from pat forde's forde minutes...
Obscure game of the year: Cal State Fullerton 113, Cal State Northridge 112, 3 OT (13). After all manner of dramatics, things really got weird at the end of the third overtime. Up three points, Northridge fouled with four seconds left to avoid allowing a tying shot. That didn't work out too well. Fullerton's Gerard Anderson made the first free throw, missed the second intentionally, then watched teammate Eric Williams grab an offensive rebound, score ... and get fouled. He made the free throw to win the game, as Northridge went from trying to prevent a game-tying 3 to giving up a game-winning 4.
Crazy ending, but it required:
1) Make first free throw
2) Miss second
3) Rebound the miss from inferior rebounding position
4) Make the bucket off the rebound
5) Get the call for the foul on the put back.
I'd take my chances.
Quote from: StillWarriors on March 09, 2010, 12:37:55 PM
Crazy ending, but it required:
1) Make first free throw
2) Miss second
3) Rebound the miss from inferior rebounding position
4) Make the bucket off the rebound
5) Get the call for the foul on the put back.
I'd take my chances.
6) and make the last free throw.
I'd take my chances too.
Certainly more things need to happen for the fouling approach to backfire - but there is definitely no denying that if this tactic were employed and backfired, many would have an issue with that as well...everything always looks better in hindsight.
But, if you consider most D-1 players shoot 70% from the free throw line, and maybe 33% from the 3...there is 2x as good of chance a player makes the first free throw (compared to making a 3). Obviously, every player can miss a free throw intentionally..the randomness comes into play ono the offensive rebound - but when you are a team as short as MU, it favors the other team. Then at that point, the defending team, cannot play D too agressively, as they don't want to foul to put the player on the line with a chance to tie the game - so more than likely the other team gets a decent look from "2" to tie the game. Still alot to have happen though, in order for it to backfire..
Quote from: indymufan on March 09, 2010, 12:21:29 PM
from pat forde's forde minutes...
Obscure game of the year: Cal State Fullerton 113, Cal State Northridge 112, 3 OT (13). After all manner of dramatics, things really got weird at the end of the third overtime. Up three points, Northridge fouled with four seconds left to avoid allowing a tying shot. That didn't work out too well. Fullerton's Gerard Anderson made the first free throw, missed the second intentionally, then watched teammate Eric Williams grab an offensive rebound, score ... and get fouled. He made the free throw to win the game, as Northridge went from trying to prevent a game-tying 3 to giving up a game-winning 4.
4 things had to happen perfectly for that scenario vs only 1 thing having to happen in the other scenario. Go with the odds...FOUL.
Risk an intentional foul call as well. Then don't they get 2 freethrows and the ball?
The end of regulation played out almost exactly like the Georgetown game a few years back.
GTOWN
Contested three from the corner - James hacked down on the ball, Wallace pretended to go up for a shot - gets and makes three free throws - lose in OT.
ND
Contested three from the corner - DJO (I think) played straight up and forced a terrible shot - shot was so bad it landed in Ben Hansbrough's lap - Hansbrough kicks it out for a three at the buzzer - lose in OT
Remember how everyone called James an idiot for giving the ref a chance to make that call? I suspect had DJO done the same thing and sent Abromitis to the line for three ft's people would have b*tched even harder, and they would have been right. I submit that it was an even crazier scenario for the ball to fall in Hansbrough's lap and find an open teammate to drain a second three attempt in the span of 4 seconds than to foul. We played great D. ND won on a fluke play. Tough sh*t.
Quote from: Ready2Fly on March 09, 2010, 01:47:22 PM
The end of regulation played out almost exactly like the Georgetown game a few years back.
GTOWN
Contested three from the corner - James hacked down on the ball, Wallace pretended to go up for a shot - gets and makes three free throws - lose in OT.
ND
Contested three from the corner - DJO (I think) played straight up and forced a terrible shot - shot was so bad it landed in Ben Hansbrough's lap - Hansbrough kicks it out for a three at the buzzer - lose in OT
Remember how everyone called James an idiot for giving the ref a chance to make that call? I suspect had DJO done the same thing and sent Abromitis to the line for three ft's people would have b*tched even harder, and they would have been right. I submit that it was an even crazier scenario for the ball to fall in Hansbrough's lap and find an open teammate to drain a second three attempt in the span of 4 seconds than to foul. We played great D. ND won on a fluke play. Tough sh*t.
