|
|
Post by greenblood on Jan 8, 2017 22:46:52 GMT -5
I was saying he made the connection about the similarity in personality between Kareem and Ryan.
Quite frankly I think it's too bad the kid has to play with his shoulder in such bad shape after sitting out a year. And how did that happen anyway? And I'm not fighting I'm just sick and tired of you twisting what I am saying.
Btw..I hope JP does smarten up because one slim victory at home over a team that lacks offense and was allowed to dictate the tempo is just that...a slim victory. He should know that this fan base isn't stupid or impressed by name dropping, and we don't need everything explained 'in other words'. He should let the kids speak during pressers, that how they learn accountability...not sitting in on a diatribe and then turning to one or the other and saying 'isn't that right (fill in the blank).
|
|
|
|
Post by gosaints on Jan 9, 2017 10:54:28 GMT -5
Agreed but why is he back in the game with Siena leading by 8 and 6 minutes to play? That's on Pastos LOL, you're kidding right? You think he should have kept his 5th year senior, all-MAAC forward, and leader, on the bench the rest of the game? He came back in up 5, and fouled out up 7. Our biggest lead of the game. It was a tight, close one all night. You cant let your star player rot on the bench late in the game because he has 4 fouls. He needs to know to play carefully and avoid backing smaller guys in at that point. His presence is desperately needed on the floor. Thats ALL on him, not the coach. ps-anyone that agress with you on this either doesn't know basketball, or has so much hate on their minds for the HC, they're not thinking right. Obviously its you who doesn't understand basketball. IN THIS GAME, there was no reason to put Brett back in the while we had the lead. St. Peters couldn't put the ball in the hoop if their life depended on it. The coach and or his assistants should have had a handle on the flow of the game and understood this. What did St.Peters make? six FG's in the second half? Brett should have been held out until the 3 or 4 minute mark or if St. Peters showed some semblance of an offense from the field prior to this he could have been put back in then. Also to make such a foolish statement to the effect that if others on this board (and obviously there are) agree with me they hate the coach is asinine. |
|
JK
Freshman
Posts: 261
Member is Online
Dislikes:
|
Post by JK on Jan 9, 2017 10:59:04 GMT -5
This team is so much better with Quis at the point. Shuffling him in and out of playing point guard has hurt this team immeasurably... well maybe not, we can look at the record and it shows, but it's not the only factor. The issue JP tried to solve (need better outside shooting) by sliding Quis around disrupted the team chemistry. While I watched the replay of the St. Peter's game I think I heard that JP mentioned the fragility of the players he's got right now. I think Quis is a great floor general, but he may not be able to manage the guys otherwise. I understand that JP is looking for a player to step up and be a vocal leader for this team, but you do have to recruit personality as well as basketball skills. I think that Smithen might be the best fit for that role right now. He really seems to know the game and can work with the coaching staff on in-game changes based on what he sees. Maybe JP is trying to get him in the game more which alleviates Quis from solely playing PG, but then Quis seems uncomfortable at times.
During the St. Peter's game I happened to notice some of the interactions between Quis and Nico and I didn't feel there was any major stress between them. I think there is a lot of frustration right now and that's not something that just goes away and the team is suddenly better. My opinion that JP needs to set the lineup and expect production from it. You can't be tinkering with the lineups and player roles this late in the season (or coaching tenure). The team just looks uncomfortable too often throughout a game and then a score drought ensues and this team is too talented to have such large gaps in time between baskets.
