BuzzerBeater Forums

Right now when a player is in foul trouble at any point in the game (i.e., 2 fouls in the first minute is also a problem), it makes them weaker defensively, and the effect is increased substantially for their 5th foul.

In addition, your coach will tend to sit a player in foul trouble, but it's not quite an ironclad rule. Rather, what happens is that the coach considers him a bad option, but if he's better by enough of a margin over his replacements, then he will continue to play.

I think the penalty may be too severe, and need tuning. Right now it's like a player is put in leg irons if he has 3 fouls before 6 minutes in 3Q, and then these are unlocked at that time. The GE sees that a player is in leg irons, and unless we are comparing stupendous in leg irons with an atrocious sub, the starter sits.

I don't think there should be much effect, if any, if the player is below the average fouling rate that would cause him to foul out (8 minutes per foul) that there should be any penalty.

So if there are ML minutes left, and a player has FTG fouls to give, where FTG = 6 - PF, and there is an effectiveness coefficient of EC. Then the FT effect would be

EC * ( ML/8 - FTG)

If this is negative, there would be no penalty. Let's say that EC were 20%.

Then a player with 1 PF would be fully effective from about 8:00 remaining in the 1Q. A player with 2 PF would be OK from 8:00 left in 2Q; 3 PF from half time; 4 PF from 4:00 left in the 4Q; and 5 PF from 8:00 left in 4Q.

But even before those times, the penalty would be small enough that a starter could usually stay in the game with one more foul, unless the sub is of comparable ability. This would add the risk of a player getting another foul. But currently, it appears that the penalty is geared too much towards making sure that a player almost never fouls out, except in desperation time at the end of the game.

My question is - is the player with 3 fouls more likely to foul when brought back into the game? I would argue that it should be the opposite. If he is trying not to foul, he should be less likely to doso.

(41006.9) BB gives the answer :)

(41006.9) BB gives the answer

I read that post. It does not make it clear if the player is more or less likely to foul. It says he will be worse defensively - that's all.


Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 8/4/2008 9:31:23 AM

(41006.9) BB gives the answer

I read that post. It does not make it clear if the player is more or less likely to foul. It says he will be worse defensively - that's all.

I agree. The reason that the defender is weaker defensively is that he is not playing as aggressively in order to avoid fouls. Though on the other hand, a smart offense may attack a defensive weakness, whether it a player who is in foul trouble, or his less adept replacement.

But it is possible that it is a mismatch in skills that increases the chance of a foul. A weaker defender might be more likely to foul a good scorer. After all, a good defender (a) stops his player from scoring - not by giving him an easy 2 points from the FT line. A weaker defender is late getting into position, or fouling on a steal attempt.

So the GE should lessen the defensive effectiveness of players in foul trouble, which will increase the chance of a substitute being brought in. But it should also decrease the chance of additional fouls occuring - unless the player is involved in more situations where his man is shooting. That is the fouls/shot probability might decrease, but the number of shots attempted by the opposite player may increase.