Does the bench mean more in the modern NBA?

Ask the Memphis Grizzlies and they will say” HELL YES!!” Clippers bench is what won game 7 for them…

The Bulls veteran team of reserves played with confidence,2getherness and held things 2gether when Rose was out..

Those old Jordan/Pippen teams had outstanding shooters Kerr,Paxson and Hodges..All those guys were all 1 dimensional,but they opened the floor for Jordan…

Benches might have been better in the old NBA, but with 30 teams convoluting the talent pool, having depth can be a major factor. Detroit in 2004 was a definite example of this. Not only did they have a well balanced team, but their depth gave them a major advantage. Players doing the little things, living up to or exceeding their roles, is probably even more important in the modern era. 

The Bulls were usually noted for having a weak supporting cast beyond Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and either Horace Grant or Dennis Rodman. BJ Armstrong and Toni Kukoc obviously played roles, as did John Paxson and Ron Harper, plus Bill Cartwright and Luc Longley. Nonetheless, they are commonly known as "those teams MJ carried".

What Michael Jordan was amazing at was giving these confidence in their roles. Phil Jackson probably deserves a lot of credit as well. Everyone on the Bulls seemed to know what they were best at, always seemed like even the scrubbiest player had that little positive contribution. In my mind, Michael Jordan made a lot of these guys money. Still, he brought out the best in them, which helped him win a fist full of rings plus an extra for his other hand.

In large part, these players roles tend to be as a result of the stars. They need to be the ones that give them opportunities to flourish. They are the ones that give them confidence and set them up for positive contributions. Having the deepest team is not the key to winning in the NBA, but it can give you an advantage. If you check the past few champions, you will see many more bench players who have either exceeded or lived up to expectations on the winning team as opposed to the losing team.

Bench play does not always get noticed or rewarded, but it can be a gigantic difference maker. Think more so now than it was in the days where people played more minutes with it being actually feasible to do so. It is a more physical game, even with the way it is called. These guys get beat up even more now than back in the day, which tends to mean that players on the bench are expected to know what to do and contribute. If they don’t, than even more is put on the shoulders of the stars, which leads to fatigue and more often than not, disappointment. 

The 1986 Celtics had Bill Walton off the bench.  The 1987 Lakers had Mychal Thompson off the bench.  The 89-90 Pistons went 10 deep.  Vinne Johnson off the bench at guard, and a front line of Aguirre, Mahorn and Laimbeer with Rodman, Salley, and James Edwards off the bench.

… The Spurs are deep this year.  But I don’t consider the Thunder or Heat to be that deep.  Those are the 3 main contenders.  The Celtics aren’t that deep either.

I think most championship teams had an 8 man rotation — which is pretty deep.  Then you get the Bad Boys who went 9 or 10 deep.

… without Bosh the Heat are in trouble because it is only a two man show with LBJ and Wade.  Battier, Chalmers, and Haslem are role players.  Joel Anthony can’t score.  Mike Miller is ok.  Turiaf is a nice banger, veteran type but another role player.  Norris Cole has promise but isn’t ready yet.  So outside of LBJ and Wade you have a team that could have been the bench for one of those great 80’s teams.  … they don’t even have a Harden, Manu, or Jet type 6th man.  It’s basically a two man team with the Bad Boys bench (just not as big inside) for the rest of their rotation.  No inside scorers for the Heat either.

… the Spurs have a nice bench.  But the 1996 Bulls had Toni Kukoc, Bill Wennington, and Steve Kerr off the bench.  John Salley was their 12th man.  The Spurs have pieces who fit, who come off the bench and do their job.  They have role players who produce in their system.  The 1996 Bulls had guys like that including Jud Buechler and Randy Brown. 

There have been some loaded NBA teams before and some really deep championship teams.  But the teams this year don’t come to mind. 

I actually do like the Clippers bench.  They are playing well and they have shooters as well as inside banger types.  They have a great PLAYOFF bench.  Guys who can score and hit 3’s with two veteran banger types in Kenyon Martin and Reggie Evans who can rebound, defend, and get some garbage buckets.  They don’t have a true super sub but they really get it done when they are on their game.  3 point shooting, rebounding, and toughness command a premium in the playoffs and the Clippers bench has this. 

… I contrast the Clippers "playoff bench" with the Bulls bench who have a bunch of hustle guys who can scrap, but only one 3 point shooter off the bench in Kyle Korver and no true wing or inside scorers, although Asik and Taj Gibson give you toughness and rebounding.  Taj is a bit undersized but I love his motor and athleticism.  Asik can defend, but can’t score.  He’s not an athletic defender either.  … the Bulls bench is overrated.  They get credit for hustling and defending during the regular season.  But, in the playoffs EVERYONE hustles and defends.

The 3 point line changed the game.  Now you need some guys off the bench who can hit three pointers.  Before, you could get away with a bench full of players who just scrapped, hustled, and rebounded.  Now, you need deep threats who can hit big shots.

The MJ Bulls teams with Phil Jackson as coach really absorbed the idea of having a bunch of long range threats off the bench.  They had that and then they added a few 7 footers to clog up the middle.  They basically had the modern NBA bench (the 1986 Celtics bench was a little bit similar).  I think last year’s Mavs bench operated the same way.  Last year’s Mavs had several shooters, two 7 footers, and Brian Cardinal as a banger and another 3 point threat.

I think that at a minimum you now need 2 three point shooters off the bench, two backup big men, an energy/defense guy, and a solid reserve point guard.  Having a 6th man super sub is a luxury, but you can get away without having one if you can go 9 or 10 deep instead of 7 or 8 deep.

A bench line up is really an extension of the starters who support the team’s star players in my opinion and now teams often use a starting level guy as a bench option like Manu or Harden. Often James Harden can be the 10th man that the Thunder use but he will still see starters minutes.

Successful teams have guys who can gel just as well around the star players as the starters and will now also often have a scorer from the bench like Williams at Philly or Mayo at Memphis. This is slightly different to the likes of Harden and Manu who are tactical 6th man but should really start.

When you look at the bench depth of say the Spurs and Thunder compared to Miami and say the Lakers then there is a good chance that bench depth could be a key to finals success.