On JB's imagined favoritism re: Buddy...

Ceerqqq

Scout Team
Joined
Mar 16, 2018
Messages
296
Like
981
Sometimes fans get some notions in their heads that just don't make any sense under examination. One of these is the sarcasm frequently expressed by those who are certain that Coach Boeheim does irrationally give his son, Buddy, an unjustified amount of minutes in games cuz he loves him or something. It's an assumption that I think fails the Logic Test.

One thing every long-standing SU Basketball fan must know about Jim Boeheim is that he wants to win games more than life itself. He very rarely likes to take chances. Doesn't like to defy the odds. When it comes to which of his players he puts on the court, when the game is at all in doubt he's not likely to take a chance on his bench, unless 1 or more of his starters ain't getting it done. Yes, there are other variables that come into play: the experience of his 7th-9th players, how they've been playing in practice, how many mistakes they made the last time they were in, etc.

It seems many fans view the coach/son story as an excuse to harangue JB for not playing a deeper bench. I don't happen to be one of them. I believe Boeheim, Coach K, & a dozen other highly respected head coaches are right to play no more than 7-8 players in their regular rotation. It's not because they're oblivious to how helpful the extra minutes of PT would be to the 8th, 9th, and 10th players. It's because they'e acutely aware of how helpful those minutes are to the starting 5, and then the starting 7. Smart coaches don't want to deprive their best players of the crucial PT they need in order to develop as a team, just to give the guys further down the bench a few more token minutes.

Any time Jim has a young team, like he did last year, he's gonna be far more concerned about his starters getting the time they need playing together in games in a very short season if they are going to be able to be competitive with the best teams at the end of the year. He's got to have his best five players optimally developed in game situations to have any chance in the post-season. Any time you have a young team, there will always be precious few minutes left over for those on the bench, unless 1) the 1st five are destroying all their opponents in spite of their inexperience, or 2) injuries or 'performance issues' force his hand.

Last year, Buddy & Joe played nearly all the available minutes because Jim desperately needed his starting, inexperienced guards to have as much playing time with the rest of the team as possible in game situations if they were gonna have a chance to play at a level where, say, they'd be able to blow out North Carolina in the ACC Tournament. Aside from that strategic consideration, there was the fact that Buddy was in the 2nd half of the season providing a serious threat to opposing defenses that they had to respect. These days, you've gotta have at least three 3pt threats in your offense to be able to compete with the best teams in the league. There was almost never a time when Jim didn't want to have that threat on the court if at all possible.

Having said all that, I expect both JG & BB to play fewer minutes this year, cuz 1) they have year of experience under their belts, and 2) Kadary Richmond. I haven't heard whether KR can hit the open 3, but I'm imagining he must be doing this also, or else he wouldn't be referred to as one of the best PG's in the country. If true, then there would be little drop off of that kind of threat if Buddy's on the bench.

While there were abundant reasons for JB to play his son a ton of minutes last year, still we have fans who never miss an opportunity to insinuate that the head coach has such a strong emotional attachment to his son that he would ignore the best interests of the team in order to 'cheat', i.e., give Buddy more time on the court to boost his stats when that PT could have more profitably have been given to say BG, instead. In other words, they're insinuating that JB has a character flaw that, in their opinion, is probably hurting his team's overall development. Am I the only one who finds these insinuations intentionally insulting to JB & out of bounds?
 

CuseFaninVT

Co 2020-21 Iggy Award Winner Hoops Leading RPG
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
33,679
Like
57,061
This logic is flawed. I don’t care that Buddy is Boeheim‘s son. I don’t want any of our guards averaging more than 32-35 mins per game tops. I, and others like me, have been consistently saying this for years. JB is incorrect in his assumption that college kids can play this level of minutes without degradation of performance over time. Never mind the disastrous situation if one of his regulars gets injured late in the season without having a backup ready to step in.
 
Last edited:

721Comstock

2019-20 Iggy Co-Winner Leading Rebounder
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Messages
11,591
Like
42,527
We would have also seen a lot more of freshman Buddy than we did

Buddy played so much early as a Frosh, because both Frank AND Jalen were injured to start the year.
He was literally the only other guard for a while, besides Tyus.