The proper play would have been back then to foul before they even get close to taking the 3 pointer. This isn't hard, we all saw it executed quite nicely on Saturday....by Notre Dame
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2010, 01:17:49 PM
4 things had to happen perfectly for that scenario vs only 1 thing having to happen in the other scenario. Go with the odds...FOUL.
I agree with you with one caveat - a 3 point play = ot, a 4 point play = a loss.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2010, 01:49:39 PM
The proper play would have been back then to foul before they even get close to taking the 3 pointer. This isn't hard, we all saw it executed quite nicely on Saturday....by Notre Dame
I've been converted to the fan of the foul scenarion Chicos, but let's not say that the way ND fouled us was the exact same scenario as MU faced at end of regulation. We inbounded the ball in OT with 6 seconds left..DJO..racing up the court, get fouled at halfcourt..with about 4 seconds left. A lot easier scenario than MU faced when MU had to deal with ND inbounding with 16 seconds left in game..and when Abromitis took shot for ND there were 6 seconds on the clock..to foul at any point prior to that would have been premature and left too much time for ND to turn around and foul us, send us to the line..and potentially have us miss 0, 1 or 2 Free throws..we miss both (and ND hit both of theirs) we are now just up 1 with ND getting the ball with 6 seconds and now a 2 BEATS us. We make 1 free throw, now a 2 ties us, and a 3 BEATS us. We make both free throws (which is a large assumption given our late game woes), and ND still has 6 seconds to get off another 3 point shot....not to mention this scenario requires us to inbound the ball effectively...which sometimes can be very difficult to do at end game situations with things being over-denied and hotly contested.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2010, 01:49:39 PM
The proper play would have been back then to foul before they even get close to taking the 3 pointer. This isn't hard, we all saw it executed quite nicely on Saturday....by Notre Dame
Notre Dame fouled with 3.7 seconds left as we were approaching midcourt. If we foul Abromaitis before he forces his airball he's at the line with 6 or 7 seconds left. Too much time for too many things to go wrong.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 09, 2010, 02:01:58 PM
Notre Dame fouled with 3.7 seconds left as we were approaching midcourt. If we foul Abromaitis before he forces his airball he's at the line with 6 or 7 seconds left. Too much time for too many things to go wrong.
Agreed. They were different situations, and ND did the right thing presented with theirs, we did the right thing presented with ours.
Quote from: Ready2Fly on March 09, 2010, 02:16:37 PM
Agreed. They were different situations, and ND did the right thing presented with theirs, we did the right thing presented with ours.
Right. And when we got the ball back down 3 again with 3 seconds left, and had to go the length of the court, Notre Dame didn't foul us.
Uhm, you guys need to check the clock again.
Notre Dame took their first 3 point attempt with 5.3 seconds left....the sad part is that DJO had his man covered down low and went for a fake that let him get semi-open in the corner. The only play that beats you is on the perimeter and he went for an inside fake. Ugh. No pick was set, he just flat out got faked out.
Then with 3.7 seconds left with ball basically under the basket, we didn't foul on the rebound. Then with 2.4 seconds left, a second Notre Dame player got the ball and threw it to Scott for the 3 pointer which he shot with 1.7 seconds left.
I'm going with Jim Boeheim. FOUL HIM!
And of COURSE you don't foul when the guy has the full length of the court to go because that's a miracle shot. You foul when they are in the frontcourt situation, not backcourt situation. ND played it right. Fouled us in the front court. Didn't foul us in the backcourt. Played right out of the Boeheim playbook.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2010, 03:01:13 PM
Uhm, you guys need to check the clock again.
Notre Dame took their first 3 point attempt with 5.3 seconds left....the sad part is that DJO had his man covered down low and went for a fake that let him get semi-open in the corner. The only play that beats you is on the perimeter and he went for an inside fake. Ugh. No pick was set, he just flat out got faked out.
Then with 3.7 seconds left with ball basically under the basket, we didn't foul on the rebound. Then with 2.4 seconds left, a second Notre Dame player got the ball and threw it to Scott for the 3 pointer which he shot with 1.7 seconds left.
I'm going with Jim Boeheim. FOUL HIM!
