MUScoop

I was hosting NCAA parties and watching the games over the weekend with friends, so I really wasn't on MUScoop much to comment on things after the Missouri except for maybe an hour, and then I was fixated on how Carroll just kept pulling on Butler's jersey at crucial points of the game.  One thing I didn't notice anybody mention when discussing Buzz's mistakes down the stretch (I don't think he did anythng particularly wrong down the stretch, Missouri just made the big plays when they had to and we didn't) was that Buzz sat Hayward the last nine minutes of the first half with two fouls.  Lazar ended up with just three fouls and only played 26 minutes.

We were down 5 when he left the game and things quickly went sour for the rest of the half, though admittedly they were starting to unravel while he was still on the floor.  One of the main reasons we were so much more effective in the second half was because we used Hayward a lot to help break the press.  This is a team that relied on four players with little else (surge of Butler notwithstanding) all season.  With James out we were down to three, and with Hayward bounced we were down to two and we couldn't quite overcome the resulting deficit in the second half.

I've long hated the policy of sitting your star players with 2 fouls in the first half, particularly when your team is going down the tubes.  I've always thought that if a player fouls out, then he played the maximum amount of minutes he could possibly play.  I don't understand saving him for a time when the game may already be lost.

Its a double-edged sword; but, I agree when a game is getting out of hand.  Why let a guy sit when you might be down by 20+ at half-time.

His strategy of sitting Hayward worked as they were in a position to win the game thanks to Lazar's play in the 2nd half. Picking up a 3rd foul in the first half would have completely hamstrung Hayward's play for the rest of the game.

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 26, 2009, 05:14:48 PM
His strategy of sitting Hayward worked as they were in a position to win the game thanks to Lazar's play in the 2nd half. Picking up a 3rd foul in the first half would have completely hamstrung Hayward's play for the rest of the game.

Right!  He may be in the game, but are you really getting everything out of him, or is he holding back because he doesn't want to get his 3rd foul before halftime?  The way Buzz played it, Lazar came into the 2nd half with only 2, and he's at full strength.

Lazar has been around long enough to play with a little foul trouble.  A cautious Hwayard is still better than Burke, especially against a pressing team.  It is a classic second guess, except it was driving me nuts at the time.  The argument that we came back and took the lead using the strategy we used is valid, but who's to say the deficit would have been that big if we had another ball handler on the floor in the first half.  Buzz has laways let the three guards play through foul trouble with genrally good results.  Just a difference in philosophy, I guess.

Interesting points CT.  I guess the only rationale I can see for sitting Lazar with 2 as opposed to playing the Amigos with 2 was perhaps greater probability for a foul on the interior going for a block, loose ball, or playing position defense.  Our guards would sag off if they had 2, but I don't think our interior guys, especially 'Zar at 6'4", can really get away with that risk.

I agree completely. Missouri wasn't the type team that drew a ton of fouls based upon their style. You can't allow another team to run up a 15 point lead with one of your stars on the bench. While Hayward sat Matthews and McNeal were the only offensive threats on the floor.

Quote from: CTWarrior on March 26, 2009, 05:06:50 PM
I was hosting NCAA parties and watching the games over the weekend with friends, so I really wasn't on MUScoop much to comment on things after the Missouri except for maybe an hour, and then I was fixated on how Carroll just kept pulling on Butler's jersey at crucial points of the game.  One thing I didn't notice anybody mention when discussing Buzz's mistakes down the stretch (I don't think he did anythng particularly wrong down the stretch, Missouri just made the big plays when they had to and we didn't) was that Buzz sat Hayward the last nine minutes of the first half with two fouls.  Lazar ended up with just three fouls and only played 26 minutes.

We were down 5 when he left the game and things quickly went sour for the rest of the half, though admittedly they were starting to unravel while he was still on the floor.  One of the main reasons we were so much more effective in the second half was because we used Hayward a lot to help break the press.  This is a team that relied on four players with little else (surge of Butler notwithstanding) all season.  With James out we were down to three, and with Hayward bounced we were down to two and we couldn't quite overcome the resulting deficit in the second half.

