But somehow Buzz felt it was the appropriate play.
Could someone please give any justification for this?
I wanted them to do it as well.
Ah.... we won and they didn't get a shot to win it at the end? It worked.
This has been brought up on this board numerous times. However, it is usually that we should foul when up 3.
Guess what? We won.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't with this crowd.
I thought it was a terrible move, would you rather have them shooting a full court shot with 1.8 left, or have a chance at a tip at the rim to tie it with 1.1 seconds left?, I would take the full court shot any day of the week, Horrible move by Buzz, but hey it worked!
Quote from: warriors1965 on February 09, 2011, 08:26:57 PM
Could someone please give any justification for this?
59-58
Mike Kelley liked the call.
Quote from: Sawsi on February 09, 2011, 08:28:45 PM
This has been brought up on this board numerous times. However, it is usually that we should foul when up 3.
Guess what? We won.
I was thinking "man, the people of MUScoop are finally getting what they want, a foul while up 3." I personally don't agree with the strategy, despite whatever studies have been done on the subject. Just feels wrong IMO.
You realize MU has inside position on the free throws making a tip in in under 1.1 seconds nearly impossible?
didn't have a problem with it.....borderline didn't have to do it but I like that he's adapting his end game philosophy a little bit.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on February 09, 2011, 08:32:03 PM
I was thinking "man, the people of MUScoop are finally getting what they want, a foul while up 3." I personally don't agree with the strategy, despite whatever studies have been done on the subject. Just feels wrong IMO.
I actually like the strategy most times but not here. USF was under MU's hoop and I don't think they had any timeouts left. If they hit a 3/4 length shot, congrats and on to OT.
Well I agree with fouling up three when the opposition is 20 feet from the basket, I do not agree with fouling when the oposition is 80 feet from the basket. That would have been a 1 in 1000 shot if they made it. Have to believe the odds are better than 1 and 1000 for tipping in the second missed free throw. If Buzz is a numbers guy, I think he miscalculated that one!
It's strategic to foul if you're up 3 and in the front court, or if USF had a timeout left to move the ball to midcourt.....but if the choice is between forcing them to hit literally a full court shot for the win and forcing them to get a tip on the free throw? I think Buzz would take that decision back if given the chance.
Gotta like the spirited comeback, though. If nothing else, this team is exciting to watch. Never a dull moment.
Quote from: warriors1965 on February 09, 2011, 08:34:51 PM
I actually like the strategy most times but not here. USF was under MU's hoop and I don't think they had any timeouts left. If they hit a 3/4 length shot, congrats and on to OT.
if they soar over the backs of our players on a tip in, congrats and on to OT. Probably same probabilty. This isn't the thing to be bitching about.
There are plenty of things we need to improve starting with Buzz instilling some confidence into these guys down the stretch.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 09, 2011, 08:33:04 PM
You realize MU has inside position on the free throws making a tip in in under 1.1 seconds nearly impossible?
You realize making a running 88-footer is nearly impossible?
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 09, 2011, 08:33:04 PM
You realize MU has inside position on the free throws making a tip in in under 1.1 seconds nearly impossible?
I get that thought, but a free throw and tip-in has to be just as likely as a full court three to tie the game. I don't mind fouling...over time I don't think it really matters, but in that situation I cringed. We weren't exactly dominating on the glass, and I didn't feel USF was capable of hitting anything, much less a 3/4 court shot.
I'll be interested to hear if Buzz asked for it to happen, or just stayed positive when Crowder made a dumb mistake. Obviously if he didn't want it...he should have made sure it didn't happen.
See I think it's a lot easier for a guy to make a 3/4 court shot than make a free throw then miss a free throw in such a manner that the bounce goes to his one of his teammates (who don't have inside position) who then finds a way to tip the ball in from 5 or more feet out.
Quote from: warriors1965 on February 09, 2011, 08:26:57 PM
But somehow Buzz felt it was the appropriate play.
Could someone please give any justification for this?
That was the right choice in that situation. Glad Buzz made it.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on February 09, 2011, 08:37:34 PM
You realize making a running 88-footer is nearly impossible?
You realize USF had timeouts, meaning they would have been able to set up an inbounds play for as final shot?
I generally don't like the fouling strategy, but it's silly to suggest that it's somehow unheard of or beyond the pale.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 09, 2011, 08:42:38 PM
You realize USF had timeouts, meaning they would have been able to set up an inbounds play for as final shot?
I generally don't like the fouling strategy, but it's silly to suggest that it's somehow unheard of or beyond the pale.
USF was out of timeouts ;)
Warriors is right, USF was out of timeouts. But I still am fine with the decision to foul.
Quote from: Warriors10 on February 09, 2011, 08:43:46 PM
USF was out of timeouts ;)
You sure?
According to the ESPN game tracker they called only two the whole game, both late in the second half.
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/playbyplay?gameId=310400058
you don't foul with the other team 90 feet from the basket with less than 2 seconds left. stupid move lucky it didn't backfire . I have and still am a Buzz advocate but that was plain stupid . much higher probability of getting a rebound put back to tie. The other thing I didn't like is always playing so small, especially against a bigger team like USF. very lucky they appled like we did against Louisville. Would have been a good situation to give Mellow and Eric some minutes. Add the terrible charity line chokes and we were damn lucky
Quote from: Pakuni on February 09, 2011, 08:42:38 PM
You realize USF had timeouts, meaning they would have been able to set up an inbounds play for as final shot?
