I was always confused by benching players who are in foul trouble too, for the reasons you described. The way my basketball nut friends explain it to me, it's mostly psychological; when you foul once, you're more likely to foul again right afterwards. Secondly, because the coach wants his key players to be "clutch" (as if that's really a thing). I'm skeptical, but that's what I am told.

Towards the end of the game, defenses buckle down and most players get tight (read: nervous) with the clock winding down and the game increasingly on the line. (In basketball, it's usually easier to play defense than it is to play offense when nerves becomes a major factor.) Star players are usually not only clutch (which should be quantifiable-- for example, see here: http://www.82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm), but also have the ability to create his own shot as well as for his teammates. This makes them an even more valuable resource down the stretch, which is why they are benched for later.

Of course the coach always has to weigh whether saving the star player for later will result in the game slipping away now because the star player isn't in the game anymore...

i would guess that it is a defensive mechanism to protect players from themselves. If players could control their emotions at all times, then it would be horrible to bench them. However, if someone receives a foul that they feel is undeserved their emotions may get the better of them. There is a reasonable chance that the player rages his way to another foul very quickly by playing too aggressively on the next few possessions before calming down and letting the adrenaline rush subside. So by benching a player, you give him a chance to cool down, collect his thoughts and go back onto the court at 100% with a relatively lower risk of fouling out.

now i dont know if this is true but it is the only thing that i could come up with and it seems semi reasonable to me. You aren't alone on this as i have been curious of this for a while now as well.

As a basketball ref I find that when players get a foul they don't feel is deserved they very often lose their mind and get another quickie.

About why they bench guys with 5 fouls I'll maybe discuss later.

on benching players in foul trouble:

i think it's mostly psychological. when a team's top player fouls out with lots of time left to play, it's a big let-down. kind of intangible, but it can really knock the wind out of a team's sails when that happens. it's much better for the team to keep him reserved on the bench for the key last minutes of the game.

another (more logical) reason to keep a player in foul trouble on the bench is that it minimizes the opportunity for the other team to exploit the situation by driving the ball inside against the player in foul trouble.

...just my 2¢

Can't disagree with you much more than I do than on Belichick's laughable move against the Colts. You're falling into the trap of thinking that, since poker is ruled by quantifiable percentages (the only variables are the cards, which are set and finite), you should also solely rely on percentage-based calculating for other sports. This is beneficial to an extent, but ignoring the human variable is a tragic mistake. Let's say you have a guard that shoots 40% from 3pt, and 38% for 2pt..You wouldn't say that he/she should ONLY shoot 3 pointers because the percentage is better..you'd have to factor in that teams would plan to defend against them shooting threes more..which may, for one game, allow him to drive and score more on 2pt'ers...
Apply the same logic to the foul situation. If I get 5 fouls by the 3rd quarter and stay in the game..I'm definitely going to be playing a different way that I'd normally play, which lowers my production/value. Additionally, a good player in foul trouble becomes a target when they play defense. Any opposing coach with half a brain would take it right at that player in foul trouble: they have to back off and play softer defense and be less aggressive rebounding (and driving to the basket on offense), so they don't foul out. If you sit the player until the end of the game, you still get to have them available for any clutch shots, and to keep the defense honest on final possessions. Even applying the "every possession is worth the same" logic (which I agree with, mostly), by playing the hesitant player with 5 fouls for a lot of possessions, you're effectively lowering the value of every possession he's in the game. So, you have to try and gauge if a team of 4.5 effective starters is better than a team of 4 starters and 1 bench player..

Curiously, why don't you just play solely the openings that score the highest in the GM database when you play chess? [/playing devil's advocate]

Also, thanks for the recent run of vid's...just theorizing..but it seems like your game has been hurt a little by continually having to modify what type of game you're playing..and forgetting which variant you're playing halfway through.. (3/0 vs 3/1 vs 5/0 vs 360) Seems like it would be hard to get a good feel/rhythm going..there's been quite a few games where you're doing well, until you get distracted when you remember that the increment's there..

benching player is a simple concept. when you look at most basketball games(or the ones I watch) the last 2 mins of the game are really the most important ( unless it's a blowout). it's always better to have your best players on the floor. if they are rested for 5 min then it's a bonus.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11 ... colts.html

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11 ... ow-up.html

Only in looney toons world does an outcome with a statistical probability that leads to almost 10% more wins become a "laughable" play.

The most I've seen is some math simulations that basically put every possible factor in favor of punting (ie reduced chance of making the 4th down compared to average, reduced chance of stopping Indy if they stop your 4th down attempt but significantly higher chance of stopping them if you punt compared to usual figures), and even then the math usually comes out to a wash, or an approximate win% of 70% for both choices, and that's if you lean towards punting on every possible factor.

I take issue with a few of the points regarding players in foul trouble, although I do agree there is some merit to it.

1. Some say there is a psychological weakness involved that will result in a player getting more fouls. I find it simply impossible that this weakness applies to 100% of players, yet basically 100% are yanked in these situations.

2. I also find it hard to believe that a "smart" opposing coach should then start attacking the player in foul trouble, with the goal of getting them in either deeper foul trouble or fouled out (Although I understand that they generally will). There is no way that this strategy is very successful, it can only be a minor success at the most. If this type of strategy really were successful, all coaches would be insane not to do it from the start of the game, even when the opposing player you are worried about has 0 fouls. So this should either be a very small detail, or coaches should do it from the start of the game. Otherwise the line of reasoning seems very disingenuous to me or as always, is based on some kind of psychology, which I admit has it's place but is often overvalued and shouldn't be assigned to all star players.

