PDA

View Full Version : which event changes a game more?



moonpie23
02-05-2010, 07:14 AM
star(s) being benched in the first half? or fouling out in the 2nd half?


does the game plan change so dramatically with favors going out in the first half? or would it have been different had he remained in and fouled OUT in the 2nd half?

CDu
02-05-2010, 08:05 AM
star(s) being benched in the first half? or fouling out in the 2nd half?


does the game plan change so dramatically with favors going out in the first half? or would it have been different had he remained in and fouled OUT in the 2nd half?

I think the bigger question is why Hewitt went with the undisciplined freshman with two fouls rather than the more-disciplined veteran with two fouls. I think if you're going to play one of those two with two fouls, you go with the guy who has the experience (and right now the performance) edge.

As for your actual question, I think the idea is that it's better to take a guy out in the first half before foul trouble gets to be TOO big a problem and try to make it so that he can be aggressive and effective in the second half. The idea being that 25 minutes of tentative play is less valuable than 15-20 minutes of aggressive play.

Ultimately though, I think it's a question with a different answer for each player. If the player is capable of remaining smartly aggressive with foul trouble, it's better to leave him in and get more minutes. If foul trouble is going to render him much less aggressive and effective (or lead to a disqualification), then it's better to take him out.

superdave
02-05-2010, 09:43 AM
Sitting Lawal and Favors so much in the first half as the game was slipping away not only reduced GT's chances of hanging around, but also took both completely out of the flow of the game. Lawal should have reacted better, but Favors is a frosh (and had HORRENDOUS body language on the bench).

I can see Favors body language showing up in scouting videos before this year's NBA draft. Ouch.

Mature players can handle it better. I'd mention a certain UConn player by name if it didnt peees me off so much.

InSpades
02-05-2010, 09:46 AM
star(s) being benched in the first half? or fouling out in the 2nd half?


does the game plan change so dramatically with favors going out in the first half? or would it have been different had he remained in and fouled OUT in the 2nd half?

I always say this (and people always tell me why I'm wrong but I don't listen to them) but I will say it again. Taking a player out of the game for early foul trouble and sitting him for extended time is ridiculous. What is the downside of early foul trouble? You end up fouling out and have to sit on the bench. So to avoid this you... voluntarily put your player on the bench? I'm not saying you completely ignore foul trouble altogether. However to play your 2 best players a total of 12 minutes in the 1st half because of foul trouble is asking to be down by 12 at the half.

Lawal played a total of 16 minutes in the game... and didn't foul out. How many more minutes could they have gotten out of him? Favors played 24 and ended up w/ just the 3 fouls he had in the 1st half. They were a combined 7 of 9 from the floor and had 13 rebounds. If GA Tech gets a bit more production out of their big men and shoots free throws at a reasonable percentage then it's a different game.

duke4life32182
02-05-2010, 09:48 AM
Bad coaching led to those foul problems. After getting two Hewitt should have sat both Favors and Lawaal until the 6 or 7 minute mark and then bring them back in. Then if they picked up their 3rd sit them. I think I would have let Lawaal play more in the first half. You have to trust your upper classmen to make it through the rest of the 1st half w/o picking up another foul. That or gone to a zone. Duke did a good job at attacking the lane the start of the game, thus forcing refs to make calls. Good coaching on K's part. Then that opened up the outside shooting and we know how that turned out.

RoyalBlue08
02-05-2010, 09:49 AM
I always say this (and people always tell me why I'm wrong but I don't listen to them) but I will say it again. Taking a player out of the game for early foul trouble and sitting him for extended time is ridiculous. What is the downside of early foul trouble? You end up fouling out and have to sit on the bench. So to avoid this you... voluntarily put your player on the bench? I'm not saying you completely ignore foul trouble altogether. However to play your 2 best players a total of 12 minutes in the 1st half because of foul trouble is asking to be down by 12 at the half.

Lawal played a total of 16 minutes in the game... and didn't foul out. How many more minutes could they have gotten out of him? Favors played 24 and ended up w/ just the 3 fouls he had in the 1st half. They were a combined 7 of 9 from the floor and had 13 rebounds. If GA Tech gets a bit more production out of their big men and shoots free throws at a reasonable percentage then it's a different game.

