goemaw.com
TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Basketball is hard => Topic started by: kougar24 on February 02, 2013, 11:20:48 PM
-
Thoughts? :dunno:
-
u r dumb
-
u r dumb
For asking what people think about sitting a player with 2 fouls? OK KIM CARNES!
-
I don't like it.
I can't tell if it's hurting us or not.
-
u r dumb
For asking what people think about sitting a player with 2 fouls? OK KIM CARNES!
yes
-
If we're winning the whole time without him, it's the right move. Don't risk him getting the third unless you absolutely have to
-
too conservative, not logical.
-
If we're winning the whole time without him, it's the right move. Don't risk him getting the third unless you absolutely have to
I think that's circular logic potentially, since had he played, we may have built up enough of a lead to coast to the finish rather than being at risk at the end. :dunno:
-
If we're winning the whole time without him, it's the right move. Don't risk him getting the third unless you absolutely have to
I think that's circular logic potentially, since had he played, we may have built up enough of a lead to coast to the finish rather than being at risk at the end. :dunno:
:stupifiedjacksonvillejaguarsfan:
-
Frank would offense/defense with key guys. I don't remember it ever biting him.
-
Bruceketball: making the rest of the team step up by benching stud Gruds
-
Bruceketball: making the rest of the team step up by benching stud Gruds
Bruceketball seems to have so many developing dimensions and twists and turns.
-
Game dictates the decision IMO. If Ou was up 10 with 6:00, in the 1st hf.....I bring back Rod.
We had a 5 pt lead at half, so I'm ok with resting Rod (and Will) today
Next game could present different circumstances
-
Game dictates the decision IMO. If Ou was up 10 with 6:00, in the 1st hf.....I bring back Rod.
We had a 5 pt lead at half, so I'm ok with resting Rod (and Will) today
Next game could present different circumstances
All games present different circumstances, but I understand and agree with your point.
-
Game dictates the decision IMO. If Ou was up 10 with 6:00, in the 1st hf.....I bring back Rod.
We had a 5 pt lead at half, so I'm ok with resting Rod (and Will) today
Next game could present different circumstances
Agreed. I'm not sure that oscar could have predicted that we would come out and take a dump on the court and then use our turds to finger paint with for most of the second half. His rotations in the second half weren't great, but our offense should be able to score more than 22 points in a half. I don't think anyone has ever/or should ever make a decision to play someone in foul trouble based upon the belief that your team will only score 20 points the next half. The guy has a hard enough time keeping everyone emotionally sober, he can't be expected to predict the future as well.
-
GottliebShow 1:52pm via Twitter for iPhone
Eddie Sutton to player who has 2 in first half "you stop fouling" or "you play till you foul out,then help me coach" - "you get 5,relax"
3 retweets
-
I kind of go back and forth on this. Obviously you want more minutes out of your best player, and by not allowing him to play 15 in the first half due to foul trouble that's obviously not going to happen. But the other side of it is the other team is going to attack the player in foul trouble by either going at him to draw a foul, or so that he has to back off and give them an easier lane to the basket. Not sure which is more costly.
-
If we're in the game, I rest him. If the game has a chance to get out of hand, I play him. I don't think anybody can find fault with how Weber has done the past two games using his strategy. I don't think we blow OU out with Rod playing more in the first seeing as how we needed defense (fouls could effect that) and Rod wasn't exactly on fire that game (though he did hit a couple before getting benched).
-
Like most coaching decisions, if you win its fine. So it's fine.
-
If you think about it, you don't ever gain anything by sitting a player because of foul trouble. Points scored in the first half are just as valuable as points scored in the final minute. It's like the moneyball theory on why you shouldn't use your best reliever as just a closer.
(Note: this isn't a criticism of oscar, all coaches pretty much act the same way.)
-
If you think about it, you don't ever gain anything by sitting a player because of foul trouble. Points scored in the first half are just as valuable as points scored in the final minute. It's like the moneyball theory on why you shouldn't use your best reliever as just a closer.
(Note: this isn't a criticism of oscar, all coaches pretty much act the same way.)
So what do you think it is...coaches wanting to save key players for "clutch" end-of-game situations?
-
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The notion that minutes 12 to 8 in the first half are as valuable as minutes 4 to 0 in the second half is preposterous, and could only be spoken by someone who has never competed in anything of remote significance in their entire life.
-
OU was sucking in the 1st half, so don't risk number 3. If we were down 6+, play Rod to get some buckets. Anyone besides Rod and maybe Angel sits regardless. JMHO YOU GUYS.
-
If you think about it, you don't ever gain anything by sitting a player because of foul trouble. Points scored in the first half are just as valuable as points scored in the final minute. It's like the moneyball theory on why you shouldn't use your best reliever as just a closer.
(Note: this isn't a criticism of oscar, all coaches pretty much act the same way.)
So what do you think it is...coaches wanting to save key players for "clutch" end-of-game situations?
Yes, that's why most coaches would say they do it. But I think the bigger reason is that it's just what everyone does.
-
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The notion that minutes 12 to 8 in the first half are as valuable as minutes 4 to 0 in the second half is preposterous, and could only be spoken by someone who has never competed in anything of remote significance in their entire life.
I tend to agree with this. In the end you can look at a game on a graph and play monday morning QB, but while the game is happening it's much more akin to sheet music, with changes in tempo and breathtaking crescendos and diminuendos. You have to have a feel for the flow of a game, not everything in sports can be judged by statistics.