I generally don't like the fouling strategy, but it's silly to suggest that it's somehow unheard of or beyond the pale.
By the time they would have called the TO, there would have been, at most 1.0 seconds left.
I'll take my chances of Stan Heath drawing up the perfect inbound play, and his players running said play without screwing up and somehow making a miracle three...
over...
Making the 1st FT (which they did) and using their obvious size advantage to try to tip in the 2nd.
Gametracker is wrong. They were out of timeouts.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 09, 2011, 08:46:49 PM
You sure?
According to the ESPN game tracker they called only two the whole game, both late in the second half.
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/playbyplay?gameId=310400058
they were out of timeouts.
Buzz said he did call for the foul and it was a "philosophical decision."
Seems to have done all the numbers and came out to nearly 50/50. Agree or not, he did his typical due diligence and did what he believed in. And it worked!!
Quote from: GOMU1104 on February 09, 2011, 08:48:57 PM
Making the 1st FT (which they did) and using their obvious size advantage to try to tip in the 2nd.
This was my fear as well. I'll take my chances with the 80 footer.
On the post game show Buzz just said that he will always foul in that situation. He said that if they are in the single bonus and we are up three with 5 seconds or less on their end of the court that he will foul. He says the single bonus is the big difference since he thinks it adds pressure for the shooter.
Thoughts?
It was the "traditional" thing to do I think. Bo Ryan would've done it Buzz said in postgame.
Quote from: LA on February 09, 2011, 08:56:45 PM
On the post game show Buzz just said that he will always foul in that situation. He said that if they are in the single bonus and we are up three with 5 seconds or less on their end of the court that he will foul. He says the single bonus is the big difference since he thinks it adds pressure for the shooter.
Thoughts?
They were 80 feet away from the hoop, with (apparently) no timeouts left!
Sorry Buzz, doesnt make sense.
Quote from: LA on February 09, 2011, 08:56:45 PM
On the post game show Buzz just said that he will always foul in that situation. He said that if they are in the single bonus and we are up three with 5 seconds or less on their end of the court that he will foul. He says the single bonus is the big difference since he thinks it adds pressure for the shooter.
Thoughts?
Weren't they in the double bonus?
Rutgers didn't foul down two with 45 seconds left. At the charity stripe to win right now.
Edit. They won. And stormed the court. :)
Quote from: LA on February 09, 2011, 08:56:45 PM
On the post game show Buzz just said that he will always foul in that situation. He said that if they are in the single bonus and we are up three with 5 seconds or less on their end of the court that he will foul. He says the single bonus is the big difference since he thinks it adds pressure for the shooter.
I think this is a case of Buzz being a slave to the numbers. There is a big difference between up 3 with 5 seconds and up 3 with 1.1 sec. With 5, 4 or even 3+ you have a chance to get the ball to a guard and have him get a shoot in the front court. Not a great shot but a decent chance. With 1.1 the clock will nearly expire if the rebounder passes it. Since Buzz had a chance to relay instructions during the DJ free throws (which for G*D's sake he should have made) you tell your team. If we miss no fouls, hands straight up, let them heave it.
I watched the first half on my computer then had to go out. From the title of this post (and others) I thought MU had lost. There sure are some experts on this board.
I'd much rather take my chances on a half court heave to tie it. With our luck, they'd have made the first free throw and back tapped it out on the missed second one and they throw up a desperation 3 to win it.
See 'Nova and Rutgers tonight. Nova up by three and did not foul and lost the game.
Buzz = Brilliant
Jay = Dumb
The math would be something like this (all the numbers are just guesses - changing them changes the result)
Fouling
Assumptions: a 80% FT shooter got the rebound. He can miss a FT 1 out of 2 times he tries. Assume the offense gets the rebound 1 in 10 missed FT. The team that is trailing scores with in 1.1 second 1/10 times that they get the rebound.
Probability of making the first, missing the second, and making the tip-in =
(8/10)*(1/2)*(1/10)*(1/10) = 1/250
Not Fouling
This is just a guess from a previous poster. It really depends on how much time is left/who has the ball. If a guard gets the ball there would be a higher probability.
Probability of making a 3/4 court running heave:
1/1000
These are just rough assumptions. If you have better estimates (maybe find some data someplace) please fill it in. It is an interesting problem.
The odds of making a 3/4 court shot are better than 1/1000. I bet if you gave me 1000 shots even I would make more than 1.
The replacement for NMB isn't smart enough to see that this was the right call at the end of the game. It'd take a miracle either way for USF, but when do you ever see a guy deliberately miss the free throw and get the rebound? Maybe once or twice in the past decade? When do you see 3/4 court shots go in? Maybe once or twice a year? The odds were stacked well in our favor. Absolutely the right call. I'm just glad he finally called for it. It was the right strategy tonight, and hopefully will be used by us even more in the future.
