The 2 foul rule....

[keysersosay#1]

Not sure I like HD pulling the player if they get 2 fouls in the first half. I get why it is done as a protection for the second half. But we lost serious momentum and Ark came back to lead at the half, with RJ and Bacot on the pine . Thoughts please....

 

[ChiShankCity]

It depends who you're talking about IMO. Bacot's been foul prone his entire UNC career. He's averaged 3.9 committed fouls/40 minutes in three of his seasons here. That isn't necessarily awful because he plays a lot of minutes, but he's foul prone enough where he's an auto bench with 2 fouls.

Ingram/Davis/Ryan have all been good throughout their careers at not committing fouls. So for them, it would be more situational.

It also depends how important you think first half momentum is in a game. I'm someone who believes less in the impact of momentum. But if you think momentum is really important at that point, that may sway your opinion.

 

[gberry78]

My college coach always did it.. I think you do it as long as you have the lead or can keep it keep close. You need your guys in the 2nd half when it really matters. Having 3 fouls going into the 2nd half you cant be aggressive cause you are a stupid foul or bad call away from being on the bench for most of the 2nd half

 

[r_u_worthy]

As Coach Smith used to say,”You play the first half to get to the second.” Now, I was stressing when Arkansas went on their run, but I was a good call as it turned out. Plus, those two were out while the refs tried to even up the foul count.

 

[gauchoheel]

Mathematically, it doesn't make sense. You hold them out, why? So they can be there at the end?

Every possession matters equally, it's not like the last five minutes baskets are worth 4 points. You should be trying to maximize the total minutes of your best players, not time them towards the end. And for both Bacot/Davis they only ended with three fouls anyway, so there wasn't really a lot to worry about in the end. Could've probably played each of them a few more minutes in this game.

Most coaches make this mistake (theoretically at least it's a mistake) so hard to hold this against Hubert, but I'd say definitely Davis and Bacot both shouldn't sit for almost any reason. Play one of them and take the risk. Them fouling out is similar to what we had to endure in that five minute stretch in the first half, so you're essentially ensuring the bad outcomes by sitting.

The only thing I can see is sitting a guy a minute or two to collect himself and emphasize the need to not foul further. No reason Bacot should only play 11 first half minutes in big games though.

 

[superstar57]

Elliot is our everything, he is in a Kendall Marshall situation where the team needs a real PG.

Davis becomes a really good combo guard when Elliot is on the court, but my concern is that he may try to take control away from Elliot, when we really need him to just be that Shooting guard at certain points in the game.

Bacot is having guys go at him this tournament, and although still a double double machine, our team strives with guys like Withers energy.

To answer the question I don't think it is about Davis and Bacot sitting as it may be about Cadeu playing.

Our team now has production all over the court so Bacot will always be important, but we have other pieces now.

 

[gary-7]

As Coach Smith used to say,”You play the first half to get to the second.” Now, I was stressing when Arkansas went on their run, but I was a good call as it turned out. Plus, those two were out while the refs tried to even up the foul count.

Yep, and as I said in the "stuff" writeup, RJ's fresh legs paid BIG dividends in the second half.

 

[alabamaheel]

I had to watch the game recorded in about four sections lol. But I will say it seemed like methodical ugly basketball when RJ was out. EC at point is the correct call but it was ugly during that stretch.

 

[DaveChapelle]

Not sure I like HD pulling the player if they get 2 fouls in the first half. I get why it is done as a protection for the second half. But we lost serious momentum and Ark came back to lead at the half, with RJ and Bacot on the pine . Thoughts please....

Depends on the situation. Do you trust the player in foul trouble? Do you trust the refs to make the right calls? Is it a potential season ending game?

In the 2017 elite eight Pinson picked up 2 early fouls. Roy sat him briefly, then brought him back in to play the rest of the half.

With these awful Bahamas refs, I could see them giving our guys a 3rd foul on some terrible calls. So it's probably a good opportunity to give some minutes to the bench guys.

 

[ChiShankCity]

Mathematically, it doesn't make sense. You hold them out, why? So they can be there at the end?

Every possession matters equally, it's not like the last five minutes baskets are worth 4 points. You should be trying to maximize the total minutes of your best players, not time them towards the end. And for both Bacot/Davis they only ended with three fouls anyway, so there wasn't really a lot to worry about in the end. Could've probably played each of them a few more minutes in this game.

