[M T]

 However, there continues to be an area of significant concern: the seven non-starters who played scored only 11 points on 5 of 15 shooting in a total of 69 minutes of playing time. (Clearly Demeter played the best ball among them.)

Players have to play at both ends of the court.  I don't agree with "clearly".
Shortstops & pitchers usually aren't great hitters, but they are important players on baseball teams.

Re your significant concern about our second & third-string players scoring rate.
  Stanford (29/200  @47.5%) = 0.14 FG/minute
  Stanford non-starters (5/69 @ 33.3%) = 0.072 FG/min 
  ASU (19/200 @29%) = 0.095 FG/min. 
  ASU non-starters scored (2/51 @17%) = 0.039 FG/min

Ignoring the issue that players should usually feed to the highest producing players (usually a subset of starters),  Stanford subs scored at 50% of the full team.  They didn't quite score at the rate of the ASU team.  ASU subs scored at about 40% of their starters.

Using just the stats in this one game (which is too small really), our subs are further along the path toward being offensive producers than the ASU team.
I don't really understand the concern, other than noticing our non-starters are not (yet) our stars.

[M T]

 However, there continues to be an area of significant concern: the seven non-starters who played scored only 11 points on 5 of 15 shooting in a total of 69 minutes of playing time. (Clearly Demeter played the best ball among them.)

Players have to play at both ends of the court.  I don't agree with "clearly".
Shortstops & pitchers usually aren't great hitters, but they are important players on baseball teams.

Re your significant concern about our second & third-string players scoring rate.
  Stanford (29/200  @47.5%) = 0.14 FG/minute
  Stanford non-starters (5/69 @ 33.3%) = 0.072 FG/min 
  ASU (19/200 @29%) = 0.095 FG/min. 
  ASU non-starters scored (2/51 @17%) = 0.039 FG/min

Ignoring the issue that players should usually feed to the highest producing players (usually a subset of starters),  Stanford subs scored at 50% of the full team.  They didn't quite score at the rate of the ASU team.  ASU subs scored at about 40% of their starters.

Using just the stats in this one game (which is too small really), our subs are further along the path toward being offensive producers than the ASU team.
I don't really understand the concern, other than noticing our non-starters are not (yet) our stars.