intlzncster
i fart in your general direction
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 28,910
- Reaction Score
- 60,188
All minutes are equal in a vacuum, but not irl on the court.
Akok Only 25 Minutes
- Thread starter jibsey
- Start date
All minutes are equal in a vacuum, but not irl on the court.
Bingo. Late minutes ARE more important due to leverage. At least in games suspected of being close. Coaches benching players with 2 fouls are sacrificing less important minutes to trade them for a higher likelihood of having the better team in high leverage situations.
This ALL being said, Akok played 25 minutes and on the season he's averaging like 26 minutes per game. When he got his 2nd foul, it was pretty much time for his normal break. There was only 5 minutes left in the half. The real time he lost minutes was when he picked up his 3rd foul. He was set for a longer shift at that point. He sat out 9 minutes when he probably would've only sat out 3 or 4 in that stretch. BUT, in that time, Indiana literally only scored 2 points (!!!!) and UConn was +5 overall and Sid had good minutes.
We lost the game in 2 stretches. When Gilbert was out in the first half and we didn't know how to run our offense and turned the ball over 8 times in 8 minutes, so Hurley brought him back in with 2 fouls (as advocated as the correct move by people in this thread), and the last 4.5 minutes when we had our starters in. Akok played 10 of those 12.5 minutes.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2013
- Messages
- 2,718
- Reaction Score
- 6,904
I don't bet on sports, so no I'm not going to bet you $100 on a specific player's fouls per 40 minutes by the end of the season.
I'm legitimately concerned for any forecasting work you do if you want to take Akok's foul rate in the first 8 (or 9) games of the season in a bubble and define the guy's play from here on out. Honestly, just look at his 3rd foul last night, understand he 100% knew he had to avoid fouls and was coached as such and he still committed that one. Also understand how poor some foul calls are when the defender didn't commit a foul, like the one on Polley where a guy just fell next to him.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,559
- Reaction Score
- 11,741
I'm legitimately concerned for yours if you don't think 9 games is a significant enough sample to project the rest of the season, instead, you'd rather ignore the data set presented to formulate your own conclusions unrepresentative of the data you have in front of you. I'm also legitimately concerned, if you work with data, that you think a player ending the game with 3 fouls and 25 minutes played, is better than a player ending the game with 5 fouls and 35 minutes played.
The data notwithstanding, if you watch the game you can see hes exceptional at defending without fouling. When will the data be good enough for you? The end of March?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2015
- Messages
- 14,861
- Reaction Score
- 115,518
When everyone disagrees, it might be time to look in the mirror. All good though, itll be interesting to see if akok can keep it up the full season.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 9,076
- Reaction Score
- 22,009
It’s still a small sample size at 9 games. It might be good enough if it takes into account the opponent. You are choosing not to do that, so your statistic, in the absence of context, can be ignored.
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,559
- Reaction Score
- 11,741
10 Likes on my first post in this thread says otherwise. I have a feeling we'll look back on this at the end of the year and I'll be right. He's an exceptional at defending without out fouling from the eye test, and the data thus far, supports that.
Bingo. I was typing up a similar reply. He's ignoring the context of the data entirely and pretending it's a representative sample.
We didn't play a team in the top 100 of drawing fouls in the 8 games coming into this game. Indiana is literally 1st in the country at drawing fouls.
It was also a national TV game at a large arena and the refs were calling post play and bumps on drives tight. You should not ignore those factors when considering tactics.
ClifSpliffy
surf's up
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2018
- Messages
- 9,490
- Reaction Score
- 14,198
preach brother, preach! mr. wilson came prepared to play.
Dream Jobbed 2.0
“Most definitely”
- Joined
- May 3, 2016
- Messages
- 15,123
- Reaction Score
- 57,291
6 pts 6 boards 3 blocks pretty solid right now.
he also has the most ridiculous motor I’ve ever. Never lose that passion AA
he also has the most ridiculous motor I’ve ever. Never lose that passion AA
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,559
- Reaction Score
- 11,741
He finished the game with 3 fouls. That's the only fact in this entire scenario. whats better? 3 fouls in 25 minutes, or 5 fouls in 26+ minutes?
That's results-oriented thinking, not process. If you're going to use data, it has to be for process and the data has to take context into account. Do you agree?