And of COURSE you don't foul when the guy has the full length of the court to go because that's a miracle shot. You foul when they are in the frontcourt situation, not backcourt situation. ND played it right. Fouled us in the front court. Didn't foul us in the backcourt. Played right out of the Boeheim playbook.
While your timeline is correct I disagree with the foul on the rebound, at that point if a player feels a foul coming he throws the ball up and hopes like hell he ends up with an and 1.
There is no way you foul with more than 6 seconds on the clock up 3. If you foul and they make both, you still have to make both free throws to force a 3 to tie. 6 seconds or more is plenty of time to get down the court for a 3 to tie.
There is no way you can anticipate enough to foul prior to Scott's shot. Too much risk of giving them 3 FTs when Scott is a crap 3pt shooter.
So in summary, I don't think we could foul with more than 6 seconds left, once we got under 6 seconds it was all well within potential scoring range/and 1 territory so you don't want to foul there either.
We played it right, and just got beat on a miracle shot plus lame OT performance.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2010, 03:01:13 PM
Uhm, you guys need to check the clock again.
Notre Dame took their first 3 point attempt with 5.3 seconds left....the sad part is that DJO had his man covered down low and went for a fake that let him get semi-open in the corner. The only play that beats you is on the perimeter and he went for an inside fake. Ugh. No pick was set, he just flat out got faked out.
Umm, I think you need to check the play again as DJO played very good defense on that shot. Do you think Abromitis misses that 3 as badly as he did due to poor defense? That kid can shoot, and his shot wasn't even close. And are you really going to make a distinction between 6 seconds and 5.3?? Plus, Abromitis was behind the 3 point line at that time..if DJO made a move to foul him..the kid simply goes up and makes a bogus shot attempt..and now you've got the referee left to make a bogus call and award Abromitis 3 free throws. You should know if you played ball Chicos, that you can always get yourself into the act of shooting if someone slaps at your are or grabs onto you..plus the foul can't be too hard/agressive or you get hit with an itentional. I think we played that possesion quite well..though you could make a case for fouling immediately on the miss..but at that time you are in such a reactionary mode, to corral a loose ball..it isn't the instinctualy or first thing going through your mind. ND got a fluke rebound, a fluke deflection to one of their guys (hansbrough) and then a fluke shot...
An analysis done on this very thing....using mathematical probabilities. TO FOUL OR NOT TO FOUL using NBA data.
The basic conclusion we come to is this:
With time running out (final possession), and a 3-point lead, the defensive team is roughly 4 times more likely to "blow the lead" and have to play overtime if they choose to play defense, rather than foul in the waning seconds of the game.
http://www.82games.com/lawhorn.htm
Another study, attached below, shows fouling at end gives higher probability to win.
Since Buzz is such a numbers guy, this might be a good read for him.....note that Mark few is quoted as saying he would NEVER EVER foul in that situation. The study's author then goes through the study to show why Few's logic is flawed.
Interesting read
http://www.sportsquant.com/AnnisJQAS1030.pdf
I'd take my chances.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2010, 01:17:49 PM
4 things had to happen perfectly for that scenario vs only 1 thing having to happen in the other scenario. Go with the odds...FOUL.
I don't think that's a fair statement. For MU to give up the win to Notre Dame, more than one thing had to happen. A team shooting terrible on the day had to first air ball a three, then Notre Dame had to get an offensive rebound, then have a defender help to the paint instead of staying with his man standing outside the three point line, then the Notre Dame player had to hit the three, then MU had to not execute on a last second play. After all of that happened...MU is still going to OT.
Buzz was very open as to why they didn't foul, and you can post all you want on statistics, but we know how easy it is to use statistics to strengthen an argument without looking at the "qualitative" type data that would be at play here. Statistics do not show the likelyhood of Notre Dame pulling that off on MU as MU is small and quick, Notre Dame was shooting terribly, etc. The option also represents the only real way MU can lose in regulation. So while the coaches I've heard talk about the research say it's very close to 50/50, I would think MU's lack of size and added quickness would change those numbers.
I understand the argument, but I think if one side feels they are absolutely correct, no matter the teams involved, they're not truly understanding the situation.
Avid, fair enough. Nevertheless, I've provided two analysis on it as well based on mathematical probabilities. Both say the same thing....this isn't just about the end of the ND game, we've had this opportunity at least 2 other games and it seems we don't want to go with the statistical more beneficial play, which is to foul.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2010, 03:01:13 PM
Uhm, you guys need to check the clock again.