Once Frank came back, Buddy's minutes went down.
Even tho Frank was a shell of his prior season self for the majority of the year.
He had a great game vs. Duke, and then POOF! he was gone like a puff of smoke.
 

Capt. Tuttle

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
18,816
Like
23,149
This logic is flawed. I don’t care that Buddy is Boeheims son. I don’t want any of our guards averaging more than 32-35 mins per game tops. I, and others like me, have been consistently saying this for years. JB is incorrect in his assumption that college kids can play this level of minutes without degradation of perform over time. Never mind the disastrous situation if one of his regulars gets injured late in the season without having a backup ready to step in.
They had no one last year, other than Hughes, who demonstrated that they should be on the floor instead of those 2. The most consistent was HW but his strengths did not outweigh his weaknesses.
 

Orangezoo

On Sanity Leave
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
18,751
Like
32,385
An 18-14 team last year. There is way too much reliance on statistics instead of looking at wins and losses. The argument for Buddy not coming off the floor is a lot different if 18-14 is 23-9. We don't know the results with a different minutes structure giving a talented kid like Goodine more minutes and a chance to work through the freshman issues like Joe got. What we do know is that the team as it was with basically 3 guys never leaving the court was a mediocre at best team that barely finished above .500. 18-14 vs 15-15? Is that honestly worth not using bench talent?
 

Canadian

Walk On
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
61
Like
131
An 18-14 team last year. There is way too much reliance on statistics instead of looking at wins and losses. The argument for Buddy not coming off the floor is a lot different if 18-14 is 23-9. We don't know the results with a different minutes structure giving a talented kid like Goodine more minutes and a chance to work through the freshman issues like Joe got. What we do know is that the team as it was with basically 3 guys never leaving the court was a mediocre at best team that barely finished above .500. 18-14 vs 15-15? Is that honestly worth not using bench talent?
Yes - to JB who hates to lose any game - 1000% - Goodine played meaningful minutes early against penn st. Etc and shot less than 20% - jb not willing to lose games to develop players - you play to win the game - Herman Edwards
 

moqui

generational talent
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
12,114
Like
25,571
tl/dr
but going by the first graf i endorse this message
 

walsh2012

2nd String
Joined
Nov 15, 2018
Messages
981
Like
2,306
An 18-14 team last year. There is way too much reliance on statistics instead of looking at wins and losses. The argument for Buddy not coming off the floor is a lot different if 18-14 is 23-9. We don't know the results with a different minutes structure giving a talented kid like Goodine more minutes and a chance to work through the freshman issues like Joe got. What we do know is that the team as it was with basically 3 guys never leaving the court was a mediocre at best team that barely finished above .500. 18-14 vs 15-15? Is that honestly worth not using bench talent?
you explain that to this fan base when we miss the tournament like 2017
 

Ceerqqq

Scout Team
Joined
Mar 16, 2018
Messages
296
Like
981
This logic is flawed. I don’t care that Buddy is Boeheims son. I don’t want any of our guards averaging more than 32-35 mins per game tops. I, and others like me, have been consistently saying this for years. JB is incorrect in his assumption that college kids can play this level of minutes without degradation of perform over time. Never mind the disastrous situation if one of his regulars gets injured late in the season without having a backup ready to step in.
That's what's great about these forums...everyone gets to express hiser opinion and that's a great thing. Of course, if others disagree with you, you'll be hearing their opinions as well.

I'll just point out that the opinion I endorse is not only that of Jim Boeheim, but also of Coach K and most of the other renowned head coaches in the college game. They are without question aware of the 'fatigue factor' since they see the consequences of their decisions in real time. They understand what the signs of fatigue are.

  • They also understand other important variables, like experience & PT & the limited time (only a few months, really) they have to put a team together.
  • They see the improvement in the play of their Best Five the more they play together with their coach explaining how its done.
  • They see that an entire season's efforts can come down to how well their Best Five is able to play together at Tournament time.
  • They understand that injuries, etc., happen so they need to have backups (6th & 7th & maybe even an 8th player off the bench) ready to play effectively in the game. That's the concession they all make to the fatigue/injury variable.
  • Beyond those key players, they cannot award minutes to those deeper on the bench without compromising the development of those ahead of them. That. Is. What. They. Worry. About.

