Two Fouls- To Sit Or Not To Sit

[Northside Hawk]

What's everybody's take on the decision to sit Tony Perkins for much of the first half?

I generally don't like it under any circumstances and I definitely didn’t like it under these. Perk was coming off a 32 point game and could have kept it close in the first half with one of his patented flurrys. By the time he did get going Iowa was pissing into the wind.

So why do it? Because Dean Smith started it 50 years ago and he's Dean Smith? There would have been no final four in 1980 had Lute done this because Lester and Arnold would have sat the majority of a lot of first halves. But those were different times.

For me game situations would totally dictate my decision. If it's my hottest offensive player and we need offense, he ain't coming out. Or at bare minimum he isnt sitting long. And it was a very questionable charge call that put Tony at two in the first place. You're bringing him out for that?

Contrearians can say this rule may be a reason players don't foul out as much as they once did, but I think most players are smart enough to know how to manage foul trouble. I also think some coaches aren't aware enough to exploit a defensive player who has foul trouble. Heck. Clyde Drexler picked up FOUR fouls in the first half of a championship game and never fouled out. I think a coach should be able ro feel out a game situation once in a while and go against what the book or the metrics or what Dean Smith believed.

 

[MILHAWKEYE]

Under the circumstances I would of let Perkins play most of the first half.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

What's everybody's take on the decision to sit Tony Perkins for much of the first half?

I generally don't like it under any circumstances and I definitely didn’t like it under these. Perk was coming off a 32 point game and could have kept it close in the first half with one of his patented flurrys. By the time he did get going Iowa was pissing into the wind.

So why do it? Because Dean Smith started it 50 years ago and he's Dean Smith? There would have been no final four in 1980 had Lute done this because Lester and Arnold would have sat the majority of a lot of first halves. But those were different times.

For me game situations would totally dictate my decision. If it's my hottest offensive player and we need offense, he ain't coming out. Or at bare minimum he isnt sitting long. And it was a very questionable charge call that put Tony at two in the first place. You're bringing him out for that?

Contrearians can say this rule may be a reason players don't foul out as much as they once did, but I think most players are smart enough to know how to manage foul trouble. I also think some coaches aren't aware enough to exploit a defensive player who has foul trouble. Heck. Clyde Drexler picked up FOUR fouls in the first half of a championship game and never fouled out. I think a coach should be able ro feel out a game situation once in a while and go against what the book or the metrics or what Dean Smith believed.

Great post and valid points. Yea, do you give up 10-12 minutes of playing time trying to protect a player vs getting production out of that player for those 10 minutes?

 

[HaydenHawk56]

I just don't think he had them ready to play last night. Of course, Fran can't make shots for them, but where was the contingency plan last night on offense? The guys also seemed like Bambi on ice again with the turnovers. And the defense covering shooters was atrocious in typical Fran defenseless fashion.

 

[HerkyDude]

Do they ever have a contingency plan?

 

[Fryowa]

What's everybody's take on the decision to sit Tony Perkins for much of the first half?

I generally don't like it under any circumstances and I definitely didn’t like it under these. Perk was coming off a 32 point game and could have kept it close in the first half with one of his patented flurrys. By the time he did get going Iowa was pissing into the wind.

So why do it? Because Dean Smith started it 50 years ago and he's Dean Smith? There would have been no final four in 1980 had Lute done this because Lester and Arnold would have sat the majority of a lot of first halves. But those were different times.

For me game situations would totally dictate my decision. If it's my hottest offensive player and we need offense, he ain't coming out. Or at bare minimum he isnt sitting long. And it was a very questionable charge call that put Tony at two in the first place. You're bringing him out for that?

Contrearians can say this rule may be a reason players don't foul out as much as they once did, but I think most players are smart enough to know how to manage foul trouble. I also think some coaches aren't aware enough to exploit a defensive player who has foul trouble. Heck. Clyde Drexler picked up FOUR fouls in the first half of a championship game and never fouled out. I think a coach should be able ro feel out a game situation once in a while and go against what the book or the metrics or what Dean Smith believed.

Thinking points scored, rebounds, and assists are more important at the end of a game than in the first half is a fallacy.

Any points/rebounds/assists are worth the same value at any point in a game. You don't earn interest on them like money.

The assumption would only be valid if you knew with 100% certainty that a player would foul out with less time in the game remaining than what you benched him for. If you choke a guy's playing time by 10-12 mins, and he finishes with 3 fouls, all of that time you benched him was wasted production.

