Sitting players in foul trouble

[Sea Bass]

Empirically is it a good idea?

Are late game possessions truly more valuable than any other possession in the game?

If a player in "foul trouble" stays on the floor might there be a lower chance of meaningful late game possessions?

It seems that quite often coaches sacrifice potential game changing minutes in exchange for a situation that may never occur or is less likely to occur if those minutes were not sacrificed.

Just wonderin'.

[ruechalgrin]

Originally Posted by Sea Bass Empirically is it a good idea? Are late game possessions truly more valuable than any other possession in the game? If a player in "foul trouble" stays on the floor might there be a lower chance of meaningful late game possessions? It seems that quite often coaches sacrifice potential game changing minutes in exchange for a situation that may never occur or is less likely to occur if those minutes were not sacrificed. Just wonderin'.

Good article on the point.

http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2013/4...n-foul-trouble

[jerseyflyer09]

Reminds me of an argument my dad always makes watching baseball. Why do we necessarily save the closer until the 9th? What if we're up 1 and in a huge jam in the 7th? That might be the 'save' we need. In theory I agree with you and him but it's hard to actually implement it. Plus in hoops if you lose Steve earlier in game and just get victimized down low for the next 15 minutes with no hope of stopping them the lead could get out of hand earlier. Interesting point though, worth discussing

[Cityengr]

After all that rationale and theory, I like "it depends." I like when Archie tries to work Big Steve or KP or anyone else in with the offense/defense switch near the end of the game or crucial situation. As for the fouls, Big Steve is probably gonna get his 4-5 and I'd rather see him in there during the second half rather than sitting. Obviously his presence in the game (even if for a shorter time) is much more effective than over on the bench IMHO.

[Smitty10]

It's a good idea to sit players in foul trouble for a lot of little reasons. One big reason as Cityengr stated is the offense/defense swith near the end of the game. If a player is as valuable on offense as Steve is, you would want to maximize his minutes on offense where he's also less likely to foul. No better time to do that than when you're going to start using your timeouts and the opponents are likely to also.

Some other points.

Let's take Sam Miller. Would you rather see him in the game when there's less pressure and have Steve on the bench with 4 fouls or would you rather see Miller in there with the game on the line because Steve has fouled out? It's a mental thing but it's a big mental thing. Pressure effects most humans and in some cases it's just common sense that you want certain players in there when the outcome is clearly on the line.

It's also very difficult I'm sure for a coach to say to a player with 4 fouls: "Get out there and play balls out on defense. I'd rather you get the maximized amount of minutes than sit you until the end." So what naturally happens is you've opened up a huge hole on D. However, as the game is nearing the end, he might say "Steve, go all out on defense now, you can't carry that last foul over to the next game.".

One other point, players seem to get their fouls in bunches due to maybe a little fatigue and a lot of frustration. You need to get them immediately out of the game at certain foul number points to get them back on track mentally.

And then there's the matchup thing. Maybe there's a player on the opposing team that has been going one on one with Steve and winning the foul battle. Maybe it's best Steve not go back into the game until that player has less fouls to give by being as aggressive as he's been up to that point.

These are a lot of little reasons but they add up to big reasons to have everybody available for any game situation that arises. Especially late when it's clearer what you have to do to win.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by jerseyflyer09 Reminds me of an argument my dad always makes watching baseball. Why do we necessarily save the closer until the 9th? What if we're up 1 and in a huge jam in the 7th? That might be the 'save' we need. In theory I agree with you and him but it's hard to actually implement it. Plus in hoops if you lose Steve earlier in game and just get victimized down low for the next 15 minutes with no hope of stopping them the lead could get out of hand earlier. Interesting point though, worth discussing

Personally I don't think that's a good comparison. I think there are valid reasons to sit players in foul trouble. I can't think of any valid reason why baseball has turned the closer into what they have today. They actually let the Save scorekeeping rule dictate how they use a closer. I think about 100 percent of managers bring their closer in the final inning with a 3 run lead or less. 4 runs or more no, unless a batter gets on base and allows it to be a save situation. I never understood why the save stat dictates this. I will bet you that if they changed the Save to be 4 runs instead of 3 the same managers would bring that closer in with a 4 run lead even though the situation is the same as a 4 run lead without a save opportunity.

