As a general rule, coaches typically substitute out players when they get: 2 fouls in the 1st quarter 3 fouls in the 2nd quarter 4 fouls in the 3rd quarter 5 fouls in the 4th quarter What is the point of this? I suggest that coaches should completely ignore foul trouble and play players whenever they are supposed to play. Theoretically, minutes in the first three quarters are just as valuable as in the 4th quarter. Coaches overvalue having a player available in the final minutes of the game, so they lose ground during the other three quarters. I've thought of this strategy for years, but I thought of it again when Samuel Dalembert and Greg Smith got into foul trouble in the Memphis game. Dalembert finished with 4 fouls, and Smith finished with 5 fouls. Their minutes got limited, though they ended the game with fouls left to give. Nobody forced them out of the game except the coach, who blames it on "foul trouble." If you leave a player with fouls left in the game, their minutes may or may not become limited because of fouling out. But if you take a player out of the game because of foul trouble, you guarantee that their minutes will be less than if they had just played it through. It is voluntarily invoking the penalty that you're trying to avoid--getting your player taken out of the game. I think Jeff Van Gundy mentioned this one time, but he never seriously enforced it. When Yao picked up two early fouls, he almost always got taken out of the game. There are some times when it does make sense to use the "conventional" strategy, though: 1. He is hurting the team by fouling too much. 2. He is now playing too tentatively. 3. He is just playing bad and needs a break. 4. The guy he is guarding is on a hot streak and is drawing tons of fouls. 5. The guy always plays great in the last minute of the game, and the team needs his specialty. Then take him out only when he gets to 5 fouls and put him back in at the end of the game. There could be some other reasons that I'm missing, but typically, if you want to maximize a player's minutes, you ignore foul trouble.
I do remember JVG talking about this...he pointed to completely throwing off the foul-plagued player's rhythm. And also like you said...I don't remember him ever enforcing this belief with Yao or any other players. Another thing to consider is overtime; if a game is close or is a vital game (for tie-breakers or whatnot), it would be very bad if one of your marquee players fouls out and the game goes into overtime. But yeah, I agree, I don't really see the point of yanking the players out once they reach a foul "quota".
Two reasons I can think of. 1. Psychology. A player with 2 fouls may play tentatively on D in the 1st quarter. But come 2nd quarter he may feel more aggressive. 2. Not wanting to play your backup to play too many consecutive minutes. Say for example Lowry has 5 fouls in the 3rd. You want Dragic to come in and play some minutes so he doesn't have to potentially play 12 straight minutes in the 4th quarter. I do agree that if your starter has 5 fouls with say, 5 minutes to go in the game, taking him out seems stupid. Unless of course the foul was a bad one and you want your player "cool down" a bit on the sidelines rather than pick up a stupid 6th foul.
Another thing to also mention is that star players usually never foul out of the game mostly due to questionable refereeing, which should give coaches more incentive to leave their star players in the game.
I think it just comes down to a numbers game. Limiting the amount of fouls per quarter dictates the minutes that a player can play in each quarter collectively. If a player gets two fouls in the first and you leave him in, then you take the risk of him picking up a nonsensical foul; even if they are playing tentatively. In this scenario the player would have to play smart, or soft, defense through most of the second to try and make up the foul. I would rather my player play his game and without any hindrance.
Basketball is a game of runs and momentum. A 10 point lead could be cut down to 2 in a matter of seconds. Usually, your starters build leads and your bench maintains it. When the bench is unable to maintain the lead, the starters are brought back in. If your best player fouls out in the third quarter, the opposing team could go on a run. Without your best player available, there is no "go to" method of stopping the run. Then again it's a completely different story if your team has a few all-stars who are all capable of scoring at will.
I think there's some truth to both sides. I think a lot more time from starters is lost by 'foul trouble' than could ever happen by actually fouling out. But it's also a much bigger deal to lose them for good. If it's me, I do the foul trouble subs traditionally for my post players but allow one extra to each of those quotas for the 1,2,3 positions, who tend to foul out less.
Is overtime really a consideration? Assuming that the player with fouls brings a more positive effect to the team than his replacement, there are two options in two different cases, in a scenario where at least one option makes it to overtime: If you use the player more in regulation: Case 1: You avoid overtime and win in regulation. Case 2: You get to overtime with your player fouled out. If you sub out your player due to foul trouble: Case 1: You get to overtime with your player available. Case 2: You lose in regulation. In Case 1, you either avoid overtime or get to overtime--I like the first option better. In Case 2, you either get to overtime or have already lost--again, I like the first option better.
If it's just that they're playing too tentatively, I can't argue with that. But if they just need them available at the end of the game, then why take them out before they have 5 fouls? They might not even get that many fouls, which would allow them to get as many minutes as planned.
Not just the end of the game. I think coaches want the freedom to be able to put in any player into the game at any time, depending on the situation. For instance, if its the late 3rd quarter and the other team is making a major run, it would suck if the coach has to keep out his best player because he has 5 fouls. Its sort of like insurance for those situations.
How many times do we see that player put back in the game in the late 3rd quarter when he has only 4 fouls, though? Coaches almost never cash in that insurance, so it becomes nearly worthless. Almost always, the player would have to sit until the 4th quarter just from a benching from the coach. More times than not, it would be more beneficial to just play him.
I think it is more so to break up the bench players minutes. IMHO, usually when they are overplayed they start to make more mistakes than the starters. Also, during the final minutes, opposing defense starts to buckle down more which could cause a higher amount of missed shots and turnovers for the 2nd unit compared to the 1st.
what if the game goes into overtime? then your star player is on the bench fouled out when he could of been taken out earlier.
Performance later in games is more important than performance earlier in games. this is mathematically factual as for every minute played, that's 1 LESS minute left to be played. It's more important to have your best players on the court when there are fewer minutes to be played left. It doesn't seem that difficult of a concept to grasp?? All else being the same, if you only have your best player for one possession in a tied game where your team had the ball and there was less than 10 seconds to go, would you rather that occur during the last 10 seconds of the game or some random 10 second stretch in the 2nd quarter? For the same reason, you'd rather have that player available in the fourth quarter, all else being equal, than in the second.
If you subscribe to the theory that you perform better with your star player vs his backup, then theoretically you wouldn't even reach OT without your star player on the court for the stretch. So you might as well roll the dice and hope you can win in regulation with said star. If you don't subscribe to the above theory, then your question is moot.
Only in close games. In one-sided games, performance later in the game can range from less meaningful to absolutely worthless. If your team is the underdog, having your important player on the court early may prevent a blowout. Allowing for a close game where the outcome may come out in your favor through good luck. If your team is the overdog, having your important player on the court early may create a blowout. Allowing for everyone to rest more for the next game on the schedule.
You answered your own question, players aren't the same player with the foul numbers you listed. So coaches pull them and put them back in when they'll be more effective.
Maybe with some players, but that's a mental thing. If the coach can instill confidence that he wants his player to just play hard at all times, he could avoid the problem. I don't think it would be a huge issue with most players. What matters is that Dalembert only played 20 minutes, when he was available for more. Not that I'm a big fan of the guy, but I assume that coach wants to play his starter more than that.