Not exactly true on the math part. Score AND time plays a factor. A made FG to give you a 4 point lead is drastically different with 3:00 left in the first half vs 30 seconds left in the second half.

This might he a little conspiratorial. But coaches that have job security can take more risks. Maybe the easiest coaching move to question would be a player picking up his third foul in the 1st half. Not saying it factors in at all but Hubert has some pressure to win games. Especially vs Arkansas.

But, I do think occasionally players need to learn how to play with foul trouble. So I’d like to see that tried during the regular season.

 

[superstar57]

Hubert's team this year! That if any pressure is what I place on Hubert to win games this year . We have allot of good pieces, and I credit Hubert for putting this squad together. We will win allot this year especially when Hubert finally let's EC start.

 

[dtodd4475]

Vets should be able to play with fouls. In the end it is up to coach to feel if the player can adjust and play "smart" with two. I do not like the blanket 2 you sit though, even though I know it was a Dean Smith standard.

 

[2DDIMOND]

Mathematically, it doesn't make sense. You hold them out, why? So they can be there at the end?

Every possession matters equally, it's not like the last five minutes baskets are worth 4 points. You should be trying to maximize the total minutes of your best players, not time them towards the end. And for both Bacot/Davis they only ended with three fouls anyway, so there wasn't really a lot to worry about in the end. Could've probably played each of them a few more minutes in this game.

Most coaches make this mistake (theoretically at least it's a mistake) so hard to hold this against Hubert, but I'd say definitely Davis and Bacot both shouldn't sit for almost any reason. Play one of them and take the risk. Them fouling out is similar to what we had to endure in that five minute stretch in the first half, so you're essentially ensuring the bad outcomes by sitting.

The only thing I can see is sitting a guy a minute or two to collect himself and emphasize the need to not foul further. No reason Bacot should only play 11 first half minutes in big games though.

BINGO!

 

[2DDIMOND]

Hubert's team this year! That if any pressure is what I place on Hubert to win games this year . We have allot of good pieces, and I credit Hubert for putting this squad together. We will win allot this year especially when Hubert finally let's EC start.

A lot. 2 words please.

 

[RHFD]

John Chaney would do this at Temple. Chaney would look like an unmade before half time.

 

[gauchoheel]

Not exactly true on the math part. Score AND time plays a factor. A made FG to give you a 4 point lead is drastically different with 3:00 left in the first half vs 30 seconds left in the second half.

This might he a little conspiratorial. But coaches that have job security can take more risks. Maybe the easiest coaching move to question would be a player picking up his third foul in the 1st half. Not saying it factors in at all but Hubert has some pressure to win games. Especially vs Arkansas.

But, I do think occasionally players need to learn how to play with foul trouble. So I’d like to see that tried during the regular season.

This isn't the right way to think about it. Getting an extra 2 points is worth the exact same (2 points) no matter when it occurs. It doesn't matter if you go up by 2 with 23 minutes left and then play even the rest of the game vs playing even for 22.5 minutes and scoring with 30 seconds left.

Good players are going to lead to extra points differential; the more possessions they play the greater it is. It makes exactly zero difference when those possessions occured in the game.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

Sounds logical but it is totally wrong! This is why analytics or statistics can't ever really describe what happens or predict from game to game on the court! Things like hope/despair, fresh legs, time to learn while watching from the bench; the expected correction in how the refs call 2nd halves; allowing others to step up; teaching peeps to trust their teammates; and ensuring we have as many of our best/most trustworthy in winning time! 2 points in the last few minutes of a game are worth far more than just 2pts! They increase energy and morale in the team that got them and decrease energy + add despair to the one who didn't. They lessen pressure, especially on freethrows, for the team that hit and increase pressure on the opponents shots! Crunch time points might not increase the score more than 1st half points but they DO increase the chance of winning way more! It isn't really about trusting your best players, but more about avoiding the unpredictable or unlucky event. No matter how good I am at playing without fouling, I cannot avoid bad calls (like the entire Villanova game) or bad luck like Mando being slightly off balance during a sideline loose ball and randomly bumping the Ark player out of bounds. It is an order of magnitude better to have your best players available for the last 2 minutes of a game than it is for them to play the last 2 of the first half! Good players can be counted on to hit the high pressure free throw or buzzer beating last shot so they must be on the court and as fresh as possible!