To press your fatigue argument against these recognized experts in basketball coaching, you have to assume that they regularly mis-estimate the value/importance of the fatigue/injury variable.


The bottom line is you're right, injuries could end up ruining an otherwise good season, but the cost of being "ultimately prepared" for that possibility is starving your best 5-7 of the time they need to develop. My guess is that the Coaching Elite all share the same hunch that the chances of injury/fatigue ruining their season are a great deal less than the chances of their season being ruined by their best players not having had enough time on the court playing together.

You've got an opinion, and then there's the other side that it must answer to...
 

Ceerqqq

Scout Team
Joined
Mar 16, 2018
Messages
296
Like
981
An 18-14 team last year. There is way too much reliance on statistics instead of looking at wins and losses. The argument for Buddy not coming off the floor is a lot different if 18-14 is 23-9. We don't know the results with a different minutes structure giving a talented kid like Goodine more minutes and a chance to work through the freshman issues like Joe got. What we do know is that the team as it was with basically 3 guys never leaving the court was a mediocre at best team that barely finished above .500. 18-14 vs 15-15? Is that honestly worth not using bench talent?
I get your argument, here, but it really depends on if the head coach sees some potential in his team's development if only they can get enough time on the court playing together vs good competition. If he thinks maybe they can get good enough to play well in the ACC Tournament--time willing--he's not gonna want to hamstring the development of his best five by awarding his subs with "development time", is he? Not unless he's written off the entire season & doesn't give a damn anymore. Right?

If this is an important consideration, and I think it is, then what you are seeing as justification for JB playing a deeper bench has it backward. The poorer record indicates that the 7-man rotation must get all the time playing together that it possibly can, cuz hope for their improvement, yes?
 

Orangezoo

On Sanity Leave
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
18,751
Like
32,385
I get your argument, here, but it really depends on if the head coach sees some potential in his team's development if only they can get enough time on the court playing together vs good competition. If he thinks maybe they can get good enough to play well in the ACC Tournament--time willing--he's not gonna want to hamstring the development of his best five by awarding his subs with "development time", is he? Not unless he's written off the entire season & doesn't give a damn anymore. Right?

If this is an important consideration, and I think it is, then what you are seeing as justification for JB playing a deeper bench has it backward. The poorer record indicates that the 7-man rotation must get all the time playing together that it possibly can, cuz hope for their improvement, yes?

I think you are layering a lot of thought into a matter that isn't specific to just last year's team. A 6 man rotation that is winning and there is not a sign of weakness leading to needing to look at different options vs a 6 man rotation that is not winning with talent on the bench is what I am getting at for last year. In the past the scenarios were slightly different but the result not so much in that the bench development is uncommon and has bitten us in either being ill prepared after an injury or in player attrition of a talented player.

Looking again at last year- Jalen Carey struggled mightily at this level. His lack of time was warranted give the struggles and plethora of mistakes. That was clear pre injury.

My point of 18-14 vs 15-15 was not about throwing the season away. The point is and it even plays into having a group that can play together in the future, is that when it's clear that you are missing something and you have a talented option that could help now and can help in the future why would you shut that option down? It is about winning games now and in the future and not simply resting on the laurels of the 6 guys who have simply struggled to get it done night in night out expecting a different result. Logically it doesn't make sense and seems like an issue we have despite the incredible coach that we have who is one of the best ever.

If this was only this year and there was no precedent then not a single person should be making the same argument. Instead as I said before it has bitten us and been questionable for years, some clearly more than others.
 

Zelda Zonk

"Gunter glieben glauchen globen"
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
8,500
Like
18,245
The logic is flawed in that it presupposes a person is either 100% biased or 100% non-biased. That's not how humans work. It also imagines a reality where psychology is single-ended and simplistic. A person can't create for himself a specious reality, where he believes he is doing all he can to win.