|
|
$cott
Assistant Coach
Posts: 5,092
Member is Online
Dislikes:
|
Post by $cott on Jan 9, 2017 11:10:10 GMT -5
LOL, you're kidding right? You think he should have kept his 5th year senior, all-MAAC forward, and leader, on the bench the rest of the game? He came back in up 5, and fouled out up 7. Our biggest lead of the game. It was a tight, close one all night. You cant let your star player rot on the bench late in the game because he has 4 fouls. He needs to know to play carefully and avoid backing smaller guys in at that point. His presence is desperately needed on the floor. Thats ALL on him, not the coach. ps-anyone that agress with you on this either doesn't know basketball, or has so much hate on their minds for the HC, they're not thinking right. Obviously its you who doesn't understand basketball. IN THIS GAME, there was no reason to put Brett back in the while we had the lead. St. Peters couldn't put the ball in the hoop if their life depended on it. The coach and or his assistants should have had a handle on the flow of the game and understood this. What did St.Peters make? six FG's in the second half? Brett should have been held out until the 3 or 4 minute mark or if St. Peters showed some semblance of an offense from the field prior to this he could have been put back in then. Also to make such a foolish statement to the effect that if others on this board (and obviously there are) agree with me they hate the coach is asinine. Against a team that isn't making shots is exactly when you need your best rebounder in the game. Bret had 11 rebounds in 26 minutes, the rest of the team had 26 rebounds in 174 minutes. I put fault on Jimmy for a lot of things but the decision to put Bret back in was not a bad one. |
|
hoopjunkie
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 12,495
Dislikes:
|
Post by hoopjunkie on Jan 9, 2017 11:25:46 GMT -5
LOL, you're kidding right? You think he should have kept his 5th year senior, all-MAAC forward, and leader, on the bench the rest of the game? He came back in up 5, and fouled out up 7. Our biggest lead of the game. It was a tight, close one all night. You cant let your star player rot on the bench late in the game because he has 4 fouls. He needs to know to play carefully and avoid backing smaller guys in at that point. His presence is desperately needed on the floor. Thats ALL on him, not the coach. ps-anyone that agress with you on this either doesn't know basketball, or has so much hate on their minds for the HC, they're not thinking right. Obviously its you who doesn't understand basketball. IN THIS GAME, there was no reason to put Brett back in the while we had the lead. St. Peters couldn't put the ball in the hoop if their life depended on it. The coach and or his assistants should have had a handle on the flow of the game and understood this. What did St.Peters make? six FG's in the second half? Brett should have been held out until the 3 or 4 minute mark or if St. Peters showed some semblance of an offense from the field prior to this he could have been put back in then. Also to make such a foolish statement to the effect that if others on this board (and obviously there are) agree with me they hate the coach is asinine. St Peters can't score, but they tied the game at 51?? Maybe you dont understand the difference in talent/production between our starting 5 guys and our next 4-5 guys off the bench? Here it is: there's a HUGE difference. That game was nip and tuck all night. We need our 5 best out there. When one of them has 4 fouls, he needs to know how to play with them. Not instigate contact by backing a smaller guy down the first minute he's back in the game! We were playing a lot of zone which protects guys in foul trouble, so I'm pretty sure Jimmy felt comfortable putting him with under 7 minutes left. It was on Brett to play smarter on the offensive end. We NEED his presence on the floor....and his rebounding. I'm not willing to "never know" if Brett could have given us a strong last 6-7 min of the game. What I mean by that is, IF he ended the game with 4 fouls, and we lost the game, how would we know how many minutes of Brett Bisping we left on the bench?? You're willing to leave him there until they tie us, or take the lead?? Not me. My best kids are playing once it gets under 7 min. left in the game. Especially when you know his substitute (WB/Shivers) is such a huge dropoff. |
|
|
|
Post by gosaints on Jan 9, 2017 11:38:33 GMT -5
Obviously its you who doesn't understand basketball. IN THIS GAME, there was no reason to put Brett back in the while we had the lead. St. Peters couldn't put the ball in the hoop if their life depended on it. The coach and or his assistants should have had a handle on the flow of the game and understood this. What did St.Peters make? six FG's in the second half? Brett should have been held out until the 3 or 4 minute mark or if St. Peters showed some semblance of an offense from the field prior to this he could have been put back in then. Also to make such a foolish statement to the effect that if others on this board (and obviously there are) agree with me they hate the coach is asinine. Against a team that isn't making shots is exactly when you need your best rebounder in the game. Bret had 11 rebounds in 26 minutes, the rest of the team had 26 rebounds in 174 minutes. I put fault on Jimmy for a lot of things but the decision to put Bret back in was not a bad one. Seriously, St. Peters only had 6 offensive rebounds the entire game. Yes Brett did had 11 rebounds but the fact is 8 of them were defensive rebounds the same number of defensive rebounds that Lavon had and JO had another 4. Look I never said Brett shouldn't have gone back in and in another senerio where the game was getting away from Siena I would have put him back in when JP did also. However in THIS game he could/should have held him out for another 2 ro 3 minutes. That was the prudent thing to do. |
|
|
|
Post by gosaints on Jan 9, 2017 11:56:08 GMT -5