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,559
- Reaction Score
- 11,741
Agreed, but the data supports the conclusion in this case. 25 minutes played and 3 fouls, against the number one team in fouls drawn. Akok Is Fantastic at defending without fouling, and reducing his minutes in accordance with two fouls in the first half/one early in the second is foolish. Taking him out for the last 10 minutes of the first half using halftime as an arbitrary point at which hes able to go back in is foolish.
It was 26-16 when Akok picked up his 2nd with 4:56 left. UConn trailed 29-34 at half -- that's 18-3 after Hurley #autobenched Akok. Indiana scored 32% of their points in that 5 minute window -- all without UConn's best interior defender (one who has shown in a small sample to be an extremely efficient shot blocker without fouling and one who is going to foul significantly less with his wingspan of 7'3'' than your standard college big).
Hurley should have used a timeout, and he kept Al out for too long (kudos for bringing him back in late 1h since he is the only true ball handler), and Vital played bad, and Al played bad, and Adams, and Bouk, and etc. etc.. -- all of that and they still had their chances late in the game! But just because they had a chance late doesn't mean that it worked by pulling them early.
Late game minutes mattering more than early minutes is a myth. And late game minutes are more likely to matter and be "high leverage" when you voluntarily bench your best players early and play with a sub-optimal lineup. Do late game minutes matter if you're up 10? Or 15? Or 20? Or 30? Points in the first half count just the same as points in the 2H or the end of the game.
Would you like your best team on the floor at the end of the game? Yes, that would be ideal. Would you like to be far enough ahead at the end of the game so that Vital dribbling into a double team with 7 seconds left doesn't matter and it doesn't matter who is in? Yes, that matters more. Having a lead is directly correlated with playing your best players and lineups. Saving your best players and lineups for later in the game only reduces your win probability.
If a player has shown a propensity to foul or significantly changes their defensive style when they have 2 in the first, or 3 in the 2nd, then I agree, you cannot play them and a sub who will play more aggressive is a better alternative. Akok has not, and did not show this. Al, has not, and did not show this.
There are ways to "protect" players with multiple fouls -- standard rest and substitution patterns, giving a zone look on defense, stealing a minute or two before a TV timeout, etc. But letting an 18-3 run happen without your best interior defender is downright inexcusable because "he has 2 fouls".
Someone used an example earlier of "what if he got his 3rd at the end of the first half, and 4 at the start of the 2H? He would have to sit for 10 minutes." Okay. You just proved why it never makes sense to #autobench your players in "foul trouble". In that worst case scenario, he still ends up with 25 minutes played -- exactly what Hurley capped his potential minutes played at by sitting him.
Play your best players and let them foul out naturally. Don't manually foul them out yourself. You are literally doing the thing that you are trying to prevent by sitting them.
Hurley should have used a timeout, and he kept Al out for too long (kudos for bringing him back in late 1h since he is the only true ball handler), and Vital played bad, and Al played bad, and Adams, and Bouk, and etc. etc.. -- all of that and they still had their chances late in the game! But just because they had a chance late doesn't mean that it worked by pulling them early.
Late game minutes mattering more than early minutes is a myth. And late game minutes are more likely to matter and be "high leverage" when you voluntarily bench your best players early and play with a sub-optimal lineup. Do late game minutes matter if you're up 10? Or 15? Or 20? Or 30? Points in the first half count just the same as points in the 2H or the end of the game.
Would you like your best team on the floor at the end of the game? Yes, that would be ideal. Would you like to be far enough ahead at the end of the game so that Vital dribbling into a double team with 7 seconds left doesn't matter and it doesn't matter who is in? Yes, that matters more. Having a lead is directly correlated with playing your best players and lineups. Saving your best players and lineups for later in the game only reduces your win probability.
If a player has shown a propensity to foul or significantly changes their defensive style when they have 2 in the first, or 3 in the 2nd, then I agree, you cannot play them and a sub who will play more aggressive is a better alternative. Akok has not, and did not show this. Al, has not, and did not show this.
There are ways to "protect" players with multiple fouls -- standard rest and substitution patterns, giving a zone look on defense, stealing a minute or two before a TV timeout, etc. But letting an 18-3 run happen without your best interior defender is downright inexcusable because "he has 2 fouls".
