Need Better coaching management with players with fouls

[proshox]

I tend to agree with JH4P.... Coaches are effectively giving a player the 5th foul without him playing. I know the statistics are argued in detail for similar situations in the NBA and there are good arguments on both sides.

Last night we could have "split the baby" and risked Ron, Fred, OR Cleanthony. They could have brought them in for the end of the first half with minimal risk (would have required that burn or lose time out).

This game had the potential to be a remarkable blow-out win that would have vaulted the team in everyone's mind. Instead, we walked out with a good win and almost got beat to a NIT'ish team (great result btw).

The win is all that really matters, but if I were coaching my entire strategy would be to try and extend a lead all the way to the under four. I think most coaches try to be in position to win at the under four which is relying on some luck. I don't know which is right, but my gut tells me we could have pulled away.

[jdmee]

Another question. Would you rather...

A) Your star player log 30 minutes and foul out with 2 minutes to go because he was allowed to play through foul trouble.
or
B) Your star player log 24 minutes but get to play the final 2 minutes because he sat the bench much of the game.

I would prefer option A, but would bet that option B happens more often due to coaches choices to sit players. Not to mention that this isn't always the choice. Often, players get in foul trouble but then never end up fouling out, despite playing a bunch. A 30 minutes game AND playing the last 2 minutes should also be considered a possibility that coaches who let their players play through foul trouble will enjoy some nights.

But the problem with A is that you might end up with C. And you usually end up with D.

C) Your star player log 24 minutes and not get to play the last 7:30 because he fouled out when he was being allowed to play through foul trouble.

D) Your star player playing less aggressive and getting less productive minutes than he normally does and the player with 0 fouls on the bench would be giving you because he is afraid of picking up the next foul.

[AZ Shocker]

The way the refs were trying to put Baker on the bench all game and get him to foul out....I TOTALLY agree with Coach Marshall letting Ron sit for a long time. Coach knew we were going to need Baker at the CRUNCH TIME to pull out the victory. Had he put Baker in earlier with 3 fouls...Coach realized the refs would call a 4th on Baker asap. Good smart move by Marshall on the road at Power-6 conference team.

Plus the bench got some big-time minutes against a good team on the road. WIN-WIN for the SHOCKERS!!!

[Dave Stalwart]

Its actually a pretty interesting point on both sides. I think its one of those things that really has to be case by case.

Think about this. What if every time Baker sat on the bench, Alabama went up by 10? I think coach would have probably shifted his plan to JH4P's plan if there was no hope without Baker in the game.

I think we really rode the fence with this game. I think in a close game where the other team isn't dominating you, you sit your players early like Marshall did because you need playmakers down the stretch. The other team isn't pulling away. In a game where your bench is severely overmatched and things are falling apart without the stars in, you play them earlier and risk fouling out.

JH4P is right, though. Its a give and take thing that can't really have much of a rule in place. You have to just pick your place on the teeter totter. We are fortunate to have one a tough one on the road. Its possible leaving the guys in would have resulted in a less scary outcome, but its also possible that a ref with no visibility would remove our two least foul prone guards from the game for no reason way too early in the game.

[Yellow Bellied]

Opponent Strategy plays into the thinking of sitting a player as well. If a coach sees a tactical advantage of attacking a position that is weakened by foul trouble, they'll take it....especially if it has the added advantage of getting a star player to ride the pine during crunch time due to fouling out.

[KochHead22]

I agree with everything that everyone has said on this thread...

I agree with your agreeing on what everyone has said in this thread.

[Ricardo del Rio]

8 straight minutes of Ron Baker on the bench in second half with 3 fouls was far too long. HCGM needs to cut the panic in half and thus get double the minutes of a player with 3 or more fouls. Baker could easily have sit for just two minutes and came back in with no problem. This happened with Armstead in Final Four game.

Malcomb was 0-10 in that game. Maybe he was on the bench for a reason other than foul trouble.

[Ricardo del Rio]

My guess is Ron Baker's ankle was bothering him and coach took the opportunity to rest him until the final push.

Yes.