Notre Dame took their first 3 point attempt with 5.3 seconds left....the sad part is that DJO had his man covered down low and went for a fake that let him get semi-open in the corner. The only play that beats you is on the perimeter and he went for an inside fake. Ugh. No pick was set, he just flat out got faked out.
Then with 3.7 seconds left with ball basically under the basket, we didn't foul on the rebound. Then with 2.4 seconds left, a second Notre Dame player got the ball and threw it to Scott for the 3 pointer which he shot with 1.7 seconds left.
I'm going with Jim Boeheim. FOUL HIM!
And of COURSE you don't foul when the guy has the full length of the court to go because that's a miracle shot. You foul when they are in the frontcourt situation, not backcourt situation. ND played it right. Fouled us in the front court. Didn't foul us in the backcourt. Played right out of the Boeheim playbook.
If Abromaitis took his shot with 5.3 left we would have had to foul him with at least 6.3 left to avoid giving him 3 free throws. Assuming he makes both (I think he's around 89%) they can foul us before we inbound and put us on the line up 1 with 6.3 seconds left in the game. We've already lost 2 games this year under eerily similar circumstances. Instead we played great D and forced their best shooter into an airball. I agree that we made a mistake to chase the loose ball that ensued but that's an instinctive reaction that's hard to supress.
Again, I'm generally with you on this. I just think the foul has to come with less than 5 seconds left. I also think our lack of size makes it less clearcut even under those circumstances.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2010, 07:37:23 PM
Avid, fair enough. Nevertheless, I've provided two analysis on it as well based on mathematical probabilities. Both say the same thing....this isn't just about the end of the ND game, we've had this opportunity at least 2 other games and it seems we don't want to go with the statistical more beneficial play, which is to foul.
Show me the statistical value in an undersized team fouling....the variables are way to great, and that is what makes basketball so much fun. If we are to simply go with statistical value, MU should shoot nothing but 3's, although the games wouldn't need to be played because we could statistaclly figure out which team was better. I know that's a stretch, but appreciate the uniqueness of the MU team and its opponents. In the comments I have seen/heard from Buzz, he doesn't seem opposed to fouling, but feels the decision has a lot of variables that need to be considered. To me, that's better than just playing straight odds. Truth be told, I'm more upset that Buzz can't get his players to not allow the other team to get a good look at a 3 (when that's the opponents only option) than I am about his decision not to foul.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 09, 2010, 08:04:03 PM
Again, I'm generally with you on this. I just think the foul has to come with less than 5 seconds left. I also think our lack of size makes it less clearcut even under those circumstances.
This is where the problem arises. Chicos cannot look at it seperate from the template. He cannot understand it. He only sees "numbers," but misses everything that goes into them, seperate circumstance. That's the thing with "stats," you can get whatever answer you want with the proper pool.
In the ND situation it just so happens that what he called for was not what MU did and they lost; ipso facto they should have fouled. You can't prove differently by using the facts of the game, he
only understands numbers.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2010, 03:01:13 PM
Uhm, you guys need to check the clock again.
Notre Dame took their first 3 point attempt with 5.3 seconds left....the sad part is that DJO had his man covered down low and went for a fake that let him get semi-open in the corner. The only play that beats you is on the perimeter and he went for an inside fake. Ugh. No pick was set, he just flat out got faked out.
Then with 3.7 seconds left with ball basically under the basket, we didn't foul on the rebound. Then with 2.4 seconds left, a second Notre Dame player got the ball and threw it to Scott for the 3 pointer which he shot with 1.7 seconds left.
I'm going with Jim Boeheim. FOUL HIM!
And of COURSE you don't foul when the guy has the full length of the court to go because that's a miracle shot. You foul when they are in the frontcourt situation, not backcourt situation. ND played it right. Fouled us in the front court. Didn't foul us in the backcourt. Played right out of the Boeheim playbook.
With these factors, fouling ND at the end of regulation would've been too risky, or would've occurred too early.
