Starting-lineup discussions are liable to invite eye rolls from many NBA fans who consider themselves above debates.

“It’s not who starts,” they might say, as they adjust their monocle with one hand, swishing around their snifter of bourbon with the other, their pinky stretched out, pointing skyward. “It’s who finishes!”

Except, it’s also who starts.

Opening fives are no longer the intractable givens they used to be. Rotations are more than ever fluid, subject not only to availability but opponent matchups and stylistic preferences.

And yet, starting lineups usually represent a core part of a team’s identity. They shape, if not definitively lay out, who will play the most and who will be on the court during crunch time.

In the event a starting five is considered more fluid or a placeholder that allows for different staggering patterns, well, it still matters. At minimum, these opening-tip combinations set the tone, determining whether you’re working from behind or ahead. Changing them up, as a result, should not be taken lightly. Sometimes, though, it’s worth a try—if not necessary.

This exercise seeks to identify the teams that could benefit from switching it up at the jump. Last year’s most used starting fives will serve as a baseline—unless injuries or acquisitions render it outdated.

The New York Knicks, as an example, will have a new opening quintet after landing Mikal Bridges. His arrival will not appear under our microscope. This space is for instances in which changes are less certain and/or more debatable.