I've long hated the policy of sitting your star players with 2 fouls in the first half, particularly when your team is going down the tubes.  I've always thought that if a player fouls out, then he played the maximum amount of minutes he could possibly play.  I don't understand saving him for a time when the game may already be lost.

damned if you do, damned if you dont.

His biggest mistake was trying to run with Missouri in the first half.  When we actually ran our offense (which is still aggressive and going to the hoop or kicking out) we were much more effective.  The sloppiness of running up and down was tough to watch.  Street ball.

Now I am not complaining about the refs, but I want to point out that the refs in the way they allow the game to be played favored Missouri. That is something you cannot control. Every game has a certain style. Sometimes travels are never called. Sometimes hand checks are nevered called. Sometimes they call a foul on everything. In this game the refs let the players play and this made Missour's press more effective. The game was fairly called, but having a more clossly called would have been to Marquette's favor.

While I'd like to comment on Buzz's mistake vs. Missouri, I find it hard to do so as Mizzou's laying a whipping on Memphis (currently +22 with 15 minutes).

I still think that the game changed in Mizzous favor when they backed off there full court press in the 2nd half. Most coaches wouldn't have let us play to our strength that long.

Quote from: bilsu on March 26, 2009, 10:09:21 PM
The game was fairly called, but having a more clossly called would have been to Marquette's favor.

However, with Mizzou's huge depth advantage, a more closely called game could've killed us.

This post is a absolute pile of 'bunk".  Good golly you are operating in complete hindsight, even referring to how many minutes and fouls he ended up with.  Buzz does not have your benefit.  Another poster accurately stated that Buzz 's call put us up 4 with little time left.  Buzz mad the right call we lost the game.  Sad thing is if we do play Lazar the end of the first half and he picks up the 3rd foul we have a whole string of posts about how terible of a call it was to play him when he had 2 fouls.  The second guessing is sad and completely off base.

This entirely thread is senseless and dumb.  See http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=14287.0

I think its easy to sit back and analyze a game after it has been played and make calls and decisions after the fact. If Lazar did continue to play in the 1st half and got called for a third foul what may have happened then.. I think Buzz's coaching style will be more distinguishable next year when he doesn't have several players who will play 40 minutes.

Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on March 27, 2009, 08:52:34 AM
This post is a absolute pile of 'bunk".  Good golly you are operating in complete hindsight, even referring to how many minutes and fouls he ended up with. 

I obviously don't think it's bunk at all.  Halftime is basically an arbitrary break in play.  Why is it OK to play with 2 fouls when there are 20 minutes to go but not when there are 22?  Or 24?  Or 26?  Why not wait until there are 18 minutes left?

The fact is we were getting killed after Hayward went to the bench, and we needed him on the floor.  He sat with two fouls because that's what coaches do (although this coach does not do that with McNeal, Matthews or James).  As I said in the original post, I understand it's a classic second guess but I was aware and unhappy about it when it happened.  If Hayward fouled out at some point of the game, he would have maximized his minutes.  That's the part I don't get.  If he doesn't foul out, it means he could have played more.

 If  Hayward fouled out at some point of the game, he would have maximized his minutes.  That's the part I don't get.  If  he doesn't foul out, it means he could have  played more.

Your last two sentences show how utterly off base you are and define hindsight and second guessing.  chnage your last two sentences around to lazar picking up his 3rd foul with 3 minutes or 25 mintes or whatever to go and it could be the same thing.  Buzz played that situation 100% dead on and we lead by 4 with a few minutes to go.  thank the Lord buzz is our coach and not you,  If we had more than 4 BE players, If we had talented bIg man, please this could go one for ever. 

