PDA

View Full Version : The Truth about Duke’s “short bench”



rocketeli
05-24-2016, 01:48 PM
It’s slow where I am, so time for another look at a common Duke meme—that Coach K plays an exceptionally short bench, again something that we might even see repeated in the pages of our own hallowed Duke Basketball Report Forum. But is it really true?
To investigate I looked at Duke’s number of players getting double digit minutes over the last 6 seasons and compared them with 5 comparably (arguably) prestigious programs that had had the same coach for that time span (and at least for one year prior)—UNC, KY, Arizona, Michigan St and Kansas.
What did I find out?
Data
Team 15-16 14-15 13-14 12-13 11-12 10-11 Average
Duke 7 7 8 8 8 8 7.7
KY 8 10 7 8 7 6 7.7
Ariz 9 7 7 8 9 9 8.2
KS 8 9 8 7 7 10 8.2
UNC 8 10 7 7 8 9 8.2
M-St 10 9 8 8 8 9 8.7
Overall average 8.1
Number frequency
6 1
7 10
8 14
9 7
10 4
Now of course, there is no attempt here to capture subtleties such as injuries, lost starting positions, game plan changes, transfers etc. However, I think this data does pass the “eye test.” These top-of-the-line coaches mostly play 7-9 players for double digits over a season, and the modal number is 8.
Some points:
The coach with the shortest bench is not Coach K, it’s John Calipari, especially if you eliminate the outlier of the 2014-15 season, when I think he was experimenting with a platoon system.
Coach K is the most consistent coach, which makes sense as he has been doing this at the same place for 35 years plus. People posting in the “minutes” thread take note. He’s not very likely to ever give double digit minutes to more than 8 players.
Roy Williams, despite his reputation for playing a lot (or even too many according to some) does not really play that many more players for double digits than Coach K does.
Tom Izzo on the other hand does play a “significantly” longer bench than the other coaches.
So the conclusion? Coach K (and John Calipari) play a shorter, albeit not a massively shorter bench than Williams, Miller and Self. Tom Izzo is your man if you like a longer bench, and there is a whole player difference between Duke and Michigan St. So I guess you could say that K (and Calipari) do like a shorter bench. Exceptionally short? That would be a matter of opinion or debate.

MartyClark
05-24-2016, 04:26 PM
It’s slow where I am, so time for another look at a common Duke meme—that Coach K plays an exceptionally short bench, again something that we might even see repeated in the pages of our own hallowed Duke Basketball Report Forum. But is it really true?
To investigate I looked at Duke’s number of players getting double digit minutes over the last 6 seasons and compared them with 5 comparably (arguably) prestigious programs that had had the same coach for that time span (and at least for one year prior)—UNC, KY, Arizona, Michigan St and Kansas.
What did I find out?
Data
Team 15-16 14-15 13-14 12-13 11-12 10-11 Average
Duke 7 7 8 8 8 8 7.7
KY 8 10 7 8 7 6 7.7
Ariz 9 7 7 8 9 9 8.2
KS 8 9 8 7 7 10 8.2
UNC 8 10 7 7 8 9 8.2
M-St 10 9 8 8 8 9 8.7
Overall average 8.1
Number frequency
6 1
7 10
8 14
9 7
10 4
Now of course, there is no attempt here to capture subtleties such as injuries, lost starting positions, game plan changes, transfers etc. However, I think this data does pass the “eye test.” These top-of-the-line coaches mostly play 7-9 players for double digits over a season, and the modal number is 8.
Some points:
The coach with the shortest bench is not Coach K, it’s John Calipari, especially if you eliminate the outlier of the 2014-15 season, when I think he was experimenting with a platoon system.
Coach K is the most consistent coach, which makes sense as he has been doing this at the same place for 35 years plus. People posting in the “minutes” thread take note. He’s not very likely to ever give double digit minutes to more than 8 players.
Roy Williams, despite his reputation for playing a lot (or even too many according to some) does not really play that many more players for double digits than Coach K does.
Tom Izzo on the other hand does play a “significantly” longer bench than the other coaches.
So the conclusion? Coach K (and John Calipari) play a shorter, albeit not a massively shorter bench than Williams, Miller and Self. Tom Izzo is your man if you like a longer bench, and there is a whole player difference between Duke and Michigan St. So I guess you could say that K (and Calipari) do like a shorter bench. Exceptionally short? That would be a matter of opinion or debate.

