Game #16: @ Massachusetts - Saturday 2:30pm

[Billyboy78]

The thinking on the foul situation is that a player plays more tentatively when he has two fouls, afraid to pick up his 3rd. I'm wondering if players play tentatively after one foul, knowing that they are coming out if they get their 2nd?

[rambone 78]

What really hurt us in the UMass game, was Hassan getting that 2nd foul so damn early.

Totally changed the game. The game plays a lot differently if he doesn't get that 2nd foul.

It's like we play with 2 total bigs.

1 for Hassan, one half [maybe] for Gil, even less for Earl, and zero for the rest.

Way too thin in the frontcourt.

We hate the 4 guard offense, loath the 5 guard offense. We have to play it out of necessity way too often, and against bigger front lines, that's a bad thing.

If we could get 35 minutes a game out of Hassan, and a combined 35 minutes out of Gil and Earl, I think we'd be in good shape. Might avoid having some of these games come down to the wire.

But with injuries [Earl] and foul trouble [all] we just can't seem to get that.

[section(105)]

Gil's back up almost a starter..... Yeah and that brings us to the counter point that we don't have the depth that we thought we had coming into this season.....the bench talent drops off way more than I expected....in all positions.......no?

[rambone 78]

That's what Dan is dealing with....

And he's waiting for the freshmen to break through......

the latter is going to happen, and soon...the depth?

[SGreenwell]

I suppose the basketball bible these days, taking players out in the first half upon getting their second foul is the norm. That makes sense, I guess, where the players off the bench can hold their own, Howver, we ain't got that kinda of quality developed depth on the bench....I mentioned earlier, play our bigs until they foul out. That is probably not in the basketball bible either, but....

It's kind of similar to going for it on fourth-and-1. Statistically, you should pretty much always go for it, even if you're on your opponent's side of the field; the chance of not getting it is very low. However, if it does fail, you open yourself up for criticism. Likewise, statistically coaches are probably too conservative when it comes to benching players with two fouls. Unless it's something like two in one minute or because of a poor match-up, you should probably try to keep the guy in. The downside for both decisions though (a player getting a third foul in the first half, failing to convert a fourth down) can be rather harsh though, which is why many coaches are conservative about it.

[RoadyJay]

I'm not sure they are too conservative... A team will, without a doubt, attack a player with 2 early fouls. Not only is there a risk of picking up a 3rd foul, but now that player can no longer play aggressively, which is probably worse.

[Rhody72]

The only players that I'm concerned about fouling out are EC and Hassan.

It takes practice to become a better shooter. That's all. I'm not saying you'll be a great shooter, but you can be an average shooter.

[SGreenwell]

I'm not sure they are too conservative... A team will, without a doubt, attack a player with 2 early fouls. Not only is there a risk of picking up a 3rd foul, but now that player can no longer play aggressively, which is probably worse.

Two early fouls though would fall under the "poor match-up" or bad stretch of activity that probably warrants the player sitting. But if, say, EC Mathews picks up a foul in the first minute, then one six minutes later, you probably shouldn't keep him rooted to the bench.

[rambone 78]

Hurley is scared to death of losing Hassan to fouls too early. He knows they are toast if that happens.

He's quite aware by now, who's good and not so good out there. I doubt he likes or really wants to put Iffy or JR out there except in garbage time.

Except there's no garbage time in A10 games, with us anyway.

[RoadyJay]

I just think you are almost guaranteeing picking up a 3rd foul.. In your scenario EC picks up 2 fouls within the first 7 minutes of the game. I can assure you the opposition is going to attack EC for the final 13 minutes of the half. He is either going to pick up that 3rd foul or he is going to be less aggressive on defense and be a liability on defense. Either scenario is not good.. You have to sit him.

Obviously there are factors other factors that go into the decision (score of game, opponent, depth, etc.) but definitely with EC and Hass I am sitting them as soon as they pick up 2 fouls that early in the first half.

It's an interesting debate... but I would go along with most coaches and be "conservative"

[rambone 78]

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

If you leave him in, sometimes it will work, but more often it won't.

[ramster]

I'm not sure they are too conservative... A team will, without a doubt, attack a player with 2 early fouls. Not only is there a risk of picking up a 3rd foul, but now that player can no longer play aggressively, which is probably worse.