Obviously its you who doesn't understand basketball. IN THIS GAME, there was no reason to put Brett back in the while we had the lead. St. Peters couldn't put the ball in the hoop if their life depended on it. The coach and or his assistants should have had a handle on the flow of the game and understood this. What did St.Peters make? six FG's in the second half? Brett should have been held out until the 3 or 4 minute mark or if St. Peters showed some semblance of an offense from the field prior to this he could have been put back in then. Also to make such a foolish statement to the effect that if others on this board (and obviously there are) agree with me they hate the coach is asinine. St Peters can't score, but they tied the game at 51?? Maybe you dont understand the difference in talent/production between our starting 5 guys and our next 4-5 guys off the bench? Here it is: there's a HUGE difference. That game was nip and tuck all night. We need our 5 best out there. When one of them has 4 fouls, he needs to know how to play with them. Not instigate contact by backing a smaller guy down the first minute he's back in the game! We were playing a lot of zone which protects guys in foul trouble, so I'm pretty sure Jimmy felt comfortable putting him with under 7 minutes left. It was on Brett to play smarter on the offensive end. We NEED his presence on the floor....and his rebounding. I'm not willing to "never know" if Brett could have given us a strong last 6-7 min of the game. What I mean by that is, IF he ended the game with 4 fouls, and we lost the game, how would we know how many minutes of Brett Bisping we left on the bench?? You're willing to leave him there until they tie us, or take the lead?? Not me. My best kids are playing once it gets under 7 min. left in the game. Especially when you know his substitute (WB/Shivers) is such a huge dropoff. Please reread my post. Nowhere did I say that "You're willing to leave him there until they tie us, or take the lead??" I agree that you want you're 5 best players on the court when the game ends and its up to the coach to put his players in the best position to achieve this, but the facts are that this didn't end up to be the case in this game for Siena did it? Another fact is that Brett's 5th foul was one of the dumbest of his 5 year career. Thats nobodies fault but his and something you wouldn't expect from you're best player would you? |
|
hoopjunkie
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 12,495
Dislikes:
|
Post by hoopjunkie on Jan 9, 2017 12:07:46 GMT -5
LOL, you're kidding right? You think he should have kept his 5th year senior, all-MAAC forward, and leader, on the bench the rest of the game? He came back in up 5, and fouled out up 7. Our biggest lead of the game. It was a tight, close one all night. You cant let your star player rot on the bench late in the game because he has 4 fouls. He needs to know to play carefully and avoid backing smaller guys in at that point. His presence is desperately needed on the floor. Thats ALL on him, not the coach. ps-anyone that agress with you on this either doesn't know basketball, or has so much hate on their minds for the HC, they're not thinking right. Brett should have been held out until the 3 or 4 minute mark or if St. Peters showed some semblance of an offense from the field prior to this he could have been put back in then. Since the game was very close throughout, THIS means IF St. Peters makes a couple jumpers, (which could tie, or take the lead) only THEN should Brett go back beofre the 3-4 minute mark. And MY ENTIRE POINT was it wasn't the HC's fault (everything else is though) that Brett didn't play smart with the 4 fouls. It was Bretts. We won, so I wont harp on it anymore, but if we lost, he'd take a lot of the blame in my opinion. |
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,839
Member is Online
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Jan 9, 2017 12:21:07 GMT -5
HJ - I agree that the 5th foul on Brett was a silly one that he shouldn't have committed. That said, we were up 8. It turns out we won sans Brett anyway but holding him out a little longer would have increased the odds that we had him down the stretch. There's no arguing that. You can make a case that holding him out would have allowed SP to close the gap sooner. I think most other coaches would have kept him out until 3-4 min mark or unless SP went on a run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jan 9, 2017 16:37:00 GMT -5
I had no problem Putting Brett in when Jimmy did, it was a close game. And agreed huge drop off after our top 5. It was a silly foul, with a lot of acting by the ST Pete's player, but still something you hope a 5th year senior wouldnt do. But hey it happens.
|
|
billmurray
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,156
Member is Online
Dislikes:
|
Post by billmurray on Jan 9, 2017 16:58:12 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with Brett's return either. Different coaches take different approaches. I always take the Al McGuire position that it is better to have the best player on the floor for the most amount of time possible. Holding him out guarantees he could have less time on the court. Putting the player in can have two outcomes, less or more playing time. I take the approach that you don't guarantee less time on the court and hope to maximize it. It is a gamble either way and I don't usually Monday morning quarterback especially when the end result is a win.
|
|
hoopjunkie
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 12,495
Dislikes:
|
Post by hoopjunkie on Jan 9, 2017 18:06:52 GMT -5
HJ - I agree that the 5th foul on Brett was a silly one that he shouldn't have committed. That said, we were up 8. It turns out we won sans Brett anyway but holding him out a little longer would have increased the odds that we had him down the stretch. There's no arguing that. You can make a case that holding him out would have allowed SP to close the gap sooner. I think most other coaches would have kept him out until 3-4 min mark or unless SP went on a run. we disagree |
|
OneIndian
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 10,688
Dislikes:
|
Post by OneIndian on Jan 9, 2017 19:29:15 GMT -5
Interesting piece related to our little discussion I remembered reading, thought I'd share:
Summer Series ’16: Foul trouble
Ken Pomeroy | June 27, 2016
This is the part of year where I have the time to laboriously explore a single topic at my own pace and you have the time to read about it. Welcome to the 2016 Summer Series. This off-season I will be digging into the issue of foul trouble.
