Need Better coaching management with players with fouls

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

And also,, we never really felt like the game was in jeopardy of bein lost, even with Cle, Ron, and FVV on the bench.

You can feel however you want, but unfortunately the game was very much in jeopardy until the very end.

[Cdizzle]

You can feel however you want, but unfortunately the game was very much in jeopardy until the very end.

What is, your opinion about the state of last night's game?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I think the Shox played through bad luck (luck may not best word to describe it, but I'm thinking about the foul trouble that hit our stars all at once) and some poor play and yet still managed a quality road win. I'm torn whether this team is simply good (but not great) and fortunate to have pulled out quite a few close games, or great and on the verge of clicking and starting to blow good teams out. I think the potential is there for this to be a top 10 team, but I'm just not quite sold yet. Despite the wins, the Shox haven't looked convincing very often. Let's not forget. Alabama, Tennessee, St. Louis, BYU, are all good teams, but we are used to thinking about WSU in terms of NCAA/NIT bubble-ish-ness. Top 10 teams may struggle and even lose occassionally to these types of opponents, but they also usually bring a whooping a decent amount of the time as well. I'll feel better about this team after they give out a few whoopings to NIT and above level opponents. Interestingly, the schedule may not give us many chances to see that happen until Spring comes along. I think there is a really, really good chance this team has the best record in the country entering Selection Sunday and I'll still be sitting there wondering just how good we are. March will help to answer those questions.

[Cdizzle]

Top 10 teams may struggle and even lose occassionally to these types of opponents, but they also usually bring a whooping a decent amount of the time as well.

I don't disagree. I do think it should be noted that Top 10 teams often play these games at home a "decent amount of the time."

[jocoshock]

I think the Shox played through bad luck (luck may not best word to describe it, but I'm thinking about the foul trouble that hit our stars all at once) and some poor play and yet still managed a quality road win. I'm torn whether this team is simply good (but not great) and fortunate to have pulled out quite a few close games, or great and on the verge of clicking and starting to blow good teams out. I think the potential is there for this to be a top 10 team, but I'm just not quite sold yet. Despite the wins, the Shox haven't looked convincing very often. Let's not forget. Alabama, Tennessee, St. Louis, BYU, are all good teams, but we are used to thinking about WSU in terms of NCAA/NIT bubble-ish-ness. Top 10 teams may struggle and even lose occassionally to these types of opponents, but they also usually bring a whooping a decent amount of the time as well. I'll feel better about this team after they give out a few whoopings to NIT and above level opponents. Interestingly, the schedule may not give us many chances to see that happen until Spring comes along. I think there is a really, really good chance this team has the best record in the country entering Selection Sunday and I'll still be sitting there wondering just how good we are. March will help to answer those questions.

All valid points, but don't forget that few teams inhabiting the Top 10 so far this year has exhibited the positive traits you speak of at this point in the season. Like every other team, it will be how we play in
February and March that determine our destiny. We had even more question marks last year. At this point, we are as deserving as anyone (with maybe one or two exceptions).

[1972Shocker]

And if 3G had left Baker, Cle and FVV in and they had picked up their 3rd fouls (which is very, very easy to do this year with the way the game is being called) then there would be a thread about how he should have protected them. Maybe even started by same poster that started this thread.

[wu_shizzle]

It wasn't just the amount of fouls, but how they were getting called.

I would have liked to see the zone earlier but we ended up getting burned with that too.

I don't know how we pulled that one out, but that's why HCGM pulls in all that coin.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

And if 3G had left Baker, Cle and FVV in and the had picked up their 3rd fouls (which is very, very easy to do this year with the way the game is being called) then their would be a thread about how he should have protected them. Maybe even started by same poster that started this thread.

Here's something to think about. How many minutes per year do you think key players:

A) Sit out because the coach is protecting them during foul trouble.
B) Sit out because they fouled out and the game is still going.

Option A happens in significantly greater quantities than B. Coaches are costing their best players a lot of minutes every season in order to assure that they are in there at the end. I understand placing value on the final minutes of a game, but the concept of "take a decent lead and the end minutes aren't as crutial" gets lost by most.

