Jump to content

AU-Vandy Game Thread


DCWarEagle

Recommended Posts

Boy, me and 6-5 gonna roll up on yo a#$! You best be stepping! This is MY HOUSE! Don't be bringing that weak sauce. Big 6-5 and I will tear you a new one, sucka!

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Debate how being "smaller" or having "less players" means you have the right to foul, or that it is necessary to stay in the ball game.

Debate that... I'd love it. Oh wait, you prolly never played a dribble of basketball.

Having "less players" doesn't give you the "right to foul." In fact (look it up) we fouled out 26 times in 06-07. We fouled out 15 times in 07-08. Therefore, even with LESS players (we'll talk about that next) Lebo was able to reduce the amount of foulouts. Further:

Player...........Fouls/Minute(07)..Fouls/Minute(08)

Quan Prowell....0.11.....0.10

Frank Tolbert....0.13....0.12

Rasheem Barrett...0.06...0.06

Tez Robertson....0.08...0.07

Dwayne Reed....0.09...0.07

The point is, when Prowell gets 2 fouls in the 1st half, most every coach with depth would pull Prowell allowing him his 3 remaining allotted fouls in the final 20:00. Leaving that player in the game is clearly a gamble. Given the lack of depth, it was a gamble Lebo HAD to make.

The idea that a smaller player must foul implies the following. IF the offensive player can get a better position on the defensive player, the offensive player is likely to score UNLESS the defensive player is somehow able to regain position or otherwise alter the offensive player's shot. A lack of size on defense creates a situation where the offensive player can gain that position MORE OFTEN. I don't think any of those points assume too much, do they? Therefore, if the player is not able to regain position, they must either concede the point to the opposition, or attempt to alter the shot. Any attempt at altering a player's shot when out of position is MORE likely to be a foul (or borderline) than a shot defended while IN position. So, one could EASILY postulate that an undersized defense is more likely to foul in the post.

And why do you have to attack my basketball skills? You're really hurting my feelings. Way to go jerk.

And you act like I think having 6 / 7 players has no effect at all. I never said that it didn't. I just think it's funny that the excuse is by all the fans. There are other players on the team. Lebo chose not to play them. There is a reason you have "backups" on the team. Perhaps they chose to use them for practice, but geez - if there are only 7 players on the team, clearly it takes 10 to practice. I'd think 10 would know the game plan by now. Guess not...

And clearly you didn't read what I wrote. I was the one that said it was not a benefit to lose players. As in, it isn't good. I think losing our two seniors will hurt. Do I need to repeat that?

Lebo chose not to play the other players, because he felt that the minutes supplied by Prowell, Tolbert, etc. were MORE valuable than the minutes that would've been supplied by the scrubs. It's not hard to fathom. You can gameplan all you want, but if you put Tre Smith in Lee Ziemba's position, Brandon Cox would be in traction right now. The scrubs (in Lebo's opinion) do not provide enough utility to warrant playing time at the expense of the "better" players' playing time. Where this hurts Lebo is that he is forced into much harder decisions, because he doesn't have a Korvotney Barber, Boubacar Sylla, or Josh Dollard to take the pressure off of Quan Prowell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good descriptions there. I already knew the probability of being committing a foul based on position and to stop the guy from making a basket and all that. I already knew the subs are scrubs. I don't disagree with anything you said.

But to tally on to what you said about being out of position. IMO, unless you have a great chance of blocking the shot you should not foul a player. If the opponent is a horrible FT shooter or if it is in a time of the game where you can't afford to give up points and you have fouls to give, then it does not hurt as much.

You have to remember, when a player is in foul trouble, especially with a depleted bench, he can not play as aggressively either. Foul trouble with so few players means you are on the bench and more minutes are being taken up by your teammates, which makes them more tired.

What I don't think players think enough, nor coaches emphasize enough, is the fact that it is OK for the other team to score. Sometimes, you have to give the other team credit for scoring when they make a nice play. I was emphasized as a player to play tight defense and get a hand in their face at all times. If they score, make them earn it.

There are plenty of times a player fouls the point guard, not shooting, and you jump "AHHH STUPID FOUL!" Now the following is with no facts, but hopefully the numbers are reasonable: Other times, you see the defense foul a layup or short shot. What are the odds they will make the shot? Pretty high in most cases. They go to the free throw line and what are the odds of making them? In most cases, near 75% (depending on the player / team). Why give up two fouls to save a single point? Yes, add these up say 6 times a game (or 12 fouls committed in these scenarios) and you save about 6 points. Then you have to add in the fact that the offense makes a good amount of these layups for "And-1" situations, so you knock it down to about 4 points on fouls that your team may have saved by fouling instead of just putting two arms up in the air. Scratch that, there might be a shot or two the offense misses, so you ALMOST break even. But let's assume the offender makes every shot. Basketball games are close and thus 4 points can make a difference. But at the same time, if you are not in foul trouble, you can play more players fewer minutes and more aggressively without committing a foul.

