Need Better coaching management with players with fouls

[ShockTalk]

So if a team wins the game, every single strategy it used throughout the game was the correct one and zero mistakes were made? Classic message board comment with zero critical thinking skills.

There is no way to prove or disprove either's side of this discussion. It is a personal opinion of what "might" work better.

I also believe there are a lot of other factors that go into whether a coach leaves a player with foul trouble in a game rather than saving him. As heady a player as Baker and FVV are, they are not D-I seasoned players. Baker doesn't even have a full playing season under his belt yet. Would HCGM pull a junior/senior Baker or FVV as quickly or as for so long a time? How much difference does a coach believe there is between one of his starters and a 6th or 7th man off the bench? What are the player matchups like, starter/sub vs. opponent's player? A coach's style: We know Marshall doesn't prefer to call timeouts in certain situations, but rather force his players to play through it. He feels confident in his players and he views this as a growing process. When it comes to foul trouble, he goes the other direction.

Sometimes, it's as simply as a coaches "gut feeling". What others are saying here is that based on Marshall's coaching history, they would rather support his decision on this issue, particularly since it appears one cannot truly give strong factual reasons to do otherwise. Is he doing something just for the moment in a game, is it for a player/team's future betterment, or some combination of this? From my armchair, HCGM may even convince me someday about holding off on those timeouts.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Not sure why you quoted me there ShockTalk. I have no problem with those who disagree with me. Let's have the discussion. My comment was about Rosewood's failrure to use basic logic and attempt to shut down any discussion at all.

[Cdizzle]

His logic was no less flawed than yours. Decisions were made that resulted in the desired outcome. He's even using a known data point (WSU won) instead of imagining that Baker would have played 30 minutes and WSU would have won by 20.

[RoyalShock]

His logic was no less flawed than yours. Decisions were made that resulted in the desired outcome. He's even using a known data point (WSU won) instead of imagining that Baker would have played 30 minutes and WSU would have won by 20.

Using that logic, no decision leading up to a favorable or desired outcome could ever be questioned, in anything.

I propose a new board rule, that after wins, there can be no discussion of any decision that happened in the game, because clearly, every decision was the correct decision.

[ShockerPrez]

I don't know why Baker can't just use his powers from the bench. Is just a Jedi Youngling? I thought he was a Jedi Knight.

[ShockTalk]

Not sure why you quoted me there ShockTalk. I have no problem with those who disagree with me. Let's have the discussion. My comment was about Rosewood's failrure to use basic logic and attempt to shut down any discussion at all.

You're responses are getting more like SF's all the time (no offense meant SF). Make a diversionary comment and not respond to the actual post. First time, take a shot at my lack of graphing skills on SN without a response to the content (sorry about your eyes) and now how I quote, not what was posted. In both cases, I'm actually trying to have that reasonable discussion with someone I agree with on many of their viewpoints/posts on SN.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

ShockTalk, you are right. That is twice now I've commented on something beside your main point. Sorry. Not my intention. Purely coincidental, and not intended as a slight toward your ideas.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I agree with the point about the difference between player A and the man who would be replacing him off the bench. The level of drop off effects how risky a coach will want to be with his star. Your point about matchups also makes sense on a game by game and team by team basis.

However, my main argument goes back to the general concept of pulling players in "minor" foul trouble. There may be specific cases where it makes sense, but as a rule of thumb, I disagree with it.

As for hard facts, I don't have piles of data to back up my claims, but am trying to make an argument starting with a common sense principle and applying it as best I can. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my observation watching college basketball for years is that, over the course of the year, star players generally spend more time sitting on the bench in “foul trouble” (not counting minutes they would need for regularly scheduled rest) than they do sitting on the bench having fouled out. I think we can all agree that tipping the scale the other way (very little preventative benching, lots of foul out minutes) would be a bad idea. In fact, we all probably agree that a balanced scale (equal preventative and post foul out minutes) would also be a bad idea due to all the reasons outlined above such as the value of having your stars in the game at the end. The real argument is about how much you let the preventative benching minutes get ahead of the foul out minutes. 2:1? 3:1? I don’t know the exact answer, but my criticism of Marshall (and most coaches for the matter) is that I feel like they have leaned too heavily toward the preventative side.

My frustration came when I tried to outline this idea and got responses such as “they won” or “Marshall makes a billion $$$”, as if those help the discussion.

[RoyalShock]

The data to disprove the idea of keeping players in minor foul trouble on the floor doesn't exist and likely never will. The reason is because it's next to impossible to quantify how a player changes his game to account for being in foul trouble or how opposing players or coaches adjust their strategy to go after said player.

The metrics haven't been developed yet to deduce that a player backed off on defense to avoid picking up a foul. Only subjective observation can do that right now. And any metric that does get developed will still be subjective. Defensive metrics in baseball has the same problem. Did that shortstop just make a great play or did it only look that way because he doesn't have very good range?

Data only gets you so far in sports like basketball. A lack of available data doesn't automatically make an argument invalid.

[ShockTalk]

I agree with the point about the difference between player A and the man who would be replacing him off the bench. The level of drop off effects how risky a coach will want to be with his star. Your point about matchups also makes sense on a game by game and team by team basis.

However, my main argument goes back to the general concept of pulling players in "minor" foul trouble. There may be specific cases where it makes sense, but as a rule of thumb, I disagree with it.