Two early fouls though would fall under the "poor match-up" or bad stretch of activity that probably warrants the player sitting. But if, say, EC Mathews picks up a foul in the first minute, then one six minutes later, you probably shouldn't keep him rooted to the bench.

So how is EC any different from Hassan Martin? I would make the arguement that we can LESS afford to have Martin rooted on the bench than EC.

I would not trade Hassan Martin for any other big man in the A10 - none. Martin is a strong offensive player inthat his percentage is outstanding down low - get the ball to Martin down low and it's almost automatic. Even if he misses the shot he often gets the rebound and taps it in. His defensive presence is enormous for our team - rebounding, altering shots, blocking shots - just his presence alone keeps players from wanting to contest us inside.
What Martin proved against UMASS is that he can play with fouls. After the 2 fouls he played the remaining 18 minutes he was on the court with ZERO fouls - he finished the game with 2 fouls. Looking back what a shame he was rooted to the bench for 15 minutes of the 1st half.
We are not good enough to have our best big man, and the best big man in the A10, sit on the bench for 75% of the first half. JR coming in for Martin is a huge gap, always will be.

On top of that, Martin played 18 minutes in the 2nd half with zero fouls, yet played aggressively on offense and on defense. He blocked several shots, sometimes blocking on the same possession when most players will get called for the foul on the 2nd or 3rd attempted block. The guy proved he can play with fouls on him.
Martin is not Biruta or Watson or Levan Shengalia - guys who pick up fouls in bunches at a fast pace. He is athletic, he has excellent timing, he has supurb coordination, he has basketball instincts and smarts well beyond his years, he controls his emotions..........a Coach has to know his players and Martin is different, much more mature than most players his age.
I watched the #2 HS Player, Jaylen Brown, Monday at the Hoophall Classic pick up two quick fouls in the 1st Quarter, his Coach left him in. He did not pick up another and his Coach knew how important Brown was to the Team.
Martin is no less important to this URI Team than Brown was to Wheeler.
Some comments have been that the player then becomes less intense, tends to lay off to avoid more fouls so therefore the need to take him out. Bull to that...........I'll take Martin any day, any time over anybig man in the A10, nevermind URI, playing in a less intense fashion than to not have him in the game at all.
We complain about not having big men and then let the best Big Man in the A10 sit for 15 minutes - then complain about how we lose in the final minute. Need to play all 40 minutes - they are all important.

[rambone 78]

Ramster, excellent work. With Hassan, I tend to agree with you.

If he had played most of the 1st half, yes we might have had a decent lead at halftime, and that 5 or 6 point lead that we blew around the 5-6 minute mark, might have been double digits, and we could have hung on and won the game.

[ramster]

Ramster, excellent work. With Hassan, I tend to agree with you.

If he had played most of the 1st half, yes we might have had a decent lead at halftime, and that 5 or 6 point lead that we blew around the 5-6 minute mark, might have been double digits, and we could have hung on and won the game.

Rambone,
Even if we didn't get a lead, fact is we do not have depth of big men, that has been the subject of the past week or so. Biruta has not played as expected, Watson has not gotten Playing time and has been discussed much here, Iffy has not seen minutes, JR is not a forward................
We cannot afford to play conservative with Martin, not if we expect to win and be in the Top 3 in the conference...........conservativism just will not work.
Martin MUST play 35 minutes per game or more - only excuse for less than 35 minutes should be if he fouls out. His History says he will not foul out.

[rambone 78]

Hopefully Dan hears you, Ramster, about Hassan, but I doubt much will change.

[SGreenwell]

I'm not sure they are too conservative... A team will, without a doubt, attack a player with 2 early fouls. Not only is there a risk of picking up a 3rd foul, but now that player can no longer play aggressively, which is probably worse.

Two early fouls though would fall under the "poor match-up" or bad stretch of activity that probably warrants the player sitting. But if, say, EC Mathews picks up a foul in the first minute, then one six minutes later, you probably shouldn't keep him rooted to the bench.

So how is EC any different from Hassan Martin? I would make the arguement that we can LESS afford to have Martin rooted on the bench than EC.

He isn't. I didn't make any comparison between EC and Martin. I could have just said "Player X" in my example, but I used an actual player name in my argument in an attempt to make it easier to understand, not because I was trying to identify the team's best player.