Good analysis.

I recognize that it seems ridiculous to disagree with K on basketball matters. I still wish he'd play guys at the end of the bench more. This, of course, is coming from a guy that coached his kids through the 6th grade and never won a championship.

CDu
05-24-2016, 04:47 PM
The math here is not quite correct. This discussion has happened numerous times on this board, in numerous different threads. I think the appropriate way to go about it is to take total minutes per player (for the season) and divide by the team's total games. For example, Duke did not have 7 guys average double-digit minutes for the season this year. Jefferson averaged double-digit minutes in games he played, but for the season (including DNPs) he averaged under 8 mpg.

By season, Duke had as follows:

Team
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011


Duke
6
7
7
8
8
7


UK
8
9
7
8
7
6



Etc.

So Duke played an average of 7.2 players per season at least 10+ mpg. UK played 7.5 players 10+ mpg per season.

But where it gets more relevant is in competitive games. Coach K is notorious for shortening his bench as the season progresses and games get more competitive. That 7.2 players per season has quite frequently shrunk to 6.5-7 in February/March.

I would say that playing as much as 0.5 a player less per season is a pretty substantive difference. But I would agree that, generally speaking, Coach Cal has been more like Coach K in playing a tighter rotation. And I would agree that playing a tight rotation isn't always a bad thing. There are pros and cons to both strategies.

jacone21
05-24-2016, 05:16 PM
One should never start a thread on DBR with "The Truth about Duke." I have a viscerally negative response to those four words. Google knows what I mean.

rocketeli
05-24-2016, 06:41 PM
One should never start a thread on DBR with "The Truth about Duke." I have a viscerally negative response to those four words. Google knows what I mean.

I see you picked up on the reference. I use it in a corrective fashion, that hopefully we are actual talking about the "truth" about Duke (whatever that turns out to be.)

Exnicios
05-24-2016, 08:01 PM
Sports Reference (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/duke/2013.html) provides season boxscore data for the conference schedule. Data only goes back to 2010/11 season, but I'm guessing this would provide a better proxy for late season/competitive games than the full season data.

Another way to look at the data is the % of available minutes that went to players outside of the top-5 in minutes played. For example, Duke's 6th through nth man played 16% of total minutes in the 2016 conference schedule. That number was 23% in 15, 29% in 14, and 23% in 13.

Kentucky's figure was 18% in 2011 when they went 6 deep.

UNC put up 29% in 2014 and 27% in 2013, the two seasons they were a "7" per rocketeli's initial analysis.

My take away is that even when you account for the total number of guys getting minutes, you need to account for the total minutes that played by the "starters" (i.e. top-6 in minutes) when you quantify depth.

gofurman
05-25-2016, 12:39 AM
The math here is not quite correct. This discussion has happened numerous times on this board, in numerous different threads. I think the appropriate way to go about it is to take total minutes per player (for the season) and divide by the team's total games. For example, Duke did not have 7 guys average double-digit minutes for the season this year. Jefferson averaged double-digit minutes in games he played, but for the season (including DNPs) he averaged under 8 mpg.

By season, Duke had as follows:

Team
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011


Duke
6
7
7
8
8
7


UK
8
9
7
8
7
6



Etc.

So Duke played an average of 7.2 players per season at least 10+ mpg. UK played 7.5 players 10+ mpg per season.

But where it gets more relevant is in competitive games. Coach K is notorious for shortening his bench as the season progresses and games get more competitive. That 7.2 players per season has quite frequently shrunk to 6.5-7 in February/March.

