MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[Chief]

I just said... Hope is human

[KnightSlappy]

I see that Hope star Nate Snuggerud had 4 fouls in the first half.  I did not listen to the game so would appreciate explanation of how that happened.  How did the Hope staff let him pick up foul #3 in the 1st half, let alone foul #4??

Your best players need to be on the court for the maximum number of minutes. There's never a reason to take a guy out of the first half with only two fouls. You can't take the extra fouls with you at the end of the game.

[Chief]

KVS should be fired after his team's performance today!!!

[ziggy]

I see that Hope star Nate Snuggerud had 4 fouls in the first half.  I did not listen to the game so would appreciate explanation of how that happened.  How did the Hope staff let him pick up foul #3 in the 1st half, let alone foul #4??

Your best players need to be on the court for the maximum number of minutes. There's never a reason to take a guy out of the first half with only two fouls. You can't take the extra fouls with you at the end of the game.

Not necessarily true. If you have enough of them you can create a package to send to the Marlins for something useful.

[SBell]

I see that Hope star Nate Snuggerud had 4 fouls in the first half.  I did not listen to the game so would appreciate explanation of how that happened.  How did the Hope staff let him pick up foul #3 in the 1st half, let alone foul #4??

Your best players need to be on the court for the maximum number of minutes. There's never a reason to take a guy out of the first half with only two fouls. You can't take the extra fouls with you at the end of the game.

Dean Smith always took a guy out with two fouls. It famously hurt in 84 Tournament with Jordan vs. Indiana, but overall if you can't develop a reliable bench, get a new job.

[oldknight]

Congrats to St. Thomas on their comeback victory over the Calvin women in the volleyball national championship game at DeVos Fieldhouse. After Calvin won the first two sets with some comfort it seemed they would coast to victory. But the visitors from Minnesota had other ideas and won the final three sets in convincing fashion to quiet what was likely the most partisan Calvin crowd Hope's campus will ever see. It was quite unreal to see the corner normally filled with Dew Crew members instead populated with Calvin students, as was half the end zone seating. St. Thomas couldn't have had much more than 100 fans in a crowd that exceeded 3500 so their comeback against all odds was mighty impressive. Kudos to the Hope staff for putting on an excellent final.

[Titan Q]

I see that Hope star Nate Snuggerud had 4 fouls in the first half.  I did not listen to the game so would appreciate explanation of how that happened.  How did the Hope staff let him pick up foul #3 in the 1st half, let alone foul #4??

Your best players need to be on the court for the maximum number of minutes. There's never a reason to take a guy out of the first half with only two fouls. You can't take the extra fouls with you at the end of the game.

There is "never a reason to take a guy out of the first half with only two fouls"?  Never?

Picking up a 3rd foul in the 1st half can really hurt you in the 2nd.  I think your statement is a little strong.

[KnightSlappy]

I see that Hope star Nate Snuggerud had 4 fouls in the first half.  I did not listen to the game so would appreciate explanation of how that happened.  How did the Hope staff let him pick up foul #3 in the 1st half, let alone foul #4??

Your best players need to be on the court for the maximum number of minutes. There's never a reason to take a guy out of the first half with only two fouls. You can't take the extra fouls with you at the end of the game.

There is "never a reason to take a guy out of the first half with only two fouls"?  Never?

Picking up a 3rd foul in the 1st half can really hurt you in the 2nd.  I think your statement is a little strong.

I mean, sure. If he's also turned an ankle then he maybe should take a seat.

[calvinite]

"There is "never a reason to take a guy out of the first half with only two fouls"

Here are a couple reasons -- these reasons won't ALWAYS be the case, but they might be the case some of the time....
After a starter picks up 2 quick fouls in a half...
1) he might no longer be one of the five best players on the court if he's worried about picking up a third foul and playing timid...
2) The starter who picked up two quick fouls MIGHT -- I just speculate this might happen -- might need to be BENCHED just because he picked up a really stupid foul after the coach has been preaching to him for the past 3.5 years NOT to commit stupid fouls....
3) While the five players on the court might be the 'best five,' I think there are other reasons to pull a player with 2 fouls. One reason might be to avoid giving an opponent an emotional boost that would likely result if your best player picks up 3 fouls mid-way through the first half.
4) Finally, I do NOT think all minutes are equal. It's one thing to bring in your 2nd string, freshman guard midway through the first half in a tight game; it's another to put him in with 40 seconds left in the game with score tied.

[pointlem]

That's well said Calvinite, and sometimes playing the 2-foul player in the 1st half won't work out--last night was a striking example. And sometimes, as you note, there may be special circumstances.

