Need Better coaching management with players with fouls

[Dave Stalwart]

Maybe it's like gambling. You have to have a rule or two that you just won't budge from, almost superstitiously like what hands you always fold or if you win a certain amount you leave.

Maybe some of you will relate. I suppose Marshall might have a perspective like that with his approach to timeouts and his approach to foul management.

Probably bogus but I had fun thinking it over.

[Cdizzle]

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

Fair enough.

I think JR Simon, Zach Bush and Derail Green should start. They will wear out the other team. In the second half Marshall can insert the starters and they will obliterate the other team because they are so fresh.

[RoyalShock]

Fair enough.

I think JR Simon, Zach Bush and Derail Green should start. They will wear out the other team. In the second half Marshall can insert the starters and they will obliterate the other team because they are so fresh.

There are coaches with systems that employ similar philosophies.

[Dave Stalwart]

Fair enough.

I think JR Simon, Zach Bush and Derail Green should start. They will wear out the other team. In the second half Marshall can insert the starters and they will obliterate the other team because they are so fresh.

Fred VanVleet obliterates other teams because he is so fresh

[Ricardo del Rio]

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

"Waiving" is wrong.
"Waving" is right.
<giggles>

[RoyalShock]

"Waiving" is wrong.
"Waving" is right.
<giggles>

You can waive your rights, but can you waive your wrongs?

[Kung Wu]

Ah there is a fourth important point on not playing players in foul trouble (referring back to my 3 point post):

4) Players often foul when they are winded or hurting and have to "cheat". If you don't yank them immediately they are prone to foul again because they are still winded. That's not an argument for sitting them for extended minutes, but it's definitely important to pull them "just in case".

[wsushox1]

This thread is full of cringe

[shockmonster]

"Waiving" is wrong.
"Waving" is right.
<giggRles>

RDR-I have never met you but I have an image of you in my mind that doesn't mesh with a "giggle".

[Aargh]

Play a guy with 2 fouls in the first half and 2 things happen:
1) The oither team goes at him on every possession trying to get the 3rd foul
2) The player backs off on defensive pressure to avoid the 3rd foul
Result: Lots of points go on opponent's side of the score board.

Same thing happens if a player with 3 fouls is on the court in the first 10 or 12 minutes of the second half. Many (if not most) coaches prefer putting a player on the court who can defend aggressively.

There are two considerations in any evaluation of a basketball issue:
1) How many points do you put on the board
2) How many points does the opponent put on the board.

As most coaches pull players with 2 fouls in the first half and 3 in the second, I can make an observation: Most coaches think a player with foul trouble will give up more points by playing soft on D than they will contribute with their offensive abilities.

You can get more minutes and more production out of top players by playing them longer, but your opponent will get more points and production by taking advantage of that player's avoiding the next foul.

I'm remindeed of Durley's sophomore year. Some posters wanted him on the court for more minutes because he could have put 20 points on the board. He wasn't getting those minutes because he would have given up 30 points to get his 20.

There are two ends of the court. A player in foul trouble might be able to maintain his offensive production, but cannot maintain his defensive productivity. Sit him. Kepp him fresh for the end of the game. Put him in at crunch time with the game on the line when he's got fresh legs and can defend with his hair on fire.

[RoyalShock]

Play a guy with 2 fouls in the first half and 2 things happen:
1) The oither team goes at him on every possession trying to get the 3rd foul
2) The player backs off on defensive pressure to avoid the 3rd foul
Result: Lots of points go on opponent's side of the score board.

Same thing happens if a player with 3 fouls is on the court in the first 10 or 12 minutes of the second half. Many (if not most) coaches prefer putting a player on the court who can defend aggressively.

There are two considerations in any evaluation of a basketball issue:
1) How many points do you put on the board
2) How many points does the opponent put on the board.

As most coaches pull players with 2 fouls in the first half and 3 in the second, I can make an observation: Most coaches think a player with foul trouble will give up more points by playing soft on D than they will contribute with their offensive abilities.

You can get more minutes and more production out of top players by playing them longer, but your opponent will get more points and production by taking advantage of that player's avoiding the next foul.

I'm remindeed of Durley's sophomore year. Some posters wanted him on the court for more minutes because he could have put 20 points on the board. He wasn't getting those minutes because he would have given up 30 points to get his 20.

There are two ends of the court. A player in foul trouble might be able to maintain his offensive production, but cannot maintain his defensive productivity. Sit him. Kepp him fresh for the end of the game. Put him in at crunch time with the game on the line when he's got fresh legs and can defend with his hair on fire.

If point 1 were true, they'd go after him to start the 2nd half, too. What's so magical about minute 19 over minute 21? You're also assuming a coach is going to change his game plan or usual offensive scheme in an unsure attempt to draw a foul. Some coaches might, but if it doesn't work, then they missed opportunities to score while focusing on drawing a foul.

I'm guessing the reason a coach doesn't go after a player with two fouls to start a half is because it's not part of their game plan. A player, however, might recognize the potential to try that in a particular situation. But from what I've observed, those things tend to only happen late in a game when a player has four fouls.

[shockmonster]

I think that this discussion and analysis is getting into the weeds. Coaches analyze statistics and then develop their strategies from them.

Royal, Don't you agree or at least submit to the fact that it is a solid strategy/argument (even if you don't agree) to sit players in the first half to save them for the second half and that Marshall might be right?

[MadaboutWu]

Maybe it's like gambling. You have to have a rule or two that you just won't budge from, almost superstitiously like what hands you always fold or if you win a certain amount you leave.

I think it is like poker but for the opposite reason you state. Poker is a highly situational in that it depends on several interacting factors (position, table image, what you know about opponent, what he knows about you). Hand strength in the abstract is ok place to begin but won't get you too far.

[RoyalShock]

I think that this discussion and analysis is getting into the weeds. Coaches analyze statistics and then develop their strategies from them.

Royal, Don't you agree or at least submit to the fact that it is a solid strategy/argument (even if you don't agree) to sit players in the first half to save them for the second half and that Marshall might be right?

Depending on the situation, yes. Due to Ron's ankle I can't argue with HCGM not using he or Fred late in the first half. I'm by no means arguing that you never sit a player in foul trouble, just that it isn't the only valid way to coach a basketball game. There are no metrics to prove or disprove either strategy, only game-to-game results (which would be situational, not statistical) and speculation.

[Dave Stalwart]

I think it is like poker but for the opposite reason you state. Poker is a highly situational in that it depends on several interacting factors (position, table image, what you know about opponent, what he knows about you). Hand strength in the abstract is ok place to begin but won't get you too far.

That would explain why I always lose :) I guess that rule I have about always folding two aces probably needs to go.