Permanent Rotations or Situational Substitutions?

Substitutions are tough decisions. Every player wants every minute and every coach wants every player’s best minutes, with minimal conflict.

After roster compilation, coaches are tasked with evaluating their personnel based on KSA’s – knowledge, skills, & abilities – and then expectedly define roles that give a pretty clear indication for the upcoming season’s depth chart; including playing time allocation.

During the season coaching staff’s have a general idea for how well their team matches up versus an upcoming opponent. Maybe, the other team has length at the perimeter indicating it could be a tough shooting night. Or the other team is frontcourt heavy which can lead to transition opportunities, if without difficulties from a rebounding perspective.

There are all sorts of variables to consider prior to any matchup, which is what makes watching the NBA or WNBA playoffs all more intriguing seeing how they look to adjust from game-to-game. At the amateur level, coaches don’t have that luxury; it’s one or done during championship runs.

So a coaching question to consider, are your rotations permanent regardless of opponent or do you look to make situational substitutions game-to-game offsetting any perceived advantages of the other team?

Rotations Are Rythmic; Substitutions Seek A Spark

Rotations tend to infer consistency. Whether it’s scripted by the minute or by the position, coaching staffs tend to have an understood pattern for replacing a particular player with the next best option off the bench. Over the course of the season, these are predictable and often understood by both teams.

*Yes, I understand any person coming off the floor with someone new from the bench is considered a sub, but for the sake of this conversation stick with me.*

Substitutions can be viewed as alternative chess moves. Deviating from the rotation can be a situational decision intending to induce problems for the opposing team, or simply an opportunity to give a developing player extended minutes.

Whether sticking to rotations or mixing it up, coaches are responsible for the result and later expected to answer the questions why him/her played a certain amount of time or during a particular situation.

Communicating Roles Clearly

Outside the locker room many may never understand, and that’s fine because those conversations are not directly had with the general audience. The players on the other hand shouldn’t be surprised.

Defining roles occurs before the season starts, as the season develops, and a part of exit meetings after the season concludes. These conversations explicitly communicate to the players how to optimize their strengths for the betterment of the team and their current standing from a depth chart perspective.

Two things tend to happen:

1. Rotations begin to organically carve themselves out, or
2. While every player may have a role; not every player embraces it.

There inlies the need for substitutions. Playing outside of a role leads to poor shoot selections, internalizing thoughts, and self-sabotaging stretches in a game ultimately lowering the probability for the team to win.

On the flip side, when players have a mutual understanding for what makes them perform best within the system there seems to be a natural flow for ball movement and connectivity on both sides of the floor. Does it mean you’ll win every game? Of course not, but when talent is combined with an empowered self-efficacy there’s a subconscious discipline that tends to foster sustainable success. *That last sentence feels like word vomit and I apologize.

Ok, but what if good isn’t good enough. A great playmaking guard selective in shot selection and meticulous as a passer, may unfortunately not be a great shooter.

What If The Role Doesn’t Fit For The Matchup?

See the 1st game of the Oklahoma City Thunder & Dallas Mavericks matchup?

Josh Giddey started 80 games this season, including all 4 during the series sweep against the New Orleans Pelicans with an average of nearly 26.5 minutes a game. During Game 1 against the Mavs, Giddey started but only played a little over 16 minutes in their double-digit win. Giddey only played less than 19 minutes in 11 total games this season. What changed?

Mavericks went “zero-defense” on Giddey anytime without the ball. Doncic started the game as the matchup which makes the most sense given his reputation for being a bit of a liability on defense. But with Giddey not being known as a shooter, there’s times where OKC looks like they are having to play 5 on 4 with shrinking space to operate. After 6 minutes into the 1st quarter Thunder Head Coach Mark Daigneault decided to make the substitution. Maybe that is part of the initial rotation, but his minutes would decline further into the game.

Now, looking down the bench for options looks a lot more appealing when coaching in the NBA than say a Varsity high school game. But, there are decisions to be made nonetheless. It’s small chess moves like what Daigneault’s staff had to make substituting Giddey’s rotational minutes for an Aaron Wiggins or Isaiah Joe because offensively it helped open up the floor more.

The fun part as a fan, student, and coach is seeing how both staffs approach Game 2. Outside the professional levels there isn’t a next game, would you have stuck with Giddey in rotation or made the substitution?