d-dawg Posted December 3, 2007 Posted December 3, 2007 I have been wondering about the topic of substituations for some time. I have seen a lot of basketball games in my lifetime and it seems as time goes on , there are more and more substituations of player being made. I was watching a jr varsity game last week and I know there had to be at least fifty substituations made ,sometimes three to five at a time. How in the world can a kid learn how to play when he is in and out every two or three minutes. There has to be 5--7 boys on a team that is better than the rest so why not play those boys and let them learn how to play together. I just believe it's a trend that has been seen on TV from college games and grade school , jr hi and high school coaches think it's the thing to do. In a local B team game last week a coach made a substituation in the first 9 seconds of the game. He wanted to start an upperclassman but wanted to play a younger boy.Sometimes I just get dizzy watching them go in and out. Does anyone else see this as a trend or is it just me.
rojas4 Posted December 3, 2007 Posted December 3, 2007 I disagree. The more kids that play the better.
Ms Liberty Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 Playing in a game is much better than practice.
hector Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 This time of year, the more that plays the better. But come tournament time I think you should only play 8 at the most.
SkipToMyLou Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 I think substituting in and out is a good thing if you have the talent. I sure remember Brossart running kids in and out last year and look what they did.
*Jeanie* Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 I think substituting in and out is a good thing if you have the talent. I sure remember Brossart running kids in and out last year and look what they did. Yeah. I agree. I mean, if you have the talent, go ahead and sub away.... If you don't have the talent on the bench, don't sub all the time. But the practice is in games.
daballer03 Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 Substitutions can certainly be helpful but I also see many coaches making substitutions in a wholesale fashion. Sometimes without much rhyme or reason. I've seen coaches sub 3-5 at once. Sometimes when the ones that are playing are doing great or at times three guards for a center and the 2 forwards etc. I don't understand the thinking!
Plato Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 Playing in a game is much better than practice. IMO... Playing time in a game is determined by practice.
2Short Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 IMO... Playing time in a game is determined by practice. Disagree...there are a lot of kids who are great in practice, but never seem to produce much come gametime. Early in a season, a coach is finding out about his personnel in game situations. Teams will evolve into the appropriate rotation / combinations based upon their production. Sub-ing to evaluate and test; then measuring and analyzing and communicating those evaluations/expectations honestly, consistently, and objectively via production stats is a great way to build chemistry, earn trust in the program, and maximize potential. The kids may want more time, but they will understand what needs to happen to earn more pt. But, sub-ing to sub, or in an attempt to pacify everybody, or simply because it 'looks' like coaching is counter-productive for any team. You can get away with it if you're loaded with talent, but you will NOT get the very most out of your team with that kind of inconsistent chaos. Every well respected coach talks and writes about these vital factors like consistency, expectations, trust, measuring, communicating...(Coach K, Knight, etc...)
rojas4 Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 Look at the two teams in last years state finals. Ballard played 12 kids regularly. Scott Co went about 10 deep. These two teams seemed to do OK. Would they have been better if they played only 7 or 8. I remember before the finals, the coaching staff at SC was most worried about Ballard's ability to keep fresh players in the game.
d-dawg Posted December 4, 2007 Author Posted December 4, 2007 Playing two games a day is a little different .I can understand wht you would sub in that final game ,that is if you have the talent to sub with. If you think about it ,a high school game will take at least two hours to play and the actual playing time is 32 minutes. This means in a course of a game they have about an hour and 1/2 rest time. I know that the game has become more physical and there's more pushing , shoving and pressing which takes more out of you , but a kid should be able to play 32 minutes with that 1 & 1/2 hr rest time if they're in condition to play. I've seen teams win the state tournament with only a few substitutions. Sure a good thing Hicks didn't sub Mackey in that last quarter of the final game.
Lovemyball240 Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 Disagree...there are a lot of kids who are great in practice, but never seem to produce much come gametime. Early in a season, a coach is finding out about his personnel in game situations. Teams will evolve into the appropriate rotation / combinations based upon their production. Sub-ing to evaluate and test; then measuring and analyzing and communicating those evaluations/expectations honestly, consistently, and objectively via production stats is a great way to build chemistry, earn trust in the program, and maximize potential. The kids may want more time, but they will understand what needs to happen to earn more pt. But, sub-ing to sub, or in an attempt to pacify everybody, or simply because it 'looks' like coaching is counter-productive for any team. You can get away with it if you're loaded with talent, but you will NOT get the very most out of your team with that kind of inconsistent chaos. Every well respected coach talks and writes about these vital factors like consistency, expectations, trust, measuring, communicating...(Coach K, Knight, etc...) Agree and Disagree. Agree that subing just to sub so that you look like you know what you're doing is counter-productive. You must play the players that give you the best chance to win while also keeping in mind conditioning, legs, decision-making when tired, and heart. I listed heart because players without heart at the end of a game will get you beat. Heart leads me to my disagreement. Those players in practice that don't practice well, are constantly hurt and sitting out, or don't bust their butts every minute are evaluated on a daily bases. Think of practice and the season in terms of being a marathon, not a sprint. Those that have individually good practices here and there are going to let you down come the fourth quarter. You CAN'T turn it on and off. Players must earn their spots over a sustained period of time. That time is in practice.
The Great Game Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 Agree and Disagree. Agree that subing just to sub so that you look like you know what you're doing is counter-productive. You must play the players that give you the best chance to win while also keeping in mind conditioning, legs, decision-making when tired, and heart. I listed heart because players without heart at the end of a game will get you beat. Heart leads me to my disagreement. Those players in practice that don't practice well, are constantly hurt and sitting out, or don't bust their butts every minute are evaluated on a daily bases. Think of practice and the season in terms of being a marathon, not a sprint. Those that have individually good practices here and there are going to let you down come the fourth quarter. You CAN'T turn it on and off. Players must earn their spots over a sustained period of time. That time is in practice. For the most part I agree but we need to keep in mind that most coaches don't go totally on a reward system for hard work in practice. The best players or percieved best players on a given team are not under the same scrutiny to players who are fighting for playing time. One trend I think we are seeing to much of is schools keeping too many players thus hurting the opportunities for the players with more upside playing time or not giving an opportunity to a hard worker who not noticed as a skilled player in practice. If they are not given some consistent minutes in game situations you will never know what you may have.
rojas4 Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 Playing two games a day is a little different .I can understand wht you would sub in that final game ,that is if you have the talent to sub with. If you think about it ,a high school game will take at least two hours to play and the actual playing time is 32 minutes. This means in a course of a game they have about an hour and 1/2 rest time. I know that the game has become more physical and there's more pushing , shoving and pressing which takes more out of you , but a kid should be able to play 32 minutes with that 1 & 1/2 hr rest time if they're in condition to play. I've seen teams win the state tournament with only a few substitutions. Sure a good thing Hicks didn't sub Mackey in that last quarter of the final game. Ballard and Scott County both played 10-16 players EVERY game throughout the year. Both teams looked at their depth as an advantage. When you play the pressing, fast breaking, high intensity game both of these coaches play it is an advantage to play lots and lots of kids to wear the other team down.
.png.ffa34568722b20f38e3c3ecfcb9a2cd2.png)
.thumb.jpeg.8d2472ffe992a9c5c22b4582f4881eab.jpeg)
Recommended Posts