Playoffs and ultra-short rotations

[will_spurs]

Having a deep bench is a luxury few coaches have. We often hear that playoffs rotations "have" to be shorter. There's a limit to that, though.

I know Thibs is getting a lot of props for what he's done with Chicago, but his ultra-short rotations in the playoffs (and generally speaking running his starters into the ground during the regular season) have really killed all the Bulls chances so far. I feel Stotts is going down the same road.

The Blazers managed to hide this during the first round, because the players are really young and athletic, and because as they have noticed, Houston hasn't made them work on the defensive end (and not much on the offensive end either). But after 3 quarters of bumping into screens, and sometimes really hard screens, it's clear the Blazers are dead tired by the end of the 4th. Too tired to still be mentally engaged and "take care of business".

The "ultra short rotation" model was probably never going to go very far (especially after it's been clear even Miami needed a decent bench to win it all), but I feel the demise of Chicago and Portland is really driving the point home.

[ElNono]

It's highly dependent on your roster makeup, IMO. I think it's a nice luxury for some teams (especially younger), and a must for others. For the Spurs it's somewhat imperative due to the fact that our core has aged, so we're in a position where we need the extra personnel to produce. I think for teams like OKC or Clippers (with the exception of their 6th man, Jackson/Crawford) it's more of a luxury.