I would say that playing as much as 0.5 a player less per season is a pretty substantive difference. But I would agree that, generally speaking, Coach Cal has been more like Coach K in playing a tighter rotation. And I would agree that playing a tight rotation isn't always a bad thing. There are pros and cons to both strategies.

Right. Plus there is more to the numbers than just 'how many players played double digit minutes'. Fraekonomics if you will. Team A (Duke) may have 7 players play heavy double digit minutes totaling 194 minutes and one other player (Jeter?) play 6 minutes. Team B (UNC?) may have 7 players who play double digit minutes also but those 7 players total only 170 minutes and four other guys rotate in for the remaining 30 minutes. So the metric of 'number of players playing double digit minutes' is seven for both teams but team B is not as tired as team A. Quite simply Dukes top guys may be averaging 30 minutes per game while team B's top guys may be playing 24 minutes per game. But both teams have seven guys playing double digit minutes. Also the change throughout the year we often see... That our bench shortens in Feb

Kedsy
05-25-2016, 12:50 AM
The math here is not quite correct. This discussion has happened numerous times on this board, in numerous different threads. I think the appropriate way to go about it is to take total minutes per player (for the season) and divide by the team's total games.

* * *

But where it gets more relevant is in competitive games. Coach K is notorious for shortening his bench as the season progresses and games get more competitive. That 7.2 players per season has quite frequently shrunk to 6.5-7 in February/March.

I agree. Below I've used the 1998-99 Duke team as an example, since it was a pretty deep team and a lot of people seem to think next year's team might compare to the 1999 powerhouse.



Player MPG MPG-adj < 20 < 15
Will Avery 31.0 31.0 34.7 35.5
Trajan Langdon 31.0 28.6* 33.6** 35.3
Chris Carrawell 28.6 28.6 31.4 32.5
Elton Brand 29.3 29.3 33.5 33.3
Shane Battier 23.8 22.6* 29.8 31.3
Nate James 14.7 14.7 14.8 12.3
Corey Maggette 17.7 17.7 14.6 13.5
Chris Burgess 15.6 15.6 10.6 9.2
Taymon Domzalski 9.9 7.6* 1.0 1.2


NOTES:
-- MPG is minutes per game played, similar to the OP's data.
-- MPG-adj is mpg counting DNPs as 0 minutes.
-- < 20 is the player's mpg in games after January 1 decided by fewer than 20 points (11 games in 1999).
-- < 15 is the player's mpg in games after January 1 decided by fewer than 15 points (6 games in 1999).
* - Trajan Langdon missed 3 games that season, all because of injury. If you believe (as I do) that DNP-CDs should count for 0 but DNP-inj should not, his MPG-adj should be 31.0;
* - Shane Battier missed 2 games that season, I believe because of injury. If so, again, his MPG-adj should be 23.8;
* - Taymon Domzalski missed 9 games, I believe all DNP-CDs, so his MPG-adj of 7.6 is accurate.
** - Trajan Langdon missed one of the games won by fewer than 20 points because of injury, so I've based his < 20 mpg on 10 games, not 11. If you think that game should count as 0, his mpg would drop to 30.5.

My point is if you look at it through the OP's lens, it would seem the 1998-99 team played a 9-man rotation (calling 9.9 "double digit minutes"), with 8 players getting 15+ mpg. But as the calendar moved on and the games got close, it wasn't really true. In games decided by fewer than 15 points after January 1, 1999, Duke only played 7 players more than 10 mpg and only 5 players more than 15 mpg.