I completely agree. This is one of those everybody does it coaching things that makes no logical sense. Now if I have a player with 3 fouls in the first half, I might start spreading out his minutes assuming he isn't going to be playing as many, but sitting someone for a whole half to save him when you don't know how many more minutes it is going to take for him to foul out just seems beyond silly. I see no value to sitting someone who has two fouls. You are just hurting your team in my opinion.

allenmurray
02-05-2010, 10:49 AM
One of the problems with early foul trouble is that players start thinking too much. With each opposition drive to the basket they calculate whether to play tough defense and risk the foul, or allow the basket. When you start doing this your risk of making a dumb foul by being out of position actually goes up instead of going down. One of the announcers last night (I can't remember if it was Bilas or Patrick) rightly said that it is surprising how quickly an otherwise disciplined player will pick up his third foul after his second - it is often for this very reason.

A slightly lesser skilled player, not in foul trouble, might actually be a better choice as a defernder than one with early foul trouble because he will not be over-thinking his defense.

CDu
02-05-2010, 11:12 AM
One of the problems with early foul trouble is that players start thinking too much. With each opposition drive to the basket they calculate whether to play tough defense and risk the foul, or allow the basket. When you start doing this your risk of making a dumb foul by being out of position actually goes up instead of going down. One of the announcers last night (I can't remember if it was Bilas or Patrick) rightly said that it is surprising how quickly an otherwise disciplined player will pick up his third foul after his second - it is often for this very reason.

A slightly lesser skilled player, not in foul trouble, might actually be a better choice as a defernder than one with early foul trouble because he will not be over-thinking his defense.

Agreed. Many, if not most, players just do not play as well when they are in foul trouble. They get tentative, and thus are less effective. It is a rare player that can play the game at or near the level of effectiveness while in foul trouble as they do when foul-free.

The question is whether or not having the guy on the floor in foul trouble is worth more than not having the guy on the floor. The answer is not the same for everyone, as it depends upon how tentatively they play while in foul trouble.

InSpades
02-05-2010, 11:37 AM
Weren't Lawal and Favors in foul trouble throughout the game? I mean Favors had 3 fouls when he started the 2nd half and played 18 minutes of it. Lawal picked up his 3rd foul 3 minutes into the 2nd half. They seemed to play okay to me (atleast offensively).

I think by sitting his 2 best players far too long Hewitt took away any chance of GT winning this game. Is that really good coaching? Maybe against a lesser team they could get away with playing Lawal only 16 minutes but not against Duke (and definitely not when Duke is shooting so well). Most of their minutes went to Sheehan who contributed next to nothing in his 10 minutes.

I also think moving Lawal in and out of the game so much kept him from getting into any sort of rhythm.

Lastly... one of the reasons Duke won this game (aside from great 3-point shooting) was their +8 rebounding advantage (which was a 16 rebound turnaround from the previous meeting).

CDu
02-05-2010, 11:43 AM
Weren't Lawal and Favors in foul trouble throughout the game? I mean Favors had 3 fouls when he started the 2nd half and played 18 minutes of it. Lawal picked up his 3rd foul 3 minutes into the 2nd half. They seemed to play okay to me (atleast offensively).

I think by sitting his 2 best players far too long Hewitt took away any chance of GT winning this game. Is that really good coaching? Maybe against a lesser team they could get away with playing Lawal only 16 minutes but not against Duke (and definitely not when Duke is shooting so well). Most of their minutes went to Sheehan who contributed next to nothing in his 10 minutes.

I also think moving Lawal in and out of the game so much kept him from getting into any sort of rhythm.

Lastly... one of the reasons Duke won this game (aside from great 3-point shooting) was their +8 rebounding advantage (which was a 16 rebound turnaround from the previous meeting).

There's a big difference between having 3 fouls in the first half and getting your third foul early in the second half. There's also a big difference between playing in the second half with only 3 fouls and playing in the middle of the first half with 2 fouls. It's technically foul trouble either way, but there are degrees of foul trouble.

I agree that taking them both out for the vast majority of the first half cost them a chance. I would have kept one of them on the floor throughout the first half. But I would have chosen Lawal as the guy to stay in once Favors got to two fouls.

mapei
02-05-2010, 11:54 AM
JT3 rolled the dice on leaving Monroe in against USF and lost. He picked up two quick ticky-tacks at the beginning of the 2d half when Gtown still had the lead. JT3 left him in and his D became much less aggressive; USF, a pretty good team especially lately, took advantage & took the lead for good. After pulling down 8 boards in the first half, he had none in the second.

