Has there ever been a coach that didn't care about his players' fouls?

[Duck Rodgers]

Just as a fundamental precept in his coaching philosphy on any level of play? BYU went up on Baylor yesterday by 10 or 12 with 8 minutes left in the first half when Tyler Haws(good for about 20 pts/game if you aren't familiar) went out with 2 fouls , they subsequently lost that lead in about 3 minutes, ended up down by 9 for the half, then lost the game by 15.

I'm just wondering if there is even one example where I can look at the results of that strategy where somebody just let guys play and substituted them based on them being tired(or just regular rotations) and not fouls. I'm guessing not, but that would be interesting to me. I guess I would just be interested in knowing how long guys in foul trouble would ultimately play in a game if left in foul trouble on average more so than anything else. It would be more difficult to judge on any other merits I think.

To me, minutes are minutes. I'd rather build up my lead or stay as close in the game longer than sub out and lose momentum early if I were a coach. It just makes sense from a psychological standpoint to me. Am I off my rocker?

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Lebron hadn't fouled someone in two weeks going into the game tonight.

 

[Former Member]

I think it depends on the player's temperament and discipline. It's hard to avoid the next foul and play hard nosed defense. Or, it's hard for a player to avoid the next foul if he feels slighted by a "bad call."

I'm pretty sure some coaches may roll the dice in a "must win" game, however, in a regular season contest it may not be worth the risk.

I think keeping a player in the game in foul trouble is like going for it on fourth down in football. Sure, you may have success, but there is substantial risk.

 

[Former Member]

Lebron hadn't fouled someone in two weeks going into the game tonight.

He's Lebron. Superstars have different rules in the NBA.

 

[Gameface]

At the NBA level it seems like the 6th foul has to be something special if the player it's called on is a star. If I was a coach I would let my star play with 4-5 fouls and just see what happens.

It's funny because the reason they don't play the person is because if they get 6 fouls they won't be able to play them. I don't know if that's called an oxymoron, ironic, a self fulfilling prophecy or what, but if all you're scared of is the player not being able to play the last thing you should do is not play that player.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

And then of course the coach's fear of his player fouling out becomes a pattern that the player also recognizes over time and he tenses up when he knows he is toeing the line of his coach's "yank zone" and becomes totally worthless in certain aspects of the games because of that. And it all seems kind of ridiculous when the player only has 2 fouls or whatever in a 5 or 6 foul game.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I think most coaches have fairly rigid rules regarding the 2 fouls in the first half thing. Personally, I think it's crazy.

Yesterday, Poythress got his 2nd foul at about the 4 minutes into the game mark and Cal sat him. About 4 minutes later he brought him back in. I loved it because it broke the mold. Poythress didn't foul the rest of the half .. I'm sure, in part, to those 4 minutes of specific instruction he got while sitting on the bench.

That was a bit off topic, but I pretty much agree with you, Duck. I can see sitting someone and letting them chill out, give some instruction, but last thing you need is to sit a good player just to have them end the game with 3 or 4 fouls but miss large blocks of time.

 

[fishonjazz]

At the NBA level it seems like the 6th foul has to be something special if the player it's called on is a star. If I was a coach I would let my star play with 4-5 fouls and just see what happens.

It's funny because the reason they don't play the person is because if they get 6 fouls they won't be able to play them. I don't know if that's called an oxymoron, ironic, a self fulfilling prophecy or what, but if all you're scared of is the player not being able to play the last thing you should do is not play that player.

This.

I have always thought that it is stupid to bench guys for fouls.... i mean what are you afraid of? Them fouling out and not being able to play?.... Well they already are unable to play due to the coach benching them.
Usually a guy will pick up 2 fouls and then get benched for 10 minutes and then at the end of the game, they end up with 2 or 3 fouls anyway so there was never a need to really bench them.

 

[addictionary]

this looks like it. love the reaction:

[video=youtube_share;niSd-GtPCGk]https://youtu.be/niSd-GtPCGk

 

[colton]

at the nba level it seems like the 6th foul has to be something special if the player it's called on is a star. If i was a coach i would let my star play with 4-5 fouls and just see what happens.

It's funny because the reason they don't play the person is because if they get 6 fouls they won't be able to play them. I don't know if that's called an oxymoron, ironic, a self fulfilling prophecy or what, but if all you're scared of is the player not being able to play the last thing you should do is not play that player.

iawtp