As for hard facts, I don't have piles of data to back up my claims, but am trying to make an argument starting with a common sense principle and applying it as best I can. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my observation watching college basketball for years is that, over the course of the year, star players generally spend more time sitting on the bench in “foul trouble” (not counting minutes they would need for regularly scheduled rest) than they do sitting on the bench having fouled out. I think we can all agree that tipping the scale the other way (very little preventative benching, lots of foul out minutes) would be a bad idea. In fact, we all probably agree that a balanced scale (equal preventative and post foul out minutes) would also be a bad idea due to all the reasons outlined above such as the value of having your stars in the game at the end. The real argument is about how much you let the preventative benching minutes get ahead of the foul out minutes. 2:1? 3:1? I don’t know the exact answer, but my criticism of Marshall (and most coaches for the matter) is that I feel like they have leaned too heavily toward the preventative side.

My frustration came when I tried to outline this idea and got responses such as “they won” or “Marshall makes a billion $$$”, as if those help the discussion.

And one of my frustrations is seeing 2 or 3 players sit with "foul trouble" and each end up having 3 fouls for the game, a game that we lost or was way too close for comfort. So your point is understood.

You probably "picked" a bad game to make the argument. Baker ends up with 4 fouls in 16 minutes of play, FVV did end up with only 3 fouls, but played 31 minutes, and Early only had 3 in 26 minutes, but usually gives good cause to see the bench.

Marshall likes having long, strong benches. Our bench is good this year, but not as strong or long as Marshall would like (my guess). Our PG position is particularly different this year. We usually have no shortage of guards. You'd like to have FVV and Baker in the lineup together as much as possible, but when your starting SG is your backup PG and Cotton is busy taking on the top guard dog duty, it makes for interesting combos and decisions.

Particularly in the second half of games, I think HCGM does a very good job of substituting in and out to maximize quality offensive positions while minimizing defensive exposure to fouls. You can't always get a guy out when you want, so he may have more exposure than liked, so "risk" is being taken. In the first half, I just believe that Marshall has a whole pot load of confidence that this team has enough time to overcome any negative to foul benching.

[Cdizzle]

Data only gets you so far in sports like basketball. A lack of available data doesn't automatically make an argument invalid.

Agree to agree. But it doesn't make it valid either. It means one guys hand-waiving is just as reasonable as another guys hand-waiving.

[shock]

I agree with the point about the difference between player A and the man who would be replacing him off the bench. The level of drop off effects how risky a coach will want to be with his star. Your point about matchups also makes sense on a game by game and team by team basis.

However, my main argument goes back to the general concept of pulling players in "minor" foul trouble. There may be specific cases where it makes sense, but as a rule of thumb, I disagree with it.

As for hard facts, I don't have piles of data to back up my claims, but am trying to make an argument starting with a common sense principle and applying it as best I can. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my observation watching college basketball for years is that, over the course of the year, star players generally spend more time sitting on the bench in “foul trouble” (not counting minutes they would need for regularly scheduled rest) than they do sitting on the bench having fouled out. I think we can all agree that tipping the scale the other way (very little preventative benching, lots of foul out minutes) would be a bad idea. In fact, we all probably agree that a balanced scale (equal preventative and post foul out minutes) would also be a bad idea due to all the reasons outlined above such as the value of having your stars in the game at the end. The real argument is about how much you let the preventative benching minutes get ahead of the foul out minutes. 2:1? 3:1? I don’t know the exact answer, but my criticism of Marshall (and most coaches for the matter) is that I feel like they have leaned too heavily toward the preventative side.

My frustration came when I tried to outline this idea and got responses such as “they won” or “Marshall makes a billion $$$”, as if those help the discussion.

don't you have some dishes to wash, oil to change, or leaves to rake?

[1972Shocker]

Question: If the game had started 1 minute sooner or 1 minute later would the outcome have been the same? No way to answer that. Just as their is no way to answer whether the outcome of the game would have been the same, worse or better if 3G managed the foul situation differently.

I believe 3G did say that he was questioning his GENERAL RULE to sit guys in the 1st half once they pick up 2 fouls but he resisted the temptation. I imagine that was because the reserves did a pretty good job holding the fort. Taking any lead into the locker room at the half is kind of icing on the cake for this team.

With hindsight we know things worked out well. But I think 3G may well have put the starters back in in the 1st half if the game situation had dictated he needed to do that to avoid a big halftime deficit. Thanks to the play of the reserves he didn't have to take that risk.

[shockmonster]

Marshall obviously strongly believes that a coach should play it safely in the first (maybe he would change his methodologies if we fall far behind) so that we have the right players in the game down the stretch, and at the end of the game. It's been a winning strategy for him during most of his career or maybe early in his career, he played players into foul trouble and lost the game. Anyway if you follow his coaching strategies, he believes strongly in the second half. For example, he springs zone and pressure defenses on the other team following intermission so that the other team as m doesn't have half time to make adjustments. These are solid strategies and philosophies and have won a lot of games for him during his career. I, for one, support his coaching ability.

[RoyalShock]

Agree to agree. But it doesn't make it valid either. It means one guys hand-waiving is just as reasonable as another guys hand-waiving.

It's valid until proven otherwise. Are you confusing valid with right?