Small ball and a rush to judgment

In this brutal economy, we all need a backup plan. I know what mine isn't: counselor. My attempt to ease the swelling panic sweeping Pistons Nation after the back-to-back losses to Charlotte and Indiana appears to have had the opposite effect.

In sum, the reaction has been this: Don't dare tell us things aren't that bad! Throw us our lifejackets! And ... for the love of God, please, no more small ball!

To wit, this missive from Rob of Detroit: "The Pistons lost the game to Indiana because the small lineup gave up 31 points in the first quarter and allowed the Pacers to set the tempo. They got things back under control later with the big lineup, but by then it was too late. The big lineup in the fourth quarter was great, holding Indiana to 19 points, but that was only enough to force overtime. Had the small lineup not given away 31 points in the first quarter, it would have been a double-digit victory in regulation."

Except ... that's not the way it happened, Rob. You could look it up, as they say. So I did.

The Pistons went small for the first 7:26 of that first quarter and gave up 19 points. That extrapolates to 30.67 for the full 12 minutes. So the small lineup essentially yielded the same rate of points as the big lineup. I wouldn't argue that either group played defense very well, but you can't say one was any better than the other.

(And let me anticipate your response: "If the small lineup hadn't set a tone by giving up those 19 points in 7:26, the big lineup would have had an easier time stopping the bleeding." I would argue that the tone the small lineup set that most contributed to giving up 31 first-quarter points was playing too fast on offense. The Pistons got caught up playing at the Pacers' pace. Does anyone think Amir Johnson's presence in the starting lineup was going to have any impact on the pace at which the Pistons played on offense? I don't recall Amir ever being responsible for establishing the offense's rhythm.)

But the third quarter is really telling. They went small for the first 9:02 and gave up 11 points - their best defensive stretch of the night - and, again, they did it with their small lineup on the floor the entire way. They went big for the final 2:58 and gave up 10. So if the big lineup had given the Pistons three minutes of defense to end the third quarter like the small lineup did for the nine minutes to start it, the Pistons would have won going away.

For the record, I’m with Michael Curry on this: The Pistons are a better defensive team with Amir Johnson in the lineup at the four. The question is are they a better team overall? No, check that. The question is do they have the potential to be better with Stuckey, Hamilton, Iverson and Prince all on the floor at the same time or not?

And here's all I'm saying: I think those four players are good enough individually that you have to let them prove it, one way or the other. That's all. If the question is who starts, Rip Hamilton or Amir Johnson, well, at this point of their careers, I think the benefit of the doubt goes to the three-time All-Star.

I think that's what Michael Curry ultimately decided, too. You don't have to read too far between the lines to guess that Curry's first instinct is to go big. He's consistently said the Pistons are a better defensive team with two bigs on the floor - especially when one of them is Johnson, who, when he isn't collecting fouls like some people collect stamps, in bunches, can be a serious difference-maker on defense. And Curry hung on in the NBA - did more than hung on, started for a 50-win team in Detroit - almost solely because of his ability to defend.

But there are compelling reasons why the Stuckey-Iverson-Hamilton-Prince lineup deserves a full and fair chance to prove its mettle.

It's clear to everyone - much more clear than the big-small debate - that the Pistons are a better team with Stuckey on the floor. So then it really comes down to which one of those three other perimter players you're going to remove from the starting lineup. Since it could hardly be argued that taking Prince out of the lineup would augur well for the Pistons' defense, the debate has centered on Hamilton and Iverson.

And all I've maintained is this: If those two guys aren't giving the Pistons the things that have made them All-Stars - a dead-solid Hall of Fame lock in Iverson's case - then they have no realistic shot at competing for an NBA title. And the surest way for them to give the Pistons what they've got is to keep them in the starting lineup - in the roles with which they're comfortable.

Now, time might prove that it doesn't work. Time and experience might steer Michael Curry in another direction, and the thought of bringing one or the other off the bench might need to be broached.

But isn't the most prudent course to try it this way first? Just like the first nine minutes of the third quarter isn't a big enough sample size to prove the small lineup is superior, neither are the two games the Pistons have played since Hamilton returned - clearly, still not on his game - close to conclusive.

That's all I'm saying. Where the evidence is that has so many Pistons fans so certain that they'd be best served by having an All-Star sitting on the bench to start games just isn't clear yet to me.

---

Questions and comments on Keith's posts can be submitted via the Pistons Mailbag. Click here to submit your question.