When a player sits for 10 minutes with two fouls, but finishes the game with three fouls.

[PensacolaBlue]

Nothing drives me more crazy than the 2 foul automatic sit rule. I don’t think it should be a one size fits all strategy. It should depend on how hot the player is, the dynamics of the game, how likely the player is to get another foul (are they foul prone), how much time is left in the half, etc. It just amazes me in the world of analytics and paying coaches millions of dollars, that there is this tradition of always sitting a player when they get 2 fouls in the first half because….well, we alway have. What say you?

 

[GoBIG BLUE]

Nothing drives me more crazy than the 2 foul automatic sit rule. I don’t think it should be a one size fits all strategy. It should depend on how hot the player is, the dynamics of the game, how likely the player is to get another foul (are they foul prone), how much time is left in the half, etc. it just amazes me in the world of analytics and paying coaches millions of dollars, that there is this tradition of always sitting a player when they get 2 fouls in the first half because….well, we alway have. What say you?

Agreed!

 

[bthaunert]

I agree that it should be a case by case basis. The one thing I will push back with is will the player's defense take a step back not wanting to get that 3rd foul and allow the offensive team to attack.

 

[mcnicKY91]

Something else to consider, which I am sure goes into Cal's thinking, is just how awful college officiating is. I have little to no confidence in college officials calling a game consistently.

There is, in my mind, a very good chance that a player with two fouls, who is kept in by Cal in the first half, is called for a BS foul. We see terrible calls everyday throughout each game during the college basketball season.

Just something else to consider.

 

[Wonky]

To me the issue is not so much that a player must sit the rest of the half with two fouls. It’s more that the player then does not get enough clock in the second half.

 

[YardCat]

This has always been Cal’s philosophy

 

[tomrain]

I agree totally. Arent the minutes in the first half just as important as the minutes in the second half? Thats the part I never understood. I noticed in the Kansas game. Harris picks up his 3rd foul early in the second half and Self keeps him in, and well we know how that turned out. If it was Cal, he wouldve automatically went to the bench and more than likely cost them the game.

 

[trueblujr2]

I'm fine with the two fouls and sit rule in the first half, especially if those fouls were picked up fairly quickly. I think in Reeds case, Cal wanted him available at the end of the game, which could explain his lack of PT early in the second half. Granted his uncalled for, contested shot when there was still a few seconds left to find a better shot, didn't help matters, but I think in general Cal wants him to be one of the guys on the floor at the end of a tight game and protecting him from foul trouble to that point was the better move.

 

[BBNinSC]

It’s way past time to go to 6 fouls and stop this stuff

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Agree.. I think you sit them for just a few minutes to coach them up, and then send them back. If they foul out, so be it, but they likely played decent minutes. Better than sitting a player the rest of the game only to see us lose anyways.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

We have so many guards the 2 foul rule is dumb. We can risk them getting the 3rd because we still have other options there.

Of course, if cal leaves Reed in and he had got his 3rd in first half the majority of this board would have attacked cal. It's a lose lose.

 

[JHannibalSmith]

Something else to consider, which I am sure goes into Cal's thinking, is just how awful college officiating is. I have little to no confidence in college officials calling a game consistently.

There is, in my mind, a very good chance that a player with two fouls, who is kept in by Cal in the first half, is called for a BS foul. We see terrible calls everyday throughout each game during the college basketball season.

Just something else to consider.

I agree with that. Especially, considering Calipari’s relationship with officials. But, depth would also factor into the decision making if I’m the coach. With a thin bench I’d probably be really careful. But, in situations like the KU game with Sheppard & Dillingham, there is no way I would’ve sat either one, as hot as they were, when I have so many other options to go to if they DID pick up a 3rd foul, early.

Guys don’t get into a zone like that, every day. Ride it while you can. Most coaches would also consider playing a zone defense to help buy some time & protect a player who’s in foul trouble, to keep him on the floor. But, with the potential depth & versatility of this roster, foul trouble should rarely be an issue when/if we get everyone back.

 

[Cobb4uk]

Nothing drives me more crazy than the 2 foul automatic sit rule. I don’t think it should be a one size fits all strategy. It should depend on how hot the player is, the dynamics of the game, how likely the player is to get another foul (are they foul prone), how much time is left in the half, etc. It just amazes me in the world of analytics and paying coaches millions of dollars, that there is this tradition of always sitting a player when they get 2 fouls in the first half because….well, we alway have. What say you?

If he put him back in and he got his third foul you and others would be posting why in the world do we pay a coach millions to make these type decisions.

 

[BigBlueManSouthCentralKY]

Nothing drives me more crazy than the 2 foul automatic sit rule. I don’t think it should be a one size fits all strategy. It should depend on how hot the player is, the dynamics of the game, how likely the player is to get another foul (are they foul prone), how much time is left in the half, etc. It just amazes me in the world of analytics and paying coaches millions of dollars, that there is this tradition of always sitting a player when they get 2 fouls in the first half because….well, we alway have. What say you?

I think with Cal in this situation it is different. Trying to get minutes for Wagner, Dillingham and Sheppard it gave him an opportunity to sit Sheppard. There was no reason to take a smart player out when he is playing good like he was. It is one thing if RS was just contributing some scoring but this guy gives us great D, rebounds and assists. Also in the right position most of the time. Had he been the guy with 28 minutes we win that game. A player that gives you multiple things all the time he is on the floor and is efficient you can't afford to have him off the floor unless he needs a quick breather.

 

[TheJuddDome]

I agree totally. Arent the minutes in the first half just as important as the minutes in the second half? Thats the part I never understood. I noticed in the Kansas game. Harris picks up his 3rd foul early in the second half and Self keeps him in, and well we know how that turned out. If it was Cal, he wouldve automatically went to the bench.

