Hoiberg the TO bully
- Thread starter BWRhasnoAC
- Start date
Fred likes to press the pace and keep pressure on the opponent by scoring. I love it. It is the future of how basketball should be played. My beef with the game of basketball is that it rewards fouling. That doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather have it like hockey where you actually penalize the player the first time not the fifth time they foul.
But hey, it's the game, and how it is designed so I will live with it. I'd love at a minimum a 24 second shot clock.
But hey, it's the game, and how it is designed so I will live with it. I'd love at a minimum a 24 second shot clock.
Records? What support do records bring for timeout management? Absolutely zero.
One of the most egregious misuse of timeouts I've ever seen cam at AFH a few years ago when McLemore banked in the 3. In the last minute or minute and a half of that game, Ejim (I believe) had a crucial TO in which Hoiberg failed to utilize a timeout to preserve possesion, despite having 3. After the crowd had went nuts in sending the game into OT, McLemore hits a 3 to start it. This should have been another IMMEDIATE timeout, instead Fred waits to go NINE down in OT on the ROAD before using one of his 3 remaining timeouts. While this is one of his worst offenses, it's a demonstration of the type of TO management Fred has maintained during games. The game at West Virginia was another example of poor TO usage down the stretch (going off of memory).
And a Final Four
$$$ not the only measure, I am just too lazy to write all the other measures.
Considering that he seemed oblivious to the mountain of stats supporting fouling when holding a 3 point lead (on a late opponent possession), I highly doubt it.
That's not stated as a jab, rather that he (admittedly) wasn't aware once that was presented to him.
Maybe steal something from football and put 5 or 10 second runoffs into the rules for fouls within the last two minutes? They figured out a long time ago in that game that playing the game/not trying to manipulate the clock with bogus fouls makes the endings far more interesting.
I thought the inference was pretty clear that Fred didn't consciously make an effort to conserve or use timeouts during this particular contest. I referenced that the team played outstanding basketball, particularly it's composure in running the offense in the 2nd half. I didn't think I'd have to state that Fred deserves a lot of credit for that. That should be implied.
Unless your name is Self, Coach K, Calipari, or Izzo, it's probably best to just watch Hoiberg and not talk.
****, I have been thinking about and I think ZRF is right. Look at Technical Fouls - CFH has to be the most naive coach in the world when it comes to getting T'ed up. Look at Billy Boy Self - he can masterfully walk into even Hilton and turn a well timed T into a 6 pt swing. Hoiberg doesn't even know how to get T'ed up, think he has had 2 total as a coach?!
Anyone that oblivious to game management isn't going to know how to use TOs either.
Anyone that oblivious to game management isn't going to know how to use TOs either.
I agree with your point, but I'm not sure Calipari deserves to be on that list.
This seems like just an example of confirmation bias. There are times where Fred doesn't use TO's and we go on to lose, there are times he doesn't use TO's when a lot of other coaches would and we come back to win. In the B12 title game last year, we come out not being able to get anything to go, trail by as much as 11-1 at the 12:30 mark and Fred never called a TO. Almost any other coach would have burned a time out if his team was almost to the second media time out and still hadn't score two points. Fred didn't it and it worked out, we rallied back to get it close before half time and pulled away in the second half. You remember the instances it didn't work in games we lost, but no one remembers the time he lets the guys play through it and it works out for ISU, and it's worked out a lot in the last few years.
ZRF has some serious Hoiberg issues. Next year is going to be even worse for idiots like him, and I don't see it getting better any time after that.
There is just as much to support not fouling as fouling, that is why you see even top coaches split on what to do in that situation. The fact that you don't even recognize that the foul/don't foul debate is a legitimate debate rather than clear cut that a team should foul every time makes it pretty clear that you don't know heat you are talking about. Ask Lon how that worked out for him today.
This paper by the head Depauw coach (at least at the time), sums it up perfectly. Assuming that you don't: foul in the act of shooting a 3, or commit some other egregious error, the percentages heavily support, in terms of percentage of outcomes, fouling in those situations.
In our particular situation we were a poor defensive team, and a poor perimeter defensive team at that. Kansas had a player on the floor that was making everything in site. While he was lucking in making the particular 3, the fact still stands that the odds were much better had we fouled.
Had we been a good perimeter defensive team, such as a Syracuse (a historically lengthy perimeter team) and facing a team with poor perimeter shooters I'd be all for defending in that situation. In our case, our strengths, weaknesses, and the statistical event outcomes ABSOLUTELY pointed to fouling in that situation. I don't even think it's debatable.
Edit: forgot to link it : http://www.depauw.edu/ath/mbasket/images/up3.pdf
'
Well, he obviously learned from that Kansas game because he did foul against OSU last year and told his team to foul against Iowa last year (they didn't do it).
So maybe you should stop ******** about a game 3 years ago.
I'll also add that fouling Kansas at AFH is a sticky situation. Weird things happen there. More than likely you'd get called for an intentional or the player would toss up a shot that would go in anyway.