Also, maybe Coach Marshall had the notion that the game was going down to the last few possessions and he wanted to be sure that Baker was on the floor.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Yes.

Also, maybe Coach Marshall had the notion that the game was going down to the last few possessions and he wanted to be sure that Baker was on the floor.

Would you prefer Baker play the final 3 minutes or foul out having played an additional 8 minutes during the middle of the game?

The game coming down to the final minutes wasn't a foregone conclusion. If we played a stronger 5 on the floor for more of the middle of the game, the last few minutes likely wouldn't have mattered.

[1972Shocker]

Would you prefer Baker play the final 3 minutes or foul out having played an additional 8 minutes during the middle of the game?

That is simply some made up numbers in a static analysis that have no meaning because we have no idea if that is what would have happened or not. Say we leave Baker in. Coach Grant no doubt tells whoever Baker is guarding to aggressively attack him and take the ball to the hole. Would you rather have Baker play 15 minutes and foul out with 3 minutes to go and be less effective when he is in the game?

3G has a philosophy and how he handles these situations. He has been pretty successful with his philosophy. You don't agree with the philosophy which is your right, but since you have no influence it really is kind of a moot point isn't it.

[Cdizzle]

Would you prefer Baker play the final 3 minutes or foul out having played an additional 8 minutes during the middle of the game?

The game coming down to the final minutes wasn't a foregone conclusion. If we played a stronger 5 on the floor for more of the middle of the game, the last few minutes likely wouldn't have mattered.

What about Baker for 20 minutes but foul out with 9 minutes to go?

Baker not fouling out quickly wasn't a foregone conclusion either. In fact, the trend line was in the other direction. This is one of those unwinnable arguments. There are far too many assumptions about things occurring in a vacuum, and far too few statistical data to support any claims.

[The Mad Hatter]

But the problem with A is that you might end up with C. And you usually end up with D.

C) Your star player log 24 minutes and not get to play the last 7:30 because he fouled out when he was being allowed to play through foul trouble.

D) Your star player playing less aggressive and getting less productive minutes than he normally does and the player with 0 fouls on the bench would be giving you because he is afraid of picking up the next foul.

While there are good points on both sides, I think that this is the best analysis of the issue on the thread.

Another factor to consider in a player sitting by coach decision vs sitting from fouling out is the coaching flexibility. If a guy is on the bench by coaching decision, if the dynamics of the game shift, you can always put him back in. Once he fouls out, the coach has lost his flexibility in managing his lineups for the rest of the game.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

That is simply some made up numbers in a static analysis that have no meaning because we have no idea if that is what would have happened or not. Say we leave Baker in. Coach Grant no doubt tells whoever Baker is guarding to aggressively attack him and take the ball to the hole. Would you rather have Baker play 15 minutes and foul out with 3 minutes to go and be less effective when he is in the game?

3G has a philosophy and how he handles these situations. He has been pretty successful with his philosophy. You don't agree with the philosophy which is your right, but since you have no influence it really is kind of a moot point isn't it.

It is true that there are many variables here. What I do know is our "big 3" ended the night with 4, 3, and 3 fouls respectively. There is no doubt that playing the "big 3" more and sitting them less would have almost assuredly led to more minutes, not less.

I have no problem pulling Baker after his 3rd, but sitting all 3 guys at the same time just because they had 2 fouls is, IMO, what led Alabama to come back, get some momentum, and eventually lead to a tense ending that could have been prevented if we had simply kept our foot on the gas through the mid part of the game.

[vancedave56]

...on the other hand it was good for the rest of the team to gain some experience without those three to show themselves they could stay in the game. No one game is as big as the building of the team and the season in its total. If we had got behind by more than a point or two, or if we had totally lost our composure and not regained it, it's very likely one or two of the players would have re-entered. As it was, it was a learning experience that could pay off down the road...and we still won.

[1972Shocker]

What I know is that we pulled out a tough 72-67 road win against an SEC team that probably played their best game of the year. I am totally satisfied with 3G's game management last night, although I did not think we played real great overall. I think our defense was definitely hurt by the foul trouble causing us to be somewhat less aggressive on defense then we would normally be.