Akok Only 25 Minutes

[intlzncster]

The entire premise of this whole discussion is wrong.

When did 9 become a statistically significant sample in science or statistics? Whether it's 9 of 30 (30%) or 9 of 18 (50%) or whatever does not matter. A sample of 9 is inherently flawed (ie not predictive) when total population number is low.

Bare minimum is 30 or so.

 

[Ntaust10]

How soon did he get his third foul after returning in the second half?

How soon did he get his 4th foul after returning from his autobenching? Players are not fouled out of the game until they reach 5 fouls -- only then they can't play. Stop manually fouling them out for arbitrary periods of time because they have reached a certain foul count. Sit them for rest, or substitution patterns, or because they're a defensive liability and play defense differently when they know they have multiple fouls, but don't sit them "because they have 2 fouls in the 1h" -- such flawed logic. When you sit them with 2, and 3, and 4, you are manually fouling them out - doing the exact thing you are trying to prevent.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

I would rather see Akok foul out in this game than for time to expire and he has 3 fouls. He was easily our best player from the tip.

Exactly. While I’m ok with sitting a player down if he gets two fouls in the first half, it makes no sense to sit a player in the 2nd half for foul “trouble”.

Think about it. When you sit a player in the second half because you don’t want him to pick up his fourth foul, how is it different from the player sitting on the bench becuase he fouled out?

Either way, the player isn’t in the game.

No player should EVER be removed from a game in the 2nd half because they picked up their 3rd or 4th foul.

That’s the height of insanity and at some point a coach with uncommon smarts will figure that out.

To maximize a player’s time on the court you have to keep him on the court until the game ends or he fouls out. Case closed.

Until that uncommonly smart (metrics driven) coach comes along and changes everything, all coaches will continue to make this bonehead move, cutting off their own nose to spite their face.

 

[intlzncster]

Just because they do it, doesn't mean that accuracy is any good, or worth much predictively. If you have a sample of 2 within a population of 5 (40%), you're predictive capabilities aren't worth much....when you have a much larger population to come.

Among many, many other factors, note this: You are assuming stasis. But there is a grow curve involved. Because he is a freshman, you'd expect his developmental curve to be skewed as he gains each game of experience. What happened game 1 is not remotely as relevant as what happens by game 20.

 

[intlzncster]

Exactly. While I’m ok with sitting a player down if he gets two fouls in the first half, it makes no sense to sit a player in the 2nd half for foul “trouble”.

Think about it. When you sit a player in the second half because you don’t want him to pick up his fourth foul, how is it different from the player sitting on the bench from fouling out?

Either way, the player isn’t in the game.

No player should EVER be removed from a game in the 2nd half because they picked up their 3rd or 4th foul.

That’s the height of insanity and at some point a coach with uncommon smarts will figure that out.

To maximize a player’s time on the court you have to keep him on the court until the game ends or he fouls out. Case closed.

Until that uncommonly smart (metrics driven) coach comes along and changes everything, all coaches will continue to make this bonehead move, cutting off their own nose to spite their face.

As has been said previously in the thread, this would only be true if all minutes were equal. They are only in a vacuum, but irl, when changing stakes and fitness levels and all the other levers become involved, this is not true. High stakes, crunch time minutes matter the most.

For example: Say game is tied with 1 min to go. Game is tied at the tip as well. Is that first minute as important as the final minute of a tied game? It's not. There's a whole game to play out after minute one, with a variety of ways to win it. But circumstances have changed, for a whole host of reasons, by the final minute. So having that shot blocking presence in the paint in the final minute becomes paramount.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

As has been said previously in the thread, this would only be true if all minutes were equal. They are only in a vacuum, but irl, when changing stakes and fitness levels and all the other levers become involved, this is not true. High stakes, crunch time minutes matter the most.

For example: Say game is tied with 1 min to go. Game is tied at the tip as well. Is that first minute as important as the final minute of a tied game? It's not. There's a whole game to play out after minute one, with a variety of ways to win it. But circumstances have changed, for a whole host of reasons, by the final minute. So having that shot blocking presence in the paint in the final minute becomes paramount.

I’d rather have Akok play 34 minutes and foul out, than play 22 minutes just to ensure he’s there for the last few minutes of a game.

IMO, those extra 12 minutes of playing time have a much greater impact on the game.

Did UConn win because Akok was on the floor those last few minutes of the game? No.

