All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Why substitute someone in foul trouble?
4/13/2013 4:28 PM
Posted by kcsundevil on 4/13/2013 1:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by eflhoca on 4/13/2013 10:59:00 AM (view original):
Posted by kcsundevil on 4/12/2013 11:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jetwildcat on 4/12/2013 5:31:00 PM (view original):
Kcsundevil, just because the top coaches do something doesn't mean it's automatically the "best" way. Look up the term "sacred cow"
Your post is silly. You know I'm right.
You might want to check out the bestselling book Moneyball or the movie based on it for real-life story of actual metrics vs. "what is blindly obvious to everyone."
Get back to me when a major-league coach adopts your strategy and wins with it.
"Get back to me when a major-league coach adopts your strategy and wins with it."
Said every lemming who ever walked off a cliff.

Several college coaches have been modifying their strategies based on the statistics published by Ken Pomeroy. Brad Stevens at Butler is one. But we simulate exponentially more games here than in real life, so it makes sense to try things here. (And the strategy works better here than in real life for the reasons I listed above.)

Besides Moneyball, I would also recommend Dave Berri's The Wages of Wins and Dean Oliver's Basketball on Paper. As well as anything written by Bill James.

Might help your attitude a bit.


4/13/2013 9:13 PM
Posted by eflhoca on 4/13/2013 4:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by kcsundevil on 4/13/2013 1:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by eflhoca on 4/13/2013 10:59:00 AM (view original):
Posted by kcsundevil on 4/12/2013 11:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jetwildcat on 4/12/2013 5:31:00 PM (view original):
Kcsundevil, just because the top coaches do something doesn't mean it's automatically the "best" way. Look up the term "sacred cow"
Your post is silly. You know I'm right.
You might want to check out the bestselling book Moneyball or the movie based on it for real-life story of actual metrics vs. "what is blindly obvious to everyone."
Get back to me when a major-league coach adopts your strategy and wins with it.
"Get back to me when a major-league coach adopts your strategy and wins with it."
Said every lemming who ever walked off a cliff.

Several college coaches have been modifying their strategies based on the statistics published by Ken Pomeroy. Brad Stevens at Butler is one. But we simulate exponentially more games here than in real life, so it makes sense to try things here. (And the strategy works better here than in real life for the reasons I listed above.)

Besides Moneyball, I would also recommend Dave Berri's The Wages of Wins and Dean Oliver's Basketball on Paper. As well as anything written by Bill James.

Might help your attitude a bit.


Blah blah blah blah. So Brad Stevens is the example you want  to go with as the most big-time coach who has adopted your strategy of not subbing out players because of foul trouble?
4/13/2013 10:28 PM
the statements in this thread that claim that a player's presence in the 40th minute makes the same contribution as in the say 15th minute would be correct if players had a single skill rating and did not represent a diverse bundle of attributes,

if one is going to purport to claim that mathematics or statistics supports a conclusion, one should realize the limitations of such analysis.  See the example earlier of a team with two skilled guards who are capable of running the offense.   Having two guys on the floor who can do that is great, having one is fine, having zero is very bad.  Each player - in real life and in the SIM - is a diverse array of attributes and any model that analyzes play as if a player reflects a single aggregate rating is a gross oversimplification.
4/14/2013 12:46 PM
The other issue here is that in real life, how a player performs may be impacted by the fact that he's in foul trouble. A guy in foul trouble may drive less on offense, he may shy away from contact on defense, he may not go hurtling in for a rebound or a loose ball, etc. etc. These are very real consequences of guys playing with foul trouble that can't be ignored, and don't necessarily fit neatly into a mathematical equation or the initial thought process presented here.

That said ...

-Those issues don't really exist in the sim. For that reason, I wouldn't mind having this as a strategic option. A coach could either opt to use it or not.

-I don't think there's any question that the OP's point has strong validity, even if IMHO it's slightly overstated. But the logic and numbers generally back him up.

-KC: Due to advances in analytics, we're just starting to figure out that some long-held beliefs in sports are clearly wrong. Examples abound -- the fact that coaches continually punt on 4th-and-short is one of them. They've been doing things wrong, both because (a) they're so ingrained in the sport's culture/strategy and (b) the coaches themselves are under such a magnifying glass that it takes both courage and job security to buck that sort of trend.

4/14/2013 1:56 PM
Yeah, I agree with girt.

But the RL analysis is flawed, unless humans became robots over night. People sit around and theorize about baseball  (highest OBP guys at the top of lineup, batting the pitcher seventh, flexible closer use, etc.). But those things fail in RL all the time for all sorts of reasons. It's not because they aren't theoretically sound, but because people are people. Hitters like feeling "protected" and great relievers like pitching the 9th, not high leverage situations in the 7th. Point is, all the theory in the world can't account for human emotions.
4/14/2013 2:22 PM
Posted by girt25 on 4/14/2013 12:46:00 PM (view original):
The other issue here is that in real life, how a player performs may be impacted by the fact that he's in foul trouble. A guy in foul trouble may drive less on offense, he may shy away from contact on defense, he may not go hurtling in for a rebound or a loose ball, etc. etc. These are very real consequences of guys playing with foul trouble that can't be ignored, and don't necessarily fit neatly into a mathematical equation or the initial thought process presented here.

