starters fresh all season.

Willis not on either team? Who's going to shoot the 3 ball for us?

 

[JPScott]

The reason he did that is because cal, like most others in his profession, believe the shorter the rotation the better your team will be. Statistics and heart rate don't really mean anything to me. Cals only championship had a core of 6 guys. The proof is in the result.

I do agree we were worse as we went away from the platoons. But we don't really know why as far as proof goes. It could easily be the continuity I was talking about. The team was used to playing that way. It doesn't mean it was the best way to go from start to finish. The shorter the roster, the easier the management aspect is, the more time your best players receive etc. cal only platooned because he was forced to platoon.

If platooning was better than a short rotation, cal would have picked up that by now. He knows it's not, and that's why he won't do it again, without a ton of returnees. We will play a small rotation.

First of all, the reason most coaches in the profession use a shorter rotation than a longer one is that generally teams aren't blessed to have the type of talented depth that the 2014-15 team had. If you have high-caliber players starting for you but there's a steep dropoff beyond that, then of course you're going to try to play the more talented players as many minutes as you can get. But when you have a bench that is as talented (or very nearly as talented) then you have to think differently.

Secondly, there's a lot of merit to the idea you stated which is "the shorter the rotation the better your team will be." That's very reasonable if you have a cohesive unit that can practice and play together and get better through the course of the year. Assuming they have the talent and play well together on the court, then it's perfectly reasonable that such a unit can play like a well-oiled machine and be very difficult to beat at the end of the year.

Of course the problem with this is that playing five guys exclusively for an entire game (or at least the majority of the game) takes a toll physically, and is hard for them to maintain defensive pressure consistently due to fatigue. Also playing so many minutes makes it difficult to maintain the lineup due to foul issues etc.

So while playing a tight five man unit is a laudable goal, it runs into practical problems achieving that during games and over the course of the season.

But what if I said that there was a way that one could achieve this magical five-man squad without encountering a lot of the downsides that inevitably arise? Would you be intrigued?

And of course the answer is to use platoons! Doing so with two distinct five-man units, one can actually have the best of both worlds. You can have two tight units who practice and play together and hopefully improve their execution and effectiveness during the course of the year. At the same time because there are two of them they have the luxury of not getting tired, and are thus able to maintain their defensive intensity throughout the entire game!

So you actually prove my point. You (and others who were against the platoons at the time) seem to be stuck in the habit of how most teams of the past have played (nearly all of whom who did not have nearly the talent the 2014-15 team had) to recognize that playing a different way actually can improve a team's effectiveness well beyond what others can achieve playing a more traditional way (and again, the stats clearly bear that out.)

BTW, having not one but two well-oiled units was exactly what I was hoping Calipari would spend his time developing that season. In fact I was kind of hoping they would have completely different styles and plays tailored for each squad. For example I always envisioned it as a boxing match, where one round the fighter comes out and lands crushing body blows (which I kind of envisioned the blue squad doing by working the ball inside and driving the ball to the basket with the Harrisons), and then the next round the boxer comes out quick on his feet and has lightning jabs (which I kind of envisioned the white squad forcing the tempo, shooting a lot of threes and pressing etc.)

It's hard enough for an opposing team to prepare for one well-oiled team, but nearly impossible to do so for two, especially if they're playing different styles and with different pace. That scenario was a very real possibility that year, if it had been handled correctly.

 

[Joneslab]

Wrong. Did you even watch the game? That assessment is so *** backwards from the truth.

I don't think it's backwards at all. I said they had five guys in the game who did anything, and that appears to be true (I had to check the box score, but I also watched--unbelievable game). Brunson did veritably nothing; Booth had a huge game. That was sort of Villanova's MO for the last three weeks of the season: five or six guys most every night.

I'd argue that six or seven is the rule for most good college basketball teams.

One guy coming off the pine is really not indicative of having any semblance of depth. It's having one guy you can count on, which is a far cry from being a deep team. (Villanova had two with Mikal Bridges.)

From the little we've seen so far it looks like this Kentucky team is going to have 8 or 9 who'll have a shot to contribute. I would almost bet Calipari will draw that down to 7 or 8 by the second half of the season.