All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Why substitute someone in foul trouble?
4/15/2013 11:51 PM
This is the OP's response to the above:

"Well, KC, several well-known economists disagree with you. It is a rational argument based on maximizing output. There is much too much attention paid by coaches and sports commentators to what happened on the last possession of a game, ignoring that that possession was worth no more/fewer potential points than other possessions. Your "close ending" isn't any more important than the close beginning.

Coaches, like people, have all kinds of cognitive biases keeping them from doing rational things. Read Kahmeman's Thinking Fast and Slow for a ton of examples. Romer showed (using a ton of NFL data) that teams should go for it on 4th down much more often than they do-- but coaches still don't. Even ones like Belichik who have read Romer's work."
4/15/2013 11:59 PM
kc stated OP's post was "utter nonsense" and "didn't even merit discussion."

OP pointed out that several economists disagree with kc, and then summarized that disagreement, including recommendations for reading if kc would like to understand further from whence he comes.

One guy got angry. The other calmly defended himself. Maybe it got uglier later -- I lose interest when people get attacked for making perfectly reasonable statements. All I saw was a lot of shouting about putting 4 centers on the court at once. Wouldn't that be stupid?!?! And so on.

Maybe the OP became frustrated that rather than answer his question, people started jumping on how stupid he was to ask that question since his question was so obviously "utter nonsense" and "didn't even merit discussion." Even though, of course, it wasn't , and did.

Mission accomplished.
4/16/2013 12:06 AM
Welcome to the world of adult conversation, Jeff. The fact I criticized the guy's theory didn't make me "angry" at him. You'll understand when you're older.
4/16/2013 12:12 AM
Posted by kcsundevil on 4/16/2013 12:06:00 AM (view original):
Welcome to the world of adult conversation, Jeff. The fact I criticized the guy's theory didn't make me "angry" at him. You'll understand when you're older.
Wow. Not sure why people are calling out the OP's supposed arrogance rather than this guy's. He's had a closed-minded approach from the beginning, and I'm not really sure why because this is a topic worth discussing. 

Kudos to Jeff for calling it out. (And jetwildcat earlier.)  
4/16/2013 12:16 AM
Posted by pepwaves on 4/16/2013 12:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by kcsundevil on 4/16/2013 12:06:00 AM (view original):
Welcome to the world of adult conversation, Jeff. The fact I criticized the guy's theory didn't make me "angry" at him. You'll understand when you're older.
Wow. Not sure why people are calling out the OP's supposed arrogance rather than this guy's. He's had a closed-minded approach from the beginning, and I'm not really sure why because this is a topic worth discussing. 

Kudos to Jeff for calling it out. (And jetwildcat earlier.)  
If my observation that nobody in real life follows the OP's strategy is "arrogant," I'm OK with that.

I don't get why people are taking this so personally. What a strange community. You all may continue the conversation without me.
4/16/2013 12:32 AM
kc- My guess is that you are just playing dumb as to why someone would take your comments personally. But, I'll enlighten you nonetheless. 

Saying something like, "you'll understand when you're older" is obviously intended to belittle. I doubt Jeff took is personally considering he has no relationship with you, but it also wouldn't be unreasonable if he did. 

Also, in your original response to the OP you used superlatives when describing your reaction, such as "utter nonsense", "blindly obvious", "if this was a rational argument". You called out the quality of elflhoca's argument with demeaning words rather than debating the actual content, and that doesn't exactly help further a discussion. If you want to be a positive contributor to this so-called "community" I'd suggest you change your approach. 
4/16/2013 12:48 AM
Oh...and to get back to the original topic. I actually agree with elflhoca. I wish we had the option to override the automatic sub out w/ two fouls thing. 

Steve Kerr was questioning the validity of a conservative foul approach when he was calling the championship game. He was trying to argue for keeping Burke in the game with two fouls. Benching him seems to have worked out for Michigan because their back up PG absolutely blew up. But, he made some good points, and I think it's reasonable to question traditional strategic approaches most coaches have in college basketball (and other sports). Knowledge is advanced and we get better at evaluation/implementation when people are willing to question long-held beliefs. 
4/16/2013 9:29 AM
[Redacted - just taking sides.]
4/16/2013 9:33 AM
 I have long advocated, and practiced, setting all of my players here to "more aggressive" on the foul/sub logic. It's made a significant difference in maximizing PT for my better offensive players who happen to be foul-challenged.
4/16/2013 10:52 AM
Consider a 2-on-2 game engine designed such that each team was most productive when that lineup had 1 guard and 1 forward.  Suppose that roster size was 4.  It would make sense to keep 2 guards and 2 forwards on that roster.  If the starting guard (or forward) fouled out early, the team would be screwed because the remaining guard (or forward) would have to play the entire rest of the game with no sub *or* a lineup of two forwards (or guards) would have to be rolled out.  Subbing due to foul trouble, to spread the fouls out over the two guards (or forwards), would be the rational strategy.  

That's enough to demonstrate that subbing for foul trouble should at least be entertained in a 5-on-5 game engine, assuming we believe that a balanced lineup is better than e.g. a lineup of 5 bigs.  Whether it is actually the right strategy depends on team composition.  I don't know where the thresholds are, but I could imagine that:  

1) If you have 2 PGs of comparable skill (at PG), and a bunch of crap PGs, subbing both (or at least the starter) due to foul trouble would be a good idea.  If you don't, and one of the 2 foul out, you are left with one playing extended minutes and fatiguing, or else playing the crap PGs.  

2) If you have 1 incredible PG, and then a bunch of crappy ones, subbing the starter (at PG) due to foul trouble might be a bad idea since that starter fouling out is really no worse than him getting subbed in, so you really just want to keep his minutes up.  Subbing out due to foul trouble might even be worse than not, since he might pick up foul that gives him the hook 30 seconds after he subbed in, so you are squandering several minutes of fresh/fairly-fresh starter by subbing him out.  
4/16/2013 11:11 AM
spot on rgerkin

this has been an interesting thread - I'm going to reconsider my foul settings - in some lineups and depth situations, I think I need to change my assumptions. 

AND, I certainly agree with the suggestion that coaches should be able to adjust - maybe more than now - the extent of foul-based substitution. 

As I have said, I think some of the analysis offered in this thread has reflected simplistic views of the basketball.
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.