Applying this to next season's team, I've come to the conclusion that it's highly unlikely we play a 9-man rotation in games that count. Assuming both Harry and Amile get more than 30 minutes in such games, there just aren't enough minutes left for both Marques and Chase to get 10+ mpg in close games (even though they both may amass 300+ or even 400+ total minutes, including garbage time). From a minutes standpoint (as opposed to a positional standpoint), it wouldn't surprise me if the 2016-17 team uses the same template as 1998-99, with Grayson in the Will Avery slot, Jayson in the Trajan Landon spot, Amile in the Chris Carrawell slot, Harry in the Elton Brand slot; Matt in the Shane Battier slot, Luke in the Nate James slot, Frank in the Corey Maggette slot, Marques in the Chris Burgess slot, and Chase in the Taymon Domzalski slot. Although I'd also guess that Luke gets a few more minutes than Nate did and Matt gets a few less minutes than Shane did.

Also, when evaluating people's claims that Duke played a 9-man rotation in 1998-99 (or any other season), it is quite telling that Taymon Domzalski played so many garbage time minutes, enough to drop his per game average from 9.9 (or 7.6) to 1.0/1.2 in close games after the calendar turned. When you dominate most of your games, there are a lot of non-critical minutes to give to players who aren't really in the rotation.

Kedsy
05-25-2016, 12:54 AM
So the metric of 'number of players playing double digit minutes' is seven for both teams but team B is not as tired as team A.

We're not actually talking about how "tired" a team gets, are we? I know this has been debated ad nauseam here at DBR, but the idea that a 20-year-old kid who plays 30 minutes, two or three times a week, would be significantly more tired than the same kid playing 24 minutes, two or three times a week, seems rather ludicrous to me.

oldnavy
05-25-2016, 08:39 AM
We're not actually talking about how "tired" a team gets, are we? I know this has been debated ad nauseam here at DBR, but the idea that a 20-year-old kid who plays 30 minutes, two or three times a week, would be significantly more tired than the same kid playing 24 minutes, two or three times a week, seems rather ludicrous to me.

I could not agree with you more!

I've said it too many times myself, the fatigue happens in practice, and I think Coach K has learned by now, when to let up in practice to allow recovery.....

CDu
05-25-2016, 08:49 AM
We're not actually talking about how "tired" a team gets, are we? I know this has been debated ad nauseam here at DBR, but the idea that a 20-year-old kid who plays 30 minutes, two or three times a week, would be significantly more tired than the same kid playing 24 minutes, two or three times a week, seems rather ludicrous to me.

Yeah, I think "cumulative fatigue" for the season is overstated. I do think there can be a fatigue issue in-game for a guy playing, say, 37+ minutes in that game. It's hard to go full throttle for 40 minutes, so a guy who rarely sits at all is more likely to take plays off from time to time. But a guy getting 30 minutes as opposed to 24 minutes? I think there is a diminishing marginal return of added rest within a game after about 4-5 minutes' worth of rest.

JNort
05-25-2016, 09:19 AM
This is obviously flawed but what if you look at losses and wins separately for all of the above teams. For example how often we lose using a 6 man rotation as opposed to a 7 or 8. Then figure out which rotation wins the best on average.

I know this isn't just slightly flawed, its majorly flawed but I'd still be interested

JNort
05-25-2016, 09:24 AM
Yeah, I think "cumulative fatigue" for the season is overstated. I do think there can be a fatigue issue in-game for a guy playing, say, 37+ minutes in that game. It's hard to go full throttle for 40 minutes, so a guy who rarely sits at all is more likely to take plays off from time to time. But a guy getting 30 minutes as opposed to 24 minutes? I think there is a diminishing marginal return of added rest within a game after about 4-5 minutes' worth of rest.

Nah if you are a college athlete especially a guard you should easily be able to play all 40 and still be fine afterwards to possibly play another. I mean you get so many breaks: timeouts from the coaches, timeouts for tv breaks, halftime, free throws are a break and official reviews.

grossbus
05-25-2016, 09:32 AM
Frankly, and at the risk of scorn from the assembled, I see declining minutes for Matt.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
05-25-2016, 09:33 AM
I think what is more evident than physocal fatigue in game to game is the mental fatigue, particularly for many younger players, near the end of the season. "The Wall," if you will - not Jon Snow's wall, but the favorite of commentators.