It would've been too risky because if we had fouled within the last 5 seconds, as the proponents of the fouling strategy say that you must, we would be fouling too close to when ND was looking for their attempted 3 pt. shot and would risk sending ND to the line for 3. There was too much going on, with bodies all over the place, for anyone to think foul after the 1st three was attempted. It was an airball, ND player does a touch pass to another ND player, who quickly flips it to Scott for the 3. I don't think its reasonable to think we could've fouled ND in the last 5 seconds of regulation as the game played and had the game end in our favor.
If we foul earlier to avoid the risk, there are more than 5 seconds left. Assume ND hits 2 and the lead is one, then foul us, so there is probably around 4 seconds left. Regardless of if MU hits FTs, that is too much time for ND to get a last look, and fouling then is too risky b/c you don't know when someone will pull up in the last seconds for a desperation attempt.
Quote from: muhoosier260 on March 09, 2010, 10:33:07 PM
With these factors, fouling ND at the end of regulation would've been too risky, or would've occurred too early.
It would've been too risky because if we had fouled within the last 5 seconds, as the proponents of the fouling strategy say that you must, we would be fouling too close to when ND was looking for their attempted 3 pt. shot and would risk sending ND to the line for 3. There was too much going on, with bodies all over the place, for anyone to think foul after the 1st three was attempted. It was an airball, ND player does a touch pass to another ND player, who quickly flips it to Scott for the 3. I don't think its reasonable to think we could've fouled ND in the last 5 seconds of regulation as the game played and had the game end in our favor.
If we foul earlier to avoid the risk, there are more than 5 seconds left. Assume ND hits 2 and the lead is one, then foul us, so there is probably around 4 seconds left. Regardless of if MU hits FTs, that is too much time for ND to get a last look, and fouling then is too risky b/c you don't know when someone will pull up in the last seconds for a desperation attempt.
You can realistically foul without any time running off the clock in NCAA. So there still could have been 5 left. Plus we were in the 1 and 1.
Quote from: Ready2Fly on March 09, 2010, 01:47:22 PM
The end of regulation played out almost exactly like the Georgetown game a few years back.
GTOWN
Contested three from the corner - James hacked down on the ball, Wallace pretended to go up for a shot - gets and makes three free throws - lose in OT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy8EEVN523s
Wallace should have been fouled on the floor anytime after he crossed the mid-court line, before he got into the corner in shooting position.
Quote from: Ready2Fly on March 09, 2010, 01:47:22 PM
ND
Contested three from the corner - DJO (I think) played straight up and forced a terrible shot - shot was so bad it landed in Ben Hansbrough's lap - Hansbrough kicks it out for a three at the buzzer - lose in OT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFARFK9WiHs
The time to foul was not when Abromitas was in the corner--it was when Jackson drove into the lane. 63% FT shooter inside the lane and making no attempt to shoot--and even if it was a shooting foul, two points wouldn't have done it for ND--they needed three.
But watching the clip, it sure looks like we were trying to defend even a 2 point shot. Look at Hayward step in and stop Tory Jackson's drive. Why didn't Hayward step out of the way and tempt Jackson with a clear open lane to the basket. Let him lay it up. 2 points does nothing for them.
Ditto with DJO--when Abromitas flashed under the basket, DJO should have gone across and prevented him from getting back out to the 3 point line. Yes, a two point shot would have been wide open, but again, so what? I also have to fault Acker and Cuby for leaving their men in 3 point land. They shouldn't have gone after the rebound--they should have been on those outside shooters like glue. Even if you fouled denying the outlet pass, it doesn't hurt becuase ND needed three.
Quote from: Marquette84 on March 09, 2010, 11:05:21 PM
But watching the clip, it sure looks like we were trying to defend even a 2 point shot. Look at Hayward step in and stop Tory Jackson's drive. Why didn't Hayward step out of the way and tempt Jackson with a clear open lane to the basket. Let him lay it up. 2 points does nothing for them.
Ditto with DJO--when Abromitas flashed under the basket, DJO should have gone across and prevented him from getting back out to the 3 point line. Yes, a two point shot would have been wide open, but again, so what? I also have to fault Acker and Cuby for leaving their men in 3 point land. They shouldn't have gone after the rebound--they should have been on those outside shooters like glue. Even if you fouled denying the outlet pass, it doesn't hurt becuase ND needed three.