-
I tend to agree with this. In the end you can look at a game on a graph and play monday morning QB, but while the game is happening it's much more akin to sheet music, with changes in tempo and breathtaking crescendos and diminuendos. You have to have a feel for the flow of a game, not everything in sports can be judged by statistics.
I don't disagree with that at all.
-
I tend to agree with this. In the end you can look at a game on a graph and play monday morning QB, but while the game is happening it's much more akin to sheet music, with changes in tempo and breathtaking crescendos and diminuendos. You have to have a feel for the flow of a game, not everything in sports can be judged by statistics.
:D Great post
-
I tend to agree with this. In the end you can look at a game on a graph and play monday morning QB, but while the game is happening it's much more akin to sheet music, with changes in tempo and breathtaking crescendos and diminuendos. You have to have a feel for the flow of a game, not everything in sports can be judged by statistics.
I don't disagree with that at all.
Statistics disagree.
-
I tend to agree with this. In the end you can look at a game on a graph and play monday morning QB, but while the game is happening it's much more akin to sheet music, with changes in tempo and breathtaking crescendos and diminuendos. You have to have a feel for the flow of a game, not everything in sports can be judged by statistics.
I don't disagree with that at all.
Statistics disagree.
I give stats a lot of importance and more than most, but there is still fluidity during the game. At the end of the day the stats will explain what happened, but how those things happened to gain those stats have some give and take to them. JMHO.
-
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The notion that minutes 12 to 8 in the first half are as valuable as minutes 4 to 0 in the second half is preposterous, and could only be spoken by someone who has never competed in anything of remote significance in their entire life.
Ha ha ha. What makes points scored in the first half less valuable?
Even assuming points scored at the end of a game are worth more, are they earn so much more that it's worth fewer minutes from a player with foul trouble? In other words, is a player able to do more for the team if they play 22 minutes but foul out with ten minutes left, or if they play 18 minutes but are in for the last four.
Also, please tell me more about your significant competitions. (Stale Wonka meme)
-
I tend to agree with this. In the end you can look at a game on a graph and play monday morning QB, but while the game is happening it's much more akin to sheet music, with changes in tempo and breathtaking crescendos and diminuendos. You have to have a feel for the flow of a game, not everything in sports can be judged by statistics.
I don't disagree with that at all.
Statistics disagree.
I give stats a lot of importance and more than most, but there is still fluidity during the game. At the end of the day the stats will explain what happened, but how those things happened to gain those stats have some give and take to them. JMHO.
There's actually a statistical argument that probably disagrees with me in some games. But I don't think it would be strong enough to take minutes away significant "non-clutch" minutes from a player that it's better than all your others.
-
There's actually a statistical argument that probably disagrees with me in some games. But I don't think it would be strong enough to take minutes away significant "non-clutch" minutes from a player that it's better than all your others.
True, oscar's really conservative 2 fouls in the first half policy is probably one I don't completely agree with, but when it works I can't really argue with it. Granted, the possibilities of "winning easier" with Rod playing more during our 10 minute run of holding OU scoreless and maybe we build more than a 7 point lead is a legitimate point. No one would argue that we're a better team with Rod on the floor, but its hard to quantify the Rod or Rod-less effect unless you believe in +/- stats in college basketball.
-
There's actually a statistical argument that probably disagrees with me in some games. But I don't think it would be strong enough to take minutes away significant "non-clutch" minutes from a player that it's better than all your others.
True, oscar's really conservative 2 fouls in the first half policy is probably one I don't completely agree with, but when it works I can't really argue with it. Granted, the possibilities of "winning easier" with Rod playing more during our 10 minute run of holding OU scoreless and maybe we build more than a 7 point lead is a legitimate point. No one would argue that we're a better team with Rod on the floor, but its hard to quantify the Rod or Rod-less effect unless you believe in +/- stats in college basketball.
Winning a game when he sits one of his best players for significant minutes to keep them out of foul trouble does not mean his strategy "worked", it just means it didn't make us lose.
-
i think that means it worked, but maybe we have different objectives, you and i.
-
There's actually a statistical argument that probably disagrees with me in some games. But I don't think it would be strong enough to take minutes away significant "non-clutch" minutes from a player that it's better than all your others.
True, oscar's really conservative 2 fouls in the first half policy is probably one I don't completely agree with, but when it works I can't really argue with it. Granted, the possibilities of "winning easier" with Rod playing more during our 10 minute run of holding OU scoreless and maybe we build more than a 7 point lead is a legitimate point. No one would argue that we're a better team with Rod on the floor, but its hard to quantify the Rod or Rod-less effect unless you believe in +/- stats in college basketball.
Winning a game when he sits one of his best players for significant minutes to keep them out of foul trouble does not mean his strategy "worked", it just means it didn't make us lose.
Right. But in _F's defense I think he just meant it's not going to trigger him to argue against the philosophy as long as it doesn't bite us in the ass. :dunno:
-
Right. But in _F's defense I think he just meant it's not going to trigger him to argue against the philosophy as long as it doesn't bite us in the ass. :dunno:
Exactly. There are tons of other factors that a team (and coach) controls, even with a great player on the bench, that have a big factor in winning and losing. Even if we lose that game, I probably wouldn't blame that strategy.
I mean Rod still played 27 minutes, which is about 5 minutes less than his average, and also had his worst offensive rating in Big 12 play.
-
There's actually a statistical argument that probably disagrees with me in some games. But I don't think it would be strong enough to take minutes away significant "non-clutch" minutes from a player that it's better than all your others.