If if's and But's were candy and nuts should be the title of this thread.  As a coach myself i cut all coaches alot of slack every call is second guessed ever before it does or doesnt work and then even more after.  Additonally, people that have not coached especially those that doent know the game, ie havent played, have very little concept of how little coaching really has to do with it.  Over the years I have never had a problem scheduling games, furthermore we are invited to more tournaments than we can play in.  Why?  becuase probably the best complement i have received over the years is from other coaches that always want to schedule us or have us come to their tournamnts because, "We know your teams are always very well coached and we want to play against your teams becuase they re always a great team to play against and are a great measuring stick"  Always love to hear that becuase it comes from my peers...want to know how many parents of my players have ever told me that?  very very very few, i had 1 this year.    why becuase in almost all cases they are too emotionally vested and 2 becuase most of them do not know a damn thing, now i get all kinds of suggestions one dumber than the next. 

What is the point...i guess my point is i rarely if ever have gotten a good suggestion from a emotionally vested parent or fan....2 if other coaches want to play me and they all say my teams are well coached then i trust them the most.  My point is my coaching fraternity seeks my teams out to play us because we are well coached....yet and here is the point....I have developed the habit and am remarkably good at it of guessing what our final record is going to be at the end of the year after our very first tryouts.  Now of coausre I am partial to a systme but it will be modified to accentuate or strenghts and hide the weaknesses of our clubs talent,  but there is the key word...talent.  i can walk in a gym and after a tryout know give or take a few games how we will do.  now if that does not teach a coach to be humble or teach him the value of coaching versus talent...i dont know what will.  now does that mean some years i throw my arems up and quit becuase we are going to suck, absolutely not those are some of my best memories..a team i thought would struggle to go .500 that does or maybe a little better.  is it more fun to think a team will have not many losses and be right well sure everyone wants to win.  But the point stands.

so i stand here today and tell you Ct warrior and others with your monday morning breakdowns of Buzz or anyother coaches desicions ...you are picking the  fly S#i+ out of the pepper.  talent wins games and yes we had guard talent, but it takes 5 and we had 4, our 4 were good enough to probably rank us around 20 out of 330.  Not too damn bad but no better without a 5 and with zero depth..  So next time you want to analyze buzzes play call or decisons, you should really be asking why we only have 4-5 BE caliber players on a 13 man roster!   As buzz said on Monday..he is going recruiting tommorow.  Thank the lord buzz is our coach and not some of you experts.

This is not a particular criticism of Buzz.  He just happened to be the guy coaching my favorite team and the latest to apply the strategy.  I like Buzz, I think he's doing a fine job.  I specifically said I don't think he screwed up the end game as others have suggested. 

I question the strategy in general. Many/most coaches do it.  It is an automatic for Calhoun at UConn for example.  You get two fouls and you sit for the remainder of the first half. 

I think the strategy is basically flawed.  You are purposely sitting a useful player when you don't absolutely have to.  I too, have coached, though only at the grade school level and don't pretend to be some great thinker on the subject. 

I understand we are undermanned and lack interior players, and that, more than any particular coaching decision is the reason that we lost.  But coaches and assistant coaches are hired to implement strategy are they not?  In a game that tight it is certainly possible that strategy had a say in the outcome of the game, is it not?

The fact is Hayward could have played more than he did.  The fact is we are a dramatically better team when he is on the floor than when he isn't.  I realize Buzz doesn't have a crystal ball and cannot predict whether Hayward would foul again, but that is irrelevant.  If he played and fouled out then you would of course have to play without him.  But you already decided to purposely play almost a quarter of the game without him on the chance that he might foul out!  How is that smart?  In the long run if you play those guys with two fouls you will get more minutes out of them than if you bench them to protect them.  On a team like ours that lacks depth that is exactly what you want to do, maximize the minutes of your best players.

And again, why is it better to wait until there are 20 minutes left in a game to play a player with two fouls than 22 or 24?