Also, the ridiculous part of all this is that teams have one designated closer. What possible reason is a good one for this? Why not 2 or 3? And designate by order of best to 3rd best. Use your best closer in the 7th or 8th if the middle of the lineup is coming up. Or base it on lefty righty groups of hitters due up. Nothing makes less sense then to save your closer for the 9th inning when the 7th, 8th and 9th batters are due up. Or at least use him in one of those other innings to get out of a jammed bases situation. Is it really easier for your 2nd or 3rd best reliever to get himself out of an inning he gets himself in trouble than it is for him to pitch the last inning against the other team's worst batters?

[SeasonTicketFan]

The argument about sitting a player does not seem to include defense. A player who is in foul trouble might be less likely to contest or challenge on defense and give up easy baskets. That can negate their scoring potential. If my opponent is in foul trouble, I would go right at them.

Determining a players defensive intensity or commitment when in foul trouble can be difficult.

[CT Flyer]

I think the benefit to taking them out when they get in foul trouble is that you can always bring them back early if things start to go sour. If you keep them in and end up losing them to fouling out there is no bringing them back.

[rollo]

You sit a player in foul trouble for 2 reasons:

1) to make sure they don't get another and are - therefore - available for crunch time when strategy, pace, intensity and offenses change

2) for defensive reasons so a fresh player can play intense defense. To keep a player in the game who has foul trouble always results in an opponent attacking that person, who backs off defensively, thus, allowing for easier/under-contested shots.

[pmcmullen]

There's a lot to discuss here.

1) Frustration. Watch Sam Miller. He's foul-prone, and he get's really irritated by it much of the time. I don't care if your 1st or 4th foul - if you lose your cool, you sit to avoid stupid follow-up fouls.

2) Clutch players. If Kyle is in foul trouble early, I sit him because I know he has a proven ability to work some magic late. I don't want him to have to take his foot off the gas in those situations because of fear of that 5th foul.

3) Nature of the fouls. It isn't a quantity decision, but if fouls are happening because you don't match up well (e.g., you are getting burnt by a quicker player and reaching in a lot). Obviously you sit, or at least change assignments.

4) Momentum. I don't care how many fouls you have. If it is a pivotal point in the game and you are an impact player, I'm putting you in. Proper or improper use of momentum can make late-game situations a moot point - for better or worse! Look at STL. The only reason we had a late game need is that we played horribly. A mid-game rampage could have put us in the driver's seat, but that never happened...

In general, I agree. If someone is playing balls to the wall basketball, I'll let them play and pick up a 3rd of 4th foul in the 1st half if they are on track to put up 30 points. Of course this depends on my trust in the person behind them in that position, too...

[CE80]

Originally Posted by pmcmullen There's a lot to discuss here. 1) Frustration. Watch Sam Miller. He's foul-prone, and he get's really irritated by it much of the time. I don't care if your 1st or 4th foul - if you lose your cool, you sit to avoid stupid follow-up fouls. 2) Clutch players. If Kyle is in foul trouble early, I sit him because I know he has a proven ability to work some magic late. I don't want him to have to take his foot off the gas in those situations because of fear of that 5th foul. 3) Nature of the fouls. It isn't a quantity decision, but if fouls are happening because you don't match up well (e.g., you are getting burnt by a quicker player and reaching in a lot). Obviously you sit, or at least change assignments. 4) Momentum. I don't care how many fouls you have. If it is a pivotal point in the game and you are an impact player, I'm putting you in. Proper or improper use of momentum can make late-game situations a moot point - for better or worse! Look at STL. The only reason we had a late game need is that we played horribly. A mid-game rampage could have put us in the driver's seat, but that never happened... In general, I agree. If someone is playing balls to the wall basketball, I'll let them play and pick up a 3rd of 4th foul in the 1st half if they are on track to put up 30 points. Of course this depends on my trust in the person behind them in that position, too...

Sounds like you are saying - it depends.