True, oscar's really conservative 2 fouls in the first half policy is probably one I don't completely agree with, but when it works I can't really argue with it. Granted, the possibilities of "winning easier" with Rod playing more during our 10 minute run of holding OU scoreless and maybe we build more than a 7 point lead is a legitimate point. No one would argue that we're a better team with Rod on the floor, but its hard to quantify the Rod or Rod-less effect unless you believe in +/- stats in college basketball.
Winning a game when he sits one of his best players for significant minutes to keep them out of foul trouble does not mean his strategy "worked", it just means it didn't make us lose.
Right. But in _F's defense I think he just meant it's not going to trigger him to argue against the philosophy as long as it doesn't bite us in the ass. :dunno:
I mean, if you want to blame the philosophy and damn the results then go ahead. I feel like if its bites us in the ass once after we've won a bunch of games with him doing it, you'll feel vindicated that its a terrible decision. Granted there are other variables, but is winning not the ultimate decider here? What else would you go on?
-
There's actually a statistical argument that probably disagrees with me in some games. But I don't think it would be strong enough to take minutes away significant "non-clutch" minutes from a player that it's better than all your others.
True, oscar's really conservative 2 fouls in the first half policy is probably one I don't completely agree with, but when it works I can't really argue with it. Granted, the possibilities of "winning easier" with Rod playing more during our 10 minute run of holding OU scoreless and maybe we build more than a 7 point lead is a legitimate point. No one would argue that we're a better team with Rod on the floor, but its hard to quantify the Rod or Rod-less effect unless you believe in +/- stats in college basketball.
Winning a game when he sits one of his best players for significant minutes to keep them out of foul trouble does not mean his strategy "worked", it just means it didn't make us lose.
Right. But in _F's defense I think he just meant it's not going to trigger him to argue against the philosophy as long as it doesn't bite us in the ass. :dunno:
I mean, if you want to blame the philosophy and damn the results then go ahead. I feel like if its bites us in the ass once after we've won a bunch of games with him doing it, you'll feel vindicated that its a terrible decision. Granted there are other variables, but is winning not the ultimate decider here? What else would you go on?
Who are you talking to?
-
You and/or michigancat
-
I didn't blame the philosophy and/or damn the results.
-
I probably just took your initial post and the biting in the ass as being against it, though that may of been reading too much into it.
-
I mean, if you want to blame the philosophy and damn the results then go ahead. I feel like if its bites us in the ass once after we've won a bunch of games with him doing it, you'll feel vindicated that its a terrible decision. Granted there are other variables, but is winning not the ultimate decider here? What else would you go on?
It is one of many factors in a game. You can never say with certainty that it "worked" or "didn't work". I am just arguing that it's a bad decision.
I mean, if Angel makes a decision that leads to a turnover but we still win, does that mean his decision "worked"? No, a bad decision is a bad decision.
-
Also, I think the strategy to sit Angel with foul trouble hurt us against ISU, especially.
-
Also, I think the strategy to sit Angel with foul trouble hurt us against ISU, especially.
The turnover thing has a set failed outcome that can be shown as negative. The benching thing is tough to judge outside of wins or losses. If it is a blanket decision that he does no matter what, I disagree with it. From Rod in the OU/UT games with K-State blowing it open or staying in the game, I'm ok with oscar's decisions. I couldn't watch the ISU game so it would be tough for me to judge anything from that one. I might be more careful with Angel though seeing as he accumulates about as many fouls as any guard I've seen and he has shown how critical he is to have down the stretch.
-
Also, I think the strategy to sit Angel with foul trouble hurt us against ISU, especially.
I was just going to say I'm much more concerned when oscar sits Angel with 2 fouls compared to Rodney. Angel's absence has a much bigger impact.
However, even in the ISU game it wasn't until Angel picked up his 4th that we were really hurt. He sat the last 7 minutes of the first half after picking up his 2nd foul; K-State actually went on a 12-4 run with him out. Then he sat 4 minutes after picking up his 3rd foul, ISU outscored K-State 10-9 with Angel out. But then he picked up his 4th foul within a minute of coming back in and there were nearly 12 minutes left, so oscar had to sit him before bring him back in with 6 minutes left and ISU outscored us 13-11 during that stretch. I won't disagree that we would've played much better with Angel playing more than 18 minutes in that game, but after he got into foul trouble, K-State wasn't terrible when he sat. I do think the Angel absences hurt our defense more than our offense in that game as well.
-
Also, I think the strategy to sit Angel with foul trouble hurt us against ISU, especially.
The turnover thing has a set failed outcome that can be shown as negative. The benching thing is tough to judge outside of wins or losses. If it is a blanket decision that he does no matter what, I disagree with it. From Rod in the OU/UT games with K-State blowing it open or staying in the game, I'm ok with oscar's decisions. I couldn't watch the ISU game so it would be tough for me to judge anything from that one. I might be more careful with Angel though seeing as he accumulates about as many fouls as any guard I've seen and he has shown how critical he Is to have down the stretch.
I would argue that reducing minutes of your best players is more of a negative than a turnover.
And Angel is critical at all points in the game
-
Also, I think the strategy to sit Angel with foul trouble hurt us against ISU, especially.