Quote from: 314warrior on February 09, 2011, 10:28:49 PM
The math would be something like this (all the numbers are just guesses - changing them changes the result)
Fouling
Assumptions: a 80% FT shooter got the rebound. He can miss a FT 1 out of 2 times he tries. Assume the offense gets the rebound 1 in 10 missed FT. The team that is trailing scores with in 1.1 second 1/10 times that they get the rebound.
Probability of making the first, missing the second, and making the tip-in =
(8/10)*(1/2)*(1/10)*(1/10) = 1/250
You need to add something to your probabilities as well. Sometimes (let's say 10-20% of time) the foul isn't called and the offensive player either cannot get the ball upcourt due to the foul, turns the ball over, etc..
Quote from: 314warrior on February 09, 2011, 10:28:49 PM
The math would be something like this (all the numbers are just guesses - changing them changes the result)
Fouling
Assumptions: a 80% FT shooter got the rebound. He can miss a FT 1 out of 2 times he tries. Assume the offense gets the rebound 1 in 10 missed FT. The team that is trailing scores with in 1.1 second 1/10 times that they get the rebound.
Probability of making the first, missing the second, and making the tip-in =
(8/10)*(1/2)*(1/10)*(1/10) = 1/250
Not Fouling
This is just a guess from a previous poster. It really depends on how much time is left/who has the ball. If a guard gets the ball there would be a higher probability.
Probability of making a 3/4 court running heave:
1/1000
These are just rough assumptions. If you have better estimates (maybe find some data someplace) please fill it in. It is an interesting problem.
Since the guy grabbing the rebound is probably a big guy i'd but the percent below 70, probably closer to 65%. Also they must make the first and must miss the second. Not just make either or. Therefore you need the .65 value and the value of missing the 2nd one (which as shown tonight is not easy) so maybe put that around 75% as well.
1/1000 is nowhere near a 3/4 court heave.
Regardless these are all meaningless numbers since they are guesses. Buzz said he did the research which probably means looking at the actual results from games. I'd go with Buzz on this 'numbers' issue. It worked PERFECTLY tonight and people are complaining.
Wow, I have to turn on buzz for a rare time on that one. A big guy with the ball, no time outs and 80 feet from the basket. Their players have been sneaking around us on missed free throws.
I give us a 70 percent chance of winning with the foul but a 95 percent chance if we don't. Thought it was a big mistake, but we won.
I love buzz but think it was dumb to foul. heck they got the offensive rebound the last time they missed a ft
Was there any chance that a foul like that at the end of the game would have been seen as intentional?
I'm with you on that call, CD.
Quote from: Daniel on February 09, 2011, 11:22:40 PM
Was there any chance that a foul like that at the end of the game would have been seen as intentional?
That's actually a good question. Do you have to factor in there that an official like Higgins, Driscoll or Burr might call an intentional foul? Was Burr the nearest official on that play tonight?
At what point did USF have a shot to tie the game?????
When?
............. they didn't..... the foul obviously worked.
For whatever it's worth and to put an end to this discussion:
Jae Crowder's Postgame:
"After DJO's last two FT misses, were you instructed to foul: "I was supposed to. When we talked in the locker room after, I told the coaching staff I don't think I should have because I don't think they had a timeout, 1.8 left, they had to make a shot from almost the length of the court. So I told them that and they agreed with me, but in the situation we did what we had to do and thank God it worked out.""
Quote from: Eye on February 10, 2011, 12:52:38 AM
That's actually a good question. Do you have to factor in there that an official like Higgins, Driscoll or Burr might call an intentional foul? Was Burr the nearest official on that play tonight?
I know I was worried about that at the time. It did fit into the definition of intentional foul I think - Jae certainly wasn't going for the ball. That would have sucked!
A full court heave is 1/100 at the most. If i'm sitting at the gym I can make probably about 5-10 3/4 court shots out of 100. Not an exxageration
Horrible, horrible call. Would you rather have USF take a 90 footer or rebound a missed free throw? The answer is obvious. Another example of Buzz' in-game coaching skills, or lack thereof.
Don't want to knock Buzz because I am a big supporter, but grabbing a reobound with no timeouts and turning it into a 3 point bomb from 88 feet is near impossible. And I've seen us not control the rebound on too many missed free throws to think that the make/miss tip scenario is near the level of impossibilty of the 3/4+ court heave.
Granted fouling probably made the the odds of going to OT from 1 in 300 to 1 in 180 or something like that. I think it was a dumb move ut one that probably isn't going to hurt in the end.
I am in the camp that fouling up 3 when the other team has time to get a resonable 3 point shot is good strategy, but here I think it was a very bad choice.
Take the win and move on.
Quote from: MUEagle1090 on February 10, 2011, 02:08:31 AM
A full court heave is 1/100 at the most. If i'm sitting at the gym I can make probably about 5-10 3/4 court shots out of 100. Not an exxageration
And, I'm still averaging 22 putts per round.
You people are crazy.
The same people complaining about this win are the same people that say there are no good losses. Get a grip.
By the way, Nova lost last night because they didn't foul up 3 with just a few seconds left.
Quote
Or, to be more specific, Wright gave them a chance to win by not fouling up 3 with just a few seconds left. Johnathan Mitchell (25 points on the night) raised up with .8 seconds left on the clock for a tying three-pointer, was fouled on the shot, and hit the free throw to give the Scarlet Knights their 13th win on the year (4th in the Big East).
