|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Feb 20, 2019 22:05:46 GMT -5
It is the smart decision. More coaches should do it, provided you’re fouling an average free throw shooter.
This is akin to a coach going for two in football to make it a six-point game, rather than seven.
|
|
|
Post by notjuanjones on Feb 20, 2019 22:07:57 GMT -5
I promise you, that wasn’t “strategy;” that was a kid committing a boneheaded foul 40 feet from the basket and putting a guy who was 7 of 9 from the line up there with a chance to win the game. And he got bailed out when Sa’eed missed.
Three straight brutal, last second losses for AU. I’ll be the drunk at the end of the bar, swearing intensely to himself.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Feb 20, 2019 22:10:18 GMT -5
Sorry, Juan. Welcome to being a bad to mediocre basketball team.
I’m waiting for the game to be archived so I can watch the final minute.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Feb 20, 2019 22:14:17 GMT -5
Also, that win by Lafayette all but assured that we will be playing in the PIG this season. We are now two games behind the three teams tied for fourth.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Feb 21, 2019 0:16:36 GMT -5
Ken Pomeroy has studied this matter of whether to foul when tied near the end of the game. I've extracted a couple of sections for easy review, but see the link to the full article, one of three on this subject. He studied 615 games where this situation occurred: tie score with 25-35 seconds remaining. Re: OT, his assumption is that the teams are evenly matched so that you have a 50% chance of winning if the game goes to OT. kenpom.com/blog/studying-whether-to-foul-when-tied-part-1/First, here’s the data on the defensive team winning with a tie score and the shot clock off: On defense (possession beginning with between 25-35 seconds left) Score W L OT W% ------------------------ Tied 37 228 350 34.5 Assuming the teams are of comparable ability, any alternative strategy one uses has to be successful more than 34.5 percent of the time for it to be justified. If the defense chooses to intentionally foul, they figure to get the ball back either tied, down one, or down two. It’s clearly best to give this foul early in the possession, so the assumption will be used here that the fouling team gets the ball back with between 20 and 25 seconds left. Here are the historical win chances for the fouling team in those cases. On offense (possession beginning with between 20-25 seconds left) Score W L OT W% ------------------------ Tied 228 37 350 65.5* [With a 70% FT shooter on the other team shooting 1 & 1, this would happen 30% of the time] Down 1 132 234 58 38.0 [this would happen 21% of the time] Down 2 40 310 123 21.5 [this would happen 49% of the time] Those add up to just over 40% on my calculator, which is better than the 34.5% for not fouling. Interesting puzzle--and of course we know there are all other kinds of issues such as the foul situation on key players of either team, fatigue, injuries, etc.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Feb 21, 2019 7:41:41 GMT -5
Fouling was the right call whether on purpose or by accident. Fran's team won. The AU player missed both free throws. Laffy had plenty of time to make a purposeful play with the worst case, a miss, that would mean OT.
So, no foul and AU runs more time down, makes a shot and Laffy is now behind and has to make either a 2 pointer (or 3 pointer) to tie or possibly win. If AU missed the shot, Laffy is in exactly the same boat but with less time.
Fran's a genius and we'd be lucky to have him. This last statement just to reve your engines. Actually, the whole theory is just to get some discussion on alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Feb 21, 2019 8:03:02 GMT -5
Laffy wins 70-68 as they hit the winning layup with about 3 seconds left. Fran played it well. Fouled with about 27 seconds left with score tied at 68. One and One and Sa-aed missed the front end. Fran definitely did NOT want a foul and was upset when it was committed. Had they wanted a foul, they wouldn't have done it by hedging a player coming around a ball screen where the defender tried not to commit the foul. Not sure I've ever seen a tie game where a team commits an intentional foul in the final seconds. Maybe vs Shaquille O'Neal or Dwight Howard.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Feb 21, 2019 8:03:35 GMT -5
FOH may have called for a foul, but not this one. The LC guy nearly tripped into Nelson, who was 6-8 at the time. He missed the front end. Two terrific layups by Petrie were the last four points of the game
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Feb 21, 2019 8:40:28 GMT -5
FOH may have called for a foul, but not this one. The LC guy nearly tripped into Nelson, who was 6-8 at the time. He missed the front end. Two terrific layups by Petrie were the last four points of the game He definitely did not want any foul. In his entire coaching career, I am fairly sure FOH has never called for an intentional foul in this situation.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Feb 21, 2019 8:52:37 GMT -5
Because he wouldn't want the game tied and the opponent getting the last shot for a win or OT. By fouling with a 1&1, at worst, they get a 2 point lead with plenty of time on the clock for a 2 to tie, 3 to win. Or, in the best case scenario (which happened), they miss the first, get the rebound and have plenty of time to set up a play and score and win or miss and go to OT. A very interesting strategy that I don’t think I’ve ever seen before. If you’re not a good defensive team (which certainly applies for Lafayette), I guess there is some logic in putting the game in the hands of your offense rather than your defense. If my probability math is correct, as a 71.5% FT shooter, Nelson had a 51.1% chance of making both free throws, and American was shooting 50% on FGs for the game, so it’s essentially the same probability of them scoring two points and you are now giving your team the chance to tie or take the lead even if he does make both. Also, practically eliminates the possibility of American scoring a 3
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Feb 21, 2019 9:16:30 GMT -5
And here you are making an assumption that Fran, unlike Carmody, is unable to adjust and instead just does the same old, same old.
