Early foul trouble

[Dan Z]

Why do so many coaches take players out of the game when they have early foul trouble?

I understand the reason but I wonder why so many do it on a consistent basis. In the Celtics/Hawks game Joe Johnson got two earlier fouls. He was then put on the bench for about a quarter. Why do that? Ok... he might end up fouling out later in the game but this is an important game and he's the Hawks best player.

While he was on the bench the Celtics went on a run.

I also remember a Golden State game playoff game this year where Monta Ellis was in early foul trouble. But, instead of benching him, Nelson gambled and left him in. Ellis went on to have a great game.

[MagicNolesFSU]

I wonde rthe exact same thing sometimes and thought the same during the celtics game. Theres no use in having you best player for the 4th if your down by 20

[theoilslick]

It seems to me most coaches always view the fourth quarter as pivotal to the outcome. To them the game is rarely decided after three quarters so sitting the player in early foul trouble merely prolongs their presence in the game and affects how the opposing coach will make their matchups knowing that the player in foul trouble can still be a factor in the final q.

I'm not aware what Johnson's circumstances were but usually you do that so the opposing team will not target the player with the fouls in order to get them ejected early or relegate them as a more docile defender when they are at 4 fouls or so. I just believe most coaches believe that the best stragedy is not to keep that player in so they can foul out in the third. The opposing team will have the most eagerness to make a charge if their donw if its the fourth quarter so you best just keep your player in for that period even if you sacrifice that production in the second or third q.

[Abyss Impact]

I didn't watch last year's warriors' playoff run, but I heard Monta never had a great game.

[akikan]

i remember a game when Baron picked up a 5th foul midway into the 3rd quarter(or might have even been early 3rd), Nelson didnt bench him untill he fould out at like the 5 minute mark of the 4th.

oh, and he always keeps playing baron even with 2 fouls in the 1st.

[lunatic4jc]

because teams don't want their best player to be fouled out by the 3rd quarter

[Dan Z]

My mistake. The Monta Ellis game was the last one or two that the Warriors played this year. Not a playoff game but very important in terms of getting ot the playoffs(or not in the Warriors case).

Nobody wants their best player to foul out but I agree with MagicNolesFSU. What's the point in having your best player for the 4th quarter if your down by 20?

Especially against a talented team like the Celtics.

[Atlanta Hawk Fan]

Atlanta's coach is an idiot with his strict foul policy. Many games he sits his best players for the entire rest of the first half when they get two fouls. In Game 1 of the series, he sat Josh Smith for the rest of the first half when he picked up his second foul near the end of the first quarter. He ended up playing less than half the game. JJ ended up with 3 fouls last night and Smith had 4 in Game 1.

I totally agree that the Hawks need to "gamble" and play their best guys against the Celtics regardless of foul troubles. By pulling guys out to "save" them, you are making the worst case scenario happen (that the guy misses serious time due to foul issues) even if the guy never picks up another foul.