Sitting the rest of the half w/ 2 fouls

[kso_FAN]

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.

[ChiComCat]

(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

[michigancat]

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.

[kso_FAN]

(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.

[sys]

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.

[ksupamplemousse]

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.

[pissclams]

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. 

[kso_FAN]

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. 

 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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?

[Stevesie60]

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.

[wetwillie]

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.

[Kat Kid]

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!

[ksupamplemousse]

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. 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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.

[kso_FAN]

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.

[SleepFighter]

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.

[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)

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.

[kougar24]

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.

[michigancat]

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

[sonofdaxjones]

Only had Wyattvision, but it sounded like a Kruger Special, ugly it up as much as possible.

[ChiComCat]

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.

[michigancat]

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.

[pissclams]

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. 

[michigancat]

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.