MBB: Duke 76 Wake 64 Post-game Thread

[uh_no]

Count me among those not too worried about Mark Williams' fouling. As a team, we are 2nd in the entire country in defensive free throw rate - overall, we are amazing at playing without fouling. Mark is likely to play between 20-25 minutes in most games, and foul trouble hasn't prevented him from getting those minutes in any game this year (a possible exception to that was the Ohio State game, where I seem to remember him sitting for foul trouble, but he still played 22 minutes). With AJ's development we're playing more small ball anyway.

While we're on the subject, I think foul trouble is an overrated concern in basketball. I cringe when a coach removes a star player with two fouls in the first half. By taking the player out, you are guaranteeing the exact result you are trying to avoid- that is, that a player will play fewer minutes because of foul trouble. I'm not saying coaches should never been careful in that regard, but the "auto bench for the rest of the first half" move so many coaches default to is just not good strategy for me.

it worked for UConn in 2004 with okafor. (ducks)

[mo.st.dukie]

Count me among those not too worried about Mark Williams' fouling. As a team, we are 2nd in the entire country in defensive free throw rate - overall, we are amazing at playing without fouling. Mark is likely to play between 20-25 minutes in most games, and foul trouble hasn't prevented him from getting those minutes in any game this year (a possible exception to that was the Ohio State game, where I seem to remember him sitting for foul trouble, but he still played 22 minutes). With AJ's development we're playing more small ball anyway.

While we're on the subject, I think foul trouble is an overrated concern in basketball. I cringe when a coach removes a star player with two fouls in the first half. By taking the player out, you are guaranteeing the exact result you are trying to avoid- that is, that a player will play fewer minutes because of foul trouble. I'm not saying coaches should never been careful in that regard, but the "auto bench for the rest of the first half" move so many coaches default to is just not good strategy for me.

There's also the issue that a player who picks up two fouls in the first half and stays in the game would then play overly cautious resulting in them giving up easy buckets and being more timid on offense so you're not really getting the expected production anyways. In my opinion you sit the player. There's a whole second half to make up for the lost production from the first half and you are putting the substitute player in a less pressurized situation in the first half then having them come in at winning time.

[CDu]

There's also the issue that a player who picks up two fouls in the first half and stays in the game would then play overly cautious resulting in them giving up easy buckets and being more timid on offense so you're not really getting the expected production anyways. In my opinion you sit the player. There's a whole second half to make up for the lost production from the first half and you are putting the substitute player in a less pressurized situation in the first half then having them come in at winning time.

I think it depends on the player, team, and opponent. If you can afford to sit the player because you have a talented alternative, then it is okay to sit him and allow him to be able to play without caution in the second half. If you trust the player to be able to compete normally without fouling, you can risk it. It depends to some degree on how early the 2nd foul occurs, too.

Basically, I don't think there should be a one-size-fits-all approach.

[scottdude8]

Lost in all the discussion of Mark's foul issues (or lack thereof) is this: at least to my eye, many of his fouls are fixable. Mark isn't fouling because he's defensively inadequate and getting beat; in fact, it seems to be quite the opposite, with many of Mark's fouls coming because he thinks (perhaps rightfully so) that he can block or influence almost any shot at the rim. That tells me that this is a matter of instilling better defensive habits rather than remaking the wheel, and that's something that is very feasible to see improve over a season (especially with such a young player).

[Phredd3]

Basically, I don't think there should be a one-size-fits-all approach.

Yeah, this, and throughout his career, K has basically taken this approach. If the second foul happens early (8 or more minutes left in the half) to a critical player, Coach will often take the player out immediately, but then rotate them in and out for the remainder of the half. If they do pickup their third, then they pretty much sit. But players seem to rarely collect that third foul, and while sometimes that allows an extra bucket or two, it often scores us some extra buckets, too. I've been impressed with that part of K's game. He's very situational with foul management.

I expect Scheyer to be pretty similar that way.

[Steven43]

it worked for UConn in 2004 with okafor. (ducks)

All you really need is to have the refs in your back pocket like UConn did. To this day that is still the worst officiated game I’ve seen in any sport. 😡

[elvis14]

My opinion would be that we're about average in feeding the post. I often see what I'd consider a good opportunity to make an entry pass, but the man with the ball hesitates and the chance is gone. Mind you, there's a lot that goes into the play. Is the defender playing behind the post, in which case a feed should be easy. Or is the defender fronting the post - it makes a lob pass tempting but where is the weak side help? I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there are a lot of factors going into the passer's decision, and that choice has to be made instantly.