Exactly, if you are not going to play him he might as well be fouled out. Play the dudes dont limit their time on thecourt by your own actions. Its like saying I’m only going to play you 10 minutes in the first half because you might get injured during the other 10 minutes. Idiotic.

 

[blackcat714]

Need to try starting Shep and Dilly see it will help these slow starts

 

[JwUKFan11]

I don't mind the 2 in the first half sit as much as the 4 in the 2nd is an auto sit. Most of the time they don't end up fouling out and what's the difference between fouling out and sitting for 10 minutes? Just play them.

 

[Runnin'Ramel]

Nothing drives me more crazy than the 2 foul automatic sit rule. I don’t think it should be a one size fits all strategy. It should depend on how hot the player is, the dynamics of the game, how likely the player is to get another foul (are they foul prone), how much time is left in the half, etc. It just amazes me in the world of analytics and paying coaches millions of dollars, that there is this tradition of always sitting a player when they get 2 fouls in the first half because….well, we alway have. What say you?

The analytics nerds will show that this happens more often than not.

There's a reason NFL coaches starting going for it on 4th and short nearly every time compared to just 2-3 years ago. Analytics.

 

[kybassfan]

This has always been Cal’s philosophy

Always been that way and almost every coaches philosophy. You the, He’s Hot!! They think, rebounding, defense, passing, leadership, motor I might need this guy later Almost every time, coached are right.

 

[ukfan1622]

Nothing drives me more crazy than the 2 foul automatic sit rule. I don’t think it should be a one size fits all strategy. It should depend on how hot the player is, the dynamics of the game, how likely the player is to get another foul (are they foul prone), how much time is left in the half, etc. It just amazes me in the world of analytics and paying coaches millions of dollars, that there is this tradition of always sitting a player when they get 2 fouls in the first half because….well, we alway have. What say you?

I agree with you but Cal does not. Cal does it this way for the same reason he does everything...because that's just the way he's always done it.

 

[gbl97]

Arent the minutes in the first half just as important as the minutes in the second half?

This!!

Against Kansas, what if Reed/Dillingham had stayed in and we were up 15 at the half instead of 7? Cats win. People place too much emphasis in the last minutes of the game.


The decision to play or sit should be made simply on the basis of what will give the most minutes to the best players. It's hard to argue that sitting a guy 10 minutes just on the chance he will pick up another foul will result in more total minutes.

 

[BlueSince92]

Sitting with 2 in the first half I can understand. They’re kind of ahead of things going into the second half with three fouls to burn—that’s more fouls allowed per minute than their original five per 40, so it can loosen them up and actually make them less foul prone. Also it can take the refs’ and even the opponent’s focus off a guy, in terms of going at him to draw a foul. It can even give someone else a chance to get hot where they have to be the new guy the opponent has to run at by the time the original guy comes back, so by then you kind of get the original player for free, tactically. It also gives you a chance to coach the guy who fouled, have him watch the other team to understand the dynamics that were making him foul (or get called, not always the same thing) and so be better prepared to use his minutes more wisely when he comes back.

But still, you’ve got to take all that as general wisdom and yet still play the specific game you’re in and play it to win. Little sense in saving a guy for the second half only so be can come in and help you reach some kind of moral victory starting from 25 down at the half. Cal being Cal didn’t use that big-picture approach when we played UCONN in the Final Four in ‘11. Josh picked up his third foul early in the second half and Cal sat his ass till the end of the game, till it was far too late and we were too deep in a whole precisely because we didn’t have enough height to stay competitive in that game playing that way. Protecting those last two fouls didn’t do us any good. You can’t do that. You can attempt it and then stick with it if it turns out your other players are able to pick up the slack enough that it’s working. But if it’s really not working you’ve got to adjust. No points awarded for having player fouls to spare.

 

[gbl97]

Cal does it this way for the same reason he does everything...because that's just the way he's always done it.

Exactly. When asked about the non-sense 2-foul policy, his answer has never been to defend why... He literally says, "I've always done it this way."

 

[JonathanW]

It is stupid!!!

If the kid does not foul out, then you did not maximize his minutes (assuming he is a player you want on the court).
Even if he does foul out, you did maximize his minutes. The worst case here is that you didn't get his minutes during the part of the game that you wanted them. But I don't think any one part of the game is more important than any other part. Some say the last 5 minutes are most important, and point to our KU game. But had we not let them jump out 9-1 to start the game, or make the run in 2nd half cutting 14 pt lead to 6, or the run that cut 6 to 3 pt deficit, the game would have been over come the 5 min mark with us up 12-15 pts.

 

[dl51344]

I could understand a sit after 3 foul rule. That makes more sense to me.

 

[TheJuddDome]

Exactly. When asked about the non-sense 2-foul policy, his answer has never been to defend why... He literally says, "I've always done it this way."

It is stupid!!!

If the kid does not foul out, then you did not maximize his minutes (assuming he is a player you want on the court).
Even if he does foul out, you did maximize his minutes. The worst case here is that you didn't get his minutes during the part of the game that you wanted them. But I don't think any one part of the game is more important than any other part. Some say the last 5 minutes are most important, and point to our KU game. But had we not let them jump out 9-1 to start the game, or make the run in 2nd half cutting 14 pt lead to 6, or the run that cut 6 to 3 pt deficit, the game would have been over come the 5 min mark with us up 12-15 pts.

The runs from other teams are another issue Ihave with Cal. He always waits until they’ve had their run and caught back up before he calls time out to stop the momentum. By then its too late and they are back in the game even withyou. Drives me mad when hedoes this.