Pope: "I don't want to foul my own guys out."

[gbl97]

"One of the things that every coach struggles with is you never want to foul your own guy out. And I probably did that a little bit with Andrew tonight. Probably needed to play him with two fouls in the first half. I probably could have done a little bit more with Lamont. Late in the first half, I made what turned out to be a very poor miscalculation. We had gone on a little run and so I went small thinking that I could save (Carr) and save Ansley (Almonor) a second, and that went really bad. In hindsight, maybe I roll the dice and play those guys a little bit more in the first half. That'll be something we'll argue about and have no answer for. Philosophically, I don't want to foul my own guys out."

Credit to Coach Pope for recognizing sometimes you need to play your guys even when they're in foul trouble. I can't count how many times Cal "fouled his own guy out" in the first half and we never recovered.

Also, his humility to own his mistakes and learn from them is refreshing.

Post game press conference (247 Sports)

 

[BlueBomb]

Late in the first half, I made what turned out to be a very poor miscalculation.

Damn, that's refreshing isn't it?

Don't know the last time I heard a UK coach say they did something wrong. Seriously.

 

[CatFanInIlliniLand]

I like that Coach Pope is open to change.

He’s right that we’ll never know. If Butler or Carr picked up a cheap 3rd foul in the first half, people would have been saying it was stupid that Coach didn’t protect them.

 

[hoojyoutlaw]

Cntrl F Basketball Bennies.

Hmm.. nope?

 

[Mike-D]

Think Pope coached a bad game, but I still support him 110%. Let's learn and move on.

 

[ukfan1622]

Coach, you made a bad calculation; that's what all miscalculations are...

I only said that because correcting a Rhodes Scholar was on my bucket list.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

The problem is, whatever we think about risking playing a guy with 2 fouls.. it all goes out the door with college basketball officiating. I can't say it is ever a truly WRONG decision to hold a UK guy out with 2 fouls, because if you continue to play him, he will foul out. 100%.

So, Pope held him out, and honestly we kind of held it together without him (well enough at least). Then you put Butler back in, fresh legs, offense looks better... and he fouls quickly for his 3rd, so we take him out... then we do it all over again and he fouls quickly, again, this time for his 4th.

The writing was on the wall, and maybe part of it was just a bad game for Butler. But it was clear that we weren't going to be allowed to play our entire team the way we want.. What can you do?

 

[ukfan1622]

Coaches think they can't win with their best players on the bench so they, if they think the player might foul out in the future, come to the solution of...putting the player on the bench. Have I got that right?

 

[JonathanW]

I have always stated that more important than having your best players available at the end of the game (which you do want) is to want to maximize your minutes for your best players. Well maximize them playing at their best level. So, you do bench them to give them a rest, or even if you think they are holding-back as to not commit a foul. But if they can play with the same effort and energy, then play them.

 

[megablue]

Not sure ... but which is worse:
1) Having Kriisa playing more minutes at the point during the game, because you're worried that Butler might foul out ??
2) Having Kriisa playing at the end of the game, because Butler has fouled out ??
I certainly do not know the answer ... I'll hang up and listen.

 

[LukaszObrzut]

Not sure ... but which is worse:
1) Having Kriisa playing more minutes at the point during the game, because you're worried that Butler might foul out ??
2) Having Kriisa playing at the end of the game, because Butler has fouled out ??
I certainly do not know the answer ... I'll hang up and listen.

The first one- as you got to be IN the game for it to matter.

 

[Butters' Dad]

Damn, that's refreshing isn't it?

Don't know the last time I heard a UK coach say they did something wrong. Seriously.

Oh, come on! You can't have that short of a memory.

 

[gbl97]

I can't say it is ever a truly WRONG decision to hold a UK guy out with 2 fouls, because if you continue to play him, he will foul out. 100%.

Players with 2 fouls in the first half often don't foul out. Sometimes they even end the game with only 2 fouls.