If a player has 2 fouls in the first 5 minutes, or a 3rd foul in the first half, or a 4th foul with 10 minutes to go, I have no problem sitting him. However, coaches are pulling players much, much earlier than that and are costing their best players significant minutes over the course of the year.

[rjl]

Here's something to think about. How many minutes per year do you think key players:

A) Sit out because the coach is protecting them during foul trouble.
B) Sit out because they fouled out and the game is still going.

Option A happens in significantly greater quantities than B. Coaches are costing their best players a lot of minutes every season in order to assure that they are in there at the end. I understand placing value on the final minutes of a game, but the concept of "take a decent lead and the end minutes aren't as crutial" gets lost by most.

If a player has 2 fouls in the first 5 minutes, or a 3rd foul in the first half, or a 4th foul with 10 minutes to go, I have no problem sitting him. However, coaches are pulling players much, much earlier than that and are costing their best players significant minutes over the course of the year.

That's misleading analysis. Players foul out for fewer minutes precisely because coaches sit them out when they start getting in foul trouble.

By sitting a player out when he's in foul trouble, the coach is selecting the moments of the game that the foul situation eliminates his player. Most coaches would rather have these players in the final 5 minutes than have them at 15 minutes, if it's one or the other.

The way the anticipatory whistles were coming at Baker, I would have expected him to be gone by the 10 minute mark if he stayed in the game.

[Cdizzle]

Here's something to think about. How many minutes per year do you think key players:

A) Sit out because the coach is protecting them during foul trouble.
B) Sit out because they fouled out and the game is still going.

Option A happens in significantly greater quantities than B.

Ummmmmm, yes? That's the point. If no one did A, then B would be happening in significantly greater quantities. You can't say that players would be playing more if the coach didn't sit them out with foul trouble. We don't know if they would have fouled out 1 minute later.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

It is like a teeter totter. Pull guys more often, reduce the number of foul outs. Pull guys less often, increase the number of foul outs.

My argument is simply that most coaches have their teeter totter off balance. They are getting fewer minutes out of their stars than they could be.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

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.

[Heinro]

It seemed as though Marshall was experimenting a bit last night. Even before the foul trouble we were doing things we haven't really done this year. We had Cle at the 5 and Evan at the 4 at one point. Then once those 3 got in their foul trouble, it continued. Personally, I think the Ron scare from last week, not necessarily how he was feeling last night, was the main factor. I think Marshall wanted to see how the team would react if they couldn't count on Ron or Fred, and generally I was pretty satisfied with how that line up handled the adversity.

[Cdizzle]

It is like a teeter totter. Pull guys more often, reduce the number of foul outs. Pull guys less often, increase the number of foul outs.

My argument is simply that most coaches have their teeter totter off balance. They are getting fewer minutes out of their stars than they could be.

I understand your what your argument is. Unfortunately, you do not have any data to back it up, because it doesn't exist. It would certainly be interesting to know.

This gets into the same territory as "the game must have been officiated evenly because each team has 7 fouls." If Team A has 2 bogus fouls on their best player and he is sent to the bench, it is not the same as Team B having 7 fouls, bogus or not, whistled against backup post players. But I digress.

[1972Shocker]

I'm sure a lot of how a coach handle's this situation depends on the team's depth and the coach's confidence in that depth.

In Sundays Shocker women's game at Green Bay, Alex Harden picked up her 4th foul with 12:54 remaining, Michaela Dapprich picked up her 4th with 11:52 remaining, Marissa Preston with 8:51 remaining and Michelle Price with 7:54 remaining. Jody and the Shocks did a good job dealing with the foul trouble but Michaela fouled out with 4:11 to go and Michelle with 2:03 to go. So the Shocks lost two starters down the stretch in a game the was very tight (similar to the Alabama game). Fortunately, they were able to hang on for the win but one thing was clear. The foul trouble had a major impact on how aggressive the Shocks could be, especially defensively and on the boards. Fortunately, for 3G he has more quality depth to rely on than Jody does.

When 3G's coaching decisions clearly become the reason we start losing games than I believe some criticism is perhaps in order. However, we have had the greatest run in Shocker history over the past few years with Coach Marshall's philosophy and AFAIC I think we should just continue to roll with that for now.