Fran is now my favorite PL coach, after Milan Brown, and much higher up than "Doctor" Reed, Brennan, Jones, Langel, Davis, etc. Discuss . . . .
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Feb 21, 2019 9:34:32 GMT -5
And here you are making an assumption that Fran, unlike Carmody, is unable to adjust and instead just does the same old, same old. Fran is now my favorite PL coach, after Milan Brown, and much higher up than " Doctor" Reed, Brennan, Jones, Langel, Davis, etc. Discuss . . . . No I am not making any assumption. Other than the fact that FOH has never fouled in this situation in his whole career, I am judging by the fact that he was upset by the foul. No coach ever fouls in that situation. I am also judging by the fact that the player who was called for the foul was in fact trying to avoid fouling but wasn't quick enough in his hedge. I am also judging by the fact that if AU had scored, LC would have had 12-15 seconds left to come down and score at the other end.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Feb 21, 2019 9:36:47 GMT -5
Because he wouldn't want the game tied and the opponent getting the last shot for a win or OT. By fouling with a 1&1, at worst, they get a 2 point lead with plenty of time on the clock for a 2 to tie, 3 to win. That is not correct. The possession started with 42 seconds left, so there couldn't be any last shot by AU. Even if AU scored, LC would have 12+ seconds to score at the other end -with a timeout to use if they wanted. That is one of several reasons why FOH did not want to foul there.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Feb 21, 2019 9:40:15 GMT -5
Ken Pomeroy has studied this matter of whether to foul when tied near the end of the game. I've extracted a couple of sections for easy review, but see the link to the full article, one of three on this subject. He studied 615 games where this situation occurred: tie score with 25-35 seconds remaining. Re: OT, his assumption is that the teams are evenly matched so that you have a 50% chance of winning if the game goes to OT. kenpom.com/blog/studying-whether-to-foul-when-tied-part-1/Note that there were 42 seconds left when AU's possession started, so Pomeroy's analysis is of a very different situation. In this case had AU scored, LC would have had plenty of time to come down and score at the other end.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Feb 21, 2019 9:42:02 GMT -5
Paraphrasing my friend Rob, making absolute statements diminishes the effectiveness of your argument.
I don't have the desire to somehow look it up but would be willing to bet that somewhere, sometime, some coach in fact did intentionally call for a foul in this situation in a college game. Look at the posts above by those who are more interested in numbers and stats than I. There is a basis for trying this strategy. You can disagree, that's what we do here on Crossports, but your absolute statements here are not right just because you say they are.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Feb 21, 2019 9:54:20 GMT -5
Also, that win by Lafayette all but assured that we will be playing in the PIG this season. We are now two games behind the three teams tied for fourth. I think for those few of us (me incl.) interested, the hope was to get a PIG home game, finishing in the top 4 was out the window after the BU loss.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Feb 21, 2019 9:55:10 GMT -5
Nice call, sader1970! I (almost) always agree with such a judgement about universals. Some of us are forgetting an important principle. When a non-HC coach has something good happen in a game it is because he is a coaching genius. (When an HC coach has something good happen, it is typically seen as luck or the other team's error...because we don't generally have good coaches in the opinion of some. AND, it is probably the ultimate fault of some AD who is no longer here.)
