PDA

View Full Version : Tommy Emma and player fatigue



dukelifer
02-07-2009, 08:25 AM
Barry Jacobs is a long time observer of ACC basketball and in his piece on the Duke Clemson game- he again brought up the topic of team/player fatigue- relating it to the type of D that Duke plays. This is not the first time we have heard this. Even Coach K make reference to fatigue - even in his Olympic team.

I did a little searching and found this nugget from Tommy Emma- former Duke player- who apparently has some program about how to identify this in players

"One of the most important (and difficult) aspects of a basketball coach’s job is managing long-term player fatigue. This type of fatigue, unlike being winded during a game or practice session, describes the cumulative effects of a basketball season on a player’s body. It is a subtle performance inhibitor, hard to recognize by even the most discerning of eyes, and is inevitably debilitating to individual and team success"

http://www.powerbasketball.com/060629.html

Tommy offers the following advice

* Play your bench often early in the season. Playing substitutes substantial minutes early in the campaign when games tend to be less important serves many positive purposes, not the least of which is saving starters from the deleterious effects of long-term fatigue. Remember, “early rest equals post-season success.”
* When games are decided, give your starters a break. It is amazing to me how many coaches on a variety of levels persist on keeping there top players in games long after outcomes have been decided. These useless minutes can greatly contribute toward long-term fatigue as the season moves forward-not to mention leaving players susceptible to injury due to sloppy play (a common occurrence during garbage time). As such, unless extra minutes are serving some tangible purpose (improving team continuity, helping a player breakout of a prolonged shooting slump, etc.), resting your starters when a game is out of reach one way or the other is highly suggested.
* Don’t play athletes extra minutes to garner individual statistics. Unless a player is reaching some type of milestone that can’t be achieved in a subsequent game, playing players so they can pad their statistics is a mistake. Adding minutes in this manner not only increases the chances of individual body breakdown, but exhibits poor sportsmanship as well. Winning is the only statistic that counts in the end.
* Encourage players to communicate when they’re dragging during a game. Players should be encouraged to let the coach know when they’re gassed out on the court. Originally brought to the game by legendary North Carolina coach, Dean Smith, having players signal to be taken out of a game is a great way to save athletes from unnecessary (and unproductive) minutes.

At the same time, posters on this board argue (very passionately) that 20 year old players do not get fatigued by playing too many minutes in games. The question I have is whether this fatigue argument is valid or if this is just convenient to explain the decline in shooting etc. If it is, is there something going on at Duke that makes the players more fatigued than at other places? Are the players spending too many late nights studying or in the waffle house? Are they working harder in practice than other teams. Is this fatigue argument real or should it be officially put to rest? I know this has been discussed but it will continue to come up over the next few weeks. Perhaps there should be an official media fatigue counter on the front page.

Faison1
02-07-2009, 08:39 AM
Since this question is on all of our minds, maybe a better way to ask is, has there been a change in strategy from K over the past 4-5 years? If fatigue is such a big factor these days, howcome we didn't see it in other title teams that tended to use short benches? Were the players just better or stronger?

IIRC, 2001 used maybe 7-8 players.....same with '92.....that's always been K's M.O. So, what's changed? Seems like the 2005 team got pretty tired, and they had Shel in the middle....so the argument that having a big body in the middle might not hold......

I don't know....wish I did.

Oriole Way
02-07-2009, 12:07 PM
Since this question is on all of our minds, maybe a better way to ask is, has there been a change in strategy from K over the past 4-5 years? If fatigue is such a big factor these days, howcome we didn't see it in other title teams that tended to use short benches? Were the players just better or stronger?

IIRC, 2001 used maybe 7-8 players.....same with '92.....that's always been K's M.O. So, what's changed? Seems like the 2005 team got pretty tired, and they had Shel in the middle....so the argument that having a big body in the middle might not hold......

I don't know....wish I did.

Well I think it's pretty simple (in regards to what's changed when comparing recent teams to the 2001 edition). The 2001 team was far more athletic, and far more talented. 5 NBA starters, an experienced player of the year senior forward who rarely tired, and two top-flight lead guards. Boozer missed several games at the end of the season, but Casey Sanders, who could definitely run and was quite fresh because he had played so few minutes prior, stepped in admirably.

K does not have the same talent nor athleticism to get away with a short rotation. He's played a significantly deeper bench this season, but the number of minutes played by Duke's bench can be misleading because so many minutes have come during meaningless blowouts in garbage time.