Would they have won if he played 12 more minutes than he did? Likely.

 

[intlzncster]

I’d rather have Akok play 34 minutes and foul out, than play 22 minutes just to ensure he’s there for the last few minutes of a game. IMO, those extra 12 minutes of playing time have a much greater impact on the game.

You make way too many assumptions. There isn't one input here.

He might only have played 22 min if Hurley kept him in. You don't know that he wouldn't have fouled out quicker. These things aren't linear.

Did UConn win because Akok was on the floor those last few minutes of the game? No.

That's a declarative statement ignoring all the other inputs/factors in winning losing a game. It's more correlative in that regard. Looking at a player in a vacuum, which makes no sense.

Would they have won if he played 12 more minutes than he did? Likely.

This is based on a bunch of un-demonstrable assumptions, as to be completely devoid of any meaning.

I think he would have fouled out much earlier in the game. No way he lasts 34 minutes with a team that draws fouls like that and those refs calling it like they were. So he would have been out of the game with 10 min to go and they would have won on FTs by 10+.

 

[intlzncster]

Again, you are thinking of it too linearly in a vacuum. If Akok stays in, perhaps he picks up 4 fouls in the first half, and 1 in the first 5 in the second. So you have him for less overall time. The refs appeared to be calling tighter earlier in the game. Why would you ever assume his foul rate would be linear across the game?

Gilbert was out for a large stretch of that time too. It very well could be that he was the more important factor (offense would run, turnovers would drop, assists would rise), given our ineptness at the point. So Akok in, with Gilbert out, might not have moved the needle.

 

[Yup!]

I would rather see Akok foul out in this game than for time to expire and he has 3 fouls. He was easily our best player from the tip.

I agree the announcers said UConn is a different animal with Akok in the game. As soon as he got benched the game slipped away.

 

[Kembacity]

ugh, we're counting up likes now?

You may be right and your prediction spot on, yet you wont actually be 'right', just lucky. Pick some metric that ranks teams on a scale, compare the avg ranking of the 9 opponents he's faced, and compare it with the remaining 20+ he will face when conference play begins and we play Nova. I think the upcoming opponents on avg are better than those we already faced, even with the AAC being weak.

In addition, as we've covered, Akok is a freshman, with seemingly a HUGE love for the game of basketball and growing as a player. I completely expect him to be a better player 2 months from now than he is now, so we'll see the level of competition increase but also his skills and reps on the court make him a better blocker and hopefully better at controlling his body.

Bottom line is, you're a genius and every little thought that pops into your head is Einstein's morning dump, we are all lesser beings for being reasonable with the expectations of a young basketball player

 

[Kembacity]

I feel like everyone talking about valuing the minutes early on and playing guys when they seem to have too many fouls really doesn't take into account in game coaching strategies. If you have that shot blocker out there when the other team knows he's in "foul trouble" relative to the time left, the team strategy is going to be to go after that guy EVERY play.

Drive at that defender, flop your legs out when you shoot in the hopes they kind of hit them and a ref calls a bad foul, if you lose the ball on your own and that defender is anywhere near you, fall over and cry about it.

Refs are terrible, and athletes don't play fair. For these reasons, I think in most cases you have to sit that guy mid first half with 2 fouls, especially the younger he is, regardless of how he's played so far in his career.

You cannot look at fouls per game or per 40 minutes in a bubble, because if the player has NEVER been in "foul trouble" in those minutes for your data, you have ZERO data on how many fouls he picks up when the other team is hellbent on getting fouls called on him. Data matters, but perspective on the data is necessary

 

[Kembacity]

One last point before I sign off here

I LOVE that this argument started, because there's nothing I love more than UConn basketball, data, and pedantic arguments dealing with data. If I had a glass of whiskey right now I'd be in heaven!!!!

 

[intlzncster]

It literally can't be looked at in a vacuum. Every input and assumption changes as the circumstances of the game change.

I feel like everyone talking about valuing the minutes early on and playing guys when they seem to have too many fouls really doesn't take into account in game coaching strategies. If you have that shot blocker out there when the other team knows he's in "foul trouble" relative to the time left, the team strategy is going to be to go after that guy EVERY play.

Drive at that defender, flop your legs out when you shoot in the hopes they kind of hit them and a ref calls a bad foul, if you lose the ball on your own and that defender is anywhere near you, fall over and cry about it.

