With the exception of Young and Robinson, I wish Dixon would let guys stay in the game this year if the team is playing well. (Unless they pick up the second before they had even come out for a rest.) We don't know how many guys are going to eventually be in the rotation, but there is enough depth and balance that he doesn't need to interrupt the flow if the offense is in a good rhythm. I wouldn't mind all 12 guys getting some minutes, but constant substitution can be disruptive. Allowing guys to stay in after the second foul could allow them to play for longer stretches rather than a continuous in and out.
Sitting players after 2 1st half fouls
- Thread starter JS School
- Start date
Nearly all successful coaches would disagree with you, IMO. There are specific circumstances that may dictate otherwise (e.g., your bench is weak and you are falling too far behind); but in general leaving a key player in after getting his 2nd first half foul is not smart. This is more true than ever this season with the new rules emphasis making it so much easier to pick up ticky-tacky fouls.
I totally agree with your premise. If the team is playing well, keep the players in who have given you the lead. Jamie goes to the extreme with this. On Monday evening, Nelson-Odo picked up his first foul within the first minute. Jamie walked to the end of the bench and I was fearful he was going to pull him after the FIRST foul. It is my thought that he compounds this with his set substitution pattern. If a player is hot, LEAVE HIM IN.
I agree with you about the key player part. That's why I said with the exception of Young and Robinson. The rest seem pretty much interchangeable right now, even Artis and Johnson. Obviously, someone may separate himself and also become a key player. But if everyone else remains fairly level, let them keep playing if they are in a good groove.
There was a study on sitting players who were in foul trouble in Freakonomics. The result was that it is better to never use foul trouble as a reason to sub. Each part of the game is equally important so to them, it doesnt make any difference if a player fouuls out after playing thr first 15 minutes of the 1st half or plays 15 min the whole game due to foul trouble. One of the things the authors had a problem with is the fact that that player MAY NOT foul anymore so you are robbing the team of his ability.
European coaches dont sub because of fouls nearly as much. They also never take TOs.
European coaches dont sub because of fouls nearly as much. They also never take TOs.
Sorry, I have read enough about "freakanomics" to assign no credibility to any of its conclusions.
I think that one reason the coaches sit the player is that they are concerned the player will be less aggressive, worrying about picking up another foul.
If you have a deep team, put in someone who does not have that concern. I am not sure what the right decision is.
If you have a deep team, put in someone who does not have that concern. I am not sure what the right decision is.
You want your best players at crunch time and you don't want them handicapped with 4 fouls if it can be avoided .
With Dixon having a deeper bench and more combinations to choose from, I am interested to see what kind of rotations he arrives at using in specific situations. If a player is hot and has fouls, I would consider leaving him in for the better of the team play. Chances are the player knows what the stakes are, and will not commit the bad foul that takes the to the bench for a deep freeze or out of the game entirely. Other teams know though to go at the player in foul trouble, make it difficult on both ends of the floor, and at times force the hand of the coach to make a switch. I think your team's basketball IQ comes into play at this point. If they were hot, who on the current roster would you trust (players) to go an extra 3 minutes on the floor without picking up the foul that takes them out of the game? I would go with JR, MY and probably Cam Johnson (this is strictly intuition talking).
What's a bad foul ? Other than wrapping your arms around someone on a break away I don't think too many players ever feel they committed a foul. Natural instincts takes over and its hard to be effective while playing handcuffed . And there's always bad calls ,unless their hitting 3's like crazy sit him.
Ps. While they add up all points in the game crunch time is where you win and lose. An analogy would be in golf the 2 ft putt you missed in the first round is as important as any other shot ,but certain players make the shots needed to win coming down the stretch and that's what separates them . I want my best players in the game the last 5 minutes of the second half not the first.
Ps. While they add up all points in the game crunch time is where you win and lose. An analogy would be in golf the 2 ft putt you missed in the first round is as important as any other shot ,but certain players make the shots needed to win coming down the stretch and that's what separates them . I want my best players in the game the last 5 minutes of the second half not the first.
Certain Coaches do this differently. Kind of like fouling a 3 point shooter at the end of a game.
Tom Izzo of Michigan State and Bill Self of Kansas will normally play their guys in the first half, regardless of foul problems. And I agree with this. Some coaches differ.
But that's the whole point, isn't it? What if you were to avoid the need for "crunch time" because you kept the player in the game and your advantage kept on growing? Aren't you handicapping your team by removing them?
If the guy stays in and it's close and gets his 3rd foul and then a 4th early in the 2nd, the coach will get second guessed. If he takes him out and the team falls further behind, he will get second guessed. In the end, there is no right or wrong decision. And the coach and the fans won't know if it was the right thing to do until all is said and done. Like most coaching decisions.
Take them out after three fouls until crunch time. And again, not talking abut key players, but players with backups who are pretty much on the same level talent-wise.