Coaching 101. There were plenty of chances for Villanova to foul on the last possession, all of them before Corey Fisher fouled Mitchell on his three-point attempt, but Wright said afterwards they were not going to foul. They were just going to try and get a stop. He also admitted after the game that it was a mistake not to foul.
"Talk about poor decisions — I made one there," Wright said. "We talk about it all the time. That's one of those times you say, 'We should have fouled.'"
Full article by Ray Mernaugh (http://www.nbebasketball.com/w3/2011-0210/mernagh-another-crazy-night/)
To Review ...
Jay Wright = Dumb for not fouling when up by 3 last night with a few seconds left (post above)
Buzz Williams = Dumb for fouling when up by 3 last night with a few seconds left (this thread).
Conclusion, if you are up by three with a few seconds left, you're a dumb coach.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 10, 2011, 05:40:36 AM
And, I'm still averaging 22 putts per round.
I hate your memory.
I didn't mind the call, but wasn't expecting it either. Glad it worked. On to G'Town.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 10, 2011, 06:46:35 AM
To Review ...
Jay Wright = Dumb for not fouling when up by 3 last night with a few seconds left (post above)
Buzz Williams = Dumb for fouling when up by 3 last night with a few seconds left (this thread).
Conclusion, if you are up by three with a few seconds left, you're a dumb coach.
Didn't take logic in college, did ya?
They were not even close to being the same situation and you know it.
- Our foul allowed USF to walk all the way from under our basket down the court to under their basket with the clocked stopped at 1.8 seconds. It was made before the defender even had the chance to land with his rebound. To tie, he would have had to land, turn around, and heave an 80+ foot shot on target in 1.8 seconds - and it was off a free throw so we knew that it was < 2 seconds from the start.
- Nova was playing half court defense and the ball was already on the other side of the floor. A good look at a normal 3 point shot before the clock expired was a definite possibility. What they really needed to do was either foul, or play defense and NOT foul for any reason.
Admittedly I don't like the fouling strategy, so I'm biased, but I don't think Wright made a bad decision. I don't think either strategy gives a significant statistical advantage, so you have to go with your feel of the current game if you're a coach. Fluke losses happen with both strategies. Kentucky fouled in the SEC tourney last year and lost because the second missed free throw was tipped out to the 3 point line. The player simply cannot foul on a shot if you don't go with fouling on the floor.
Quote from: BrandonA on February 09, 2011, 09:08:09 PM
Rutgers didn't foul down two with 45 seconds left. At the charity stripe to win right now.
Edit. They won. And stormed the court. :)
+1
Quote from: TJ on February 10, 2011, 09:17:24 AM
Admittedly I don't like the fouling strategy, so I'm biased, but I don't think Wright made a bad decision. I don't think either strategy gives a significant statistical advantage, so you have to go with your feel of the current game if you're a coach. Fluke losses happen with both strategies. Kentucky fouled in the SEC tourney last year and lost because the second missed free throw was tipped out to the 3 point line. The player simply cannot foul on a shot if you don't go with fouling on the floor.
I'm generally not a fan of the fouling strategy, but can see why some advocate it.
That said, MU really was in close to a no-lose situation at that point.
It's exceptionally unlikely that a guy is going to pull down a rebound with 1.8 seconds remaining and somehow turn and shoot himself, or dish to a player who could get off a better shot. We agree on that.
But it's also exceptionally unlikely (probably at least equally unlikely) that with 1.1 seconds left - the time on the clock after the foul, IIRC - a guy is going to make his first free throw, then successfully miss his second in such a manner that the ball would escape two MU rebounders with inside position and wind up in the hands of a USF player, who then would successfully knock down a shot. All in 1.1 seconds.
Impossible? No. As unlikely as a three-quarter court (or longer) shot going in? Probably.
We can debate the strategy, but either way USF had minimal chance of tying the game at that point and all the teeth gnashing and criticism is a little silly since USF's chances of tying the game weren't significantly - or any - better in either situation.
p.s. Kentucky won the SEC tournament last year.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 10, 2011, 09:59:59 AM
I'm generally not a fan of the fouling strategy, but can see why some advocate it.
That said, MU really was in close to a no-lose situation at that point.
It's exceptionally unlikely that a guy is going to pull down a rebound with 1.8 seconds remaining and somehow turn and shoot himself, or dish to a player who could get off a better shot. We agree on that.
But it's also exceptionally unlikely (probably at least equally unlikely) that with 1.1 seconds left - the time on the clock after the foul, IIRC - a guy is going to make his first free throw, then successfully miss his second in such a manner that the ball would escape two MU rebounders with inside position and wind up in the hands of a USF player, who then would successfully knock down a shot. All in 1.1 seconds.
Impossible? No. As unlikely as a three-quarter court (or longer) shot going in? Probably.
We can debate the strategy, but either way USF had minimal chance of tying the game at that point and all the teeth gnashing and criticism is a little silly since USF's chances of tying the game weren't significantly - or any - better in either situation.
p.s. Kentucky won the SEC tournament last year.
I'm pretty sure we were pinching the two low block players for USF, at least I'd think 1 of our 2 guys at the high post would, while maybe the other boxes out the shooter.
