Or, I already know and I'm encouraging people to look.
Are you seriously intimating that you
know what the outcome of an alternate universe game that would be played under theoretical circumstances?
All based on looking at on/off numbers?
That's ridiculous.
You know on/off numbers. That's it. They can neither prove nor disprove that a game would have been won or lost had circumstances been different.
Your argument seems to be that because certain players are negative +/- players, that playing them more minutes wouldn't lead to any different result.
There are so many issues with this.
1. Basketball is more than looking at a stat sheet.
2. No coach has the luxury of playing only net positive players. If they did, coaching would be extremely easy.
3. They, many times, lack context. For instance, I know that Brandon Goodwin was -13 in only 6 minutes against the Lakers. I also know if I were to breakdown each play during those 6 minutes, I'd see Brandon Goodwin playing very solid basketball more often than not. But sometimes playing well doesn't result in, well, results. It's a team sport, after all.
4. There's things beyond his own contributions on the court that we're talking about here. We're talking about buying Darius Garland more time to rest when it's obvious to anyone watching he's wearing down at the end of games. We're talking about moving LeVert to his actual, natural position putting him in the best position to succeed.
5. The most important: No one else is arguing that by making rotational changes the results would be different. Because that is an impossible argument to make. It's unprovable. As is arguing they'd make no difference at all.
Instead, the actual argument is this: Is John Blair Bickerstaff currently putting his team in the best position to win with his rotational choices, both in the present and in the future?
I say no. He's wearing down his best offensive player and he's not properly utilizing LeVert and forcing him into a role he's simply not suited for. Playing Goodwin more minutes solves these issues.
So then the question on Goodwin isn't whether or not he's a good player. If the measurement of being a good player is being an above average NBA player vs. a below average one, he's below average.
But every coach has to play below average guys. We do it with Osman and Stevens and Okoro.
The question is whether or not Goodwin can give the team,
in its present state, enough output that whatever negatives he has is worth it to both rest Garland and allow LeVert to play his natural role.
And to that, I say the answer is yes. We've seen the team win, multiple times, playing Goodwin large minutes. He's a passable NBA point guard, even if not a good one. Playing him more minutes than he's been getting lately will result in a better team with a better chance to win more often than not.