But I think KnightSlappy is right, and will wager Mitt Romney's $10,000 that more often a team benefits by having its star player maximize minutes across the whole game.  Games are won and lost as much in the first half as the second.  (The game's 11th minute counts as much toward the final point total as the 40th.) 

But then again, if Kruis or Snikkers get a quick two fouls in one of their games against Hope, I'll be with you Calvinite--sit 'em for the entire rest of the half.  Guarantee their availability for the last two minutes when points scored can decide the game.   

"There is "never a reason to take a guy out of the first half with only two fouls"

Here are a couple reasons -- these reasons won't ALWAYS be the case, but they might be the case some of the time....
After a starter picks up 2 quick fouls in a half...
1) he might no longer be one of the five best players on the court if he's worried about picking up a third foul and playing timid...
2) The starter who picked up two quick fouls MIGHT -- I just speculate this might happen -- might need to be BENCHED just because he picked up a really stupid foul after the coach has been preaching to him for the past 3.5 years NOT to commit stupid fouls....
3) While the five players on the court might be the 'best five,' I think there are other reasons to pull a player with 2 fouls. One reason might be to avoid giving an opponent an emotional boost that would likely result if your best player picks up 3 fouls mid-way through the first half.
4) Finally, I do NOT think all minutes are equal. It's one thing to bring in your 2nd string, freshman guard midway through the first half in a tight game; it's another to put him in with 40 seconds left in the game with score tied.

[ChicagoHopeNut]

I attended the Hope game last night and had a number of thoughts:

1) First, on Snuggerud, he picked up two fouls in the first two minutes. Neil put him back in with 12 minutes in the first half when Hope was only down 3. A questionable call in my mind. Snuggerud got a very ticky-tacky foul number three then Neil was too slow getting a sub to mid-court and Snuggerud got foul four on the inbounds.

Snuggerud has to be smarter than making a foul outside the arc but getting that foul is on Neil in my mind. If you have to call a time out there you MUST get your best player off the floor.

If Snuggerud had been able to play the whole game I think he would have scored 25 plus. He clearly had the moves when on the court.

2) The refs were bad but they were equal opportunity bad. Just very inconsistent calls throughout and a few calls blown that were just awful. NVA with his foot out of bounds for 3 seconds while holding the ball and goal tending when the ball was outside and below the rim.

3) Hope was 3-18 from beyond the arc. If Hope shoots close to normal there they win.

4) NVA looked exhausted by the end of the game but gave a great defensive effort. Offensively, he still lacks consistent moves. There were a half dozen times that he received the ball with back to basket that if he had gone straight to his left they were giving him a lay up. However, he insisted on holding the ball and then going towards the middle of the lane.

And my "when I was in college" thoughts:

1) Hope's guards are really short this year compared to my time. I imagine having Neil and Wattenbach will help.

2) If those are two of the top 10 teams in D3 than the quality of basketball in D3 seems way down to me from where it was 7-10 years ago. Granted it was only the second game of the season but generally unimpressive.

[sac]

Adrian takes Wooster right down to wire, game winning shot rattles in.

Adrian 57 Wooster 56

I watched bits and pieces of the video feed.  I think we'll get what we've come to expect from Adrian, a team that plays good sound defense, rebounds hard and will play the game at a grinding pace.  It was Cody Barnes that hit the game winner btw.

Adrian ended up out-rebounding Wooster 43-37, this almost never happens to Wooster and most of the time in their league they enjoy a substantial rebound margin.

Both of these teams are quite a bit different than they were a year ago when Wooster thrashed the Bulldogs 75-50 and enjoyed a +19 rebound advantage.  But I think this will end up being a really good win for Adrian and is really quite a turnaround from last season.

Taking a look at Adrian's upcoming schedule:

@ Sienna Heights
@ Marygrove
UM-Dearborn
Mt. Union
@ Carnegie-Mellon
Northwestern Ohio
@ Lawrence Tech
vs Mt Union
vs Finlandia or Defiance

Adrian has a great chance to enter the MIAA schedule with a sparkling record, there really isn't a team left they shouldn't beat.  They might drop 1 or 2 just because they insist on playing such tight games.  Their first two MIAA contests are @ Calvin and hosting Hope.

Exciting right?

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Some observations and thoughts on last nights Hope @ NCC game:

As mentioned by others, it was an extremely physical which got a bit out of control late. I put that entirely on the shoulders of the men in stripes. Inconsistency in what's a foul and what isn't always leads to players pushing it to an extreme.  I'd say the physicality of the game was only a slight advantage to NCC.

The outcome of this game came down to just a few small things, which in this particular game all fell in favor of NCC. 