Overall, I am a big fan of the defensive players just playing tight defense and putting two arms straight up in the post area. Those players that try to move in time for a "charging" foul, more than often get called for blocking. So I'm not a big fan of that either, unless your team is just incredible at timing these situations. I'm a fan of giving the team the point in many situations. You may disagree and say if you do that all the time, you are giving up too many points. But not if you play great defense - make 'em earn it. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

And if you are smaller and cannot battle for position on rebounds and what not, then that requires... COACHING. As I said, I'm tiny and I think I do a good job of boxing out defenders. Sometimes they get the rebound over my head because I am so short. I can't help that and give the guy credit for not going "over the back." But in college, I don't think that would happen very often. FUNDAMENTALS!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good descriptions there. I already knew the probability of being committing a foul based on position and to stop the guy from making a basket and all that. I already knew the subs are scrubs. I don't disagree with anything you said.

But to tally on to what you said about being out of position. IMO, unless you have a great chance of blocking the shot you should not foul a player. If the opponent is a horrible FT shooter or if it is in a time of the game where you can't afford to give up points and you have fouls to give, then it does not hurt as much.

You have to remember, when a player is in foul trouble, especially with a depleted bench, he can not play as aggressively either. Foul trouble with so few players means you are on the bench and more minutes are being taken up by your teammates, which makes them more tired.

What I don't think players think enough, nor coaches emphasize enough, is the fact that it is OK for the other team to score. Sometimes, you have to give the other team credit for scoring when they make a nice play. I was emphasized as a player to play tight defense and get a hand in their face at all times. If they score, make them earn it.

There are plenty of times a player fouls the point guard, not shooting, and you jump "AHHH STUPID FOUL!" Now the following is with no facts, but hopefully the numbers are reasonable: Other times, you see the defense foul a layup or short shot. What are the odds they will make the shot? Pretty high in most cases. They go to the free throw line and what are the odds of making them? In most cases, near 75% (depending on the player / team). Why give up two fouls to save a single point? Yes, add these up say 6 times a game (or 12 fouls committed in these scenarios) and you save about 6 points. Then you have to add in the fact that the offense makes a good amount of these layups for "And-1" situations, so you knock it down to about 4 points on fouls that your team may have saved by fouling instead of just putting two arms up in the air. Scratch that, there might be a shot or two the offense misses, so you ALMOST break even. But let's assume the offender makes every shot. Basketball games are close and thus 4 points can make a difference. But at the same time, if you are not in foul trouble, you can play more players fewer minutes and more aggressively without committing a foul.

Overall, I am a big fan of the defensive players just playing tight defense and putting two arms straight up in the post area. Those players that try to move in time for a "charging" foul, more than often get called for blocking. So I'm not a big fan of that either, unless your team is just incredible at timing these situations. I'm a fan of giving the team the point in many situations. You may disagree and say if you do that all the time, you are giving up too many points. But not if you play great defense - make 'em earn it. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

And if you are smaller and cannot battle for position on rebounds and what not, then that requires... COACHING. As I said, I'm tiny and I think I do a good job of boxing out defenders. Sometimes they get the rebound over my head because I am so short. I can't help that and give the guy credit for not going "over the back." But in college, I don't think that would happen very often. FUNDAMENTALS!!

pchamp..that's pretty good... Very well thought out and presented. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but its still presented well. I will however correct one thing... I think the "over the back" situation is often one of the most misunderstood rules in basketball. There is no such thing as "over the back". It doesn't exist. If a player is behind you and reaches over you for a rebound or the ball in any case, so what? "over the back" doesn't mean a foul occurred. It means that the other player either was taller or jumped higher or both. Where it becomes a foul is when that player is "on" the back. In other words, he he violated the principles of verticality and used the players body in front of him to gain the advantage. "Over the back" doesn't mean contact happened. There can be no foul without contact..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War Tiger, you are correct about the over the back ruling. I guess when I play ball, I feel if I box out and the guy I am boxing out gets the rebound, when I don't take the effort to jump up for the ball (something I need to learn to do better), I can't penalize him. Especially when we are just playing with the guys. It'd be a different story if I jumped up for it and I hit his arms or body. I guess I'm just a pushover ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War Tiger, you are correct about the over the back ruling. I guess when I play ball, I feel if I box out and the guy I am boxing out gets the rebound, when I don't take the effort to jump up for the ball (something I need to learn to do better), I can't penalize him. Especially when we are just playing with the guys. It'd be a different story if I jumped up for it and I hit his arms or body. I guess I'm just a pushover ;)

yeah, it helps to have more than a 4 inch vertical.... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...