I very rarely read the forum, or post, but if I see a poster I recognize (which is rarer and rarer these days) I'll pop in and take a look.  Couldn't help but be interested in this topic.  I have always loved the counter-forum theories.  Certainly playing target is counter forum, and is worth due consideration.

It's been a while since I've tried target, but I have played all eleven of my teams for (near) entire seasons that way, fairly recently.  I always come to the same conclusions.

Target doesn't deal well with fouls (or injuries).

The better you set you lineup, using all four spots wisely, the less this is an issue.

It helps if you have players you want to play less than their stamina might warrant.

But, the biggest issue I always come back to, and anyone playing target now can confirm or deny this, the problem is players stay in too long in target, so you have players, even in a normal balanced 2-2-2-2-2 rotation of ten players with better than average stamina playing some of the game tired, those same players never play tired under fatigue.  The amount of 'fatigue' subbing is wrong and completely unrealistic as it often is near every minute, rather than the once or twice per half that normal NCAA coaches sub rotations in and out, but it keeps the players as fresh as possible.  Target minutes nets more realistic box score subbing patterns, but that really doesn't matter.

I think one of the reasons the designers went to fatigue was to lessen the FCP's effectiveness.  One of the old biggest edges press gave a coach, was the ability to wear out (or break the opponent).  Now, unless the coach is really inept, or maybe playing target, or playing with 8 or 9 men, its near impossible to wear out a 12 man team of even modest stamina playing fatigue.  This is too bad, as the old 'target' game was much more fun, and was a level of strategy that certainly existed.  So was the 'old' practice plans, as in the old days a coach could recruit almost anyone, and by the end of 4 years, by improving the right things, develop a much better team than the coaches who didn't know how to grow a championship team.  We simply recruit them now. 

I'd love to hear from someone that Target minutes is actually working again, someone who is winning lots of NT's.  I haven't read anything here that says that, mostly reading that it can work OK under the right circumstances.  But, my curiosity is peaked, I'll probably run a few teams with it for 10 games or so.  I can tell pretty quickly if it's working or not (when a 80 stam type guy hasn't come out for ten minutes and is set to 23-28 and is red or orange in the PBP, while the opponent has a 70 stam guy playing the same minutes in the game, all green, that is a pretty tell tale sign).

Good topic, keep thinking out of the box, as it is by far the best way to win at this.  My Godfather was a champion card player, his motto, good players play by the conventions, great players learn the conventions, then they learn when and how to break them.

OR, nice post, always nice to see you around. i am also really feeling the urge to try minutes, i've been more engaged in the game analysis part and have been more and more dissatisfied with fatigue rotations in particular situations. so i look forward to some experimentation myself.

but my comment is, tiring your opponent out, its kind of a thing again. its not like in the old days - but its not like 5 years ago either, where you could not tire out the large majority of worthy opponents. it seems to me uptempo motion/press teams and fb/press teams can really run many quality opponents into the ground. seble has made several tweaks in this area, the general trend making fatigue a real factor. frankly, the biggest thing that has come out at me in the last year or so (my highest time of interest in 5 years, by far), is how much different fatigue is now, than it was 5 years ago. you might find it interesting, i run a zone OR press over at kansas in tark, and have alternated seasonally between press and zone based on the team. i won 1 title with zone and 1 with press recently, in a 5 year stretch with 2 titles and 2 runner ups. i wouldn't say its an optimal strategy, playing both defenses, but that is definitely not why i went with it - i just went with it because i was enjoying things and wanted to try something new and exciting.

i didn't know when i started, but some of those 10 man teams i had, that were borderline zone press, i really screwed up - i just didn't understand enough again yet - if i had been confident enough with zone to swap zone and press game in and game out, there's a really good chance i'd have converted one of those title game losses into a title. i definitely thing the fatigue difference between the two is substantial enough to shift the balance from one to another, even overcoming the fundamentals of the team... which is not something i'd normally say (you know despite my extreme take on game planning, i'm a firm believer that the team fundamentals often trump opponent-specific changes, particularly on well built teams). obviously with my 12 man teams, its all press, and 8-9, all zone, but that 10 man edge case, i really think the back and forth was the way to go.

anyway, long story short, im pretty strongly sold that fatigue management is a huge part of today's game... and something the community has not fully adapted to as of yet.

As a relative HD newbie, this has been a very interesting discussion. I had been leaning towards the "Target Minutes" setting recently with (what seemed to be) some success because of promised starts and wanting to improve WE for players who needed it. I was starting to think I had come across an advantage that the more experienced HD coaches where not aware of (so naive, I know).  But, after a couple upset losses that seem attributable mainly to my guys playing at higher than anticipated fatigue levels, I am running back towards the "Fatigue" setting with my tail between my legs. Unfortunately, I don't have the time available to do an analysis of what the differences were between when "Target Minutes" seemed to be working and when they didn't, so I will continue to read posts like these in an effort to learn from those who have been there and done that.

Gil no doubt fatigue management is still a strategy.  Can't think of many real strategies left, other than hope you are recruiting in a non competitive market LOL. 

I'm trying it for the first time this year as I guaranteed a couple freshmen starts and one a lot of minutes so that seemed to be the easiest way to accomplish that and this is a rebuilding season.  Some observations ive had (could be wrong. I dont claim to be an expert on fatigue vs. target minutes):
-The major negative ive noticed is that sometimes people do play at more tired settings than they would under fatigue.  
-A major positive is being able to place deficient scorers in favorable positions.  For instance, here is my two deep at pg and sf for my team:
Starting pg: Gabor
Backup pg: Wysocki
Starting sf: Harris
Backup sf: Haynes
At point guard Wysocki is a better player currently than Gabor, but he struggles defensively.  Gabor is set to 4-8 minutes and Wysocki to 14-18.  With his stamina and my systems usually Wysocki would play 22 or so mpg.  He is playing 21 mpg.  So im sacrificing 1 mpg to have him spend half his mins going against backup pgs who usually arent big time offensive threats.  That's a trade off I'll take any day. 
At SF, I prefer Harris to Haynes defensively but it's not that big of a margin.  What ive noticed the last 2 seasons is that Haynes chokes in big games.  I think this is because of his so-so athleticism.  By moving him to the backup unit he doesnt have to go up against starting elite SFs as much that often times out class him athletically.  (Note:the minutes dont mean as much at this position because im the type of idiot that promises 30 mpg to a freshman and that screwed up all my rotations at the 3-5. I literally just fixed those rotations today).
-That said if you have a team where your best players arent so deficient I would advise using fatigue so that they are playing fresh more and get that additional minute or two per game.  I would never allocate over 20 mpg in target minutes because of the potential of early foul trouble just killing you from a stamina perspective.  So, if you play a slow down system where all your starters play 28+mpg I wouldnt advise using target minutes either.  I think I will use it for one more season to mess around with some more rotations but I think my conclusion is that generally fatigue is preferable but target minutes can be very effective with the right teams or using it in specific situations.