 

[BigBlueManSouthCentralKY]

Refs and three point shooting was my biggest fear. The refs got Butler and Oweh on two early ones and then a third not long after that. Clemson was ultra physical and was allowed to play that way. Another bad night shooting also. Did not expect Carr to lay an egg but he also had a couple of early fouls that probably bothered him playing his game. How could we get Ayers of all people? Our guys will see that a lot of SEC games on the road. If you can't overcome the refs you won't win a title. I was just bothered with them getting to play more physical than us, something a box score will not show. So many top shooters and old guys, the shooting will now concern me every game.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Players with 2 fouls in the first half often don't foul out. Sometimes they even end the game with only 2 fouls.

But who knows in all those cases, how long those players with 2 fouls stayed in the game. Looking at it another way, of all the players that DO foul out, what percentage have 2 fouls in the 1st half? 75% 80%? more?

It does seem to be that standard convention dictates that if you have 2 fouls in the 2nd, you'e probably getting pulled for a bit. Your 3rd early in the 2nd half? 4th with 10 min to go? same thing.

 

[Soupbean]

"One of the things that every coach struggles with is you never want to foul your own guy out. And I probably did that a little bit with Andrew tonight. Probably needed to play him with two fouls in the first half. I probably could have done a little bit more with Lamont. Late in the first half, I made what turned out to be a very poor miscalculation. We had gone on a little run and so I went small thinking that I could save (Carr) and save Ansley (Almonor) a second, and that went really bad. In hindsight, maybe I roll the dice and play those guys a little bit more in the first half. That'll be something we'll argue about and have no answer for. Philosophically, I don't want to foul my own guys out."

Credit to Coach Pope for recognizing sometimes you need to play your guys even when they're in foul trouble. I can't count how many times Cal "fouled his own guy out" in the first half and we never recovered.

Also, his humility to own his mistakes and learn from them is refreshing.

Post game press conference (247 Sports)

FINALLY!!!!!!! A COACH IS STARTING TO GET IT!!!!
As many know I've been preaching forever as loud as I can against this insane idea that guy are "in foul trouble" and therefore needing to sit down. My family has has to endure my diatribe every game about it. Whoever started it, it is the single dumbest thing in sport!

The idea that I'm going to take a guy out of the game so he CANT PLAY in order to keep him from possibly, maybe later on have to come out of the game where he has to come out and CANT PLAY just makes no logical sense. Coach is right, when you do that you have IN FACT fouled your buy out of the game. The end result is the same, your guy is not on the floor and cant contribute

The worse part is by starting this on the second foul, they put in their guys head that he is indeed in foul trouble and he knows he has to be careful from that time on which sucks the energy right out of them. THey know that now that they've been tagged with the label of foul trouble at foul #2, they'll probably have to sit again at #3, then #4.

If left in to play through all of this there is a good change they never would have ever fouled out and you maintain the upside. But when you start taking them out at 2 fouls and so on YOU GUARANTEE they suffer the punishement of fouling out to some degreee.

I'm out, where's the Tylenol!!

 

[kennyskywalker34]

I think if a player gets 2 fouls in the first half with say 10 minutes left. You sit him down for a few minutes. Let him get rested but you bring him back in.
Now obviously if he gets a 3rd you sit him immediately.

 

[ukfan1622]

FINALLY!!!!!!! A COACH IS STARTING TO GET IT!!!!
As many know I've been preaching forever as loud as I can against this insane idea that guy are "in foul trouble" and therefore needing to sit down. My family has has to endure my diatribe every game about it. Whoever started it, it is the single dumbest thing in sport!

The idea that I'm going to take a guy out of the game so he CANT PLAY in order to keep him from possibly, maybe later on have to come out of the game where he has to come out and CANT PLAY just makes no logical sense. Coach is right, when you do that you have IN FACT fouled your buy out of the game. The end result is the same, your guy is not on the floor and cant contribute

The worse part is by starting this on the second foul, they put in their guys head that he is indeed in foul trouble and he knows he has to be careful from that time on which sucks the energy right out of them. THey know that now that they've been tagged with the label of foul trouble at foul #2, they'll probably have to sit again at #3, then #4.

If left in to play through all of this there is a good change they never would have ever fouled out and you maintain the upside. But when you start taking them out at 2 fouls and so on YOU GUARANTEE they suffer the punishement of fouling out to some degreee.

I'm out, where's the Tylenol!!

This is what I was getting at in my post just above yours but I didn't have the energy to put it in such detail. GREAT post.