That all said, i do believe Buddy was given the benefit of the doubt at times when he may not have deserved it, and then he went out and subsequently deserved it. He played a lot of minutes because the alternatives weren't able to demonstrate better worth, either because of talent issues or because they were given circumstances that hindered development, confidence, and or opportunities to prove themselves.

Buddy produced in good numbers, and demonstrated the ability to put up big numbers, which all leads a coach—any coach—to believe that he is capable of 'coming out of it' even when he is not doing well at that moment, or even for extended stretches.
 

Capt. Tuttle

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
18,816
Like
23,149
I think you are layering a lot of thought into a matter that isn't specific to just last year's team. A 6 man rotation that is winning and there is not a sign of weakness leading to needing to look at different options vs a 6 man rotation that is not winning with talent on the bench is what I am getting at for last year. In the past the scenarios were slightly different but the result not so much in that the bench development is uncommon and has bitten us in either being ill prepared after an injury or in player attrition of a talented player.

Looking again at last year- Jalen Carey struggled mightily at this level. His lack of time was warranted give the struggles and plethora of mistakes. That was clear pre injury.

My point of 18-14 vs 15-15 was not about throwing the season away. The point is and it even plays into having a group that can play together in the future, is that when it's clear that you are missing something and you have a talented option that could help now and can help in the future why would you shut that option down? It is about winning games now and in the future and not simply resting on the laurels of the 6 guys who have simply struggled to get it done night in night out expecting a different result. Logically it doesn't make sense and seems like an issue we have despite the incredible coach that we have who is one of the best ever.

If this was only this year and there was no precedent then not a single person should be making the same argument. Instead as I said before it has bitten us and been questionable for years, some clearly more than others.
Your assumption (or blinders) that there was talent on the bench that didn't play (injured Braswell aside) is wrong. Carey and Goodine - not good. Washington - serviceable, at best
 
Last edited:

dollarbill44

All American
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
6,743
Like
8,965
Yes - to JB who hates to lose any game - 1000% - Goodine played meaningful minutes early against penn st. Etc and shot less than 20% - jb not willing to lose games to develop players - you play to win the game - Herman Edwards
You play to win as many games as you can in the season. Sometimes that means jeopardizing an early win or two to develop your entire team so that your best players stay as close to 100% for as many games as possible while at the same time preparing your bench players to be able to help the team in late Feb and March.
This does not mean you don't try to win every game. It means that you try to win every game but with many different players.
 

Alsacs

Internet Man, Internet Hero or Internet Scout!!
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
58,634
Like
78,748
You play to win as many games as you can in the season. Sometimes that means jeopardizing an early win or two to develop your entire team so that your best players stay as close to 100% for as many games as possible while at the same time preparing your bench players to be able to help the team in late Feb and March.
This does not mean you don't try to win every game. It means that you try to win every game but with many different players.
Especially when the players playing 35+ mpg aren’t superstars.
If you have Carmelo Anthony play him the whole game.
When you have all-conference level talent you play them the whole game.

When the bench may struggle offensively but give you a better defense it’s not as big a difference.
Remember we sat Buddy against Pitt the offense struggled and the defense was outstanding we won by 20.

The lack of a bench is a problem when the starting talent isn’t top of the conference talent.
 

FloridaFan

2020 Cali Award Winner, Aka FloridaHam
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
8,144
Like
11,813
People would riot in the streets if we went under .500, are we willing to sacrifice that to give a player 4 more minutes a game?
 

Alsacs

Internet Man, Internet Hero or Internet Scout!!
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
58,634
Like
78,748
People would riot in the streets if we went under .500, are we willing to sacrifice that to give a player 4 more minutes a game?
I don’t care about the win streak because it’s not an official record because the NCAA took away wins.

Who cares if we go 17-14 by grinding every ounce out of mediocre talent.
You play the long game while trying to win games.
When will guys get PT to get better?

Buddy is a good player who should get starters minutes but he shouldn’t be a 40 MPG every game player.
 

dollarbill44

All American
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
6,743
Like
8,965
People would riot in the streets if we went under .500, are we willing to sacrifice that to give a player 4 more minutes a game?
I don't know where this concept of playing more players means more losses over the course of a season comes from. Buddy at 95% in late February > Buddy at 80% because he's banged up from so many minutes in January and early Feb.
How many ACC matchups is Buddy going to win at 80%?
Give him 3-4 minutes off each half. Is that really going to cost us every game?
 