Mental exhaustion and injuries that aren't allowed to heal are a much bigger factor than the difference betweem 26 and 36 minutes every 4 days.

CDu
05-25-2016, 09:43 AM
Frankly, and at the risk of scorn from the assembled, I see declining minutes for Matt.

Considering that the team will be much deeper this year than last, I don't think that's a bold or controversial prediction. I'd also expect declining minutes for Allen and perhaps Kennard as well. Not necessarily a huge decline in minutes for some of those guys, but a definite decline.

luburch
05-25-2016, 09:53 AM
Nah if you are a college athlete especially a guard you should easily be able to play all 40 and still be fine afterwards to possibly play another. I mean you get so many breaks: timeouts from the coaches, timeouts for tv breaks, halftime, free throws are a break and official reviews.

College athletes are not machines. They do get tired. "He's young. He should never run out of energy." I hate hearing that. Just because they're 18-23 doesn't mean they can't be fatigued.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
05-25-2016, 09:59 AM
College athletes are not machines. They do get tired. "He's young. He should never run out of energy." I hate hearing that. Just because they're 18-23 doesn't mean they can't be fatigued.

I dunno man, when I was 12, 13, 14 I attended basketball camp where we would play over 4 hours of competetive ball a day for a week. Sure we were tired in the evenings, but no one was exhausted and we all did it again the next day.

Are you as sharp with a minute to go at the end of the game? No. Can you pull a guy before a TV timeout to get an extra minute or two on the bench? Sure.

These kids are at peak physical condition and have an extreme regimen that maximizes their strength and endurance. 40 minutes of ball ought not wipe them out.

Spanarkel
05-25-2016, 10:07 AM
College athletes are not machines. They do get tired. "He's young. He should never run out of energy." I hate hearing that. Just because they're 18-23 doesn't mean they can't be fatigued.

Totally agree. It seems all too common for a team that "makes a comeback" from 10(-20+)points down to fall just short at the end of the game when its shots suddenly start falling short(unfortunately this DIDN'T happen with ND in the ACC Tourney game this past year). The team is collectively spent/drained/out of gas, etc. at that point. Just my two cents worth.

CDu
05-25-2016, 10:09 AM
Nah if you are a college athlete especially a guard you should easily be able to play all 40 and still be fine afterwards to possibly play another. I mean you get so many breaks: timeouts from the coaches, timeouts for tv breaks, halftime, free throws are a break and official reviews.


I dunno man, when I was 12, 13, 14 I attended basketball camp where we would play over 4 hours of competetive ball a day for a week. Sure we were tired in the evenings, but no one was exhausted and we all did it again the next day.

Are you as sharp with a minute to go at the end of the game? No. Can you pull a guy before a TV timeout to get an extra minute or two on the bench? Sure.

These kids are at peak physical condition and have an extreme regimen that maximizes their strength and endurance. 40 minutes of ball ought not wipe them out.

I don't think these guys would be "spent." But I think it absolutely has a detrimental effect on performance late in games. Not necessarily a huge impact on fatigue, but it doesn't need to be a huge impact to have a huge impact on outcome. In a close game, if you are slightly fatigued and lose focus/effort for even a possession, that can cost you the possession. And a possession can be the difference between winning and losing in a close game.

So I think the difference between 34-36 minutes played (4-6 minutes of game rest) and 38-40 minutes played (i.e., 0-2 minutes of game rest) can have a substantial impact. But I don't think the difference between 30-32 minutes played and 34-36 minutes played would have much impact at all.

Also, no offense, but I'm quite sure that in your 12-14 bball experience you weren't being asked to expend nearly as much energy per possession as Coach K demands of Duke guys. Those guys look pretty close to spent at the end of games. And if they aren't close to spent, then they probably should have been playing harder while they were out there. No reason to save your legs for postgame, right?

throatybeard
05-25-2016, 10:11 AM
There's a reason it's 1A

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
05-25-2016, 10:42 AM
I don't think these guys would be "spent." But I think it absolutely has a detrimental effect on performance late in games. Not necessarily a huge impact on fatigue, but it doesn't need to be a huge impact to have a huge impact on outcome. In a close game, if you are slightly fatigued and lose focus/effort for even a possession, that can cost you the possession. And a possession can be the difference between winning and losing in a close game.