The turnover thing has a set failed outcome that can be shown as negative. The benching thing is tough to judge outside of wins or losses. If it is a blanket decision that he does no matter what, I disagree with it. From Rod in the OU/UT games with K-State blowing it open or staying in the game, I'm ok with oscar's decisions. I couldn't watch the ISU game so it would be tough for me to judge anything from that one. I might be more careful with Angel though seeing as he accumulates about as many fouls as any guard I've seen and he has shown how critical he Is to have down the stretch.
I would argue that reducing minutes of your best players is more of a negative than a turnover.
And Angel is critical at all points in the game
He is but he just seems to be Angel and hit shots late in games. Like I said though, I didn't see the ISU game either so I can't judge that one too much. Being more careful with Angel would be my theory, but you saw better than I did in the ISU game how it worked. Watching the shitty gamecast like I did would indicate that once he was back in, it was too late to close the lead/win the game. So you're probably right
-
Also, I think the strategy to sit Angel with foul trouble hurt us against ISU, especially.
I was just going to say I'm much more concerned when oscar sits Angel with 2 fouls compared to Rodney. Angel's absence has a much bigger impact.
However, even in the ISU game it wasn't until Angel picked up his 4th that we were really hurt. He sat the last 7 minutes of the first half after picking up his 2nd foul; K-State actually went on a 12-4 run with him out. Then he sat 4 minutes after picking up his 3rd foul, ISU outscored K-State 10-9 with Angel out. But then he picked up his 4th foul within a minute of coming back in and there were nearly 12 minutes left, so oscar had to sit him before bring him back in with 6 minutes left and ISU outscored us 13-11 during that stretch. I won't disagree that we would've played much better with Angel playing more than 18 minutes in that game, but after he got into foul trouble, K-State wasn't terrible when he sat. I do think the Angel absences hurt our defense more than our offense in that game as well.
Yeah, like when he was sitting Angel on defense when we were down 3 with 45 seconds left.
-
(disclaimer: I'm by NO means a B-ball expert) It seemed to me, especially in the OU game, that the offense found a little more rhythm when Rod was sitting with the 2 fouls in the 1st half. Rodney is exhausting me watching him run all over, ducking behind screens and cutting. He's logging some serious miles every game! Perhaps that's not effective use of his talent? I saw others step up (Shane, Angel, etc.) while Rodney was sitting. The focal point of the offense (and the opponent's D) when he's in is Rodney. Again, this is just my perception. Obviously, Rodney is our best player so I wouldn't want him to sit out longer than need be - that's the coach's call - but it does give us a little preview (save JO) of what to expect next year once Rodney graduates and moves on.
Is Tech a trap game? How'd they get their two wins in conference?
-
I mean, if you want to blame the philosophy and damn the results then go ahead. I feel like if its bites us in the ass once after we've won a bunch of games with him doing it, you'll feel vindicated that its a terrible decision. Granted there are other variables, but is winning not the ultimate decider here? What else would you go on?
It is one of many factors in a game. You can never say with certainty that it "worked" or "didn't work". I am just arguing that it's a bad decision.
I mean, if Angel makes a decision that leads to a turnover but we still win, does that mean his decision "worked"? No, a bad decision is a bad decision.
Good analogy.
-
Yeah, like when he was sitting Angel on defense when we were down 3 with 45 seconds left.
That was a really strange one, especially when Angel had just gotten a steal and assist to Rod for the jumper to cut it to 3. Then oscar called the 30 and took him out and put Tay in.
-
(disclaimer: I'm by NO means a B-ball expert) It seemed to me, especially in the OU game, that the offense found a little more rhythm when Rod was sitting with the 2 fouls in the 1st half. Rodney is exhausting me watching him run all over, ducking behind screens and cutting. He's logging some serious miles every game! Perhaps that's not effective use of his talent? I saw others step up (Shane, Angel, etc.) while Rodney was sitting. The focal point of the offense (and the opponent's D) when he's in is Rodney. Again, this is just my perception. Obviously, Rodney is our best player so I wouldn't want him to sit out longer than need be - that's the coach's call - but it does give us a little preview (save JO) of what to expect next year once Rodney graduates and moves on.
Is Tech a trap game? How'd they get their two wins in conference?
As far as Tech goes, one was against TCU so that doesn't count
-
Yeah, like when he was sitting Angel on defense when we were down 3 with 45 seconds left.
That was a really strange one, especially when Angel had just gotten a steal and assist to Rod for the jumper to cut it to 3. Then oscar called the 30 and took him out and put Tay in.
I don't even think that decision cost us the game. But what were we saving Angel for at that point? Overtime? Were the theoretical overtime minutes worth more than that possession? One in the hands vs two in the bush, etc.
-
(disclaimer: I'm by NO means a B-ball expert) It seemed to me, especially in the OU game, that the offense found a little more rhythm when Rod was sitting with the 2 fouls in the 1st half. Rodney is exhausting me watching him run all over, ducking behind screens and cutting. He's logging some serious miles every game! Perhaps that's not effective use of his talent? I saw others step up (Shane, Angel, etc.) while Rodney was sitting. The focal point of the offense (and the opponent's D) when he's in is Rodney. Again, this is just my perception. Obviously, Rodney is our best player so I wouldn't want him to sit out longer than need be - that's the coach's call - but it does give us a little preview (save JO) of what to expect next year once Rodney graduates and moves on.
Is Tech a trap game? How'd they get their two wins in conference?
As far as Tech goes, one was against TCU so that doesn't count
Always be cautious on the road, but we can handle an uglied up, slow game at Tech much better than Iowa State. Tech's only game at better than 1 point per possession in Big 12 play was against TCU.
We'd have to play really awful to lose down there.