 

[ChiShankCity]

This isn't the right way to think about it. Getting an extra 2 points is worth the exact same (2 points) no matter when it occurs. It doesn't matter if you go up by 2 with 23 minutes left and then play even the rest of the game vs playing even for 22.5 minutes and scoring with 30 seconds left.

Good players are going to lead to extra points differential; the more possessions they play the greater it is. It makes exactly zero difference when those possessions occured in the game.

It’s absolutely worth the same number of points. But it absolutely changes your likelihood of winning or losing.

This isn’t all that hard. Trailing 2-0 at the 19:30 mark in the first half isn’t in the same category as trailing by 2 points with 30 seconds left.

I don’t even see a point in debating this. If you think points are just points whenever they’re scored, I have nothing to say other than you’re wrong.

 

[ChiShankCity]

Sounds logical but it is totally wrong! This is why analytics or statistics can't ever really describe what happens or predict from game to game on the court! Things like hope/despair, fresh legs, time to learn while watching from the bench; the expected correction in how the refs call 2nd halves; allowing others to step up; teaching peeps to trust their teammates; and ensuring we have as many of our best/most trustworthy in winning time! 2 points in the last few minutes of a game are worth far more than just 2pts! They increase energy and morale in the team that got them and decrease energy + add despair to the one who didn't. They lessen pressure, especially on freethrows, for the team that hit and increase pressure on the opponents shots! Crunch time points might not increase the score more than 1st half points but they DO increase the chance of winning way more! It isn't really about trusting your best players, but more about avoiding the unpredictable or unlucky event. No matter how good I am at playing without fouling, I cannot avoid bad calls (like the entire Villanova game) or bad luck like Mando being slightly off balance during a sideline loose ball and randomly bumping the Ark player out of bounds. It is an order of magnitude better to have your best players available for the last 2 minutes of a game than it is for them to play the last 2 of the first half! Good players can be counted on to hit the high pressure free throw or buzzer beating last shot so they must be on the court and as fresh as possible!

Nice job jabbing at analytics when analytics uses win probability (like you did in your main point) in large part to dictate its decision making process.

 

[gauchoheel]

It’s absolutely worth the same number of points. But it absolutely changes your likelihood of winning or losing.

This isn’t all that hard. Trailing 2-0 at the 19:30 mark in the first half isn’t in the same category as trailing by 2 points with 30 seconds left.

I don’t even see a point in debating this. If you think points are just points whenever they’re scored, I have nothing to say other than you’re wrong.

Okay, agree to disagree because you're not addressing my point. The NET difference is what matters. It doesn't matter if you outscore an opponent by 2 at the beginning or end of the game. I would maximize the minutes of players rather than when the minutes occur. I think the math is pretty clear, so I can't add anything else.

 

[alabamaheel]

Okay, agree to disagree because you're not addressing my point. The NET difference is what matters. It doesn't matter if you outscore an opponent by 2 at the beginning or end of the game. I would maximize the minutes of players rather than when the minutes occur. I think the math is pretty clear, so I can't add anything else.

You are missing the importance of a starter or better player playing in crunch time when everything is magnified, stops, points, harder decision making because of more pressure, better ft shooter. There are literally several things that matter more toward the end of the game. If you were only to beat them by two in the first half but said player fouls out then you don’t have that experience in there. I think it was a couple games ago that High had 3 fouls in like two minutes. His contribution doesn’t really matter at this point , that’s why Hubert just left him in there for a bit.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

Okay, agree to disagree because you're not addressing my point. The NET difference is what matters. It doesn't matter if you outscore an opponent by 2 at the beginning or end of the game. I would maximize the minutes of players rather than when the minutes occur. I think the math is pretty clear, so I can't add anything else.

Honestly, we have done nothing but address your point. I don't understand how you can really believe that outscoring an opponent by 2 in the first half is equal to doing it in the 2nd. Having your best players fresh and ready/able to play their best at crunch time might be the most important aspect of the games! If this was a mathematical exercise, you would be 100% correct, but it is a real world game played by humans making your point 100% incorrect. I'm done as well and will agree to let it lay as it is.

Go Tar Heels!

 

[gregkb14]

Just say Armando (with 2 fouls and 4 min left in the first half) allows a pretty easy shot by an opposing big man because he doesn't want to pick up his 3rd foul. Later in the game, that doesn't happen. And Washington (with no fouls and 4 min left in the first half) bodies up, extends, and causes a miss from the opposing big. Players play differently in different situations such as foul trouble.