So I think the difference between 34-36 minutes played (4-6 minutes of game rest) and 38-40 minutes played (i.e., 0-2 minutes of game rest) can have a substantial impact. But I don't think the difference between 30-32 minutes played and 34-36 minutes played would have much impact at all.

Also, no offense, but I'm quite sure that in your 12-14 bball experience you weren't being asked to expend nearly as much energy per possession as Coach K demands of Duke guys. Those guys look pretty close to spent at the end of games. And if they aren't close to spent, then they probably should have been playing harder while they were out there. No reason to save your legs for postgame, right?

Clearly it is a different level of exertion, but a 19 year old kid is taller, stronger, more mature, on a workout regimen and a monitored diet instead of pounding pizza and soda all night between competition.

And, yes, I agree there may be a late-game effect mentally, but that is a critique of in-game management of players rather than "minutes played over a season exhausting young men."

In fact, perhaps that is part of the dissent here... "one game minutes" v "average minutes in a season." Average minutes takes in blowouts, injuries, matchups, etc. Averaging over 35 minutes a game over a season has a lot of factors involved.

I doubt anyone would dispute that some guys on some nights certainly warrant 40 minutes.

CDu
05-25-2016, 11:08 AM
Clearly it is a different level of exertion, but a 19 year old kid is taller, stronger, more mature, on a workout regimen and a monitored diet instead of pounding pizza and soda all night between competition.

And they are playing against other guys who are taller, stronger, and more mature.


And, yes, I agree there may be a late-game effect mentally, but that is a critique of in-game management of players rather than "minutes played over a season exhausting young men."

In fact, perhaps that is part of the dissent here... "one game minutes" v "average minutes in a season." Average minutes takes in blowouts, injuries, matchups, etc. Averaging over 35 minutes a game over a season has a lot of factors involved.

I doubt anyone would dispute that some guys on some nights certainly warrant 40 minutes.

I most certainly agree with the idea that "cumulative fatigue" over the course of the season is bogus. In fact, I specifically said so in a post in this thread.

My point was that, within a game, excessive minutes are detrimental. And a guy who averages 37+ mpg is obviously continuously pushing the limits of excessive minutes in a single game, meaning he's continually at risk of being not at his best late in games (or continually at risk of "pacing himself" during games so as to be at his best late).

I don't think it's best for a guy to play 40 minutes in a game if there are reasonable alternatives that could spell him for 5-6 minutes. I think that player will be better in 34-35 minutes than he would be in 40 minutes. Hence my point: in-game fatigue is a real thing, and players are more able to play at peak performance for 35 minutes of game play than they are at 40 minutes of game play.

Obviously, in cases where there is a huge dropoff to the backup, it may be better to play the star for 40 minutes than to go with 35 minutes of the star and 5 minutes of the backup. The idea being that 40 minutes of not optimal performance is better than 34-35 minutes of optimal performance and 5-6 minutes of REALLY not optimal performance by a backup. But that doesn't change the point that in-game fatigue is a real thing, which was my point.

As it relates to this season, the question is whether we have talented enough options to be able to optimize Allen's minutes, or whether we're better off getting a few more minutes of less-than-optimal Allen. My suspicion is that this year we'll be better off getting 33-34 minutes of Allen's absolute best rather than 37 mpg for Allen with him taking stretches of the game off to pace himself.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
05-25-2016, 11:19 AM
As it relates to this season, the question is whether we have talented enough options to be able to optimize Allen's minutes, or whether we're better off getting a few more minutes of less-than-optimal Allen. My suspicion is that this year we'll be better off getting 33-34 minutes of Allen's absolute best rather than 37 mpg for Allen with him taking stretches of the game off to pace himself.

