Posted by mikvitu on 2/18/2014 5:43:00 PM (view original):
I hate (no offense) when people try to say that using target minutes is somehow inferior to fatigue. If you set it up right, the only time you're going to have a real fatigue issue is like others said, when you have a player in early foul trouble. Before anyone jumps on me too much for saying that is, using target minutes in my first 4 seasons has maybe one or two times put me in a situation where I felt like there was a minute issue not due to fouls.
The key I have found is under allocating the minutes, it really does work like others are suggesting. The benefit I find to having target minutes is being able to move my players around to multiple back up positions and knowing how much time they're going to receive at that position. I find that to be a big help especially when I'm trying to set up my scorers against poor defenders or my good defenders against their top scorers.
i don't think you should hate it. i think it is clearly true that it is easier for coaches to get good as setting up teams using fatigue, than using minutes, wouldn't you agree with that?
also, with foul trouble and injuries, i think fatigue generally works significantly better. also, for standard ten man rotations, i think fatigue is tailor-made for those kinds of teams.
but, i am really starting to think there are some situations (not the majority) where minutes might be the optimal way to go. some of those are along the lines of what you are saying, with non-standard rotations. i also think when you want to play players more than fairly fresh level minutes, fatigue doesn't not handle those situations very well. im thinking in those cases, minutes might actually work better. i've had a couple teams surprise me with minutes-type setups. im starting to think its something that might be appropriate for more advanced coaches to start playing with, to try to get one more tool in their arsenal. however, i absolutely am not at the point where i would recommend new coaches try minutes, i think fatigue is definitely the starting point, but i am starting to wonder if minutes has a place outside of the crazy situations where you do dumb things (like i just did) where you promise starts to 4 freshman and 30m to 2 of them... minutes is DEFINITELY the way to go in those cases.
also, i generally think pressing teams will find minutes to be a significant negative. but for lower fatigue teams, minutes may have a place. so basically, i am not ruling it out as a viable strategy, but i also don't think its at all unreasonable to suggest fatigue subs are the superior option, generally speaking - ESPECIALLY for coaches still trying to master the basics. but once you can easily maintain an A/A+ program, maybe minutes are something people should explore in more depth?
i think a big part of the perception is oldresorter, who is known for being all around excellent (unlike some other folks, like me, who was never a great recruiter, and lostmyth, who was never a great coach), would talk about how hard it was to get minutes right - that good coaches would lose a game or two a season JUST on their minutes setup, to expert coaches at minute setup - and that with the advent of fatigue, he didn't see a reason to go with minutes anymore. he felt it really diminished the value of being great at team setup/game planning. but i also think that in general, the more well rounded your team (his teams usually are), fatigue is generally more appropriate. and its always dangerous to take the advice of one coach or even to just roll with the forum consensus (not when you are new, but when you are trying to get really competitive) - plus, most of the other coaches who are pro-fatigue, simply have not invested the 10-20 or so seasons it takes (minimum) to begin to master minutes. i include myself in that group. so i think people should be open minded on this subject - so essentially, i agree with you on that front.