DoctorBombay

All American
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
6,154
Like
11,656
I don't know where this concept of playing more players means more losses over the course of a season comes from. Buddy at 95% in late February > Buddy at 80% because he's banged up from so many minutes in January and early Feb.
How many ACC matchups is Buddy going to win at 80%?
Give him 3-4 minutes off each half. Is that really going to cost us every game?
This in a nutshell. Did Buddy deserve to play because of his potential and what he brings to the team, especially offensively? Absolutely. Did he deserve to play 37 mins a game at the expense of any and everyone else, and despite his performance on the court? No- absolutely not. Its ridiculous that a player not named Carmelo Anthony gets that many mins at SU. And to me this is not a Buddy issue, but a bench development philosophy from HCJB, which I've always disagreed with. JMHO
 

OttoinGrotto

2020-21 Iggy Award Winner 3 Point Shooting %
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
41,895
Like
99,904
That's what's great about these forums...everyone gets to express hiser opinion and that's a great thing. Of course, if others disagree with you, you'll be hearing their opinions as well.

I'll just point out that the opinion I endorse is not only that of Jim Boeheim, but also of Coach K and most of the other renowned head coaches in the college game. They are without question aware of the 'fatigue factor' since they see the consequences of their decisions in real time. They understand what the signs of fatigue are.

  • They also understand other important variables, like experience & PT & the limited time (only a few months, really) they have to put a team together.
  • They see the improvement in the play of their Best Five the more they play together with their coach explaining how its done.
  • They see that an entire season's efforts can come down to how well their Best Five is able to play together at Tournament time.
  • They understand that injuries, etc., happen so they need to have backups (6th & 7th & maybe even an 8th player off the bench) ready to play effectively in the game. That's the concession they all make to the fatigue/injury variable.
  • Beyond those key players, they cannot award minutes to those deeper on the bench without compromising the development of those ahead of them. That. Is. What. They. Worry. About.

To press your fatigue argument against these recognized experts in basketball coaching, you have to assume that they regularly mis-estimate the value/importance of the fatigue/injury variable.


The bottom line is you're right, injuries could end up ruining an otherwise good season, but the cost of being "ultimately prepared" for that possibility is starving your best 5-7 of the time they need to develop. My guess is that the Coaching Elite all share the same hunch that the chances of injury/fatigue ruining their season are a great deal less than the chances of their season being ruined by their best players not having had enough time on the court playing together.

You've got an opinion, and then there's the other side that it must answer to...
Look... you spent some time on this post, but it unwinds really fast.

Again - JB always has a player or two towards the national mpg leaders. We also are consistently on the low end of bench minutes.

You're trying to make the case that JB is just like his peers in this regard. He ain't. He's an outlier.
 

djcon57

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
9,208
Like
19,877
People would riot in the streets if we went under .500, are we willing to sacrifice that to give a player 4 more minutes a game?

I mean...that’s just not reality. We had a terrible year in 2002. The experience Hak, Forth, and Duany got that year helped us win the title. I was there at the NIT game vs Butler. The crowd was going crazy the whole game...but continue with the false narratives.
 

longtimefan

All American
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
6,575
Like
7,582
I mean...that’s just not reality. We had a terrible year in 2002. The experience Hak, Forth, and Duany got that year helped us win the title. I was there at the NIT game vs Butler. The crowd was going crazy the whole game...but continue with the false narratives.
Weren't Hak, Forth, and Duany all starters on that team? That hardly supports the position that we need more bench development.
 

Forloveoforange

Scout Team
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
329
Like
391
Having a deep team and limited minutes per player will help if the players have to wear masks. Will they be wearing masks? Will there be penalties for putting their mask down... Quite the interesting thing if they will be wearing masks. Will there be a standard filtering ability which is required?
 

Online statistics

Members online
202
Guests online
947
Total visitors
1,149

Top Bottom