Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Basketball Junkie Forum (NBA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (1651)	5/11/2010 1:51:25 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 2232

Other reasons (that where raised in the comments to that blog post), are 1 - The player in foul trouble may play too passively on defense, to try to avoid more fouls. 2 - Matchup flexibility - If you have two players with three fouls you can sub them for each other, if you have one with one or none, and one who's fouled out, you can't anymore. 3 - End of game - A star or "clutch" player might have the confidence to preform in a tense close end game. One counter argument to this are that some people think claims of "clutch players" are mostly bogus (that players who are better at the end of the game are the same players who are better in the rest of the game, and that the relatively small statistical base for the "clutch" situation allows relatively random fluctuations in performance to seem like indications that one player is much more "clutch" than another. A second counter argument is that if your star can score more early on, or prevent scoring by the other team, because he is left in, you might keep the tense close late game situation from happening in the first place (or that if you don't leave him in you won't get even that, but instead might be so far down that your star player can't help you when he comes back in).