Sitting the rest of the half w/ 2 fouls

[kso_FAN]

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.

[SabiNation]

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.

   Great post

[michigancat]

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.

[kso_FAN]

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.

[michigancat]

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)

[michigancat]

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.

[kso_FAN]

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.

[michigancat]

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.

[pissclams]

i think that means it worked, but maybe we have different objectives, you and i.

[kougar24]

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.

[kso_FAN]

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.

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.

[ChiComCat]

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.

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?

[kougar24]

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.

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?

[ChiComCat]

You and/or michigancat

[kougar24]

I didn't blame the philosophy and/or damn the results.

[ChiComCat]

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.

[michigancat]

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.

[michigancat]

Also, I think the strategy to sit Angel with foul trouble hurt us against ISU, especially.

[ChiComCat]

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.

[kso_FAN]

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.

[michigancat]

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

[ChiComCat]

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

[michigancat]

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.

[TheFormerKCCat]

(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?

[kougar24]

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.