Ramifications of Ignorance: Basketball Coaching Edition
College Basketball, Ignorance, NBA March 31st. 2008, 4:40pm
My buddy Dr. Nick and I have a pet peeve that we would like to get off our chest. He’s put together the main points of the argument for your consideration and discussion.
As the NCAA tournament is winding down, now seems like a good time to discuss one of those coaching moves that is widely believed to be “smart,” but on further examination, may actually be really stupid and just another way for coaches to cover their backsides (like punting on fourth-and-short, but that’s another rant for another day).
I’m talking about the decision nearly ALL coaches make to sit their best players when they’re in foul trouble. The is particularly popular when players pick up a second foul late in the first half to avoid the dreaded third foul or midway through the second half when they pick up their fourth. Inevitably, the other team goes on a run (that’s what happens when your best player in on your bench) and by the time you get your stud back in, it’s too little, too late.
The irony (and I’m sure I’m using irony incorrectly here again, but I don’t care) of the whole thing is that by benching players in foul trouble, coaches are doing by CHOICE what they are trying to avoid in the circumstance of a player fouling out.
Now, I understand certain situations like when a player has picked up back to back fouls and looks like he’s ready to fight a cheerleader it makes sense to sit him for a minute or two and have an graduate assistant whisper sweet nothings in his ear and give him a massage to calm him down, but otherwise, why not just leave your best players in the game?
For example, if you sit a player for say, 12 minutes during a game because of “foul trouble” and he doesn’t actually foul out, YOU have cost your team as many as ALL TWELVE MINUTES of that player on the court. And if he only plays five of those minutes and then fouls out, at least you had him on the court and gave your team a shot. Now you go to the bench by necessity that you were otherwise choosing to.
It seems like the biggest reason coaches continue to do this (unless there is some great research paper out there that has actually looked at the relationship between benching players in foul trouble with game outcomes) is that they don’t want to have to answer questions from equally ignorant media, fans, Athletic Directors, etc., after the games when a player fouls out. It’s much easier to say that you lost because your stud was in foul trouble and you HAD to sit him.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
18 Responses to “Ramifications of Ignorance: Basketball Coaching Edition”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
agree completely .. its the same thing as punting on 4th and short and bunting in the first inning with your 2nd place hitter (joe girardi FUCK YOU!)
March 31st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Is it just me or does it seem like foul trouble becomes more prevalent from the Sweet 16 until the Final in the tournament?
The first 2 rounds it seems like I see nothing about foul trouble and then after that every game teams have foul trouble.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I agree for the most part, especially at the college level when the bench is usually dogshit.
However, if you have a quality back-up and you think a player plays worse in foul trouble (less aggresive, more likely to settle for jumpers instead of going to the rim), then I think the case could be made for taking the guy out, assuming your backup player > timid version of your star. This is probably rarely the case, though.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:48 pm
i don’t agree. if the game is close and your best player(s) are out of the game late, you are beyond screwed. if you are suggested the scrubs can still bail you out, then they can certainly hold the fort while your players sit out foul trouble.
but here’s a much better example of dumb coaching that you see time and again:
late in the game and a team needs one shot. they have plenty of time, 30 seconds or so. coach calls a timeout.
wait a minute. you have been working in practice all year long and you don’t know what play to run??? and then your time out allows the defense to set up when they may very well be on their heels? this move has always baffled me and still does.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Jimmy -
Agreed. And then they hold the ball till there is 10 seconds left and shoot an offbalance prayer after dribbling in circles. Bill Self is the King of blowing the end of halves by doing this.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Another thing to consider is if the other team will attack this player if he/she is left in the game.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I disagree with the idea. For whatever reasons, games tend to be closer at the end, I guess the effort/intensity increases. You want your best players on the court when the game is close. Yes you are potentially not maximizing your playing time for your star, but you are saving them for when it matters most.
I think when teams are down 1, and they let the clock drain away as they look for the “perfect” shot. Teams should try to score as quickly and as often as possible because if you miss, then at least you have time.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Doug S. you don’t have to qualify he/she, no one on here gives a rat’s ass about woman’s hoops.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Unrelated, but did anyone else think KU should have maybe fouled immediately at the end of the Davidson game, when Davidson had last possession? Call me crazy, but up two, I would have fouled with about 15 seconds left, at worst they tie the game at the line, and then it gives KU the ball with about 10 seconds and a chance to win, or, at worst, go into OT. You let Davidson run their play and you’re liable to lose the game on a three pointer – which is the shot Davidson got, only it didn’t go in.
/probably a really, really stupid theory
March 31st, 2008 at 4:56 pm
@Mike: That’s a ridiculous idea. No offense.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Sorry Mike, you only foul if you are up 3, to stop them from taking a 3 to tie.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Ha. None taken at all.
It’s just what I was thinking at the end – I just had a feeling Curry was gonna bury the three and then it would be curtains for KU. And I was thinking – hey, why not give them the tie and let KU try to win it on offense, rather than on defense. Oh well.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I hate almost all end of game strategies. Teams dribble out the clock, leave themselves no time to run their offense, and almost always take a contest, off-balanced jump shot. Drives me crazy. Why they don’t just run their offense like normal I can’t understand. If they score with some time on the clock, play defense. It especially drives me crazy when teams with the lead do this.
As for Mike’s theory: Yeah, to echo everyone else, you do that up three. Coach Pearl busted that move out a few times this year.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
@ Mike. You also have to remember what happened all game. Davidson would hit the first free throw, miss the 2nd, off KU out of bounds. Davidson inbounds, shot goes up, money. Davidson killed them in 2nd chances like that.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I hate almost all end of game strategies. Teams dribble out the clock, leave themselves no time to run their offense, and almost always take a contest, off-balanced jump shot.
I’d just love to know how the Davidson coach articulated that piece of shit play they ran at the end…surely in the minutes of the timeout there had to be more verbiage than “Uhhh, Steph will dribble it down even though we’re trailing and force himself into a double team, the rest is up to your guys”
Not exactly Norman Dale there
March 31st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Agree with others Mike, not a fan of that idea at all.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
See 2004 final four, Duke vs Uconn. Okafor is out nearly the entire first half after picking up two fouls in like the first five minutes and Duke cruises, your point rings true. Okafor dominates the second half and Sheldon Williams fouls out, who was not really pulled when in fould trouble, and then Shavlik, and that leaves Horvath to contain Okafor and the paint (thought he fouls out too) and of course Uconn wins
March 31st, 2008 at 7:47 pm
The idea I hate is in the NBA when there is something like 30 seconds left and the team with the ball tries for a “two for one” possession by throwing up a dogshit three and then getting another possession of about three seconds so they can run down the court and shoot yet another dogshit three. Why on earth would you ever even think that would be a good strategy?