BuzzerBeater Forums

I meant in the "Keep them in" scenario

So did I.

I meant that they should have pulled back way before picking up the 5th foul. As they would have already been in foul trouble!!! Instead they kept fouling to 5.... Which kind of goes against the whole premise, doesn't it?

(I mentioned "midway in the 4th quarter" because that should be the earliest players would stop backing off to pick up that 5th foul. If the theory were true that is.)

Only if they're smart, though. Or maybe they figure that they should play as hard as they can as long as they can, but when they hit five they know the next one knocks them out. Or it's anecdotal evidence of something that probably isn't there but seemed interesting enough to mention at least.

Hmm, maybe. Was just going off the thing I read before. Which only made the distinction between players in foul trouble & everyone else.

I tried to search for whatever it was, but couldn't find it. However... Did see a couple former GMs mention about weaker defense in foul trouble, & also this from a random guy (46657.149) in 2 different posts:

Here is something to think about re: fouls. A player's defensive abilities are only reduced if they are considered to be in foul trouble.

there is only an impact on defense if the guy is considered to be in "foul trouble". At least that's the way I've seen the BBs explain it.

The guy who made Coach Parrot seemed to accept that. So a BB apparently said something...

I thought that this was a known fact. I cant recall where I read/heard this, but I've been operating under the impression that aggression drops when players get into early foul trouble, leading to fewer fouls, but less effective defense as well. I don't have any proof, other than anecdotal evidence of players getting four fouls in the first half, and not fouling out until 40 or so minutes in.

I may have been mistaken in saying that players in foul trouble back off.

Nope, this part I'm certain is true, and recall direct affirmation od this from a BB or two, though, like those posting above me, I can't recall where. I have a problem with this statement:

But I stand by the fact that let them play is better

Which I believe is not true at all, but go on,

because even if thats not true, instances of foul outs in 30 minutes or less are far more rare than instances where a player with early fouls sits for far too long using sit them.

I'd be happy to see this tested with two teams full of aggressive players pitted against each other, one playing "sit them," the other playing "let them play," and note which team gets more reliable minutes (to starters and trainees, I'd assime), as this seems to be your concern as I read your posts.

My experience of having a team that is traditionally filled with players who are more, often than not, aggressive (4/7 of my currnet competitive team is so inclined), I've found "sit them" to be exceptionally more useful than "let them play." This is particularly true when lined up against opposing players who are also aggressive, and whose owners have "let them play." While I don't have time to find a decent number of examples games as proof, here's a game that immediately sprung to mind (8412013) (If you have time to watch it, pay special attention to the PF position.)

I meant in the "Keep them in" scenario

So did I.

I meant that they should have pulled back way before picking up the 5th foul. As they would have already been in foul trouble!!! Instead they kept fouling to 5.... Which kind of goes against the whole premise, doesn't it?

Unless the opposing team keeps seeing that matchup as their best offensive option because the defender keeps backing off, right? If you've been feeding the ball to, say, Kurt Rambis, and he keeps both scoring AND getting hacked to the line by the man marking him, don't you keep feeding the rock to Rambis? Backing off or not, eventually the guy marking him is gonna keep picking up fouls.

Last edited by darykjozef at 3/3/2013 11:30:47 PM

My experience has mostly been with trainees. I have never had a trainee I was trying to get 48 foul out in less than 35 or so minutes.

However, I did see a player foul out in 17 minutes today in game three of a finals series. In that case I would have wished I had played sit them. So now Im torn lol

My experience has mostly been with trainees. I have never had a trainee I was trying to get 48 foul out in less than 35 or so minutes.

However, I did see a player foul out in 17 minutes today in game three of a finals series. In that case I would have wished I had played sit them. So now Im torn lol

Most of the time when someone is complaining about the hidden aggressive trait, it's a trainee, and they're usually told to select "let them play" as the best option for getting the kid his minutes. As someone who has trained a LOT of aggressive guys, I tend to favor "sit them," though I'll admit that a good deal of my reasoning behind that choice has always involved trying to win with a team filled with these thugs, and the concern that I'd be down to a bunch of Lucky Fans by the time the 4th quarter started.

So, for folks who have non-trainees who are angels, "let them play" may work just fine. But if you're trying to 48 a guy, he's not going to sub out until he fouls out anyway (assuming your lineup is set correctly), so what's the point of putting the rest of your guys in jeopardy of leaving early?