Refs are terrible, and athletes don't play fair. For these reasons, I think in most cases you have to sit that guy mid first half with 2 fouls, especially the younger he is, regardless of how he's played so far in his career.

You cannot look at fouls per game or per 40 minutes in a bubble, because if the player has NEVER been in "foul trouble" in those minutes for your data, you have ZERO data on how many fouls he picks up when the other team is hellbent on getting fouls called on him. Data matters, but perspective on the data is necessary

That's what I was talking about without going into it. It's one of many factors. You could start listing them, but you'd be here awhile. These are huge multivariate functions.

Looking at it in a vacuum is looking at it in a completely myopic fashion.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

You make way too many assumptions. There isn't one input here.

He might only have played 22 min if Hurley kept him in. You don't know that he wouldn't have fouled out quicker. These things aren't linear.



That's a declarative statement ignoring all the other inputs/factors in winning losing a game. It's more correlative in that regard. Looking at a player in a vacuum, which makes no sense.



This is based on a bunch of un-demonstrable assumptions, as to be completely devoid of any meaning.

I think he would have fouled out much earlier in the game. No way he lasts 34 minutes with a team that draws fouls like that and those refs calling it like they were. So he would have been out of the game with 10 min to go and they would have won on FTs by 10+.

I disagree. Akok would’ve played more minutes if allowed to stay in the game until either it ended or he fouled out. If you want to believe otherwise that’s your prerogative.

 

[BNich]

He needs more than just rolls to the basket. I'd love to see pick and pop action with him. It you double that up and if the guards can do it, you can run both the pick and roll and pop at the same time. We need to have some plays run for Akok.

let's give it time. I'm with you. It will take some time to develop but hopefully we see more as the season goes on.

 

[HuskyHoosier]

Sorry if it’s been mentioned and I missed it, but a point in favor of benching with two fouls is that the opposing team and coach, especially if he’s good, will will target that defensive player every time down the court. And you end up with either weak defense or a 3rd foul.

I would prefer no hard and fast rule and to take everything as situational.

 

[Robertelamin]

It is a little scary that UConn apparently doesn’t have a capable backup to AG...I’m hoping Adams and Gafney can gain some confidence against the upcoming cupcakes because Vital can absolutely not be running the point.

 

[CL82]

And Geno leaves his players in with 2 fouls and he's won 11 titles.

The fact is, sitting your guys because of fouls is simply imposing on yourself, early in the game, the penalty that you're trying to avoid late in the game.

Sometimes. I can remember when time when Samuelson picked up her fourth foul. She started walking towards the bench and Auriemma asked her “where are you going?” She replied “I got my fourth foul you have to take me out.” Geno says “I didn't get the foul. I don’t have to do anything! Figure it out.”

 

[Kenny11]

It is a little scary that UConn apparently doesn’t have a capable backup to AG...I’m hoping Adams and Gafney can gain some confidence against the upcoming cupcakes because Vital can absolutely not be running the point.

There has to be a strict No Vital rule at point guard. Hurley knows this. He just needs to trust the other guys.

 

[UCSouth]

Moronic argument


Hmmm, have you ever heard the phrase hindsight is 20/20? You saw Akok's 3rd foul... if he got that in the first half, and got it again in the start of the 2nd, then he's got 4 and we have 18 minutes of basketball left to play, so we'd have to sit him for 10 minutes. I personally like what Hurley did with Akok, the guy is a shot blocker, he's going to have a much tougher time not fouling when the other team is hellbent on getting him to foul out. Gilbert would have a much easier time not comitting fouls by purposefully not playing defense too close. You can have support in your argument about sitting Al too long, but not Akok...

A shot blocker specialist playing in his 10th game in college regardless of how many fouls he finishes with, is a liability to commit fouls plain and simple

You are 1000% correct, but unfortunately you are dealing with clueless people on here. They spew stats like it is the gospel. Unfortunately they can't seem to grasp the concept that Hurley is getting paid to coach the team and he is pretty good at it. On to the next game....

 

[Hi-Low]

I think even Hurley looking back at the IU game realizes Akok needed to play 32+ minutes. It's a bummer looking at the box score seeing our best player with only 3 fouls and 25 minutes.

Get creative and sub for him on D if worried, he is a major presence on both ends of the court so even "1/2" of him on O is better than none.