Assume you bench Player ABC after 6 mins in the first half because he racked up 2 quick fouls. Then later on down by 8 he's in the game and scores 6 points in the last few minutes to help bring the score back and adds a couple rebounds and an assist, and finishes with just those 2 fouls. After the game the coach uses it as justification for benching said player. It's horsehockey. If he hadn't benched the guy he'd assumedly have had the same production plus you'd get more minutes out of him and likely wouldn't have been in that predicament at the end of the game to start with.

 

[ajdwhs87]

I just don't think he had them ready to play last night. Of course, Fran can't make shots for them, but where was the contingency plan last night on offense? The guys also seemed like Bambi on ice again with the turnovers. And the defense covering shooters was atrocious in typical Fran defenseless fashion.

Hey you are on the road. Not doing so well n the outside shooting? The contingency plan was shoot your way out of it. More 3's. The old basketball proverb of getting the higher percentage shot is never more apt when you are frigid from deep. Not Fran though. I always say he is way too slow to react so he will run better sets in the next game and they will get a few more layups and dunks but a bit too late for the NW game and of course it will come a bit too late in a game, the last game, in March as usual.

As far as the two foul thing. You have a guy you really need in that spot and it is a time when the game was really decided. Also not a big guy that they would throw down and attack to draw a foul situation either. You want to foul guys out so they are on the bench so you can get the edge that wins you the game. Fran gave them what they wanted/needed and of course didn't have to. Have to read that situation and keep him in. Also shows confidence in the young man. Think he doesn't give his guards enough confidence with that type of thing and swapping line-ups too much. Way too many guards been over the years that look like they have the stuff but haven't lived up to the potential and been inconsistent. Is it just coincidence or is it Fran?

 

[Hawkfnntn]

It's all so circumstantial but as a whole I definitely don't subscribe to automatic benching. Basically coaches that do are prioritizing the end of the game over the middle. I think you can dig a hole you can't get out of doing that. And more importantly I think you most definitely take your own player out of the flow of the game and prevent him from getting into a rhythm. Hoops can be all about that for some. You take a guy that's used to playing 30 plus mins and cut it down to 15-20 choppy mins and you're only hurting yourself.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

I will say that Fran has generally been pretty darn consistent in this approach in his time at Iowa. He has sat Garza and Murrays and pretty much everyone after 2 in the first half. I understand the rationale. Being consistent let's the players know where they stand and that if they have a foul already, then need to be careful not to draw a second call. Fran has also played a lot of depth over the years, so I guess he feels he has bench guys ready to step in. Finally, if you leave a guy out there with two fouls you know the other coach is going to direct fire at the player and the player is going to have to play softer defense to avoid the 3rd. So, that is the theory. Its not dumb, but there are contrary arguments as has been noted.

I personally do not like the rigidity. I think it should come down to the player and whether he normally can play smart and avoid fouls. Taking a star out and falling behind by double digits in the first half does not make sense to me. I will worry about foul trouble for the second half in the second half. As others have noted, how often do guys really foul out anyway?

Where I land is that I think 2 fouls and you sit is a decent enough rule of thumb, but I think a coach should trust his players here and there if there presence is needed in the game. The Perkins example from NW is a pretty good example.

 

[Dadman]

I agree with the position that it depends on the player. Perkins is aggressive and more prone to fouls so I understand sitting him. Especially when we are having issues with the refs. We have all seen ticky tack shit called when the opposing team is mugging us.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Thinking points scored, rebounds, and assists are more important at the end of a game than in the first half is a fallacy.

Any points/rebounds/assists are worth the same value at any point in a game. You don't earn interest on them like money.

The assumption would only be valid if you knew with 100% certainty that a player would foul out with less time in the game remaining than what you benched him for. If you choke a guy's playing time by 10-12 mins, and he finishes with 3 fouls, all of that time you benched him was wasted production.

Assume you bench Player ABC after 6 mins in the first half because he racked up 2 quick fouls. Then later on down by 8 he's in the game and scores 6 points in the last few minutes to help bring the score back and adds a couple rebounds and an assist, and finishes with just those 2 fouls. After the game the coach uses it as justification for benching said player. It's horsehockey. If he hadn't benched the guy he'd assumedly have had the same production plus you'd get more minutes out of him and likely wouldn't have been in that predicament at the end of the game to start with.