A good friend and I have talked often about our teams inability to make a proper pass to feed the post. We have had this discussion for years to the point where it's just a "here we go again" discussion. It can be quite frustrating to watch year in year out.

it worked for UConn in 2004 with okafor. (ducks)

A friend of mine who is a UConn fan told me after the game that it was correct for the refs not to call fouls on Okafor because "he hasn't been called for those all year so it's been established that he gets those calls". And here I thought the rules should apply somewhat equally to all teams.

All you really need is to have the refs in your back pocket like UConn did. To this day that is still the worst officiated game I’ve seen in any sport. 😡

I was watching the game at a friend's house. Somewhere in the second half I just blurted out "they aren't going to allow us to win this game". Still pissed off.

[azzefkram]

I cringe when a coach removes a star player with two fouls in the first half. By taking the player out, you are guaranteeing the exact result you are trying to avoid- that is, that a player will play fewer minutes because of foul trouble. I'm not saying coaches should never been careful in that regard, but the "auto bench for the rest of the first half" move so many coaches default to is just not good strategy for me.

I am on the exact other side of this argument. K drives me crazy when he subs a player back in with 2 fouls in the first half. It is such a low reward, high risk move. With 2 fouls the player will probably play tentative in order to avoid that third foul. If the player gets that third foul, he will be out for the remainder of the half anyway and start the second with 3 fouls. Starting the second with 3 fouls is significantly worse than starting with 2.

K does this all the time and, if I had hair, I'd be pulling it out. That being said, K does seem to get away with it far more often than he gets burned by it. This K character might have some coaching chops.

[azzefkram]

Lost in all the discussion of Mark's foul issues (or lack thereof) is this: at least to my eye, many of his fouls are fixable. Mark isn't fouling because he's defensively inadequate and getting beat; in fact, it seems to be quite the opposite, with many of Mark's fouls coming because he thinks (perhaps rightfully so) that he can block or influence almost any shot at the rim. That tells me that this is a matter of instilling better defensive habits rather than remaking the wheel, and that's something that is very feasible to see improve over a season (especially with such a young player).

I agree with this. Mark's fouling is not an issue. What irks me about Mark is his penchant for making himself a 4 foot player when at the rim. It seems like there are 2 or 3 instances every game where Mark takes a pass or rebound from over his head to his waist.

[jimsumner]

I agree with this. Mark's fouling is not an issue. What irks me about Mark is his penchant for making himself a 4 foot player when at the rim. It seems like there are 2 or 3 instances every game where Mark takes a pass or rebound from over his head to his waist.

Or worse. tries to dribble, also known as turnover-waiting-to-happen.

A common problem with young bigs who aren't totally balanced when they get the ball and are trying to gather themself. But in that instant Mark Williams goes from one of the longest people on the planet to the guy most distant from the floor.

[Dr. Maturin]

I think it depends on the player, team, and opponent. If you can afford to sit the player because you have a talented alternative, then it is okay to sit him and allow him to be able to play without caution in the second half. If you trust the player to be able to compete normally without fouling, you can risk it. It depends to some degree on how early the 2nd foul occurs, too.

Basically, I don't think there should be a one-size-fits-all approach.

I agree in general terms. Some players are more foul prone, some are better/more experienced at dealing with foul trouble, etc. That's where coaching comes into play. My issue is how it's perceived as "risking it" to leave a player in with foul trouble (I'm not singling out your language so much as pointing out how it's broadly discussed by announcers, etc). Everyone talks about the risk of playing a guy with 2 fouls in the first half, but nobody talks about the risk of playing those important minutes without a key player. It's a bit like 4th down decisions in football. Often, punting the football is the riskier move.

[phaedrus]

I agree in general terms. Some players are more foul prone, some are better/more experienced at dealing with foul trouble, etc. That's where coaching comes into play. My issue is how it's perceived as "risking it" to leave a player in with foul trouble (I'm not singling out your language so much as pointing out how it's broadly discussed by announcers, etc). Everyone talks about the risk of playing a guy with 2 fouls in the first half, but nobody talks about the risk of playing those important minutes without a key player. It's a bit like 4th down decisions in football. Often, punting the football is the riskier move.

There's an assumption that second half minutes are necessarily more important than first half minutes. It might true in some cases (in retrospect), but it's not true in all cases.