Many smart people (mostly non-coaches) believe that benching a star player due to foul trouble is a bad idea. And many smart people (mostly coaches) believe that believe that benching a star player due to foul trouble is a good idea. It is one of the more vexing strategic issues of the sport.
Unlike similar issues in other sports – whether to go for it on 4th down in football, when to pull the goalie in hockey, or just about anything in baseball – there hasn’t been much data-driven work on this issue. The major strategic issues in other sports are able to be analyzed in a way that the motivated human can understand. And those issues have well-accepted solutions that are supported by solid research.
The relative lack of work on foul trouble is at least partly because there are a lot of moving parts to this problem. As a coach, you want to maximize a player’s impact on the chance of winning. Having your best player unavailable for the closing minutes of a tight game can be a big handicap. But sitting a star player for too long early in the game can render the closing minutes meaningless as the opponent increases its lead.
There’s also the issue of a player losing effectiveness while in foul trouble. The foul-troubled player is typically going to avoid picking up another and that would figure to limit his effectiveness. And all of these decisions are made against the backdrop of just how foul prone the player is anyway and what is available on the bench. Other things may need to be considered as well, such as the relative skill level of the competing teams and the score of the game.
So I don’t want to mislead you – it’s unlikely that my upcoming series of posts will end with a grand proclamation on how to handle foul trouble. I’m not saying it won’t happen, but given the variables involved and how much interaction there is between those variables, just getting to a point where we can understand what might affect a coach’s decision would be a step forward. You’d really need some sort of basketball simulator to get close to the right answer, and once you’ve created that, you can basically solve any basketball problem you can think of. And that would be a ridiculous thing to promise.
But this is also the rare strategic issue in basketball where an analytical approach figures to be superior to gut instinct. I have to admit that this is a large reason why I’d be opposed to changing the existing personal foul limit. The argument against the current rule is that basketball is the rare sport that disqualifies its players due to the accumulation of common fouls. And you’d like to have the best players available at all times. However, it adds an element of strategy where the best approach is difficult to evaluate with our puny human brains. Even in the sparse academic discussion of the topic, it’s not difficult to find conflicting viewpoints.
There’s a tendency to be critical of how coaches rush to bench players that get into foul trouble. On the one hand, I can sympathize with the critics. While I don’t know the right answer, the tendency for coaches, or even people in general, is to prefer a strategy that postpones losing over one than maximizes the chance of winning.
An example that comes to mind in college hoops is an end-game scenario where a team trails by four or five. Conventional wisdom says the trailing team should take the “easy tw o”. But history shows that teams attempting a three in that situation win more often. Of course, the three is a lower percentage shot and if you miss it, the game is likely over. The easy two is never as easy as it sounds, but it’s more likely to be successful than a three, and if you make it, you’ve postponed losing a little while. However, in terms of improving one’s chance of winning, the extra point on a three-point shot is worth the trade-off in shooting percentage.
On the flip side, I think coaches are pretty good at their jobs in aggregate. I’d like to believe that over time, the coaching consensus on how to handle foul trouble has evolved towards the optimal approach. Wisdom of crowds and all that. With such a disparity in resources across college basketball’s 351 teams, all sorts of diverse approaches are used by coaches. Yet every single one limits a starter’s participation when they pick up a second foul in the first half. I love a contrarian argument, but it stretches reason to think that all of them could be wrong.
Then again, basketball coaches could be wrong in the same way that every college football coach is too conservative on fourth down. And even if coaches are on the mark on average, there is at least some diversity in how they handle foul trouble. You’ll find a lot of room between gentlemen like Tom Izzo and Tony Bennett, who employ the auto-bench for two first-half fouls, and Jim Boeheim and Bryce Drew who are pretty liberal about letting guys play through it. But who’s right? Maybe all of them are correct given certain circumstances, or maybe none of them are.
|
|
gorvy
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 10,017
Dislikes:
|
Post by gorvy on Jan 9, 2017 20:55:04 GMT -5
Splitting hairs over the sub with 4 fouls issue, especially in a win. My bigger issue is putting players in with 2 fouls in the first half--- that's how you make it to the 8 minute mark with less than 4. also agree with pomeroy regarding evaluating whether players in foul trouble are giving up too much on defense.
|
|
hoopjunkie
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 12,495
Dislikes:
|
Post by hoopjunkie on Jan 10, 2017 3:31:03 GMT -5
Sitting players with 2 fouls in the first half is really a no-brainer. Not worth getting a 3rd foulf that early since not many games are won/lost by halftime.
|
|