It would have been a freak play to tie the game up.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 10, 2011, 09:59:59 AM
I'm generally not a fan of the fouling strategy, but can see why some advocate it.
That said, MU really was in close to a no-lose situation at that point.
It's exceptionally unlikely that a guy is going to pull down a rebound with 1.8 seconds remaining and somehow turn and shoot himself, or dish to a player who could get off a better shot. We agree on that.
But it's also exceptionally unlikely (probably at least equally unlikely) that with 1.1 seconds left - the time on the clock after the foul, IIRC - a guy is going to make his first free throw, then successfully miss his second in such a manner that the ball would escape two MU rebounders with inside position and wind up in the hands of a USF player, who then would successfully knock down a shot. All in 1.1 seconds.
Impossible? No. As unlikely as a three-quarter court (or longer) shot going in? Probably.
We can debate the strategy, but either way USF had minimal chance of tying the game at that point and all the teeth gnashing and criticism is a little silly since USF's chances of tying the game weren't significantly - or any - better in either situation.
p.s. Kentucky won the SEC tournament last year.
Pakuni i think you are dead wrong....the chances of USF getting the rebound and going right back up and scoring are significantly greater than them hitting a full court shot. USF had just gotten the offensive rebound off of their last missed FT.
They also substituted in their 7 footer ..Famous for the fts'.
I am not really into debating which tactic is the best, I think the rutgers analogy is bad because that was a 20 foot shot not a 90.
Even if USF hurls the ball the leangth of the court we are still tied. Luckily he made the shot and we can argue about tit after a win not a loss. What happenes if they get the rebound put it back in and get fouled? oops?
Whatever decision a coach makes, he leaves himself open to criticism. Like Buzz last year when we kept losing on dagger 3's, letting ND tie it up on a late 3 only to lose in OT, like Jay Wright last night not fouling, like Buzz last night. Personally, I take the chance with the 75 footer. Only 1.8 seconds left. But, for the rest of the board, how much time needs to be left for it to be acceptable to foul up 3?
Quote from: Canadian Dimes on February 10, 2011, 10:08:14 AM
Even if USF hurls the ball the leangth of the court we are still tied. Luckily he made the shot and we can argue about tit after a win not a loss. What happenes if they get the rebound put it back in and get fouled? oops?
I think that confluence of events your describe - a perfectly missed free throw, an offensive rebound from a guy without inside position, a successful shot and a foul - all in 1.1 seconds is about as likely, and possibly less likely, than a three-quarters court shot.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 10, 2011, 10:19:17 AM
I think that confluence of events your describe - a perfectly missed free throw, an offensive rebound from a guy without inside position, a successful shot and a foul - all in 1.1 seconds is about as likely, and possibly less likely, than a three-quarters court shot.
CD's right. Clock doesn't start until the ball is touched after a missed FT, and USF did snag and score on a FT miss just seconds before. Also, given the bizarro nature of the game, it would be completely in character for MU to foul on a last micro-second put back. Look at the finish to the VU/Rutgers game.
a W is a W and an L is an L, yesterday we got the W. Today the only people that care about how the game played out are MU and USF fans, the rest of the nation see a MU victory.
Focusing on the last 1.8 seconds of the game is splitting hairs! No matter what Buzz did, those complaining about the foul would instead be complaining about leaving a shooter open.
The game of what if's and should have done's has become increasingly apparent on this board and is just sad and pathetic. Yes it would be great if the game played out the way you fantasied it in your head, because if that were possible I would have won the lottery, be dating a super model and living in a mansion rather than working an entry level sales job and living with my parents to save money.
Quote from: TJ on February 10, 2011, 09:17:24 AM
Didn't take logic in college, did ya?
They were not even close to being the same situation and you know it.
- Our foul allowed USF to walk all the way from under our basket down the court to under their basket with the clocked stopped at 1.8 seconds. It was made before the defender even had the chance to land with his rebound. To tie, he would have had to land, turn around, and heave an 80+ foot shot on target in 1.8 seconds - and it was off a free throw so we knew that it was < 2 seconds from the start.
- Nova was playing half court defense and the ball was already on the other side of the floor. A good look at a normal 3 point shot before the clock expired was a definite possibility. What they really needed to do was either foul, or play defense and NOT foul for any reason.
Admittedly I don't like the fouling strategy, so I'm biased, but I don't think Wright made a bad decision. I don't think either strategy gives a significant statistical advantage, so you have to go with your feel of the current game if you're a coach. Fluke losses happen with both strategies. Kentucky fouled in the SEC tourney last year and lost because the second missed free throw was tipped out to the 3 point line. The player simply cannot foul on a shot if you don't go with fouling on the floor.
According to ESPN.com's Play-by-play (http://espn.go.com/ncb/playbyplay?gameId=310400058), USF had only used two time outs the entire game. Is that accurate? If so, USF would have been calling a TO as soon as the player hit the floor. Then they would have tried to get the ball to a player considerably closer to the basket than 80+ feet. I don't like giving them a chance to run an inbounds play with 1.5 seconds left; that's a catch and one dribble and a shot. It's not difficult to imagine that this could have been a 25' shot. I like the call to foul.
