Agnostic thought on playing time

[Ragman2000]

So I can absolutely see both sides of everyone's questions and concerns about playing time, especially after a brutal loss. So I've tried to take emotion and names out of it and give it some thought, and here is what what I came up with, take it for what it's worth.

Let's say your starters are Players A, B, C, D, and E. These are the players most equipped to win the game in today's game. Not tomorrows, not next season, but today. Players , G, H, and I are all capable of contributing. Players J, K, L and beyond are "projects" and simply not ready to be a meaningful contributor TODAY (again, not tomorrow or next season).

There are two schools of thought:

Scenario 1: Play A-E as much as they can with sprinkles of , G, and H depending on situation, foul trouble, etc. This most likely gives you the best chance to win today's game as your average talent and experience level per minute played is highest, but at the expense of tomorrow as players -L are not getting a lot of game experience.

Scenario 2: Play A-E the most minutes, but players , G and H get 10-20 minutes a game. On the plus side, your players are all fresher and the rotation guys gets more experience which improves their performance tomorrow and in subsequent seasons. On the downside, your experience (and current talent) level drops and you may be reducing your odds of winning today.

In Scenario 1, your starting 5 are getting lots of minutes, so even if they did not play much in prior seasons, they come up to game speed quickly out of necessity because by definition they are playing 35+ min a game. Also, each game is played with "your best chance to win today with tomorrow be damned."

In Scenario 2, when players , G, and H eventually become starters in subsequent seasons, they have more game experience and give you the best chance to win "today." However, they are now getting benched for 10+ minutes a game for players J, K, and L (the former projects). This again, does not give you the best chance to win "Today" but is building for subsequent seasons.

There is no right or wrong answer here; some coaches are firmly in Scenario 1 camp (such as JB). Some coaches are more in line with Scenario 2. I think it's easy to see the flaws in either approach when your teams approach doesn't appear to be working. However, both Scenarios bring good and bad. I get JB's approach, he thinks it gives him the best chance to win today, and history says he's not wrong. That doesn't mean there aren't drawbacks and Scenario 2 will work as well.

Anyway, take the names away and there are no wrong answers here, but I totally get why most coaches choose Scenario 1.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Which letter is BB?

 

[MikeSU02]

So I can absolutely see both sides of everyone's questions and concerns about playing time, especially after a brutal loss. So I've tried to take emotion and names out of it and give it some thought, and here is what what I came up with, take it for what it's worth.

Let's say your starters are Players A, B, C, D, and E. These are the players most equipped to win the game in today's game. Not tomorrows, not next season, but today. Players , G, H, and I are all capable of contributing. Players J, K, L and beyond are "projects" and simply not ready to be a meaningful contributor TODAY (again, not tomorrow or next season).

There are two schools of thought:

Scenario 1: Play A-E as much as they can with sprinkles of , G, and H depending on situation, foul trouble, etc. This most likely gives you the best chance to win today's game as your average talent and experience level per minute played is highest, but at the expense of tomorrow as players -L are not getting a lot of game experience.

Scenario 2: Play A-E the most minutes, but players , G and H get 10-20 minutes a game. On the plus side, your players are all fresher and the rotation guys gets more experience which improves their performance tomorrow and in subsequent seasons. On the downside, your experience (and current talent) level drops and you may be reducing your odds of winning today.

In Scenario 1, your starting 5 are getting lots of minutes, so even if they did not play much in prior seasons, they come up to game speed quickly out of necessity because by definition they are playing 35+ min a game. Also, each game is played with "your best chance to win today with tomorrow be damned."

In Scenario 2, when players , G, and H eventually become starters in subsequent seasons, they have more game experience and give you the best chance to win "today." However, they are now getting benched for 10+ minutes a game for players J, K, and L (the former projects). This again, does not give you the best chance to win "Today" but is building for subsequent seasons.

There is no right or wrong answer here; so coaches are firmly in Scenario 1 camp (such as JB). Some coaches are more in line with Scenario 2. I think it's easy to see the flaws in either approach when your teams approach doesn't appear to be working. However, both Scenarios bring good and bad. I get JB's approach, he thinks it gives him the best chance to win today, and history says he's not wrong. That doesn't mean there aren't drawbacks and Scenario 2 will work as well.

Anyway, take the names away and there are no wrong answers here, but I totally get why most coaches choose Scenario 1.

The issue isn't your options if those were the actual only two options.

