Painful Recurrence of 2nd Foul Syndrome

[JackB1]

I wouldn't pull a starter out of the 1st half until they got their 4th foul. 3 is half of 6, so 3 is fine. The rule of thumb for the playoffs should be 4 in the half.

We aren't deep enought to let out best players sit on the bench. We have to take chances.

This conservative approach doesn't work when you have no bench.

[Dexmethylphenidate]

Every good coach gave their stars 3 fouls in a half... 4 fouls is going a little bit overboard.

The pattern most good coach uses

- stars have 2 fouls to play in the first quarter

- they have 3 fouls to play in the 2nd quarter

- 4 fouls in 3rd quarter

[yardbird]

Being down 9 points at the half to the team with the best record in basketball on their home court in the first game of the playoffs is a game within reach. How many minutes was Smooth on the bench in the 3rd quarter when Boston put the game away? That was when Smooth had an opportunity to impact the game most, it just didn't work out.

I don't have it right in front of me, but I think he ended with 4 fouls, right? So if he was allowed to play in the 2nd and picked up 4 in the first, as some here have suggested, let's say we were within 2 rather than within 9. But Smooth picked up the same two second half fouls and fouled out early in the 4th.

We'd be pretty lost without his defense at the end of the game when it was needed most. As it turned out, we were out of the game by then, but I don't think playing Smooth in the 2nd quarter affected the outcome.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

We'd be pretty lost without his defense at the end of the game when it was needed most.

His defense was irrelevant at the end of the game because we were already out of it. That is what will happen if we don't play our best players, even with mild foul trouble.

[yardbird]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

We'd be pretty lost without his defense at the end of the game when it was needed most.

His defense was irrelevant at the end of the game because we were already out of it. That is what will happen if we don't play our best players, even with mild foul trouble.

Were we out of the game b/c Josh wasn't in the game in the 2nd quarter when the Celts lead only increased from 6 (which they gained with Josh on the floor) by 3 (with JS out) to 9 (one could argue that we played better without him since Boston's net margin increased by less), or were we out of the game b/c the Celts outplayed us in the 3rd with JS on the floor? It's one of those questions that can never be answered.

I don't pretend to know whether pulling him was the right thing to do or not, and since it happened the way it did (i.e., JS went out with 2 fouls), no one can ever know. My only point is that there was some logic to it. Coaches have to make judgment calls like this one. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. That's true with any coach, even those considered at the top of their game. Let's just agree to disagree on this one, and hope the team plays well enough tomorrow that there's no need to sweat the little things.

[Dexmethylphenidate]

You probably haven't pay attention to the Hawks in the season... because if you do, you'd know that he'll do that to anybody (the core players), not just Josh Smith or because of situations.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Were we out of the game b/c Josh wasn't in the game in the 2nd quarter when the Celts lead only increased from 6 (which they gained with Josh on the floor) by 3 (with JS out) to 9 (one could argue that we played better without him since Boston's net margin increased by less), or were we out of the game b/c the Celts outplayed us in the 3rd with JS on the floor?

That is faulty logic for two reasons. First of all the Celtics blitzed us early and had a 14 pt lead which we cut to 6 when Smith went out. We could have continued our run if he didn't get benched.

Secondly we are a thin team. In order to have a chance to win we have to play our best players as much as possible. There is no way around it.

We don't have to worry about overplaying them because there aren't any back to backs in the playoffs.

[JackB1]

when was the last time you saw a Hawk foul out of a game? I remember ONCE it happened with Smoove. That proves that Woodson's foul policy is way too conservative.

[jhay610]

Quote:

---

I My only point is that there was some logic to it. Coaches have to make judgment calls like this one. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. That's true with any coach, even those considered at the top of their game.

Again, you are giving Woody FAR too much credit for making a "judgment call." He did not weigh this decision out on the fly. This has been his policy from day one, black and white, and he has not wavered on it throughout our 83 game season. There has been many a night one of our main guys has had a good game going, picked up that second foul in the 1st, and didnt get back on the floor til the second half. You completely take your guys out of the rhythm of the game when you pull them for extended stretches like this, not to mention the fact that it hurts the team because we have zero depth.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Were we out of the game b/c Josh wasn't in the game in the 2nd quarter when the Celts lead only increased from 6 (which they gained with Josh on the floor) by 3 (with JS out) to 9 (one could argue that we played better without him since Boston's net margin increased by less), or were we out of the game b/c the Celts outplayed us in the 3rd with JS on the floor?

That is faulty logic for two reasons. First of all the Celtics blitzed us early and had a 14 pt lead which we cut to 6 when Smith went out. We could have continued our run if he didn't get benched.

Secondly we are a thin team. In order to have a chance to win we have to play our best players as much as possible. There is no way around it.

We don't have to worry about overplaying them because there aren't any back to backs in the playoffs.

That is my feeling. The second quarter is when Boston got a little lazy and sloppy on the Court and that was out best chance to take advantage of them. Instead of pushing closer than 6 down, however, we actually lost 3 points during that period. It is no surprise that Boston made adjustments in the second half and blitzed us in the third period. We don't have the luxury of being ultra-conservative with our minutes because we need to take every opportunity to cut their lead or build our lead. Not having Josh Smith in during the second quarter wasn't merely a 3 point loss with him on the bench. It was a wasted opportunity for Atlanta to make a real run.

[jhay610]

Quote:

---

Not having Josh Smith in during the second quarter wasn't merely a 3 point loss with him on the bench. It was a wasted opportunity for Atlanta to make a real run.

This is the concept that the majority of HSers cannot seem to grasp.