jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
OK, this is a pet peeve. I do not understand the logic: A player gets into foul trouble, so to keep him from fouling out, the coach takes him from the game, often for very long stretches. I understand the reasoning in some cases that the coach wants to save the player for crunch time, but in other cases, the player gets scant less playing time, regardless.
So someone tell me, what's the difference between fouling out or not playing because the player might foul out. In either case, the result is the same--the player sits. Is there a material difference between sitting to avoid fouling out or sitting because one has actually fouled out?
Why bring this up? Frustration at Favors sitting on the bench for all but 16 minutes in the Sacramento game due to foul trouble. If you're gonna sit the guy for most of the rest of the game, then why the hell not let him play until, and if, he actually fouls out?
I recently read an article (I forget where, think it was ESPN magazine) on this topic in which, if I remember correctly, the research found that getting early fouls did not necessarily translate into getting more fouls, and that statistically it may be better to keep the player in, rather than lose his productivity due to fear of fouling out.
Anyway, I may be remembering it wrong, but the bottom line is that it makes no sense NOT to play someone because he MIGHT foul out (and in the case of Favors, when the player in question needs game experience).
So someone tell me, what's the difference between fouling out or not playing because the player might foul out. In either case, the result is the same--the player sits. Is there a material difference between sitting to avoid fouling out or sitting because one has actually fouled out?
Why bring this up? Frustration at Favors sitting on the bench for all but 16 minutes in the Sacramento game due to foul trouble. If you're gonna sit the guy for most of the rest of the game, then why the hell not let him play until, and if, he actually fouls out?
I recently read an article (I forget where, think it was ESPN magazine) on this topic in which, if I remember correctly, the research found that getting early fouls did not necessarily translate into getting more fouls, and that statistically it may be better to keep the player in, rather than lose his productivity due to fear of fouling out.
Anyway, I may be remembering it wrong, but the bottom line is that it makes no sense NOT to play someone because he MIGHT foul out (and in the case of Favors, when the player in question needs game experience).