-
It is one of many factors in a game. You can never say with certainty that it "worked" or "didn't work". I am just arguing that it's a bad decision.
I mean, if Angel makes a decision that leads to a turnover but we still win, does that mean his decision "worked"? No, a bad decision is a bad decision.
beautiful post.
-
I mean, if you want to blame the philosophy and damn the results then go ahead. I feel like if its bites us in the ass once after we've won a bunch of games with him doing it, you'll feel vindicated that its a terrible decision. Granted there are other variables, but is winning not the ultimate decider here? What else would you go on?
It is one of many factors in a game. You can never say with certainty that it "worked" or "didn't work". I am just arguing that it's a bad decision.
I mean, if Angel makes a decision that leads to a turnover but we still win, does that mean his decision "worked"? No, a bad decision is a bad decision.
Yeah, I will agree with Michcat here, people who try to justify every decision the coach makes with "But we won so it doesn't matter, right?" don't understand the multitude of variable that go into a win/loss. You want to get as many of those variables right EVERY NIGHT, so that when one of the variable turns against you, then you still have a good chance of winning.
-
we won the game. but, which variables did oscar get right that night and which ones did he get wrong? how much would we have won by, if he got more variables right, and how many wrong variables would have led to a loss? does oscar get certain variables right/wrong more than others? what are those?
thanks fellas, i'm interested in the responses. i might build a variable graph chart with them.
-
we won the game. but, which variables did oscar get right that night and which ones did he get wrong? how much would we have won by, if he got more variables right, and how many wrong variables would have led to a loss? does oscar get certain variables right/wrong more than others? what are those?
thanks fellas, i'm interested in the responses. i might build a variable graph chart with them.
:lol:
-
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The notion that minutes 12 to 8 in the first half are as valuable as minutes 4 to 0 in the second half is preposterous, and could only be spoken by someone who has never competed in anything of remote significance in their entire life.
Ha ha ha. What makes points scored in the first half less valuable?
Even assuming points scored at the end of a game are worth more, are they earn so much more that it's worth fewer minutes from a player with foul trouble? In other words, is a player able to do more for the team if they play 22 minutes but foul out with ten minutes left, or if they play 18 minutes but are in for the last four.
Also, please tell me more about your significant competitions. (Stale Wonka meme)
Per usual you completely miss the point. You're inability to understand why its harder to score in the last 4 minutes confirms my presumption. The fact that you don't care whether its Omari or Rodney trying to score the last points based on your own misunderstanding of statistics just reinforces another presumption I had about you. That your understanding of stats is limited to knowing what the acronyms stand for.
-
Also, I think the strategy to sit Angel with foul trouble hurt us against ISU, especially.
The turnover thing has a set failed outcome that can be shown as negative. The benching thing is tough to judge outside of wins or losses. If it is a blanket decision that he does no matter what, I disagree with it. From Rod in the OU/UT games with K-State blowing it open or staying in the game, I'm ok with oscar's decisions. I couldn't watch the ISU game so it would be tough for me to judge anything from that one. I might be more careful with Angel though seeing as he accumulates about as many fouls as any guard I've seen and he has shown how critical he Is to have down the stretch.
I would argue that reducing minutes of your best players is more of a negative than a turnover.
And Angel is critical at all points in the game
Even when the stats say you're wrong? Jeez, have it both ways
Has anyone elsw ever noticed that when a guy gets 4 fouls his defense gets shittier?
-
I think the point is that if Rod sits the entire 2nd half and the game comes down to the last possession, we probably would be up 5-10 if he had played the entire 2nd half and fouled out with a couple minutes to go.
-
I think the point is that if Rod sits the entire 2nd half and the game comes down to the last possession, we probably would be up 5-10 if he had played the entire 2nd half and fouled out with a couple minutes to go.
Can't argue with science.
-
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The notion that minutes 12 to 8 in the first half are as valuable as minutes 4 to 0 in the second half is preposterous, and could only be spoken by someone who has never competed in anything of remote significance in their entire life.
Ha ha ha. What makes points scored in the first half less valuable?
Even assuming points scored at the end of a game are worth more, are they earn so much more that it's worth fewer minutes from a player with foul trouble? In other words, is a player able to do more for the team if they play 22 minutes but foul out with ten minutes left, or if they play 18 minutes but are in for the last four.
Also, please tell me more about your significant competitions. (Stale Wonka meme)
Per usual you completely miss the point. You're inability to understand why its harder to score in the last 4 minutes confirms my presumption. The fact that you don't care whether its Omari or Rodney trying to score the last points based on your own misunderstanding of statistics just reinforces another presumption I had about you. That your understanding of stats is limited to knowing what the acronyms stand for.
Even if someone agrees with you that there is such a thing as crunch time, you don't address the "if/then" nature of michigancat's argument. If you both were more bothered by actually trying to come to a better understanding, rather than being grandstanding assholes, it would probably be more interesting if less entertaining. Either way, I will be monitoring this thread. Will I get a micat response? Does _FAN weigh in despite the water being a little hot? Is sys going to suddenly strike like a squamate? STAY TUNED!
-
we won the game. but, which variables did oscar get right that night and which ones did he get wrong? how much would we have won by, if he got more variables right, and how many wrong variables would have led to a loss? does oscar get certain variables right/wrong more than others? what are those?
thanks fellas, i'm interested in the responses. i might build a variable graph chart with them.