Quote
After DJO's last two FT misses, were you instructed to foul: "I was supposed to. When we talked in the locker room after, I told the coaching staff I don't think I should have because I don't think they had a timeout, 1.8 left, they had to make a shot from almost the length of the court. So I told them that and they agreed with me, but in the situation we did what we had to do and thank God it worked out."
Jae's quote after the game is above. Fouling right away because MU thought USF still had a time out makes more sense to me considering all that had to happen--which makes a free throw situation a better option than an in-bounds play from a time out for a set up Jumper from just outside the arc (vs. 3/4ths of the floor prayer off a FT miss). Buzz stated that the strategies (to foul or not to foul) are about statistically equal but that with less than four seconds, they have a general rule to foul. As Buzz stated:
Quote
After DJO missed those last two FTs, was Jae instructed to foul: "Yeah."
Can you explain your reasoning: "It's a philosophical thing. Statistically they say the variance is 1.7% on whether you foul or don't foul when you're up three. My reasoning behind it, or my philosophy behind it, is if they're in the single bonus, if they're length of the floor and it's under 5 seconds – sometimes 4 – foul. So we foul, there's 1.8 seconds left, he has to make the first one. And the reason I believe in the single bonus, I believe that's a little added pressure – 'I've got to make the first one before I can try to miss the second one.' The problem with that, and it almost backfired on us tonight, is you have to rebound the ball. I can tell you that we don't practice missing free throws. And so in that situation, you have to make the first one and then you have to miss it in such a manner that it gives your team a chance to get the rebound. And I think that's a lot of stuff, but it didn't work. The end result was OK, but that didn't work."
Quote from: wildbill sb on February 10, 2011, 10:38:15 AM
CD's right. Clock doesn't start until the ball is touched after a missed FT, and USF did snag and score on a FT miss just seconds before. Also, given the bizarro nature of the game, it would be completely in character for MU to foul on a last micro-second put back. Look at the finish to the VU/Rutgers game.
Correct. The instant the ball is touched, the clock starts running. So are you suggesting that, under those circumstances, USF had a reasonable chance of collecting clean rebound from outside position (i.e. not tipped, not fought over, not bounced around, etc.) and getting off a shot and possibly even being fouled, all in a span of 1.1 seconds?
I doubt anyone has ever crunched the numbers in that circumstance, but I suspect the odds aren't much, if any, better than a three-quarters court shot.
And since it's been mentioned twice, the offensive rebound USF snagged off a missed free throw (the only time it happened during the game), did not lead to any points.
Fouling
Assumptions: a 80% FT shooter got the rebound. He can miss a FT 1 out of 2 times he tries. Assume the offense gets the rebound 1 in 10 missed FT. The team that is trailing scores with in 1.1 second 1/10 times that they get the rebound.
Stranger things can happen.
Look back at the foul by DJO and FTs by Poland with 52 seconds to go. Makes the first, misses the second, Gilchrist, despite Otule having inside position, knocks the ball off of Chris for USF possession under the basket.
While rewatching the game, an Espn graphic showed USF with 1 timeout remaining at 1:03. Heath called one with 8 seconds to go.
After thinking about the foul, it was clear that Crowder just grabbed him. That is a definition of an intentional foul. While it is not likely that a foul like that is called, it is what should have been called. Result SF gets two free throws and the ball. The play was risky and stupid.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 10, 2011, 09:59:59 AM
p.s. Kentucky won the SEC tournament last year.
Sorry, it was the reverse and KY won because of it.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2790426/sec_tournament_2010_goes_to_kentucky.html?cat=14 (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2790426/sec_tournament_2010_goes_to_kentucky.html?cat=14)
Kentucky was down 3 and Miss St. fouled them with 4.9 seconds left. Bledsoe made first free throw, missed second on purpose. John Wall gets rebound, misses 3 pointer, and DeMarcus Cousins put back to go to OT. KY wins in OT.
Similar situation to Nova game yesterday - it can go either way with either strategy.
Quote from: bilsu on February 10, 2011, 11:26:06 AM
After thinking about the foul, it was clear that Crowder just grabbed him. That is a definition of an intentional foul. While it is not likely that a foul like that is called, it is what should have been called. Result SF gets two free throws and the ball. The play was risky and stupid.
If that's your definition of an intentional foul, wouldn't every one of USF's fouls in the final minute or so also qualify?
Fortunately, that's not really the intent or spirit of the intentional foul rule.
Quote from: TJ on February 10, 2011, 11:38:15 AM
Kentucky was down 3 and Miss St. fouled them with 4.9 seconds left. Bledsoe made first free throw, missed second on purpose. John Wall gets rebound, misses 3 pointer, and DeMarcus Cousins put back to go to OT. KY wins in OT.
Similar situation to Nova game yesterday - it can go either way with either strategy.
4.9 seconds is a ton of time. No way that could be done in 1.1 seconds.
The reality is if we foul or don't foul, we have a 99.99% chance of winning at that point.
There is a 100% chance half the people on scoop are going to be pissed whatever decesion is made haha.
Quote from: TJ on February 10, 2011, 11:38:15 AM
Sorry, it was the reverse and KY won because of it.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2790426/sec_tournament_2010_goes_to_kentucky.html?cat=14 (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2790426/sec_tournament_2010_goes_to_kentucky.html?cat=14)
Kentucky was down 3 and Miss St. fouled them with 4.9 seconds left. Bledsoe made first free throw, missed second on purpose. John Wall gets rebound, misses 3 pointer, and DeMarcus Cousins put back to go to OT. KY wins in OT.