Someone used an example earlier of "what if he got his 3rd at the end of the first half, and 4 at the start of the 2H? He would have to sit for 10 minutes." Okay. You just proved why it never makes sense to #autobench your players in "foul trouble". In that worst case scenario, he still ends up with 25 minutes played -- exactly what Hurley capped his potential minutes played at by sitting him.
Play your best players and let them foul out naturally. Don't manually foul them out yourself. You are literally doing the thing that you are trying to prevent by sitting them.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2016
- Messages
- 7,330
- Reaction Score
- 8,510
Like sitting Okafor in 2004 so he was around to score 18 points in the 2nd half.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,559
- Reaction Score
- 11,741
Okafor finished the game with 3 fouls. If you don’t bench him for the first half, manually fouling out your best player, the second half comeback might not even be needed.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 9,076
- Reaction Score
- 22,009
How soon did he get his third foul after returning in the second half?
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2016
- Messages
- 7,330
- Reaction Score
- 8,510
And if you don't sit him and he picks up #3 in the first half and then 4 early in the 2nd you're screwed. JC is a Hall of Fame coach with multiple championships- national and conference - him sitting players with 2 fouls obviously worked.
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 889
- Reaction Score
- 3,830
There should be no universal rule that if you have 2 fouls you sit.
There are so many variables to consider. The player and their tendency to foul first and foremost. The player’s experience, the other team, how is the game being called etc.
I hate when Calhoun used to do that but it worked out for him in some big moments. But there were times when we did it with bazz or Kemba—2 guys who never fouled out and were smart defenders with foul trouble. On the flip side Jalen Adams fouled out way too often considering he was a senior guard who should have learned time and situation.
Last night taking Gilbert out really hurt us. It put CV in a unfair position to run point guard and did not put him in the position to succeed. Gilbert should have played more and if he is our senior leader needs to learn to play with foul trouble. That was a great game to him to learn to do that.
Akok on the other hand I can understand the concern for a young big to be foul prone. Now, I understand the stats argument that Dave is saying. But coaches probably go by anecdotal experience, and Hurley probable isn’t used to trusting young bigs 9 games into his career to play solid defense without fouling. Hopefully, that changes as he learns that Akok is truly unique in his defensive abilities.
There are so many variables to consider. The player and their tendency to foul first and foremost. The player’s experience, the other team, how is the game being called etc.
I hate when Calhoun used to do that but it worked out for him in some big moments. But there were times when we did it with bazz or Kemba—2 guys who never fouled out and were smart defenders with foul trouble. On the flip side Jalen Adams fouled out way too often considering he was a senior guard who should have learned time and situation.
Last night taking Gilbert out really hurt us. It put CV in a unfair position to run point guard and did not put him in the position to succeed. Gilbert should have played more and if he is our senior leader needs to learn to play with foul trouble. That was a great game to him to learn to do that.
Akok on the other hand I can understand the concern for a young big to be foul prone. Now, I understand the stats argument that Dave is saying. But coaches probably go by anecdotal experience, and Hurley probable isn’t used to trusting young bigs 9 games into his career to play solid defense without fouling. Hopefully, that changes as he learns that Akok is truly unique in his defensive abilities.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,559
- Reaction Score
- 11,741
3 minutes? And then he played 9 minutes of foul free basketball when he came back again. Finished the game with 3 fouls and left and an unknown amount of minutes on the table.
intlzncster
i fart in your general direction
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 28,910
- Reaction Score
- 60,188
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.
Last edited:
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.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,559
- Reaction Score
- 11,741
How do you think companies forecast out with a limited sample set? The margin off error is higher but you can still use a smaller sample.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,595
- Reaction Score
- 5,036
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.
Last edited:
.-.
intlzncster
i fart in your general direction
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 28,910
- Reaction Score
- 60,188
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
i fart in your general direction
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 28,910
- Reaction Score
- 60,188
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.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,595
- Reaction Score
- 5,036
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 fart in your general direction
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 28,910
- Reaction Score
- 60,188
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+.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,559
- Reaction Score
- 11,741
The most important stretch of the game was Indiana's 17-2 run with Akok on the bench. If you don't manually foul out your best defender in the first half, with a 10 point lead, you're most likely leading at the end of the game.
What's your trade off? Would you trade 10 minutes of "regular" minutes for 3 minutes at the end of the game?
intlzncster
i fart in your general direction
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 28,910
- Reaction Score
- 60,188
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.
.-.