No, I didn't word that post particularly well, you're correct. I'm pretty sure you understand what I mean though. :dubious:
-
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The notion that minutes 12 to 8 in the first half are as valuable as minutes 4 to 0 in the second half is preposterous, and could only be spoken by someone who has never competed in anything of remote significance in their entire life.
Ha ha ha. What makes points scored in the first half less valuable?
Even assuming points scored at the end of a game are worth more, are they earn so much more that it's worth fewer minutes from a player with foul trouble? In other words, is a player able to do more for the team if they play 22 minutes but foul out with ten minutes left, or if they play 18 minutes but are in for the last four.
Also, please tell me more about your significant competitions. (Stale Wonka meme)
Per usual you completely miss the point. You're inability to understand why its harder to score in the last 4 minutes confirms my presumption. The fact that you don't care whether its Omari or Rodney trying to score the last points based on your own misunderstanding of statistics just reinforces another presumption I had about you. That your understanding of stats is limited to knowing what the acronyms stand for.
Even if someone agrees with you that there is such a thing as crunch time, you don't address the "if/then" nature of michigancat's argument. If you both were more bothered by actually trying to come to a better understanding, rather than being grandstanding assholes, it would probably be more interesting if less entertaining. Either way, I will be monitoring this thread. Will I get a micat response? Does _FAN weigh in despite the water being a little hot? Is sys going to suddenly strike like a squamate? STAY TUNED!
The "if/then" was addressed. I think we need you moderating our back-and-forth about as bad as Jane Goodall and Michael Jackson need you moderating a symposium on a chimps g-spot.
-
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The notion that minutes 12 to 8 in the first half are as valuable as minutes 4 to 0 in the second half is preposterous, and could only be spoken by someone who has never competed in anything of remote significance in their entire life.
Ha ha ha. What makes points scored in the first half less valuable?
Even assuming points scored at the end of a game are worth more, are they earn so much more that it's worth fewer minutes from a player with foul trouble? In other words, is a player able to do more for the team if they play 22 minutes but foul out with ten minutes left, or if they play 18 minutes but are in for the last four.
Also, please tell me more about your significant competitions. (Stale Wonka meme)
Per usual you completely miss the point. You're inability to understand why its harder to score in the last 4 minutes confirms my presumption. The fact that you don't care whether its Omari or Rodney trying to score the last points based on your own misunderstanding of statistics just reinforces another presumption I had about you. That your understanding of stats is limited to knowing what the acronyms stand for.
Even if someone agrees with you that there is such a thing as crunch time, you don't address the "if/then" nature of michigancat's argument. If you both were more bothered by actually trying to come to a better understanding, rather than being grandstanding assholes, it would probably be more interesting if less entertaining. Either way, I will be monitoring this thread. Will I get a micat response? Does _FAN weigh in despite the water being a little hot? Is sys going to suddenly strike like a squamate? STAY TUNED!
The folks at statsheet believe in crunch time, they call it "clutch". Of course, they also believe in plus/minus enough to devote a page for it (where clutch is located) to each player.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/kansas-state/angel-rodriguez/plus_minus
All FWIW.
And I wanted to wade into the hot water.
-
I don't know that providing the information is the same as an endorsement. But either way, I like it when a coach plays his best players as many minutes as possible.
If nothing else, the offense for defense switches that a certain former K-State coach would do on occasion made a lot of sense to me. I don't understand why that isn't a more utilized tactic when players get into foul trouble.
-
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The notion that minutes 12 to 8 in the first half are as valuable as minutes 4 to 0 in the second half is preposterous, and could only be spoken by someone who has never competed in anything of remote significance in their entire life.
Ha ha ha. What makes points scored in the first half less valuable?
Even assuming points scored at the end of a game are worth more, are they earn so much more that it's worth fewer minutes from a player with foul trouble? In other words, is a player able to do more for the team if they play 22 minutes but foul out with ten minutes left, or if they play 18 minutes but are in for the last four.
Also, please tell me more about your significant competitions. (Stale Wonka meme)
Per usual you completely miss the point. You're inability to understand why its harder to score in the last 4 minutes confirms my presumption. The fact that you don't care whether its Omari or Rodney trying to score the last points based on your own misunderstanding of statistics just reinforces another presumption I had about you. That your understanding of stats is limited to knowing what the acronyms stand for.
Even if someone agrees with you that there is such a thing as crunch time, you don't address the "if/then" nature of michigancat's argument. If you both were more bothered by actually trying to come to a better understanding, rather than being grandstanding assholes, it would probably be more interesting if less entertaining. Either way, I will be monitoring this thread. Will I get a micat response? Does _FAN weigh in despite the water being a little hot? Is sys going to suddenly strike like a squamate? STAY TUNED!
You will get a michigancat response. I think end of game minutes can be more valuable in certain situations, as there are games where the last few minutes involve fouling, pressing, and quick shots, leading to more possessions. I don't think the possibility of those minutes more valuable is worth losing more than two or three minutes for your best players, though, because you don't know is those special situations will exist.
As for the "player's defense sucks when they get four fouls" argument? I'd have to see the evidence. Does defensive efficiency go down at the end of games when players have foul trouble? Even if it did, the problem could be corrected with minor coaching.
-
As for the "player's defense sucks when they get four fouls" argument? I'd have to see the evidence. Does defensive efficiency go down at the end of games when players have foul trouble? Even if it did, the problem could be corrected with minor coaching.
