Right, which is why I noted all else being equal. that said, coaches certainly DO adjust how they play their guys even when they're in foul trouble if a game is getting out of hand one way or another. If the game is tied, the best player gets his 3rd foul early in the 2nd and is taken out, and 6 minutes later you're down by 15, you'll often see that player put back in the game. And if he's not, it's because the damage is already done mentality kicks in - coach figures might as well save the guy for the 2nd half and he can really come out a blazing, even if it means the 15 point deficit balloons to 20. If your point is the coach should continue playing his star player when he gets his 3rd foul to try and prevent such a blowout, I disagree. (1) you couldn't know the blowout would happen, (2) if you thought it would because your bench sucks, the team has bigger problems anyway, and (3) even if to a lesser magnitude, you'd rather take the chance that you'll go down by 4-7 points now then be left without your star player for the last 6 minutes of a game. That's not to say I'd rather be down 4-7 points with 6 minutes to go and with my star player than be tied and without... but that I'd rather take the risk that having my rested foul trouble free star player for the entire second part of the game is better. And, in the case of players like Kobe Bryant, if I'm the opposition, and my choices are be up by 4 with 6 minutes to go against the Lakers, but they have Kobe, or be tied against the Lakers but Kobe has fouled out with 6 minutes to go, I'd probably choose B anyway. Does that make sense? The analysis clearly changes with the importance of the player. Which is why you will often see a bench player continue to get time even if they are in foul trouble. that's just my view.
You might not know the blowout would happen, but I'd rather not take that chance. The less risky option is to play your guys when you want and hope they don't get 6 fouls. There is a third option you are missing--Kobe might not foul out if you leave him in. The best option for the Lakers in your scenario is to be tied AND still have Kobe. Another point--even if he does foul out, is Kobe really that much more effective in the last 6 minutes of a game than in the first 3 quarters? We'd have to check the data on that one. If there is a significant difference, you might have a good point.
Sometimes players will play softer if you leave them in, because *they* don't want to get another foul, thus forcing a benching. In that case, it is better to sub him out. also, managing star players' fouls is different than role players.