- Fouls on Snuggs - yeah, he plays 25 minutes and its a different game.
- Home court - big time advantage given the "strangeness" of the airplane hangar and the extreme heat in there
- Injuries - Hope was down several guys (Seiler played, but was obviously no where near 100%)
- Team experience - Hope logged 88 minutes of playing time with guys who weren't on the team a year ago. Time and experience and games like this one go a long way to learning each other and getting better.

All in all I was impressed with the effort. No doubt coach Neil has a ton of teaching moments from this weekend that will continue to improve this team. The upside for this team is pretty high.

Latly I have to point out that I was extremely happy with the efforts of the new guys, several who really excelled - Byers is a huge get for Hope and he will be a big part of the successor this team. Benson showed some solid D for a freshman in his first real game as did SO Parisi - and his shot will come.

[HopeConvert]

That's well said Calvinite, and sometimes playing the 2-foul player in the 1st half won't work out--last night was a striking example. And sometimes, as you note, there may be special circumstances.

But I think KnightSlappy is right, and will wager Mitt Romney's $10,000 that more often a team benefits by having its star player maximize minutes across the whole game.  Games are won and lost as much in the first half as the second.  (The game's 11th minute counts as much toward the final point total as the 40th.) 

But then again, if Kruis or Snikkers get a quick two fouls in one of their games against Hope, I'll be with you Calvinite--sit 'em for the entire rest of the half.  Guarantee their availability for the last two minutes when points scored can decide the game.   

"There is "never a reason to take a guy out of the first half with only two fouls"

Here are a couple reasons -- these reasons won't ALWAYS be the case, but they might be the case some of the time....
After a starter picks up 2 quick fouls in a half...
1) he might no longer be one of the five best players on the court if he's worried about picking up a third foul and playing timid...
2) The starter who picked up two quick fouls MIGHT -- I just speculate this might happen -- might need to be BENCHED just because he picked up a really stupid foul after the coach has been preaching to him for the past 3.5 years NOT to commit stupid fouls....
3) While the five players on the court might be the 'best five,' I think there are other reasons to pull a player with 2 fouls. One reason might be to avoid giving an opponent an emotional boost that would likely result if your best player picks up 3 fouls mid-way through the first half.
4) Finally, I do NOT think all minutes are equal. It's one thing to bring in your 2nd string, freshman guard midway through the first half in a tight game; it's another to put him in with 40 seconds left in the game with score tied.

PL, KS and I have all advocated for the "do not sit a guy just because he has two fouls" position. But just as "you must sit him" is not an absolute, neither - as Calvinite demonstrates - is the antipode.

Part of this hinges on our perceptions concerning the relative value of minutes at the end of the game versus those in the middle. On a strict quantitive basis, as PL says, there is no difference. From a spectator's viewpoint we certainly remember baskets at the end of the game (Holwerda's against IWU for example) more than those in the middle. And from a player's perspective late game pressure might make them perform less efficiently.

I wonder, however, whether there is a sense in which it does make a difference quantitatively, and that would be the case if a team on average has more possessions in the final two minutes of a game than they do at any other point in the game. I haven't seen any stats on this, but toward the end of a game a team with a lead is playing keep-away while the other team is more desperate to get the ball. This will lead to hurry-up strategies and fouling on the part of the latter team, which would lead, I assume to more possessions. Of course, this could be offset by the team playing keep-away. If in fact Hope (for example) would have more possessions in the final two or three minutes of the game than at any other time, then it would make sense to make sure you have your best players on the floor at that time.

But these are assumptions. KS or anyone else: do you have any data on this?

[KnightSlappy]

I wonder, however, whether there is a sense in which it does make a difference quantitatively, and that would be the case if a team on average has more possessions in the final two minutes of a game than they do at any other point in the game. I haven't seen any stats on this, but toward the end of a game a team with a lead is playing keep-away while the other team is more desperate to get the ball. This will lead to hurry-up strategies and fouling on the part of the latter team, which would lead, I assume to more possessions. Of course, this could be offset by the team playing keep-away. If in fact Hope (for example) would have more possessions in the final two or three minutes of the game than at any other time, then it would make sense to make sure you have your best players on the floor at that time.

But these are assumptions. KS or anyone else: do you have any data on this?

You bring up a good point. When I said that a coach should maximize a player's minutes, I was incorrect. The coach should be maximizing the number of possessions in which he's on the floor. It very well could be that there are more possessions in the last minute of a particular game -- making it the most important minute -- but each individual possession inside that minute carries no more weight than any other possession of the game.

So minutes aren't an ideal way to measure this -- wouldn't it be cool if box scores recorded possession data for each player !?! -- but the main point stands. If a player doesn't foul out, and the coach sat at some point him because of "foul trouble," he (the coach) limited his potential impact on the game.