Also, how is said player's defense from the bench when he sits due to foul count? I'm sure FSD will argue that the replacement player's D is better than the starter-with-foul-trouble's D, but like mich said, where is actual evidence of that? Especially on a defensive minded team like K-State, one has to assume that the starter's D in a neutral situation is significantly better in most cases than his replacement's.
-
we won the game. but, which variables did oscar get right that night and which ones did he get wrong? how much would we have won by, if he got more variables right, and how many wrong variables would have led to a loss? does oscar get certain variables right/wrong more than others? what are those?
thanks fellas, i'm interested in the responses. i might build a variable graph chart with them.
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=191.0
:bait:
-
Only had Wyattvision, but it sounded like a Kruger Special, ugly it up as much as possible.
-
I don't think that its the end of game that would be effected defensively. If someone has 2 fouls at 12 min in the first, they might be a little softer for fear of the foul call. In the last 2 minutes the value of the stop becomes more critical in a close game and I don't see players worried about fouls as much. Would love to have defensive efficency numbers when there is foul trouble to see if they show that.
I could see points being "worth more" down the stretch from the stand point of: If you hit a 3 to go up 3 with 28 minutes left in the game, they have 28 minutes to make up that 3 points. If you hit that 3 to go up 3 with 8 seconds left, they have basically one play to make up those points. Though I could just be inferring the 3 pt lead is worth more, which is obvious. Regardless of when the points came, a 3 pt lead with 8 seconds left is the same.
-
I don't think that its the end of game that would be effected defensively. If someone has 2 fouls at 12 min in the first, they might be a little softer for fear of the foul call. In the last 2 minutes the value of the stop becomes more critical in a close game and I don't see players worried about fouls as much. Would love to have defensive efficency numbers when there is foul trouble to see if they show that.
If a player can magically make themselves stop playing softer with 2 minutes left, why couldn't they magically make themselves stop playing softer with 12 minutes left in the first? Just tell the player that if they can't play their normal, tough defense with foul trouble, they won't play at all, even at the end of a game. It's all about maximizing your best players' minutes.
I could see points being "worth more" down the stretch from the stand point of: If you hit a 3 to go up 3 with 28 minutes left in the game, they have 28 minutes to make up that 3 points. If you hit that 3 to go up 3 with 8 seconds left, they have basically one play to make up those points. Though I could just be inferring the 3 pt lead is worth more, which is obvious. Regardless of when the points came, a 3 pt lead with 8 seconds left is the same.
Yeah, you figured it out on your own - it's the lead that is more valuable, not the points. How that lead was created is irrelevant. A 3 point basket made on the first possession is just as valuable as one made in the last minute.
-
what if the 3 point basket made in the first possession set the tempo for the rest of the game and led the other team to make mistakes in an effort to catch up with the scoring team. and then when down by 20 because of all of their mistakes from earlier in the game, they score a 3 pt swish with one minute to go in the game, which basket was more valuable? because i think we all know the answer here.
-
what if the 3 point basket made in the first possession set the tempo for the rest of the game and led the other team to make mistakes in an effort to catch up with the scoring team. and then when down by 20 because of all of their mistakes from earlier in the game, they score a 3 pt swish with one minute to go in the game, which basket was more valuable? because i think we all know the answer here.
It all depends on whether or not the second three involved a good play drawn up by the coach.
-
what if the 3 point basket made in the first possession set the tempo for the rest of the game and led the other team to make mistakes in an effort to catch up with the scoring team. and then when down by 20 because of all of their mistakes from earlier in the game, they score a 3 pt swish with one minute to go in the game, which basket was more valuable? because i think we all know the answer here.
It all depends on whether or not the second three involved a good play drawn up by the coach.
I think it's more dependent on said coach's mannerisms on the sideline and the signals he barked out leading up to the bucket.
-
I don't think that its the end of game that would be effected defensively. If someone has 2 fouls at 12 min in the first, they might be a little softer for fear of the foul call. In the last 2 minutes the value of the stop becomes more critical in a close game and I don't see players worried about fouls as much. Would love to have defensive efficency numbers when there is foul trouble to see if they show that.
If a player can magically make themselves stop playing softer with 2 minutes left, why couldn't they magically make themselves stop playing softer with 12 minutes left in the first? Just tell the player that if they can't play their normal, tough defense with foul trouble, they won't play at all, even at the end of a game. It's all about maximizing your best players' minutes.
There is no magic, its just inherent risk/reward. To take it to extremes, if you play with 4 fouls with 30 minutes left in the game, the risk of challenging a shot vs. you sitting out for 30 minutes is different from when you risk sitting out the last 30 seconds of the game to challenge a shot.
-
I don't think that its the end of game that would be effected defensively. If someone has 2 fouls at 12 min in the first, they might be a little softer for fear of the foul call. In the last 2 minutes the value of the stop becomes more critical in a close game and I don't see players worried about fouls as much. Would love to have defensive efficency numbers when there is foul trouble to see if they show that.
If a player can magically make themselves stop playing softer with 2 minutes left, why couldn't they magically make themselves stop playing softer with 12 minutes left in the first? Just tell the player that if they can't play their normal, tough defense with foul trouble, they won't play at all, even at the end of a game. It's all about maximizing your best players' minutes.
There is no magic, its just inherent risk/reward. To take it to extremes, if you play with 4 fouls with 30 minutes left in the game, the risk of challenging a shot vs. you sitting out for 30 minutes is different from when you risk sitting out the last 30 seconds of the game to challenge a shot.
