All Forums > Why substitute someone in foul trouble?
4/15/2013 3:38 AM
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.
I also don't necessarily agree with the response above.  Player attributes must change during the game or what is the value of stamina?  When a player starts the game, his stamina is at 100% and his attributes are what would be seen on his ratings card.  However, as the game progresses and he begins to fatigue due to how the engine treats his stamina rating, the engine would then have to automatically adjust his attributes accordingly (that 95 Per rating is adjusted to a 90 rating in proportion to the accompanying drop in stamina or perhaps better said, the accompanying gain in fatigue), otherwise there would be no point whatsoever of including stamina in the game, right?  If that is the case, then to say that a player's attributes don't "change" would be false, correct?  Or am I missing something here?  I mean, there IS a depth chart with different fatigue settings on it within the game, I know, I've seen it before.  Therefore, I know fatigue IS included as one of the factors when the engine spits out it's calculations and gives us the results of the possession.  Now, I don't have an engineering degree and I'm not a math major, but this would at least seem to makea little bit of sense to me.  Am I close or have I totally missed the mark here?
4/15/2013 8:02 AM
Posted by metsmax on 4/14/2013 8:20:00 PM (view original):
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
"one cannot say that here is a list of my players from best to worst in order for all purposes."
No, but you certainly can create a list for overall purposes.

"the phrase "the most productive players" is a false path - players work together and one cannot -"
Again, I don't follow you. There are plenty of ways to isolate an individual player's contribution to his output. (And this is why there are All-American and All-NBA teams, no?) The extension of your argument is to say that all players are ultimately a function of their teammates. If that's the case, why do players traded to other teams still retain most of their output?
4/15/2013 8:29 AM (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.

Ike, I agree with what you wrote. It's the same thing with the "hot hand" concept. It's been statistically disproven repeatedly, but yet we "see" it. There are time when guys are making consecutive shots that would appear to be very low-percentage yet they're going in consistently.

But in HD (the point of my OP), what you say doesn't apply because there is no "fragile human psyche."

This thread reminded me that last year (a couple years ago?) the programmers put in more timeouts to stop "runs" in the game because coaches kept arguing (against the programmers) that "runs" existed and should be stopped by timeouts. People believe what they want to.

To KCSundevil: I'm not going to engage with you further unless you explain why you think it's not a valid strategy. I explained the logic of it well enough, I think. It doesn't matter to me whether you or another coach uses it or not. But your argument of "everyone knows..." isn't an explanation. Plenty of coaches neglect the use of optimal strategies.  Another suggested reading: March edition of ESPN Magazine.

4/15/2013 12:51 PM
So is this thread an argument about RL or HD because there is a huge difference and we seem to be combining the two.
4/15/2013 1:58 PM
Posted by unipanther on 4/15/2013 12:51:00 PM (view original):
So is this thread an argument about RL or HD because there is a huge difference and we seem to be combining the two.
its about both...it appears very difficult to make arguments about the sim without using RL examples
4/15/2013 2:05 PM
Posted by jetwildcat on 4/15/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by unipanther on 4/15/2013 12:51:00 PM (view original):
So is this thread an argument about RL or HD because there is a huge difference and we seem to be combining the two.
its about both...it appears very difficult to make arguments about the sim without using RL examples
But they are very different.  The Sim engine can't take into account the mental aspect of the game, and all of these scenarios  while in HD are computer generated, in RL have a huge mental component.  While statistically there is no "hot hand" there is certainly a mental aspect to being on fire, and while a TO may not be able to stop a run in the engine, there is zero doubt it can in RL.
4/15/2013 2:10 PM
Posted by unipanther on 4/15/2013 2:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jetwildcat on 4/15/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by unipanther on 4/15/2013 12:51:00 PM (view original):
So is this thread an argument about RL or HD because there is a huge difference and we seem to be combining the two.
its about both...it appears very difficult to make arguments about the sim without using RL examples
But they are very different.  The Sim engine can't take into account the mental aspect of the game, and all of these scenarios  while in HD are computer generated, in RL have a huge mental component.  While statistically there is no "hot hand" there is certainly a mental aspect to being on fire, and while a TO may not be able to stop a run in the engine, there is zero doubt it can in RL.
I agree with you that they're very different. The arguments are just more easily made with RL examples and then translated to HD, rather than made in terms of HD to begin with.
4/15/2013 3:08 PM
Posted by eflhoca on 4/15/2013 8:02:00 AM (view original):
Posted by metsmax on 4/14/2013 8:20:00 PM (view original):
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
"one cannot say that here is a list of my players from best to worst in order for all purposes."
No, but you certainly can create a list for overall purposes.

"the phrase "the most productive players" is a false path - players work together and one cannot -"
Again, I don't follow you. There are plenty of ways to isolate an individual player's contribution to his output. (And this is why there are All-American and All-NBA teams, no?) The extension of your argument is to say that all players are ultimately a function of their teammates. If that's the case, why do players traded to other teams still retain most of their output?

