I saw a comment on r/lakers about the Lakers’ depth and how one thing a 10 man rotation opens up is having 60 fouls to give rather than 42 in a 7 man rotation for example. This intrigued me, and I wonder what you guys think.
Personally, I agree. Being able to confidently protect a star from foul trouble without the fear of having to play a massively negative player is a very valuable asset, as it both allows the player to play less reserved on defence as well as being confident you’ll have them to close the game.
As a counter example, let’s say Jokic has 4 fouls early in the 3rd, all of the sudden you’re relying on guys who aren’t good, plain and simple, and will make it significantly harder to stay afloat in those minutes unless you’re willing to risk the possibility of having to close without him.
It’s an interesting perspective I hadn’t really considered until now.
You must log in or register to comment.
I mean if you have to play teams that try to score from the line then its probably necessary.
For the Wolves (the most foul-prone team in the league lmao), absolutely. Having NAW and other defenders as foul insurance for Jaden McDaniels is huge, because it gives Jaden reprieve and allows him to be on the floor longer. Also one of the reasons Rudy is helpful on this roster is reducing KAT’s fouls, which allows him more aggressive and stay on the floor longer. The first thing Rudy said at his press conference was “I’ll help get KAT out of foul trouble” 😂
When we played the Nuggets, having 5 centers was helpful bc we could send Nate Knight and Luka Garza to get physical with Jokic and try to draw fouls. That shit is valuable when all your centers and most of your wings are always in foul trouble lmao