I get that. It's up to the coach to make players realize they won't play at all if they don't challenge shots with 4 fouls. If the coach isn't an idiot, you could explain that the player playing hard for 15 minutes and fouling out is more valuable than playing the first ten minutes, getting 4 fouls, and sitting until the last 30 seconds.These are good players, they can handle it. If they couldn't, they wouldn't be able to change the way they allegedly do with four fouls.
-
When this conversation has gone on this long, its either the off-season or Tech/TCU week.
-
If you're interested, this concept has been discussed previously, and extensively. The March 2011 Illinois game at Purdue was the major example.
Illinois was up, way up, when Demetri McCamey got his second foul. Weber pulled him. The lead evaporated. Purdue won.
I was covering that game. Here's my column.
http://www.smilepolitely.com/sports/what_else_is_on_tv/ (http://www.smilepolitely.com/sports/what_else_is_on_tv/)
I noticed that Mark Tupper, the second most senior of the Illini media pool, seemed fixated on the "two fouls" point. I think that's the night his faith in Weber ended.
Loren Tate, the dean of the Illini media (and indeed, the Big Ten media, if you discount Gus Ganakas) addressed the issue earlier this year. He wrote a column in which he praised John Groce for leaving DJamer Richardson in a game, despite picking up his second foul. He ended the column by noting that DJamer finished the game with 2 fouls.
It was the same with McCamey: He didn't foul much.
So the point was that Weber was inflexible. He couldn't adjust to nuances. He employed hard/fast rules.
The "two foul" rule can be useful, but only if you know when to ignore it.
-
If you're interested, this concept has been discussed previously, and extensively. The March 2011 Illinois game at Purdue was the major example.
Illinois was up, way up, when Demetri McCamey got his second foul. Weber pulled him. The lead evaporated. Purdue won.
I was covering that game. Here's my column.
http://www.smilepolitely.com/sports/what_else_is_on_tv/ (http://www.smilepolitely.com/sports/what_else_is_on_tv/)
I noticed that Mark Tupper, the second most senior of the Illini media pool, seemed fixated on the "two fouls" point. I think that's the night his faith in Weber ended.
Loren Tate, the dean of the Illini media (and indeed, the Big Ten media, if you discount Gus Ganakas) addressed the issue earlier this year. He wrote a column in which he praised John Groce for leaving DJamer Richardson in a game, despite picking up his second foul. He ended the column by noting that DJamer finished the game with 2 fouls.
It was the same with McCamey: He didn't foul much.
So the point was that Weber was inflexible. He couldn't adjust to nuances. He employed hard/fast rules.
The "two foul" rule can be useful, but only if you know when to ignore it.
Can we IP ban the state of Illinois? Woof.
-
Trent Johnson nearly screwed TCU tonight. When those two players got #4 he pulled them at the same time, TCU completely melted on both ends. He took out the rim protector and the only ball handler and KU, well actually Tharp, went on an instant 7-0 run. He should have left at least one of them in.
-
Trent Johnson nearly screwed TCU tonight. When those two players got #4 he pulled them at the same time, TCU completely melted on both ends. He took out the rim protector and the only ball handler and KU, well actually Tharp, went on an instant 7-0 run. He should have left at least one of them in.
coaches are stupid.
-
Trent Johnson nearly screwed TCU tonight. When those two players got #4 he pulled them at the same time, TCU completely melted on both ends. He took out the rim protector and the only ball handler and KU, well actually Tharp, went on an instant 7-0 run. He should have left at least one of them in.
They ended up getting the lead back without them, but yea, I would've put at least one back in. Especially with it being TCU's depth. I don't know that Abrom ever got back in but maybe he sucks even worse at FTs than the rest of them :dunno:
-
Well, on the one hand, it seemed cogent to a topic being discussed on the EMAW board by regular EMAWs.
Can we IP ban the state of Illinois? Woof.
On the other hand, I believe goEMAW is one of the few boards where one user can tell another go eff yourself with a certain amount of impunity.
Take your pick.
-
It it possible that oscar has this set as a solid rule to absolve himself of some coaching responsibility? "I want to play you, rod, but you know the policy..."
oscar rules is rules?
-
If you're interested, this concept has been discussed previously, and extensively. The March 2011 Illinois game at Purdue was the major example.
Illinois was up, way up, when Demetri McCamey got his second foul. Weber pulled him. The lead evaporated. Purdue won.
I was covering that game. Here's my column.
http://www.smilepolitely.com/sports/what_else_is_on_tv/ (http://www.smilepolitely.com/sports/what_else_is_on_tv/)
I noticed that Mark Tupper, the second most senior of the Illini media pool, seemed fixated on the "two fouls" point. I think that's the night his faith in Weber ended.
Loren Tate, the dean of the Illini media (and indeed, the Big Ten media, if you discount Gus Ganakas) addressed the issue earlier this year. He wrote a column in which he praised John Groce for leaving DJamer Richardson in a game, despite picking up his second foul. He ended the column by noting that DJamer finished the game with 2 fouls.
It was the same with McCamey: He didn't foul much.
So the point was that Weber was inflexible. He couldn't adjust to nuances. He employed hard/fast rules.
The "two foul" rule can be useful, but only if you know when to ignore it.
Can we IP ban the state of Illinois? Woof.
you're a complete dumbass. his was a good post, yours not so much.
-
It it possible that oscar has this set as a solid rule to absolve himself of some coaching responsibility? "I want to play you, rod, but you know the policy..."
oscar rules is rules?
It's not limited to just oscar, but I think this is entirely possible (seriously).