BuzzerBeater Forums

BB USA > Conference Finals! Will your team win?

Conference Finals! Will your team win?

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
236442.12 in reply to 236442.11
Date: 2/24/2013 5:03:19 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
88
i know but I didn't want him to foul out all together as well. I just disagree w/ the length that he was benched

This Post:
11
236442.13 in reply to 236442.12
Date: 2/24/2013 5:32:54 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
367367
Yeah I hear what youre saying. Generally you will be better off playing let them play, because even if he does foul out, 40 minutes and a foul out is better than 24 minutes and no foul out. Also I find that the aggressive players stay aggressive when you play sit them. So it generally results in two quick fouls, sitting for a quarter, two more quick fouls, and sitting for another quarter. Where as an aggressive player in let them play will pick up a few, but they will back off when they get into foul trouble. If they do foul out, its rarely in under 40 or so minutes.

This Post:
00
236442.14 in reply to 236442.13
Date: 3/2/2013 2:14:58 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
744744
Yeah I hear what youre saying. Generally you will be better off playing let them play, because even if he does foul out, 40 minutes and a foul out is better than 24 minutes and no foul out. Also I find that the aggressive players stay aggressive when you play sit them. So it generally results in two quick fouls, sitting for a quarter, two more quick fouls, and sitting for another quarter. Where as an aggressive player in let them play will pick up a few, but they will back off when they get into foul trouble. If they do foul out, its rarely in under 40 or so minutes.

I don't believe there's a shred of proof to this statement. I've seen players foul out in under 20 minutes; explain how that's possible when an aggressive player "backs off when they get into foul trouble."

(http://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/fedoverview.aspx?fe...)
Keep your friend`s toast, and your enemy`s toaster.
This Post:
00
236442.15 in reply to 236442.14
Date: 3/2/2013 2:48:27 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
Yeah I hear what youre saying. Generally you will be better off playing let them play, because even if he does foul out, 40 minutes and a foul out is better than 24 minutes and no foul out. Also I find that the aggressive players stay aggressive when you play sit them. So it generally results in two quick fouls, sitting for a quarter, two more quick fouls, and sitting for another quarter. Where as an aggressive player in let them play will pick up a few, but they will back off when they get into foul trouble. If they do foul out, its rarely in under 40 or so minutes.

I don't believe there's a shred of proof to this statement. I've seen players foul out in under 20 minutes; explain how that's possible when an aggressive player "backs off when they get into foul trouble."


Maybe he backs off of his guy into another guy? I'll need to remember to ask happy slappy Hutchins the next time I have a team meeting, since he fouled out in 8 minutes once early this season. Now I do think there may be something to the supposition because I've had other guys who played the final 30 minutes of a game while sitting on five fouls without picking up the sixth, but that may be that those guys aren't aggressive and just kind of sucked defensively compared to their opponents.

This Post:
00
236442.16 in reply to 236442.14
Date: 3/2/2013 3:07:58 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
367367
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. But I stand by the fact that let them play is better, 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.

From: shikago

This Post:
00
236442.17 in reply to 236442.16
Date: 3/2/2013 4:32:59 PM
Milwaukee Lethargy
III.5
Overall Posts Rated:
849849
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 actually remember reading something like that. Maybe it was around the time they added the option of "sit them" or "let them play"? It seemed official too. Wish I could find it again.

It technically never said that aggression would drop though. Just that players in foul trouble were supposed to "back off" in certain defensive situations, or something like that. Which they never seemed to do. (it was obviously a misleading claim at best)

This Post:
00
236442.18 in reply to 236442.15
Date: 3/2/2013 4:38:03 PM
Milwaukee Lethargy
III.5
Overall Posts Rated:
849849
Now I do think there may be something to the supposition because I've had other guys who played the final 30 minutes of a game while sitting on five fouls without picking up the sixth

Except they wouldn't have had 5 fouls in 18 minutes to begin with! The 5th foul shouldn't come until midway in the 4th quarter. Not in the 2nd quarter.

Plus whenever the computer normally puts guys with 5 fouls back in (last couple minutes of the game?)... your guys should have subsequently become super aggressive again.

If there was anything to foul trouble & aggression that is.

Last edited by shikago at 3/2/2013 4:39:10 PM

This Post:
00
236442.19 in reply to 236442.18
Date: 3/2/2013 4:52:25 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
Now I do think there may be something to the supposition because I've had other guys who played the final 30 minutes of a game while sitting on five fouls without picking up the sixth

Except they wouldn't have had 5 fouls in 18 minutes to begin with! The 5th foul shouldn't come until midway in the 4th quarter. Not in the 2nd quarter.

Plus whenever the computer normally puts guys with 5 fouls back in (last couple minutes of the game?)... your guys should have subsequently become super aggressive again.

If there was anything to foul trouble & aggression that is.


I meant in the "Keep them in" scenario - if the fouls are not because of aggression but instead because of less than stellar defense, perhaps they do pull back a little and avoid fouling. It would explain a couple of anecdotal cases I've had at least on guys who have not been demonstrated to be aggressive, but have been outclassed at the position they were playing. The guys who are aggressive just keep on fouling, though. ;)

This Post:
00
236442.20 in reply to 236442.19
Date: 3/2/2013 5:42:10 PM
Milwaukee Lethargy
III.5
Overall Posts Rated:
849849
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.)

Last edited by shikago at 3/2/2013 5:44:48 PM

This Post:
00
236442.21 in reply to 236442.20
Date: 3/2/2013 5:54:27 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
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.

This Post:
00
236442.22 in reply to 236442.21
Date: 3/2/2013 6:56:34 PM
Milwaukee Lethargy
III.5
Overall Posts Rated:
849849
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...

Advertisement