Sure, you can create a list - but the list wont mean what you want it to mean mathematically.  You will NOT be better off with the most minutes from the players highest on the list - the combos on the floor matter.  You are treating the analysis too simply.

"most productive players" - sure there are all americans - please do not exagerate what I have said to answer it -

if you do not understand what I am saying, let me make my PG example very vivid in one last attempt to make this clear.  Years ago, I coached a girls rec hoops team.  We had only two players who could bring the ball up the court against a meaningful defensive effort.  They started at guard. They were probably the 1st and 4th best players on the team.  If either of them got into foul trouble, I had to sit her for a while to be sure that I would for the entire game have at least one of them on the floor at all times.  If one was lost to fouls and the other was exhausted, we would absolutely be destroyed with guards 3 and 4 on the floor.  It was worth having my best player play say 20 minutes rather than 22 minutes to avoid the risk that we would have no ability to play offense if neither guard #1 nor guard #2 was available for any period of time.

the optimal solution is not necessarily the solution that maximizes the minutes of the "overall purposes" best players.

that is the best I can do to explain this

4/15/2013 4:15 PM
Posted by eflhoca on 4/15/2013 8:29:00 AM (view original):
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.

Ike, I agree with what you wrote. It's the same thing with the "hot hand" concept. It's been statistically disproven repeatedly, but yet we "see" it. There are time when guys are making consecutive shots that would appear to be very low-percentage yet they're going in consistently.

But in HD (the point of my OP), what you say doesn't apply because there is no "fragile human psyche."

This thread reminded me that last year (a couple years ago?) the programmers put in more timeouts to stop "runs" in the game because coaches kept arguing (against the programmers) that "runs" existed and should be stopped by timeouts. People believe what they want to.

To KCSundevil: I'm not going to engage with you further unless you explain why you think it's not a valid strategy. I explained the logic of it well enough, I think. It doesn't matter to me whether you or another coach uses it or not. But your argument of "everyone knows..." isn't an explanation. Plenty of coaches neglect the use of optimal strategies.  Another suggested reading: March edition of ESPN Magazine.

heres some suggested reading for you...
1) my post (http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?ForumID=30&TopicID=466809&ThreadID=10167730#l_10167730)
2) etiquette for dummies (http://www.walmart.com/ip/5516409?wmlspartner=wlpa&adid=22222222227000000000&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=&wl3=21486607510&wl4=&wl5=pla&veh=sem)
4/15/2013 4:27 PM
Posted by emy1013 on 4/15/2013 3:38:00 AM (view original):
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.
I also don't necessarily agree with the response above.  Player attributes must change during the game or what is the value of stamina?  When a player starts the game, his stamina is at 100% and his attributes are what would be seen on his ratings card.  However, as the game progresses and he begins to fatigue due to how the engine treats his stamina rating, the engine would then have to automatically adjust his attributes accordingly (that 95 Per rating is adjusted to a 90 rating in proportion to the accompanying drop in stamina or perhaps better said, the accompanying gain in fatigue), otherwise there would be no point whatsoever of including stamina in the game, right?  If that is the case, then to say that a player's attributes don't "change" would be false, correct?  Or am I missing something here?  I mean, there IS a depth chart with different fatigue settings on it within the game, I know, I've seen it before.  Therefore, I know fatigue IS included as one of the factors when the engine spits out it's calculations and gives us the results of the possession.  Now, I don't have an engineering degree and I'm not a math major, but this would at least seem to makea little bit of sense to me.  Am I close or have I totally missed the mark here?
yeah, same thing i was getting at. simply looking at minutes played is not the whole story - even when every possession is equal (which is the case in HD, roughly, not exactly, but close enough - there were quite a few "low hanging fruit" points to argue, dont feel we need to get into that one). its also about when they are played, and how that impacts when team mates play. clearly, playing 20m as 20m straight and then 0 for 20m is the worst option, playing a nice even spread is way better. simply, as you and others (and me) have pointed out, because a player is not equally valuable at all points in time.

in your post, you make the point because of fatigue, which is perfectly valid. metsmax makes the same point but with a different example - synergy - which is also perfectly valid.

im honestly not sure what is so hard to comprehend about either one of them?
4/15/2013 4:30 PM
Posted by eflhoca on 4/15/2013 8:02:00 AM (view original):
Posted by metsmax on 4/14/2013 8:20:00 PM (view original):
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
"one cannot say that here is a list of my players from best to worst in order for all purposes."
No, but you certainly can create a list for overall purposes.