3. When a player is in foul trouble, you probably bench them so that when you put them back into the game, you expect them to play with full force on both offense and defense. Due to this, the player should not play like a scared little bunny and do everything possible to avoid fouling (unless they are so unbelievably good and valuable that they should give up a little bit on defense in order to retain their offensive effectiveness.). You are going to have them in this situation anyway when you put them back in for the last 3-4 minutes or whatever, so why should they not be able to play as freely with 10 minutes left. I imagine this could be psychologically difficult for SOME star players, but certainly not all of them.

4. A last point that wasn't mentioned, I believe that refs are unconsciously less likely to call a 6th foul on a star player, especially at home. I have no solid evidence for this of course, but it is my gut feeling that the 6th foul will have to be a lot more obvious than the previous ones in this type of situation. They won't be calling as many ticky tack fouls on average is my hypothesis.

There's a satirical sports talk show host in Minneapolis named the Common Man, who has been arguing for years that coaches should go for 2 every time, because it's statistically better than taking the extra point. The problem is that any coach who did that would be fired. Still, it makes perfectly logical sense. Curtains, I'm mostly with you on this issue. Sports coaches are mostly too scared to play the percentages correctly.

I don't buy into those historical stats formulated by baseball fans disguised as football fans. None of those numbers factor in any way relevant to that specific game. Since number monkeys began accumulating fairly meaningless sports data, we're force-fed statistics that have no actual strength of argument. As I said before, there is no human variable in cards. There is always a definable unchangeable percentage of having the better hand/drawing winning cards/etc in poker. In football and other sports, if you <i>really</i> wanted to use statistics, you'd have to factor in all the minutiae of human error into your statistics. In my opinion, you don't give a juggernaut offense a shortened field and dare Peyton Manning to run the 2min. drill, regardless of what generic historical data has been. Truth of the matter is that Belichick made a controversial call and failed miserably behind it. If NE converts, he's brilliant..but they didn't, and he earns the right to be the scapegoat for it.

And why wouldn't you go after the player in foul trouble if he's on the floor? 1. He's either playing soft (read:worse) defense to avoid fouling out (something no one wants to do), or 2. He's playing normally, and will likely foul out, leaving his team without the option of bringing him in late for clutch plays. I'd much rather bench the player, and have him around at the end for insurance if I need him.

It boils down to the fact that a player does not commit fouls at a constant rate, but generally commits more fouls when fatigued, when emotionally charged or angry, when outmatched skillwise, or when the opponent frequently drives to the lane/hoop.

Benching a player can reduce these factors. In other words, a player will generally tend to foul less in the one minute fresh off the bench than in the one minute after a couple quick fouls. I dont have statistical proof but i have no reason to think this would not be true. I'd even say that when a player is fouling repeatedly in man-to-man coverage, the coach has a responsibility to break the pattern abruptly by switching coverage or by player substitution.

On the other hand, "attacking" a player can increase the above factors (esp. fatigue). Once the defender is too tired to move his feet, he tends to get in bad defensive position and make reaching fouls with increasing frequency. Attacking a certain player from the beginning is one possible option, but at the beginning of the game it is too committal and inflexible since the first one or two fouls wouldn't mean anything. But attacking a player who already has 4 fouls has an immediate effect due to the much lower threshold.

On a more general level, constant fouls means poor, ineffective defense. Constant fouls hurt the team. When a player is playing poorly, you bench them. Very simple that way.

I'm not a basketball expert but the existing scheme makes total sense to me. I didnt water down my post with "IMO" and "i think" but this is just my 2 cents and i'm open to being wrong-- not that it matters to me one way or the other.

I agree with the poster who linked to 82games.com about the theory on why they bench players. I also will say that I watch a lot of basketball every year and generally speaking they bench guys who are in foul trouble for no good reason. Like Shaq in his prime. He has barely any reason to be out on the floor in a close game near the end. (If anything he has no reason to be out there). His FT percentage is horrible so they foul him when the game is close. "Hack a Shaq" right? But you still saw coaches benching him when he was in foul trouble. There is a psychological kick the other team gets (as well as strategic ease) when they know for sure a player is out of the game, but mainly it's because they just don't know what they're doing, mathematically, as mentioned. Here's another situation that comes up. A team can burn 24 seconds off the clock in each possession (usually a little bit more because of the time to take a shot and rebound it). But continually with a minute left and the team up by 9 or more with the ball, the losing team won't start fouling. Even though that's the only way they should be able to win. Why? Because the winning team will shoot before the shot clock runs out. No one on the floor knows what the heck is going on. If they took their whole 24 seconds on each possession then that's over a minute right there. The most the losing team can score in that time is 6 points, they'll only get two possessions (if even that). The funniest thing is they'll start fouling down by 4 with 20-30 seconds left but that same math somehow goes out the window with a minute left. I think multiplying by 2 is beyond their capability maybe. It's astonishing how illogical sports are sometimes. Curtains is so right about how stupid the sports world can be.

I don't say that all of my points are completely solid and on the money, but there are certainly some clearly incorrect decisions that happen on a regular basis. Btw the thing about Shaq would likely now hold true for Dwight Howard.

I'm sure some of the posters above have some points that make sense (although I didn't see a single point that I think is above debate), but the fact is that none of this stuff is obvious at all, and sports announcers and pundits generally don't even make the slightest effort to be intelligent about it or think logically and critically about these questions.