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Feb 21, 2019 9:57:17 GMT -5
And here you are making an assumption that Fran, unlike Carmody, is unable to adjust and instead just does the same old, same old. Fran is now my favorite PL coach, after Milan Brown, and much higher up than " Doctor" Reed, Brennan, Jones, Langel, Davis, etc. Discuss . . . . No I am not making any assumption. Other than the fact that FOH has never fouled in this situation in his whole career, I am judging by the fact that he was upset by the foul. No coach ever fouls in that situation. I am also judging by the fact that the player who was called for the foul was in fact trying to avoid fouling but wasn't quick enough in his hedge. I am also judging by the fact that if AU had scored, LC would have had 12-15 seconds left to come down and score at the other end. It's been done before on a much larger stage than "Durward" Kirby Arena. Didn't read the article yet but the situation is pointed out in the first paragraph. And I see "Survive and Advance" at least once I year ...I can still hear Whittenberg say "we're going to foul Alvin Franklin, the freshman!" Now, obviously, 1:05 nowadays, because there's a 30 second clock; is too early, but under 30 is a good comparison. And Valvano did it without a 3 point rule. kenpom.com/blog/studying-whether-to-foul-when-tied-part-1/ (EDIT: Didn't realize that the possession started at :42. I don't agree w/fouling either if it were done on purpose)
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Feb 21, 2019 10:01:01 GMT -5
You are correct that it has been done - maybe one time out of a thousand - so I admit to a misstatement. But even if you agree with that strategy if the other team is holding for a last shot, there would be no need to employ it here since LC was going to get the ball back with plenty of time left on the clock anyway. That is one of the many reasons FOH was upset by his team fouling.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Feb 21, 2019 10:02:01 GMT -5
Paraphrasing my friend Rob, making absolute statements diminishes the effectiveness of your argument. I don't have the desire to somehow look it up but would be willing to bet that somewhere, sometime, some coach in fact did intentionally call for a foul in this situation in a college game. Look at the posts above by those who are more interested in numbers and stats than I. There is a basis for trying this strategy. You can disagree, that's what we do here on Crossports, but your absolute statements here are not right just because you say they are. You are correct that it has been done - maybe one time out of ten thousand - so I admit to a misstatement. But even if you agree with that strategy if the other team is holding for a last shot, there would be no need to employ it here since LC was going to get the ball back with plenty of time left on the clock anyway. That is one of the many reasons FOH was upset by his team fouling.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Feb 21, 2019 10:04:06 GMT -5
No I am not making any assumption. Other than the fact that FOH has never fouled in this situation in his whole career, I am judging by the fact that he was upset by the foul. No coach ever fouls in that situation. I am also judging by the fact that the player who was called for the foul was in fact trying to avoid fouling but wasn't quick enough in his hedge. I am also judging by the fact that if AU had scored, LC would have had 12-15 seconds left to come down and score at the other end. It's been done before on a much larger stage than "Durward" Kirby Arena. Didn't read the article yet but the situation is pointed out in the first paragraph. And I see "Survive and Advance" at least once I year ...I can still hear Whittenberg say "we're going to foul Alvin Franklin, the freshman!" Now, obviously, 1:05 nowadays, because there's a 30 second clock; is too early, but under 30 is a good comparison. And Valvano did it without a 3 point rule. kenpom.com/blog/studying-whether-to-foul-when-tied-part-1/ As you point out, the absence of a shot clock made that situation very different. In the case of Lafayette, they were going to get the ball back with 12-15 seconds left, so there was no reason at all to foul. That is one reason FOH was upset by the foul.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Feb 21, 2019 10:10:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Feb 21, 2019 10:18:16 GMT -5
It's been done before on a much larger stage than "Durward" Kirby Arena. Didn't read the article yet but the situation is pointed out in the first paragraph. And I see "Survive and Advance" at least once I year ...I can still hear Whittenberg say "we're going to foul Alvin Franklin, the freshman!" Now, obviously, 1:05 nowadays, because there's a 30 second clock; is too early, but under 30 is a good comparison. And Valvano did it without a 3 point rule. kenpom.com/blog/studying-whether-to-foul-when-tied-part-1/ As you point out, the absence of a shot clock made that situation very different. In the case of Lafayette, they were going to get the ball back with 12-15 seconds left, so there was no reason at all to foul. That is one reason FOH was upset by the foul. Here's a hypothetical -- Jehyve Floyd touches the ball in the post in this same situation. I'd take my chances fouling a 46% FT shooter who will be shooting a one-and-one. Just because it hasn't been done before, doesn't mean it would be wrong to do in the future.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Feb 21, 2019 11:25:08 GMT -5
Fouling Floyd would be quite different than fouling Nelson. That's why I mentioned that NBA teams may have fouled Shaq or Dwight Howard in similar situations. However in this case, it is very obvious the foul was not intentional - by FOH's reaction if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by classof83 on Feb 21, 2019 11:30:27 GMT -5
I doubt JF would be in the game under these circumstances.
|
|