Obviously, all of this conversation is off-season mental, erm, calisthenics if you will. Another consideration that is very hard to predict is early-season garbage time. If Allen averages 25 minutes in the first ten games, with young guys getting some good run with late game leads and some roster experimenting, getting his average up to 37 for the season is near impossible.

I think the bigger question is:
IF coach feels he has the horses to go 8 or 9 deep regularly and IF there are no substantial injuries, and IF the young guys come along quickly... will K CHOOSE to do more subsituting than he has historically when the team comes down the stretch, as it would represent either a really great roster or a big change in coaching philosophy.

K has proven over the years to be more flexible in his coaching than most (zone D, OAD players, etc) so it is an interesting question.

One that we seem to have every summer, but interesting enough to pop back up every year.

At any rate, I don't think that player fatigue is a significant factor in these scenarios. But that's just from where I am sitting.

CDu
05-25-2016, 11:28 AM
At any rate, I don't think that player fatigue is a significant factor in these scenarios. But that's just from where I am sitting.

And I think player fatigue within a game can definitely be an issue. But I think it is only relevant at more extreme minutes within a game (37+ in a regulation game, probably 40+ in a single OT game, etc.). And obviously the more games a player plays 37+ minutes, the more games fatigue can be a factor (since every game a player plays 37+ minutes he is at a risk of fatigue being a factor in that game).

Obviously there are cases where the fatigue risk is better than the alternative.

And I don't think it's a HUGE factor, as in I don't think the difference between 34 minutes and 38 minutes is a life or death style difference. But to ignore that fatigue within a game can be relevant is, I think, overly dismissive. I honestly don't see how that's really debatable. If you're capable of playing 40 minutes, presumably you are capable of exerting more for 35 minutes with a few more minutes of rest.

JNort
05-30-2016, 04:52 PM
College athletes are not machines. They do get tired. "He's young. He should never run out of energy." I hate hearing that. Just because they're 18-23 doesn't mean they can't be fatigued.

But nobody seems to be saying what you did. I said in a 40 minute game .

luburch
05-31-2016, 07:12 AM
But nobody seems to be saying what you did. I said in a 40 minute game .

You're saying player's shouldn't be tired at the end of a 40 minute game and they should be able to run it back without any issues. I'm saying that's ludicrous.

Steven43
05-31-2016, 09:10 AM
Good analysis.

I recognize that it seems ridiculous to disagree with K on basketball matters. I still wish he'd play guys at the end of the bench more. This, of course, is coming from a guy that coached his kids through the 6th grade and never won a championship.

Well, you might not have won a championship, but did you have anyone on your rosters who has the potential to develop into a player such as Justise Winslow, Chris Duhon, Andre Dawkins, Mason Plumlee, Bobby Hurley, Amile Jefferson, Thomas Hill, Shane Battier, Carlos Boozer, Brian Davis, Nolan Smith, Brian Zoubek, Jahlil Okafor, Christian Laettner, Matt Jones, Antonio Lang, Great Nate James, Michael Dunleavy, Grant Hill, Lance Thomas, Miles Plumlee, Jon Scheyer, Jason Williams, Grayson Allen, Tyus Jones, or Kyle Singler?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Sorry guys/gals for the senseless post, I just look for any excuse to write those names and think about each of them in a Duke uniform. It never gets old.

JNort
06-01-2016, 12:01 AM
You're saying player's shouldn't be tired at the end of a 40 minute game and they should be able to run it back without any issues. I'm saying that's ludicrous.


Well they arn't playing 40 minutes is what I'm saying. They are playing 20 to 30 and getting over an hours rest in that time. If they can't play again later that day let alone the following day then somthing is wrong. Now that is for guards and smaller forwards. It takes a different toll on big men who put way more strain on their knees and feet.

Now if we are saying everyday they are playing back to backs or even 2 back to backs a week then yes I could see rest becoming a problem but for somthing that happens only a small handful of times a year and separated out I don't see how rest could ever be an issue.