Greg fouled out with about 4 minutes left in the game and the game still within reach. USF pulled away.

Certainly not the only factor in a bad loss for Gtown, but I don't think the Hoyas gained anything by leaving him in and it may have hurt. It's a tough call for a coach to make because it's a gamble either way.

CDu
02-05-2010, 11:56 AM
Certainly not the only factor in a bad loss for Gtown, but I don't think the Hoyas gained anything by leaving him in and it may have hurt. It's a tough call for a coach to make because it's a gamble either way.

Agreed. Basically, BOTH situations are bad choices. You don't have good choices when your star players are in foul trouble. Either is a gamble.

calltheobvious
02-05-2010, 02:33 PM
Agreed. Many, if not most, players just do not play as well when they are in foul trouble. They get tentative, and thus are less effective. It is a rare player that can play the game at or near the level of effectiveness while in foul trouble as they do when foul-free.

The question is whether or not having the guy on the floor in foul trouble is worth more than not having the guy on the floor. The answer is not the same for everyone, as it depends upon how tentatively they play while in foul trouble.

This is right. But as a justification for the coaching decision of sitting guys with foul trouble, doesn't it just beg the question? Don't you think the main reason that guys play tentatively when they're in foul trouble is that they've been conditioned to play that way?

CDu
02-05-2010, 02:50 PM
This is right. But as a justification for the coaching decision of sitting guys with foul trouble, doesn't it just beg the question? Don't you think the main reason that guys play tentatively when they're in foul trouble is that they've been conditioned to play that way?

That could play into it in some cases, but I'd also think it's human nature that people tend to be a little more careful when they realize they're on the edge of disaster. If you think/know you're about to get something taken away from you, you often change. Some people are able to overcome this in basketball, but most aren't. I don't think this is largely due to being preconditioned to become tentative. It's just difficult to ignore the fact that a slight mistake could cost you a disqualification, and when that thought is in your head, it's hard to play all-out.

allenmurray
02-05-2010, 03:07 PM
This is right. But as a justification for the coaching decision of sitting guys with foul trouble, doesn't it just beg the question? Don't you think the main reason that guys play tentatively when they're in foul trouble is that they've been conditioned to play that way?

Only kinds, sorta, partly. I honestly believe it is becasue they think too much. An atheltes bestperformance begins when he has donesomething so many ties that automaticity sinks in (a social psychology/cognitive psychology concept that you will use soon ;) . When athletes give that up, and start to think instead of reacting, they get in trouble.

Underdog5
02-05-2010, 04:20 PM
Good coaches are very aware of foul situations and will definitely attack a player that picks up a few early. Would not be smart to just leave the player in, assume your opponent won't figure it out so it doesn't matter. I think the ability to leave them on the bench for however long depends on what you can replace them with. If one of Duke's bigs gets 2 early I probably wouldn't think twice about leaving them on the floor given we have decent replacements. If any of 3's gets 2 early, at a minimum they aren't gaurding anybody that matters from the other team and prolly are going to get a chance to catch their breath for as many minutes as possible so as not to pick up a cheap one.

In GT's case, I agree with pulling Favors when he picked up two early but not only because he's young. His third foul was a "lazy/tired" foul on Lance Thomas under the rim on what I believe was a sloppy fast break. Maybe would have made sense to go with Lawal at least right after the second foul to give a Favors a blow but also to reinforce the game situation to him.

Newton_14
02-05-2010, 10:01 PM
It's a gamble either way. Like CDu, I thought Hewitt should have benched Favors in the first half and had Lawal play through the foul trouble.

In a certain Final Four game against Ucon's the ucon coach chose to sit the star center the bulk of the first half with 2 fouls despite the fact Duke was building a lead. That paid dividends of the highest degree in the 2nd half of that fateful game..

moonpie23
02-05-2010, 11:42 PM
In a certain Final Four game against Ucon's the ucon coach chose to sit the star center the bulk of the first half with 2 fouls despite the fact Duke was building a lead. That paid dividends of the highest degree in the 2nd half of that fateful game..


i think about that often.....i play out many different scenarios as well.....it sure seemed to be more advantageous for uconn...