What's new

I don't get it

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).
 
Coaches do things based on habit and convention, more than an objective analysis of what is most successful.
 
Did you get this from Jeff Van Gundy?

I swear I have heard him say this a bunch of times. Also how he wants the NBA to give players more fouls to avoid players going to bench for lame fouls and costing their team the game.
 
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).

I certainly love how he stuck with Jefferson til about the final minute. It is over Corbin. Time to reduce Al's minutes and get Favors in there.
 
Did you get this from Jeff Van Gundy?

I swear I have heard him say this a bunch of times. Also how he wants the NBA to give players more fouls to avoid players going to bench for lame fouls and costing their team the game.

No, it's just a long-standing annoyance. I'd like to see the NBA adopt the approach used in soccer in which the ref has discretion to call the foul based on whether there is any real advantage gained. In other words, if player A fouls player B, but player B (or team B) retains the advantage, the ref can choose not to whistle the foul. This might reduce the stupid touch calls refs make all the time that have absolutely no outcome on the play on the court. I don't know if something like this would be workable but it's worth considering, I think.
 
...one obvious fact you have overlooked is that when a player gets into foul trouble...and the coach keeps him in the game....,he has a tendency to play less defense so he won't pick up that next foul! I suspect that goes into their thinking when it comes to leaving him in or taking him out!
 
  • Like
Reactions: UB
A player might not get pulled just due to 'foul trouble,' but because the coach doesn't think he's being very effective and the fouls are just a side-effect.

But yeah, I don't think two fouls in the first quarter or three fouls before half time is a problem. Worry about it when players get four or five fouls.
 
...one obvious fact you have overlooked is that when a player gets into foul trouble...and the coach keeps him in the game....,he has a tendency to play less defense so he won't pick up that next foul! I suspect that goes into their thinking when it comes to leaving him in or taking him out!

God I hate agreeing with you. But this is a fair point.
 
I thought jazz fans equated good defense with lots of fouling. We should have every player foul out every game, then we will win for sure.
 
Seriously, though this could work. Let the freaking refs call 70 fouls in a game. They might get tired of blowing their bleeping whistles after a while. Maybe that would wake Stern up.
 
Did you get this from Jeff Van Gundy?

I swear I have heard him say this a bunch of times. Also how he wants the NBA to give players more fouls to avoid players going to bench for lame fouls and costing their team the game.

You've got to be a superstar ******* homer tool to be an NBA broadcaster. Other than that, VG has some good ideas.

Let players play through fouls = good idea.
Let superstars get away with even more fouls = tool.
 
The practical difference from a TEAM standpoint are TEAM fouls and the penalty.

That said, Favors NEEDS to play more. This isn't exactly Fesenko we're talking about here (sorry homers, Fes is a retard).
 
Back
Top