Similar situation to Nova game yesterday - it can go either way with either strategy.
You're correct. But that sequence in the Kentucky game took almost 5 seconds, not 1.1. In fact, from the time of Bledsoe's missed FT to when Wall tracked down the rebound, more than 1.1 seconds expired. Then another 1.4 seconds expired before he got off a shot. Then nearly two more seconds expired before Cousins collected the rebound and knocked down the put back.
see video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL8IWtESJaA
This is why I'm suggesting that USF collecting an offensive rebound and getting a shot off in 1.1 seconds, while certainly not impossible, isn't really any more likely than a made shot from their own free-throw line. As the Kentucky game shows, just getting control of the ball in less than 1.1 seconds - much less getting control and putting up a shot - is very unlikely. A whole sequence of events (shot missed, poor blocking out, ball rolls off the rim just so, ball leaks out to Wall, Wall is in the right place at the right time) had to go just right just for Kentucky to touch the ball in over 1.1 seconds.
I'm not arguing for or against the strategy, so much as pointing out that at that stage of the game, it didn't make a difference. Either way, USF tying the game was an extremely unlikely outcome.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 10, 2011, 11:57:43 AM
You're correct. But that sequence in the Kentucky game took almost 5 seconds, not 1.1. In fact, from the time of Bledsoe's missed FT to when Wall tracked down the rebound, more than 1.1 seconds expired. Then another 1.4 seconds expired before he got off a shot. Then nearly two more seconds expired before Cousins collected the rebound and knocked down the put back.
see video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL8IWtESJaA
This is why I'm suggesting that USF collecting an offensive rebound and getting a shot off in 1.1 seconds, while certainly not impossible, isn't really any more likely than a made shot from their own free-throw line. As the Kentucky game shows, just getting control of the ball in less than 1.1 seconds - much less getting control and putting up a shot - is very unlikely. A whole sequence of events (shot missed, poor blocking out, ball rolls off the rim just so, ball leaks out to Wall, Wall is in the right place at the right time) had to go just right just for Kentucky to touch the ball in over 1.1 seconds.
I'm not arguing for or against the strategy, so much as pointing out that at that stage of the game, it didn't make a difference. Either way, USF tying the game was an extremely unlikely outcome.
In all of this we lost sight on what I was replying to in the first place. AMU84 said "Jay Wright = Dumb for not fouling; Buzz = Dumb for fouling". I replied to that to say that the situations were vastly different, and that he was wrong to compare them and come to his conclusion. I then stated that I didn't think Wright made a bad decision yesterday and presented a situation (poorly at first until I clarified later) similar to the Nova game where the team fouled and still lost. My point being that neither strategy is going to be perfect. Then it got twisted a little and people got the impression that I was comparing the KY game to our game yesterday.
I still think last night was a bad decision, but I'm not going crazy about it.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on February 10, 2011, 10:39:44 AM
According to ESPN.com's Play-by-play (http://espn.go.com/ncb/playbyplay?gameId=310400058), USF had only used two time outs the entire game. Is that accurate? If so, USF would have been calling a TO as soon as the player hit the floor. Then they would have tried to get the ball to a player considerably closer to the basket than 80+ feet. I don't like giving them a chance to run an inbounds play with 1.5 seconds left; that's a catch and one dribble and a shot. It's not difficult to imagine that this could have been a 25' shot. I like the call to foul.
I don't remember, but in other threads people have stated that ESPN is wrong and that they didn't have any timeouts left.
However, even if they had one, nothing is instantaneous. The player has to land, Stan Heath has to yell "Time Out", a ref has to hear him and react by blowing his whistle. None of that takes a lot of time, but I think it would put a significant dent in 1.8 seconds.
Plus this is college, not the nba. so even if they had a time out (which they didn't) the ball doesn't automatically advance to halfcourt with a timeout. That's why in college you always see guys dribble past half court towards the benches and then call timeout.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 10, 2011, 12:21:41 PM
Plus this is college, not the nba. so even if they had a time out (which they didn't) the ball doesn't automatically advance to halfcourt with a timeout. That's why in college you always see guys dribble past half court towards the benches and then call timeout.
Why in the world does the NBA have that stupid rule?
To prolong games and give the losing team a chance.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 10, 2011, 12:21:41 PM
Plus this is college, not the nba. so even if they had a time out (which they didn't) the ball doesn't automatically advance to halfcourt with a timeout. That's why in college you always see guys dribble past half court towards the benches and then call timeout.
I understand that. But you would agree, I assume, that it'd be better to run a play with 1.8 seconds left than try to have the ball 80+ feet -- even if you were running that play from the baseline (KY/Duke with 2.1 seconds left comes to mind).
Btw, based on several responses here, I'm assuming they did not have a TO remaining.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on February 09, 2011, 08:37:34 PM
You realize making a running 88-footer is nearly impossible?
says who? No way is this 1-1000. I'm sure there are guys who can launch up a 88 foot shot and hit it 2% of the time. And if you can advance the ball to 60 feet there are plenty of guys who probably shoot well over 5%.