"Crunch time" is just an idea created by sports fans. All parts of the game have equal importance. We are conditioned to believe that the last 4 minutes of a game are more important than 4 minutes in the middle of the 1st half but they are not. Points are worth the same. By sitting a player with 2 fouls early or picking up a 3rd early in the 2nd half, you are robbing the team of his ability because there is the chance he may not foul out playing regular minutes.
A bad foul is a big man reaching in on a guard at the top of the key. Big guys can't waste fouls away from the basket when games are so physical underneath.
And good coaches will go right at a player if they pick up their third...especially if he is a big guy that got his third.
I used to hate sitting after 2 fouls in the first half, but it depends on who the player is. If they have a habit of fouling, you have to sit them. If they got a few tough calls on them, but typically don't foul much, you can possibly leave them in.
I'd rather have my players in the second half vs. first half unless the game is getting out of control in the first. If they sit in the first, you know you still have 20 minutes to make up any deficit. If they have to sit in the second half (for fouls, not fatigue), then you have a limited amount of time to make it up.
It's a tough question.
If there is no crunch time, then there is no end of game clutch player either, by definition.
BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH NARRATIVES?! SAVE TEH NARRATIVES!
Also I do think in general it's wise to sit a guy with 2 fouls in the first half, unless he's a guy you can kind of hide and not have attacked (like a Gibbs, who was a poor defender and not a threat to drive the hoop even when he was trying hard). The difference between a player's contributions playing at, say, 75% are likely to not be outweighed by the detriment of him picking up his 3rd foul in the first half and his 4th foul sometime in the early parts of the 2nd half (circumstances which WILL cause you to sit that player).
And all of those coaches are wrong. Or more accurately, they are successful despite using less than optimal strategy. It's just like football coaches not going for it on 4th down. Coaches are inclined to avoid the negative more than to play the odds for the positive.
Every part of the game is just as important as every other. If you sit a player for 15 minutes in the first half, with 2 fouls, and he comes back in and never picks up another foul, you've wasted having him on the court for those 15 minutes. Almost all American coaches do it, and all are wrong.
Believe what you like but I disagree. If you keep the player in either he will play tentatively and less aggressively worrying about picking up the additional foul(s) or he will actually pick up the additional foul. The probability I believe is low that he will BOTH not pick additional fouls and play effectively. Also, if his back up doesn't present a big talent drop off it makes the decision an even better idea. The idea that it doesn't matter what part of the game a player gets his minutes is false because it doesn't account for human psychology. It would be correct if players were robots whose mental outlook didn't effect how they play. The reality is that a player with 2 or 3 early fouls will be tentative and less effective. Later in the 2nd half the player will be less worried and not be tentative until he gets a 4th foul. Then he will again become more tentative.
The above being said there are circumstances when it is better to leave a guy in; mainly when he is one of your best players and his sub is a big drop off which means taking him out will cause your team to get so far behind that the game will soon be out of reach. In that case, you roll the dice and hope for the best in a bad situation.
Last edited:
Now is the time to tinker with lineup combos etc though. I think JD is trying out his new toys and seeing how all the pieces fit.
Some will, some won't. It's up to coaches to figure out which guys fall into each category.
Most will. A tiny minority won't, those few will be those with a rare mentality similar to extreme skiers who risk death. It's simply human nature for the vast majority of players to be worried about foul #3 (1st half), #4 (early 2nd half), or #5 (2nd half).
I disagree. For instance someone elsewhere mentioned Ashton Gibbs. Two fouls wouldn't have bothered him at all, and that would have had nothing at all to do with him having some sort of rare, death defying mentality.
On the current team, we haven't seen enough of most of these guys to know, but I don't think two fouls would affect James Robinson at all. And I think with his mental makeup it wouldn't affect Jamel Artis either. On the other hand, a guy who is expected to defend strong in the post, like Mike Young, it probably would make a difference. But I really don't think that any players are actually thinking that they might get called for a third foul in the first half and then a fourth early in the second half and then they were going to foul out. I mean I never played basketball at anywhere near this high a level, but I can also say that the thought of fouling out in a game never occurred to me until I had already been called for a fourth. Who ever thought about fouling out of a game when they got called for their second foul?
Yea, this is correct. In theory, punting is really stupid.....unless its 4th and more than 10 maybe. If you look at the percentages (and many studies have been done), its almost never a good strategy to punt.
Coaches, in all sports, play way too defensive. They play not to lose. Just like VT kicking the XP against UNC for OT instead of going for 2 and the win. If you have 1 play to beat UNC, you do it.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Recruiting Article Four-star RB sets June official visit with Pitt
- Latest: HbgAreaPanther
-
OT: Ranking Pittsburgh coaches you would most like to see fired
- Latest: HbgAreaPanther