Foul or not foul

[Cheriehoop]

They like to delay losing mostly when it's likely they will lose (ie always kick the FG when you're down 10, or the PAT down 9). Go off those beaten paths and you get crushed.
Fouling doesn't take as much guts because most are pro-fouling at this point.

I am not as dogmatic about it as some. As Bilas said years ago, if fouling up 3 is obviously right, then why not up 2 as well.

Wouldn’t the answer be that up 3 even if they make both free throws, you’d still be up 1 with the ball while if only up 2 you’d be tied with the ball? It’s all an oddsmaker/metrics type of decision. I had on court seats (thank you) right next to that Cleveland St player who threw up a totally improbable 3/4 court shot at the dome to win. Bet JB wished he had fouled the kid. I know that I wanted to when I saw him launch it.

 

[Knicks411]

Unless you shoot over 50 percent , I would think fouling on purpose up or tied is a bad move .

Basically I think the way the math works is this:

You compare the average points per possession you'd expect to allow on defense (usually around 1 or so) to the expected points on 2 FT attempts (let's sya 75%,) so 1.50. So fouling the other teams would net them 0.50 points. So if the extra possession you get is worth more than 0.50 points (which it is), then theoretically fouling should work.

But that's in the long run, this is one possession with the game on the line, so it's a lot more binary. The other team will almost certainly get at least 1 point, so what are the odds you come away from your possession with a score?

 

[Alsacs]

Basically I think the way the math works is this:

You compare the average points per possession you'd expect to allow on defense (usually around 1 or so) to the expected points on 2 FT attempts (let's sya 75%,) so 1.50. So fouling the other teams would net them 0.50 points. So if the extra possession you get is worth more than 0.50 points (which it is), then theoretically fouling should work.

But that's in the long run, this is one possession with the game on the line, so it's a lot more binary. The other team will almost certainly get at least 1 point, so what are the odds you come away from your possession with a score?

Argentina coach fouled Jose Calderon because he hadn’t played a lot of minutes.
Calderon missed one of the FTs.
Argentina had a shot to win and missed.
Spain beats Argentina, will play for gold medal

 

[OttoMets]

I'm kind of anti-fouling, mostly because it's a new sort of micro-managing that takes away from end-of-game excitement and perverts the spirit of the game (let players make the plays). But there's no question it was the smart coaching move and I was (for maybe the first time ever) happy to see Boeheim call for it yesterday. Though Battle jumped on the kid a little prematurely.

 

[BuffOrange]

Wouldn’t the answer be that up 3 even if they make both free throws, you’d still be up 1 with the ball while if only up 2 you’d be tied with the ball? It’s all an oddsmaker/metrics type of decision. I had on court seats (thank you) right next to that Cleveland St player who threw up a totally improbable 3/4 court shot at the dome to win. Bet JB wished he had fouled the kid. I know that I wanted to when I saw him launch it.

Well Pomeroy is pretty good at metrics & his analysis concluded the difference was basically negligible. There are more examples of not fouling backfiring largely because the vast majority of coaches throughout history have opted not to foul.

I understand up 2 isn't exactly the same thing but think it's weird that it's never ever brought up given the popularity of the +3 debate. Ya they can tie it w/ 2 ft's but they can also take the lead with a 3.

 

[newmexicuse]

In general, I like the fouling strategy, but truthfully I thought it was wrong in yesterday's game even though it worked out in hindsight.

Our D was so good, and they were so flummoxed, that I thought what we should have done is to have four defenders at the three point line, and instruct the interior defender to only stand there with arms up to try and impede, but not foul. My thinking was that by doing that we would get another sec or two off the clock while trading those secs for an easy two rather than put them at the line. A two would not particularly hurt us. What would have killed us would be a trey or a FT plus an o board for them off of an intentional miss of the second FT. I did not think they would force a contested trey with a wide open deuce available to them and some time left on the clock. What really bailed us out was Izzo did not call for the intentional miss where they probably had better than a 50% to grab a board. If we were holding our own on the glass, then i would have agreed with the fouling strategy. We were just lucky Izzo missed the obvious.

I was OK with the foul at 9 secs, but did not like the second foul at 3.7 secs because that should have been the intentional miss situation.

 

[PhatOrange]

I was terrified of a missed free throw with a putback

I was terrified b/c we struggle to in-bound the ball.

We absolutely could NOT go into OT though. We had to go for the win in regulation.

 

[tbonezone]

i got NO problems with the strategy the exception being don't foul out a key player in the event you do go to OT. designate your eligible guys and hands off if you got 4.

 

[djcon57]

One other thought about this is Im sure JB has that banked in 3 in his head and was like, screw that, you aren't even getting a chance at that.

 

[KaiserUEO]

I was terrified b/c we struggle to in-bound the ball.

We absolutely could NOT go into OT though. We had to go for the win in regulation.

Absolutely.

I mean seriously, holy shlit, we just played a walkon for 6 minutes???!!! You want to go another 5??!!!

JB is a freakin genius.

We lose by being out talented, never out coached.

And quite often, he out coaches with inferior talent.

It’s ridiculous how often he pulls that off.

THERE IS ONLY 1 REASON WHY THE ORANGE CAN BEAT dook...AND THAT REASON IS JAMES ARTHUR BOEHEIM.

 

[TinyManInside]

I rarely feel so deferential but I had a feeling of dread when we started fouling because I thought it made it more likely that we'd lose in regulation. Boeheim might feel the same way but was so justifiably worried about overtime. I talk myself out of the dread because jb is intuitive, brilliant, and experienced

It was an interesting strategy that I respect. Most coaches play to delay losing. Boeheim seemingly accepted increased risk of losing in regulation because he so desperately wanted to avoid overtime.

In a more normal game, I think you just let them have the last shot but yesterday was not normal

This is so fun. And fugly. Fungly?

Considering the way the first half ended with that ridiculous circus shot, it was totally the right call to make. You don't want to go to OT with everyone in foul trouble and a walkon already playing.

 

[Shark58]

agree with the "foul" sentiments as well as thinking we could run another second or two off the clock before committing them

as to the no way we win in overtime, I feel the same way but after thinking about it, we were the better team (except for rebounding) and out played them once Frank went out. Not sure the game woulda looked much different in OT unless one of our pivots picked up #5. Even then...

 

[CuseFaninVT]

One other thought about this is Im sure JB has that banked in 3 in his head and was like, screw that, you aren't even getting a chance at that.

And that's why I think Battle went early. Don't give them a half-second more than you have to in case that allows them to get into a shooting motion that puts them on the line shooting three. Or even worse, shooting the And-1 on a made three.