Foul Foul Foul

[superjohn]

I was screaming at my tv, how the hell do you let their best shooter get off a clean look to tie it? Makes no sense. In all my years of watching basketball don't think I've ever seen a team get outrebounded by 30 and still win. Big shot Omar! We need to get better but I'll take it.

 

[Gurleyman]

I actually think we should have fouled when Cotton turned his back to the basket. The clock was late enough, he was in a dangerous enough spot and he couldn't heave a fake shot at the basket to draw three foul shots.

But thr counterpoint today is that we got outrebounded by 30 and all of our bigs had fouled out. We would have had Giffey against the entire PC frontline in a rebounding drill.

 

[Ts5034]

I think im officially on the foul when up 3 band wagon. I know JC was dead against it but the stats just dont lie. You give yourself a better chance to win if you foul. If UConn fouled at the end of the Marquette game they are 5-2 in the BE with 15 total wins instead of 4-3 with 14 wins.

 

[superjohn]

It shouldn't be an argument, under 6 seconds left you should foul every time.

 

[Gurleyman]

I've swung to be in favor of it in most cases. I don't know about doing it with your whole frontcourt on the bench on a day you've been outrebounded by 30. But you can't give their best three-point shooter a look like that, either.

 

[msgordon]

if they hit the 3, our whole frontcourt will be on the bench for the 3rd ot anyway

 

[Matt (Chicago)]

This topic is debated every single time this situation comes up. Calhoun was never an advocate of fouling in that situation and it seems as though Ollie isn't either..lets just agree that while some of us might be in favor of fouling, the guy calling the shots most certainly is not.

 

[Gurleyman]

Well, true. We gave him much too good of a look, so our strategy in my mind failed, even though he missed. In theory you'd like to think we could defend the 3 with a small line-up better than getting a rebound, but the proof is in the videotape and that ball was a whisker from going in.

The hard part about making the decision with 10 seconds left is that if your strategy is to get a defensive rebound to win, you need to feel like you have some guys on the floor who can rebound. We probably would have had Neils and 6-1 RJ Evans on the low block (the other option is a cold and inexperienced Nolan). If we foul and Batts shoves one of those guys under the basket and gets an easy put back (in addition to no rebounding left, we had nobody left who could contest a shot if they got the board), the second guessing comes out about why you would foul with no frontcourt left.

We did get the one before that (Omar), but PC wasn't trying to miss and Batts was on the bench for some reason (coaching blunder by Cooley).

 

[Palatine]

I was screaming at my tv, how the hell do you let their best shooter get off a clean look to tie it? Makes no sense. In all my years of watching basketball don't think I've ever seen a team get outrebounded by 30 and still win. Big shot Omar! We need to get better but I'll take it.

That was NOT a clean look. Giffey was all over him. AND HE MISSED.

 

[joober jones]

Nolan actually gave us a good effort today. Not a big box score performance, but important nonetheless.

 

[BoatShow]

The way we couldn't get a funking rebound WITH our frontcourt still out there you can absolutely not foul in that situation. Too much can go awry, just play d.

 

[Oxford Bob]

They had 20 something offensive rebounds, we have one guy on the floor over 6'5 and you guys want to foul.

 

[ctchamps]

Nolan actually gave us a good effort today. Not a big box score performance, but important nonetheless.

Second time I have to agree with you about this game. TO was MIA, getting two quick fouls to avoid Boneyard criticism. EW was decent on the offensive end but somehow just went to ground zero on the defensive end. Nolan played ok in the first half. Not well enough to stay in for long.

But in the second half I thought he was very effective, his best play in a while and the best of the three until EW finally figured things out. And just as I make that comment to my wife, Ollie subs him out. I don't know what I missed.

 

[zls44]

The way we couldn't get a funking rebound WITH our frontcourt still out there you can absolutely not foul in that situation. Too much can go awry, just play d.

Wrong. Try again.

Math, people.

 

[BoatShow]

Wrong. Try again.

Math, people.

Okay...up 3, they hit the first to get it to 2, miss the second get the rebound and tie it...ANYMORE BRAIIIIINNN BUSTERSSSSS

 

[mauconnfan]

6'6 and 6'2 on the low block if you foul..........not a good thing!! Gurley has it..........we won!! All good

 

[Gurleyman]

Wrong. Try again.

Math, people.

Advanced math has variables.

For example, if the other team gets a technical, you would let your best FT shooter shoot (purely by math). If you look at the stats, that's Wolf at 100 percent.

Of course, you can control for that variable by setting a standard for sample size, which would mean you'd ignore the guy who is 2-2 and Napier would be our pick (without looking it up). Now let's say Napier is playing through a badly sprained shooting wrist and was way off on his last two tries. Would you still go to him or would evidence you see with your own eyes make you say "not tonight."

When we had RJ and Neils left to block out on a night we couldn't get a rebound anyway, it is pretty reasonable to conclude it was a "not tonight" night for fouling on purpose. Of course, there's a good chance we wouldn't have done it anyway even with a full roster based on philosophy - the math argument has a strong place in that discussion.

 

[halfwayy]

Wrong. Try again.

Math, people.

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpr...-points-the-first-comprehensive-cbb-analysis/

Both a two sample t-test of proportion and a Chi-squared test fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is a difference in winning percentage between the two strategies.

In this sample, teams that did not foul won slightly more often. For the less statistically inclined, this means that there is no significant difference between the two strategies.

If there's a study that's newer or larger or better, then I'd love to see it, but otherwise I haven't seen any statistical analysis that suggests that fouling is definitely the right strategy. You can certainly make that argument, but it's still an argument, and not one necessarily backed up by "math."

 

[jleves]

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpr...-points-the-first-comprehensive-cbb-analysis/



If there's a study that's newer or larger or better, then I'd love to see it, but otherwise I haven't seen any statistical analysis that suggests that fouling is definitely the right strategy. You can certainly make that argument, but it's still an argument, and not one necessarily backed up by "math."

Interesting study, but flawed for this argument as 1) it uses the end of either half - nobody is intentionally fouling a team with 5 seconds left in the first half to prevent a three and 2) it doesn't take time into account - if a team has the ball with 20 seconds, it's really hard to play D for 13 or more seconds then intentionally foul.

As Gurleyman pointed out, the decision shouldn't be made in the vacuum of numbers only. Situations vary - ie. if a 25% shooter has the ball and you can stop him 35 feet away, let him shoot it all day long, unless that player happens to be Taliek Brown. If you have a 43% shooter who is inside 30 feet, it makes sense to foul unless you have Ricky Moore guarding him, then you just let him trip. If it's Rashad and he's past half court, foul.