That said ...

-Those issues don't really exist in the sim. For that reason, I wouldn't mind having this as a strategic option. A coach could either opt to use it or not.

-I don't think there's any question that the OP's point has strong validity, even if IMHO it's slightly overstated. But the logic and numbers generally back him up.

-KC: Due to advances in analytics, we're just starting to figure out that some long-held beliefs in sports are clearly wrong. Examples abound -- the fact that coaches continually punt on 4th-and-short is one of them. They've been doing things wrong, both because (a) they're so ingrained in the sport's culture/strategy and (b) the coaches themselves are under such a magnifying glass that it takes both courage and job security to buck that sort of trend.

girt, you're right that strategies evolve. But the sub-out for foul-trouble players is not one of the strategies that's changed.
4/14/2013 5:11 PM
Posted by metsmax on 4/13/2013 10:28:00 PM (view original):
the statements in this thread that claim that a player's presence in the 40th minute makes the same contribution as in the say 15th minute would be correct if players had a single skill rating and did not represent a diverse bundle of attributes,

if one is going to purport to claim that mathematics or statistics supports a conclusion, one should realize the limitations of such analysis.  See the example earlier of a team with two skilled guards who are capable of running the offense.   Having two guys on the floor who can do that is great, having one is fine, having zero is very bad.  Each player - in real life and in the SIM - is a diverse array of attributes and any model that analyzes play as if a player reflects a single aggregate rating is a gross oversimplification.
metsmax: I don't follow you. Player's attributes don't change during the game. The 15th possession is worth just as much as the 40th. You want to maximize the productivity on your team-- have the most productive players on the court for the most amount of time. Replacing a 990 player with an average player because of fouls reduces overall productivity. Too often "saving a guy for the end" means saving him for the 48th minute-- which doesn't exist. That's the problem.

This isn't a new idea, I'm surprised it's even being debated here.
4/14/2013 5:16 PM
KCsundevil probably also believes some players are "clutch."
Look, I'm just asking for the option to not sub players out for fouls in HD. You don't understand the (theoretically sound and logically consistent) strategy behind it, cool. I'll take the points.

4/14/2013 5:23 PM
On the other hand, many strategies in coaching are built around coaches being more risk averse than they should for fear of criticism if they take a chance and it goes badly.  To use the football analogy, not going for it much on fourth and one despite fourth and one being a fairly high percentage move.


4/14/2013 5:45 PM
Posted by eflhoca on 4/14/2013 5:16:00 PM (view original):
KCsundevil probably also believes some players are "clutch."
Look, I'm just asking for the option to not sub players out for fouls in HD. You don't understand the (theoretically sound and logically consistent) strategy behind it, cool. I'll take the points.

This thread is already off track, so what the hell?

There's a difference between analysis and defiant certainty of something which cannot be accurately measured. You have no idea whether players are "clutch." There may not be any predictive value, but you'd certainly have to admit that the human psyche is fragile, and that you can't possibly know what is affecting a player's ability to perform at any given moment. At least I hope you are willing to admit that.

If you want to hypothesize that "clutchness" is in fact just randomness based on a larger sample size, then that's certainly a viable theory. But neither you, nor Ken Pomeroy, nor any saber guy, can truly account for everything you need to affirmatively state that a player is never affected by the pressure of a specific game situation.
 

4/14/2013 8:20 PM
Posted by eflhoca on 4/14/2013 5:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by metsmax on 4/13/2013 10:28:00 PM (view original):
the statements in this thread that claim that a player's presence in the 40th minute makes the same contribution as in the say 15th minute would be correct if players had a single skill rating and did not represent a diverse bundle of attributes,

if one is going to purport to claim that mathematics or statistics supports a conclusion, one should realize the limitations of such analysis.  See the example earlier of a team with two skilled guards who are capable of running the offense.   Having two guys on the floor who can do that is great, having one is fine, having zero is very bad.  Each player - in real life and in the SIM - is a diverse array of attributes and any model that analyzes play as if a player reflects a single aggregate rating is a gross oversimplification.
metsmax: I don't follow you. Player's attributes don't change during the game. The 15th possession is worth just as much as the 40th. You want to maximize the productivity on your team-- have the most productive players on the court for the most amount of time. Replacing a 990 player with an average player because of fouls reduces overall productivity. Too often "saving a guy for the end" means saving him for the 48th minute-- which doesn't exist. That's the problem.

This isn't a new idea, I'm surprised it's even being debated here.
one cannot say that here is a list of my players from best to worst in order for all purposes.  Some guys are great at some things, some guys are great at others.  The example that I was talking about was a team that has two guards who can run the offense, etc.  If they both start but then one of the two gets in foul trouble it is totally rational to avoid the situation where both are lost - even if that means a few more minutes played by the 3rd or 4th best guard.  The zero ballhandler option is so bad for such a team.  