"the phrase "the most productive players" is a false path - players work together and one cannot -"
Again, I don't follow you. There are plenty of ways to isolate an individual player's contribution to his output. (And this is why there are All-American and All-NBA teams, no?) The extension of your argument is to say that all players are ultimately a function of their teammates. If that's the case, why do players traded to other teams still retain most of their output?
simple question - is a center more valuable playing with 4 other centers, or with a pg, sg, sf, and pf?

unless you are going to say the center is equally valuable in both cases, then you have to acknowledge metsmax's point, it seems to me. players are NOT equally valuable at all points in time, because of who else is on the court. metsmax isnt saying players contributions cant be isolated, but that their contribution is dependent on more than simply themselves. it depends on the team, too. for example, a great scorer terrible defender is more valuable on a great defensive team with no scoring, than a killer offensive team where he wouldnt even be a top 3 scorer, who is terrible on defense.

in both cases you can isolate his individual contribution (more or less), but that doesnt mean its always a constant. that doesnt follow, logically.
4/15/2013 6:34 PM
I have to admit, I find this thread weird -- the OP posed a logical question about something that I think a lot of people question these days: whether it's right to "save" a guy in foul trouble for the end of the game.  He got attacked, and responded calmly and reasonably.

What's more, he's not asking you to agree that players should not be "saved" -- he's asking whether it should be reasonable that a coach be given the OPTION of *not* having his players pulled when they get 2 fouls in the first half.  Honestly, the volume of anger on this thread in response to this strikes me as weird.

That said, I completely agree -- having watched helplessly in many a game as my star player sits for 14 straight minutes, only to finish the game with 3 fouls, I too wish I had the option of saying, "David Hansleman, despite your 2 quick fouls 3:17 into the game, I trust you'll stay within your average of 1.7 fouls for the next 37 minutes: stay on the court and let's hope this works out."  Maybe the OP and I will be the only ones to hit this button every time.  Maybe everyone will yell at us.

But all the anger regarding the perfectly benign assertion that coaches should be allowed the choice of making this decision is weird.

4/15/2013 8:59 PM
Posted by jeffdrayer on 4/15/2013 6:34:00 PM (view original):
I have to admit, I find this thread weird -- the OP posed a logical question about something that I think a lot of people question these days: whether it's right to "save" a guy in foul trouble for the end of the game.  He got attacked, and responded calmly and reasonably.

What's more, he's not asking you to agree that players should not be "saved" -- he's asking whether it should be reasonable that a coach be given the OPTION of *not* having his players pulled when they get 2 fouls in the first half.  Honestly, the volume of anger on this thread in response to this strikes me as weird.

That said, I completely agree -- having watched helplessly in many a game as my star player sits for 14 straight minutes, only to finish the game with 3 fouls, I too wish I had the option of saying, "David Hansleman, despite your 2 quick fouls 3:17 into the game, I trust you'll stay within your average of 1.7 fouls for the next 37 minutes: stay on the court and let's hope this works out."  Maybe the OP and I will be the only ones to hit this button every time.  Maybe everyone will yell at us.

But all the anger regarding the perfectly benign assertion that coaches should be allowed the choice of making this decision is weird.

There's a difference between disagreement and anger. Who would get angry over posts on a Hoops Dynasty message board?
4/15/2013 9:17 PM
Posted by jeffdrayer on 4/15/2013 6:34:00 PM (view original):
I have to admit, I find this thread weird -- the OP posed a logical question about something that I think a lot of people question these days: whether it's right to "save" a guy in foul trouble for the end of the game.  He got attacked, and responded calmly and reasonably.

What's more, he's not asking you to agree that players should not be "saved" -- he's asking whether it should be reasonable that a coach be given the OPTION of *not* having his players pulled when they get 2 fouls in the first half.  Honestly, the volume of anger on this thread in response to this strikes me as weird.

That said, I completely agree -- having watched helplessly in many a game as my star player sits for 14 straight minutes, only to finish the game with 3 fouls, I too wish I had the option of saying, "David Hansleman, despite your 2 quick fouls 3:17 into the game, I trust you'll stay within your average of 1.7 fouls for the next 37 minutes: stay on the court and let's hope this works out."  Maybe the OP and I will be the only ones to hit this button every time.  Maybe everyone will yell at us.

But all the anger regarding the perfectly benign assertion that coaches should be allowed the choice of making this decision is weird.

Yes Jeff, the thread began as one asking if that option should be made available (and personally, I wish it were a choice we had).  But I think you might need to go back and re-read the whole thread closely before you let the OP off the hook here.  He was just as "guilty" as anyone else in the "anger" department.  There were arrogant and condescending remarks made from his perspective just as there were some made towards him.  Go back and look again, he's not some kind of innocent by-stander here.
4/15/2013 11:50 PM
Well, I have no interest into getting in a he-said-she-said situation, but I'll just point out, here's kcsundevil's response the the OOp:

"This is utter nonsense. If this was a rational argument, real-life coaches who get paid lots of money to win would never use foul trouble as a reason to sub out players. And yet they do. It's so blindly obvious why they do, it doesn't merit discussion.

In HD as well, you have strategic changes and defensive changes throughout the game, and in the event of a close ending, I want my best players available."
of 4
All Forums > Why substitute someone in foul trouble?

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

© 1999-2013 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.