Yep. And, if I player sits for a length of time, often times they just can't get into rhythm in the game. They are out of it and productions goes down anyway. I may take the player out for a bit after a 2nd in the first half, and remind them to play smart and avoid that 3rd, but get them into the game at some point to stay in rhythm to a point.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

I will say that Fran has generally been pretty darn consistent in this approach in his time at Iowa. He has sat Garza and Murrays and pretty much everyone after 2 in the first half. I understand the rationale. Being consistent let's the players know where they stand and that if they have a foul already, then need to be careful not to draw a second call. Fran has also played a lot of depth over the years, so I guess he feels he has bench guys ready to step in. Finally, if you leave a guy out there with two fouls you know the other coach is going to direct fire at the player and the player is going to have to play softer defense to avoid the 3rd. So, that is the theory. Its not dumb, but there are contrary arguments as has been noted.

I personally do not like the rigidity. I think it should come down to the player and whether he normally can play smart and avoid fouls. Taking a star out and falling behind by double digits in the first half does not make sense to me. I will worry about foul trouble for the second half in the second half. As others have noted, how often do guys really foul out anyway?

Where I land is that I think 2 fouls and you sit is a decent enough rule of thumb, but I think a coach should trust his players here and there if there presence is needed in the game. The Perkins example from NW is a pretty good example.

Good take.

 

[99topdawg]

I'm fine with it if the margin stays in our favor. If it starts to get away from us a bit, you've got to play him a couple of minutes at least. It's kind of like resting a player. How many times do you hear or say "It's time to get ______ back in there" when things start to get dicey. What I hate is a situation like NW (but not necessarily that game) when we were behind and needed to make somewhat of a comeback to end the half. We basically went into halftime down 14 (except Ulis's 3 made it 11).

He got his 2nd foul with 11:26 left in the 1st half. Our choices are:

--Take him out, keep it respectable, and play him in the 2nd half and come back and hope you're close enough to win it.

--Take him out, get way behind, and play him in the 2nd half when we're too far behind for it to matter.

--Keep him in, play it out with your best guys, and worry about his foul trouble later when the game's close. Maybe he fouls out, but his play may have helped put us in the position where it matters at the end.

--Realize that sitting him out the rest of the half will only allow him to realistically play 16-18 minutes. Play him in spots for the rest of the half and he may be able to get you more than those 16-18 minutes, depending on future foul trouble. I'm going to bet that this will get you more than 16-18 minutes more than half the time.

--Keep playing him. If he gets his 3rd in the 1st half, you sit him and he may have to be limited for the start of the 2nd half. When he picks up his 4th, he has to be even more limited. Obviously with his 5th, he's done. With that situation, how many times does he get more than 16-18 minutes the rest of the game? My bet again is more that half.

 

[99topdawg]

Thinking points scored, rebounds, and assists are more important at the end of a game than in the first half is a fallacy.

Any points/rebounds/assists are worth the same value at any point in a game. You don't earn interest on them like money.

That kind of logic makes you sound like a mathematician. Like I want to tell my students "how the hell do you not get this?" (not the math, the common sense stuff that uses math like thinking).

 

[Fryowa]

That kind of logic makes you sound like a mathematician. Like I want to tell my students "how the hell do you not get this?" (not the math, the common sense stuff that uses math like thinking).

You should be in my brain at 1:47 AM when I'm trying to decide what order to bat my HS players. It ain't pretty.

 

[99topdawg]

You should be in my brain at 1:47 AM when I'm trying to decide what order to bat my HS players. It ain't pretty.

When we're not scoring runs and I don't have a true leadoff, 3 hitter, clean up hitter, etc. I use OBP or OBP minus strikeout % and just bat them in that order.

 

[thedukeofearl]

One thing my son noticed about the 10-second call was that the NW player's feet were not on or over the line

The ball was over the line but did not even hit the floor before the 10-second clock

All Fran wanted was for the officials to look at the replay

Still, there was no way we were going to win that one, NW was sky-high and ready to go

The student section was certainly a factor, similar to the Duke and UCLA student sections

They were certainly the sixth player on the floor

 

[MelroseHawkins]

That kind of logic makes you sound like a mathematician. Like I want to tell my students "how the hell do you not get this?" (not the math, the common sense stuff that uses math like thinking).

I tell my boys all the time that the point of math is to help you with your analytical thinking.