The issue is that what we are witnessing is a third scenario you don't outline. Our coach selects option 1 alternative, with the caveat is that it's not the five players that are the best option to win right now even tho JB alleges it is.

 

[Ragman2000]

Which letter is BB?

This is applicable to any team and any season. Again, take names away.

 

[sufandu]

I forget who it was that was talking about FSU, maybe Bilas last night, but he said those players know they need to play as hard as they can and when they get tired they'll get subbed out and know they'll go back in when they're rested. I love that philosphy.

I wonder how much our guys conserve energy, knowing they're almost never coming out.

 

[Alsacs]

I want the team to compete for conference and national titles.
If the talent isn’t good enough for that and it’s going to be bubble I want no part of option 1 and would say go with option 2.

If the talent is good enough to win a lot of games and be competitive then go with option 1.

Our problem has been we are maxing out to be mediocre and then rinse repeat washing it.

I would be okay with a 13-18 season if it paid dividends the following seasons.
Rather than go 18-14 not make the tournament and just be the same the next year with no development of the roster.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

So I can absolutely see both sides of everyone's questions and concerns about playing time, especially after a brutal loss. So I've tried to take emotion and names out of it and give it some thought, and here is what what I came up with, take it for what it's worth.

Let's say your starters are Players A, B, C, D, and E. These are the players most equipped to win the game in today's game. Not tomorrows, not next season, but today. Players , G, H, and I are all capable of contributing. Players J, K, L and beyond are "projects" and simply not ready to be a meaningful contributor TODAY (again, not tomorrow or next season).

There are two schools of thought:

Scenario 1: Play A-E as much as they can with sprinkles of , G, and H depending on situation, foul trouble, etc. This most likely gives you the best chance to win today's game as your average talent and experience level per minute played is highest, but at the expense of tomorrow as players -L are not getting a lot of game experience.

Scenario 2: Play A-E the most minutes, but players , G and H get 10-20 minutes a game. On the plus side, your players are all fresher and the rotation guys gets more experience which improves their performance tomorrow and in subsequent seasons. On the downside, your experience (and current talent) level drops and you may be reducing your odds of winning today.

In Scenario 1, your starting 5 are getting lots of minutes, so even if they did not play much in prior seasons, they come up to game speed quickly out of necessity because by definition they are playing 35+ min a game. Also, each game is played with "your best chance to win today with tomorrow be damned."

In Scenario 2, when players , G, and H eventually become starters in subsequent seasons, they have more game experience and give you the best chance to win "today." However, they are now getting benched for 10+ minutes a game for players J, K, and L (the former projects). This again, does not give you the best chance to win "Today" but is building for subsequent seasons.

There is no right or wrong answer here; some coaches are firmly in Scenario 1 camp (such as JB). Some coaches are more in line with Scenario 2. I think it's easy to see the flaws in either approach when your teams approach doesn't appear to be working. However, both Scenarios bring good and bad. I get JB's approach, he thinks it gives him the best chance to win today, and history says he's not wrong. That doesn't mean there aren't drawbacks and Scenario 2 will work as well.

Anyway, take the names away and there are no wrong answers here, but I totally get why most coaches choose Scenario 1.

I'd argue history is trending in the wrong direction for JB.

 

[Ghost]

So I can absolutely see both sides of everyone's questions and concerns about playing time, especially after a brutal loss. So I've tried to take emotion and names out of it and give it some thought, and here is what what I came up with, take it for what it's worth.

It's a good assessment. I think we sort of transitioned into a new system without REALLY transitioning into a new system.

Scenario 1 worked for us historically largely because defense.

Scenario 1 does not work for us now, largely because defense.

Yet I imagine we're still using defense, at least partially, to justify going with Scenario 1.

I get that some expected pieces aren't here (JC, Goodine, etc..), but you can't just keep plowing forward with pieces that don't fit.

And if you are, you need to get the pieces that will eventually FIT up to speed as quickly as possible. That's on the coaches. Otherwise, seems to me you're just shooting yourself in the foot, and the leg, and the hands, etc...and helping to ensure it continues on that way for as long as possible.

 

[ar inj]

Hear what is being said, but what if A, B, C, D and E are the best 5 if you are playing style X but A, B, C, and G would give you the best opportunity to win if you play style Y.

XO and YO can be types of offense and XD and YD can be type of defense.

That gives the coach even more options and potentially different combinations players if you are playing XO/XD vs XO/YD.

The complaint I hear and my complaint is that the choice that has been made is to play a certain way when it may be best to play another way.