The attrributes dont change, but they are not one number that is subject to simplistic analysis.  At least in real life, it is often logical to be sure that a player doesnt foul out in a situation such as the above - same would apply if one had only a couple of good shooters etc etc

the phrase "the most productive players" is a false path - players work together and one cannot - at least often cannot - say that these are the most productive
4/14/2013 9:51 PM
Posted by eflhoca on 4/14/2013 5:16:00 PM (view original):
KCsundevil probably also believes some players are "clutch."
Look, I'm just asking for the option to not sub players out for fouls in HD. You don't understand the (theoretically sound and logically consistent) strategy behind it, cool. I'll take the points.

You never answered me about Brad Stevens.
4/14/2013 11:49 PM (edited)
Posted by ike1024 on 4/14/2013 5:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by eflhoca on 4/14/2013 5:16:00 PM (view original):
KCsundevil probably also believes some players are "clutch."
Look, I'm just asking for the option to not sub players out for fouls in HD. You don't understand the (theoretically sound and logically consistent) strategy behind it, cool. I'll take the points.

This thread is already off track, so what the hell?

There's a difference between analysis and defiant certainty of something which cannot be accurately measured. You have no idea whether players are "clutch." There may not be any predictive value, but you'd certainly have to admit that the human psyche is fragile, and that you can't possibly know what is affecting a player's ability to perform at any given moment. At least I hope you are willing to admit that.

If you want to hypothesize that "clutchness" is in fact just randomness based on a larger sample size, then that's certainly a viable theory. But neither you, nor Ken Pomeroy, nor any saber guy, can truly account for everything you need to affirmatively state that a player is never affected by the pressure of a specific game situation.
 

Well said Ike.
4/15/2013 1:44 AM
Posted by eflhoca on 4/14/2013 5:16:00 PM (view original):
KCsundevil probably also believes some players are "clutch."
Look, I'm just asking for the option to not sub players out for fouls in HD. You don't understand the (theoretically sound and logically consistent) strategy behind it, cool. I'll take the points.

Ooh, that's rich. Let's see, I can't sway this guy's opinion over to my side, no matter what I say, so I think I'll just try to belittle and discredit him in order to attempt to "win" that way.

Someone should consider a career in poilitics.  They've got the basics down pat.
4/15/2013 2:01 AM (edited)
Posted by eflhoca on 4/14/2013 5:16:00 PM (view original):
KCsundevil probably also believes some players are "clutch."
Look, I'm just asking for the option to not sub players out for fouls in HD. You don't understand the (theoretically sound and logically consistent) strategy behind it, cool. I'll take the points.

i cant figure out why you are being so arrogant about this strategy. HD and real life are not the same, and you seem to ignore the real life attributes. the simple factor you are not accounting for in real life, that does not exist in HD, is human emotion. if you think a player is as valuable in the 1st minute as the last, i question if you've ever actually watched basketball. as has already been pointed out, high ratios in score DO NOT get maintained, and should be obvious to everyone, games get closer for a number of reasons - a common one being, the team winning is not going to fight as hard for every inch, when they are up significantly. if you play your great player, and he gets you close, but then fouls out - the other team is probably high energy now, to your low energy, and you get killed. or, you sit him, the game gets closer anyway, and you try to gain some momentum at the end to push things over. its perfectly valid.

the basic idea, for robotic players, has some validity. without human emotion, each possession is equal. i think its a decent setting to include. however, thats not the whole story, when it comes to what is the best thing to do. metsmax already gave an example (and thanks for providing a bit of common sense to a thread badly in need, it was refreshing). but more generally, by saying there is no tradeoff, you fail to grasp the entire situation. without playing more cautiously, the expected number of minutes played is indeed going to be the same, regardless of if the player is subbed out for fouls, or not. i agree with that. however, what you fail to account for, is the difference in his output based on WHEN those minutes are played, and further, how that impacts the rest of the team. metsmax perfectly valid example is slightly complex, so here are some simple ones:

for the player himself, if hes tired and picks up a meaningful foul, and his expected minutes are such that he could play those minutes at "fairly fresh" or better, you are better off to sub him now, and play him when he is less tired, and will produce at a higher level.

for the rest of the players, you benefit from having an even rotation. keeping players fresher yields higher performance. if all players are playing a set amount of time, barring synergy (like in metsmax's example), the best rotation is one where players are subbed as quickly as possible. you dont want a guy staying in long, or sitting out long. fouling out guarantees you violate those interests. 

hopefully that is a bit clearer for you, and you can stop talking like this is an open and shut case and everyone else is an idiot.

on metsmax's example, YES, you get different productivity at different times based on composition. that is a simple and fundamental cornerstone of basketball!! playing a center with 4 other centers is going to result in lower productivity than if he played for 4 guards. this is exceedingly obvious (obviously). metsmax's example is simply a more complex form of the same. if you have 2 guys who can play pg, its critical you can always play one of them, **like every team in real life will try to do**. that is all he is saying. losing a guy to fouls violates that interest.
of 4
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Why substitute someone in foul trouble?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.