EXACTLY....if MU is not smart enough to defend a situation in which the only shot they need to worry about is a 3, what makes anyone confident that they could foul without the shooter being in the act of shooting, or miss a box out on a free throw, etc. It's not that Buzz is free of blame for this, I just think his thought process is understandable, but MU's execution on defense was terrible. I'm sure I can dig up some facts to support the idea that when you play as many close games as MU has you're going to win about as many as MU has...
Quote from: Marquette84 on March 09, 2010, 11:05:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFARFK9WiHs
I just watched that for the first time. I feel like I need to throw up.
Quote from: Marquette84 on March 09, 2010, 11:05:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy8EEVN523s
Wallace should have been fouled on the floor anytime after he crossed the mid-court line, before he got into the corner in shooting position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFARFK9WiHs
The time to foul was not when Abromitas was in the corner--it was when Jackson drove into the lane. 63% FT shooter inside the lane and making no attempt to shoot--and even if it was a shooting foul, two points wouldn't have done it for ND--they needed three.
But watching the clip, it sure looks like we were trying to defend even a 2 point shot. Look at Hayward step in and stop Tory Jackson's drive. Why didn't Hayward step out of the way and tempt Jackson with a clear open lane to the basket. Let him lay it up. 2 points does nothing for them.
Ditto with DJO--when Abromitas flashed under the basket, DJO should have gone across and prevented him from getting back out to the 3 point line. Yes, a two point shot would have been wide open, but again, so what? I also have to fault Acker and Cuby for leaving their men in 3 point land. They shouldn't have gone after the rebound--they should have been on those outside shooters like glue. Even if you fouled denying the outlet pass, it doesn't hurt becuase ND needed three.
I think this topic needs to be given a rest...we were in perfect position to foul in the Georgetown game..a far different position in the ND game. As I watch the replay of our D on Notre Dame..we played very good D..period. Forced an airball - had the shot NOT been missed that badly..which was the result of very good D by DJO..we would have won this game, under a normal rebound situation..we held the dominate rebounding positions on all of ND's players..we got burned because the shot came up so short and dropped right in Nash's hands. Furthermore, if Cooby hadn't left Carelton Scott..to instinctually go after a loose ball..there would have been little difference in the shot attempt by Scott..Cooby gives up about 8 inches to Scott..he would have caught and shot over Cooby (as Cooby wouldn't have even had a slight running start to maximize his leap). As for not fouling Jackson as he penetrated the lane...he was defended well..and to have fouled him at that point there are still 8 seconds left in the game..plenty of time for ND to foul us and for us to choke a few free throws at the other end. To nitpick this possession is kind of silly, as at some point basketball becomes a very instinctual game..as I saw Jackson penetrate...Cooby picked up Zar's man (Scott), there were no open 3 point shooters..DJO didn't really leave Abromitis..to be critical of that defensive possession is really pretty dicey at best.
4 things needed to happen for ND to win:
Abromitis airballs the 3 badly
Zar knocks it out of Nash's hand
Deflects right to Hansborough
Who happens to flip it to Scott
Scott has to hit a contested 22 foot 3.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2010, 07:37:23 PM
Avid, fair enough. Nevertheless, I've provided two analysis on it as well based on mathematical probabilities. Both say the same thing....this isn't just about the end of the ND game, we've had this opportunity at least 2 other games and it seems we don't want to go with the statistical more beneficial play, which is to foul.
Here is a article (really more of a blog entry) one of the truehoop guys wrote about this. He believes there shouldn't be a hard and fast rule but it should depend on the situation.
However, within the article, he cites a study done by Wayne Winston which specifically refutes the two articles Chicos posted by Lawhorn and Annis.
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/6992/up-three-without-the-ball-to-foul-or-not-new-insight (http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/6992/up-three-without-the-ball-to-foul-or-not-new-insight)
I am generally of the opininion a team should foul, but only under 5 seconds. However, sometimes that's a hard thing to do, unless the other team in inbounding.
There is definitely no hard and fast rule on these situations.
I said several times it is not a hard and fast rule, but I believe in the numbers and would take my chances by fouling. Boeheim and others agree. Others do not agree. That's cool.
As for Winston, you should read his book. He does not say that he's against the idea of fouling, in fact Mark Cuban has him on retainer down on the Mavericks for these very types of things.
He believes more research needs to be done. Two guys took a crack at it, he doesn't agree with their methodology...yet in his own book he says he is still trying to acquire enough data to determine one way or another.