Interesting Article on Benching Players with Foul Trouble

I think in tonight's particular case, he played it right with Davis.

If AD was guarding somebody like Faried, or another guy that wasnt an offensive threat, then yeah keep him in. But he's guarding their best player and has to be incredibly physical with him every time down the court. With how phyiscal AD has to play Aldridge, they could really call any ticky tack foul they wanted.

quote:

---

With how phyiscal AD has to play Aldridge, they could really call any ticky tack foul they wanted.

---

Not really relevant. That would be the same regardless of when he comes in. As the article says, the only thing that changes when he comes in after sitting is that there is less potential time in the game to play him. It's not like ticky tack fouls are called at a different rate as the game progresses.

quote:

---

Fouls are definitely called differently in the 3rd than in the last minutes of the game.

---

How so? I'm not arguing that's not the case, just wondering if you think they are called more or less strictly. Regardless, that's not really big enough to be of much relevance.

How physical of a defender one plays against will cause that person to play less minutes per 100 iterations of that game. It doesn't change the strategy that maximizes the minutes.

i meant to join this discussion the other day.

i agree with the majority of the thought behind this, just like with the whole argument for not punting in football. but as with that, there are limits. saying a player "isn't likely" to foul out, doesn't mean that he won't. i'd rather sit jrue for a few minutes, let the minutes to fouls even out, and let him get back in there and play aggressively again rather than letting the opposing guards attack him to get him 3 early in the game.

much of the reason why players aren't likely to foul out is because coaches have quick strings, sometimes too quick, with it. but i think it's fine in certain circumstances to pull a player due to foul issues.

Yeah, don't take out guys in foul trouble and you automatically win. Statistics say so. GTFO man

quote:

---

saying a player "isn't likely" to foul out, doesn't mean that he won't.

---

That isn't a fundamental of the argument. Re-read that article. The key is this.....

"The proof is simple: if he sits, the only thing that has changed when he gets back in is that there is less time left in the game, so his expected minutes have clearly gone down. In fact, the new distribution on minutes is first-order stochastically dominated, being just a truncation of the alternative."

Playing 5 less minutes because you foul out with 5 minutes isn't worse than playing 10 less minutes bc your coach was afraid of you fouling out and so sat you.

quote:

---

like he said jrue does not foul often and the likelihood of him fouling out is minimal. even if he did foul out so the frick what we still lost

---

This is exactly where I think coaches mis-frame it. There is an aversion to a player fouling out that goes far beyond the consequences of a foul out.

The consequence is that a player can't play a portion of the game. Period. You don't get two losses if you lose in a game where your best player fouls out. The player doesn't have to sit out the next game. It's a binary outcome of winning or losing.