Subbing Off after Personal Fouls
I'm hoping someone can actually explain this strategy to me. It seems to be almost universal, and it has been around since Adam was playing ball, but it has me baffled.
I can understand pulling a player who's upset (and likely to commit more fouls) but otherwise the coach is effectively guessing at what he thinks the future holds, and I just don't get the logic.
Even if you had a crystal ball and could forsee that a player on 4 fouls will get 3 minutes more time before fouling again, is it really such an advantage to keep those 3 minutes till the end of the game?
And of course he can't forsee.
Jervis tonight was a "perfect" example of what I'm asking: He got two quick fouls early and was immediately sat down, but then never fouled again.
I recall one particular game, I think it was the 93 final, when Melbourne had a few players in big foul trouble early. Gaze kept on playing them, and none fouled out. Had he followed conventional strategy, it probably would have cost him the game.