Emma makes some good points. I think K has done an good job on most of Emma's points of emphasis, but I would have liked him to play his bench a little more extensively in the context of the first two points - playing the bench more against weaker opponents, and playing the bench more when games have been decided (20+ points with more than 15 minutes to go against weak opponents). K has most definitely done both of those things, but I would have liked to have seen even more minutes from his bench in those situations. Perhaps players like Singler and Scheyer would be less fatigued. More importantly, I still think Plumlee and Williams, no matter how badly they played in the minutes they were given, would have benefited greatly from playing a lot more minutes early in the season, and they would be better players contributing more effectively today.

Kedsy
02-07-2009, 04:23 PM
K does not have the same talent nor athleticism to get away with a short rotation. He's played a significantly deeper bench this season, but the number of minutes played by Duke's bench can be misleading because so many minutes have come during meaningless blowouts in garbage time.

This argument doesn't make sense to me. Why would talent or athleticism negate the effect of too many minutes (assuming for the moment such an effect exists)?

Also, since Emma suggests playing the bench in early games and blowouts, why would the number of minutes played by Duke's bench (primarily in early games and blowouts) make the numbers "misleading"?

Vincetaylor
02-07-2009, 04:42 PM
This argument doesn't make sense to me. Why would talent or athleticism negate the effect of too many minutes (assuming for the moment such an effect exists)?

Also, since Emma suggests playing the bench in early games and blowouts, why would the number of minutes played by Duke's bench (primarily in early games and blowouts) make the numbers "misleading"?


I don't know if this is what he means, but my theory would be that a more talented team's players would not have to play as many minutes because the games would be out of reach down the stretch. Starters on the last few Duke teams have had to play more because they aren't as dominant as the starters on most of Duke's Final Four teams. During Duke's dominant years, they would routinely crush just about every ACC team and the games would be practically over with 8 minutes left. Unfortunately, K doesn't have that luxury this year. If our starters played less minutes we would have lost a couple more games. The only real way to fix the fatigue problem is to have more dominant starting fives that can build bigger leads. The only way to do that is to recruit more talented players.

pamtar
02-07-2009, 04:45 PM
I think Emma is right. My carpal tunnel does seem to flare up in the meat of the season, and worsens towards tourney time. ;)

Kedsy
02-07-2009, 04:48 PM
I don't know if this is what he means, but my theory would be that a more talented team's players would not have to play as many minutes because the games would be out of reach down the stretch. Starters on the last few Duke teams have had to play more because they aren't as dominant as the starters on most of Duke's Final Four teams. During Duke's dominant years, they would routinely crush just about every ACC team and the games would be practically over with 8 minutes left. Unfortunately, K doesn't have that luxury this year. If our starters played less minutes we would have lost a couple more games. The only real way to fix the fatigue problem is to have more dominant starting fives that can build bigger leads. The only way to do that is to recruit more talented players.

Well, that's a good explanation except it isn't true. The 7 or 8 players who played on the 2001 national championship team played as many or more minutes as the top 7 or 8 on this year's team. That's why I don't understand his argument.

Faison1
02-07-2009, 04:58 PM
This argument doesn't make sense to me. Why would talent or athleticism negate the effect of too many minutes (assuming for the moment such an effect exists)?

Also, since Emma suggests playing the bench in early games and blowouts, why would the number of minutes played by Duke's bench (primarily in early games and blowouts) make the numbers "misleading"?

If I'm reading Oriole Way right, I agree with the post....having more talent doesn't mean less minutes due to blowouts....having more talent means you don't have to work quite as hard to beat your opponents every single game.

This team lacks the talent the 2001 team possessed....therefore, they have to make up for the gap by hustling extremely hard every single minute of the game. The 2001 team certainly hustled hard, as all Duke teams do, but there were many articles quoting Duhon saying they couldn't get Jason Williams to play D hard enough. Williams made up for that with an incredible amount of talent on the offensive end, something this team ('09) does not have.

At least, that's the way I interpreted the post......

heyman25
02-07-2009, 06:01 PM
Duke hasn't been getting the talent that we used to get. That is why the bench other than McClure and Paulus provide very little. I think the class of 2010 it will start to change that. We need to get Harrison Barnes,but I think Ryan Kelly and Mason Plumlee will not be impact players. Miles and Elliott are in the same category. They have shown little while in the game. The last 5 years Duke recruiting has definitely fallen in talent levels.We can't handpick players. It is a failed strategy.Boynton they wasted a few years on and when they need a guard for 09 zero. Wall is a longshot.

weezie
02-07-2009, 06:37 PM
The players didn't look all that fatigued this afternoon, even as they were going into the OT. The stress was high, of course, easily seen in their faces during timeouts, but they looked good. I hope they build well on this win.