Kolek planning to go pro
The same scenario you are postulating can happen on a foul when up three play as well, except a two will tie and a 3 wins. That's the risk side of an equation. Is it sound strategy to foul up 4 with 7 seconds left, not sure but the logic for why you do it is very similar to up 3, until you are up by 6 there is risk that if the opponent makes 3s while you are shooting FTs they can close that gap in less than 10 seconds. The whole point of the strategy up 3 is to A) kill some clock and B) make the other team go 94 feet for a tying or winning shot as opposed to have the tying/winning shot from 30 feet.Would I have done it, no....but then again I haven't played in 3 games in the last two weeks where fouling the other team while you have the lead/tied has become such a prominent part of the games. No way to prove it but if the fouling up 3 hadn't come up so frequently of late, but I'm 100% confident the fouling up 4 strategy doesn't show up.
The biggest risk is that your team gets called for a soft foul.
????Never, ever, ever heard of fouling up 4. This is not a “would I have done it?” issue. Nobody does it because it’s dumb. Not as dumb as intentionally fouling an 86% foul shooter with 20 seconds left in a tie game dumb, but dumb nonetheless.
And while we're talking late-game strategy ...The one I still don't get is why did Cain try to foul up 4? Haven't seen or heard a reasonable explanation for that one. By fouling, you set up the possibility of a make, an intentional miss, a rebound, a pass out for an open 3, and an instant tie. Makes no sense to me.BTW, I think discussing strategy like this doesn't have to be a sign that one is unhappy with the coach. There are hundreds of little decisions that go on in a basketball game, and I find it interesting to discuss them, especially since I started coaching basketball myself. For example, Wojo again went to a zone after a time-out by the opponent -- a strategy that had worked and been praised in earlier games. This time, X shredded the zone for an easy basket. So does that mean the strategy was "bad" this time? No, not in my eyes.
fouling up 4 has less mathematical justification then fouling up 3 but it's still on the positive side of win probabilities versus letting it play out.
YES. I was screaming at the TV to miss that final FT. If the staff didn't call for it, Anim should have figured that out himself.
Even though we disagree on the strategy, I like your take on the make-or-miss FT. All kinds of things could have happened either way, and it ended up being fine. As I said, I'd have done the miss, but I'm not violently opposed to the make.But I still see absolutely no reason to foul up 4. None. It just doesn't make sense to me.It's way different from fouling up 3, something you do so a made 3 doesn't tie it (as has happened to us several times). There was no threat of a made 4 to tie. None.
This is a free college sports message board...what do you expect? If you want throughout conversation go to one of the paid sites
You are absolutely correct, and if there is under 10 seconds left you definitely wouldn't do it. At that point in time there was more than 10 seconds and you are trying to take 3 point shots off the table because that's the only thing that closes the gap. If they make a 3 there, it's a 1 point game they foul....even if we make both it's still just a 3 point game with the ball coming out of bounds with 5-6 seconds left (which is even worse than a 2 point lead with 2.3 seconds left) which gives X a chance to tie. Worst case, you foul up 4, they make both(definitely not certain with X) and then you hope to make both or at least one and you are no worse than you were before.Again, would I do it? No because it's too outside conventional wisdom but from a probability standpoint given time, score, both teams FT% to date it's not a bad strategy.
I would not foul when up 3 as the odds of someone hitting a three late in the game are generally not more than 40% and probably well under 40% given the pressure, etc. And, then if they hit this shot it goes to overtime, where presumably one has a decent chance of winning in OT. Or, maybe get a shot off if time left to win anyway.
You agree with the late Rick Majerus, who said fouling when up 3 was the only way to lose the game in regulation (FT, intentional miss, rebound, wide-open 3). Many of the same Scoopers who genuflect whenever Rick's name is mentioned apparently think he's an idiot regarding this strategy.Calipari, who has won a little bit, says he has no hard-and-fast rule: "It depends on your team. In most cases I would ride it out and not do it. Other cases, depending on their team, you do it. I've won and lost both ways."KenPom did a study a few years back and said there was little difference in outcome regardless of which strategy is used, though he leaned toward not fouling:https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2015/03/18/up-3-in-the-final-seconds-do-you-foul-or-defend/24981367/As you can see in that article, his study was imperfect.There is no consensus, and there does not appear to be a study that presents evidence that fouling up 3 is the no-brainer that a lot of folks claim it is.Personally, I agree with Calipari: I'd take each situation on a case-by-case basis.