Or maybe players should adjust in game, if they get in foul trouble they try harder to avoid fouling (but play worse defensively).
That's the point. When a player is in fouls trouble he should play much less well defensively to avoid more fouls (that doesn't mean he won't make fouls anymore). That could force the teams to have a better bench and to use more "Sit them" in case of foul.
Moreover, but maybe it's already the case, an agressive player should be a better defender than a non-agressive one. That should be the advantage of them.
Joe
This. This would make much more sense than the current situation.
I wouldn't be shocked if an aggressive player was a better defender, and the more fouls he has, the less effective he becomes defensively because he has to refrain himself from being too aggressive. That would make sense, and aggressive players could be worth it for managers that can accept this kind of defensive effectiveness "volatility" across games.
It would be much more realistic than the situation as it is currently, where it looks like some players enter the court with a god damn battleaxe and get sent to the dressing room after 15 minutes repeatedly.
Last edited by Veoz at 1/21/2022 9:38:04 AM