I think the chances of them scaling over the back of butler and crowder, grabbing the ball, and making the shot without fouling is way harder.
Just in case anyone wants to know... after the game, I talked to Benny A in the parallel dimension where Crowder didn't foul. USF missed the half-court heave.
So this was going to be a W, foul or not. The right decision is the one that yields the desired outcome. In this case, either decision was the "right" decision.
Quote from: RawdogDX on February 10, 2011, 12:51:02 PM
I think the chances of them scaling over the back of butler and crowder, grabbing the ball, and making the shot without fouling is way harder.
but with 52 seconds to go, Poland had made a FT, missed the second, and USF had the ball on an inbounds under the basket after Gilchrist knocked the rebound out of bounds off of Otule.
Quite rare to expect that outcome twice in a minute, but if I was USF, I'd take that chance over a rebound, dribble and 75-footer.
Quote from: oldwarrior81 on February 10, 2011, 01:41:16 PM
but just 50 seconds earlier, Poland had made a FT, missed the second, and USF had the ball on an inbounds under the basket after Gilchrist knocked the rebound out of bounds off of Otule.
Quite rare to expect that outcome twice in a minute, but if I was USF, I'd take that chance over a rebound, dribble and 75-footer.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on February 10, 2011, 12:25:09 PM
I understand that. But you would agree, I assume, that it'd be better to run a play with 1.8 seconds left than try to have the ball 80+ feet -- even if you were running that play from the baseline (KY/Duke with 2.1 seconds left comes to mind).
Btw, based on several responses here, I'm assuming they did not have a TO remaining.
Oh yeah, i would agree. I was just pointing this out, as it seemed like some people may have thought this was the case. I think in this situation, no matter how many timeouts USF had, the best play was to let them heave an 80 footer. worst case scenario, you tie and go to OT. by fouling, you crack the door, ever so slightly, towards losing in regulation, where they make the 1st, miss the 2nd, get the putback and 1. But, as many people pointed out, i think win probability went from 99.99% to 99.95% by fouling there. I have a much bigger problem with djo crapping his pants at the line, especially longterm.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 10, 2011, 01:45:27 PM
Oh yeah, i would agree. I was just pointing this out, as it seemed like some people may have thought this was the case. I think in this situation, no matter how many timeouts USF had, the best play was to let them heave an 80 footer. worst case scenario, you tie and go to OT. by fouling, you crack the door, ever so slightly, towards losing in regulation, where they make the 1st, miss the 2nd, get the putback and 1. But, as many people pointed out, i think win probability went from 99.99% to 99.95% by fouling there. I have a much bigger problem with djo crapping his pants at the line, especially longterm.
No, worst case scenario is we foul the shooter as he's heaving the 80 footer, it goes in, and he makes the FT for a 4-point play. Game Over.
BTW, with under 2 seconds and 90 feet away, I'd defend about 2 feet away and let them try the heave--NO FOUL. With any more time, I agree with what Buzz did.
Quote from: Benny B on February 10, 2011, 01:04:34 PM
Just in case anyone wants to know... after the game, I talked to Benny A in the parallel dimension where Crowder didn't foul. USF missed the half-court heave.
So this was going to be a W, foul or not. The right decision is the one that yields the desired outcome. In this case, either decision was the "right" decision.
nice.
[deleted]
Honestly, fouling at the end was a poor decision with that little time on the clock and USF out of timeouts. There's really no defense for it. I realize that it "worked out," but focusing on the result rather than the correct process is a mistake.
As many have pointed out, with no timeouts and 1.8 seconds left on the clock, the rebounding USF player was never likely to get past 3/4 quarter court before attempting a desperation heave. Whatever the probability of him making it to the tie the game (certainly 1% or less), it's about the lowest percentage play imaginable. By fouling, Buzz increased the odds of USF scoring three points (through a make-miss-tip) by at least 5x -- and maybe more. That's a major error.
I think Buzz's primary miscalculation was the amount of time on the clock. If there are 4 seconds left on the clock, which would allow the rebounding player to advance the ball to half court or beyond, then it's a defensible (even "good") play. With between 2 and 4 seconds, it's borderline. But having to rebound, turn, shoot and score from the opposite basket in 1.8 seconds is nearly impossible. By deciding to foul, Buzz was doing to opposite of playing the percentages.
Two other good points that have been made and bear repeating:
1. By electing to "intentionally" foul, there was a risk that Crowder -- if he hadn't made a sufficient play on the ball -- may have been called for an intentional foul. It's a relatively low risk, but it's certainly higher than zero. And an intentional foul actually brings losing in regulation back into the equation.
2. By electing to foul, there was a real risk that the foul could have occurred in the act of shooting. With only 1.8 second left, there is a very small window in which to make the foul before the act of shooting has begun. Again, this risk is probably greater than the risk of the player making the 3/4 shot in the first place.
We may have escaped this time. But if Buzz ever finds himself in identical position, I hope he handles it differently.
Quote from: MULS1999 on February 10, 2011, 02:33:12 PM
As many have pointed out, with no timeouts and 1.8 seconds left on the clock, the rebounding USF player was never likely to get past 3/4 quarter court before attempting a desperation heave. Whatever the probability of him making it to the tie the game (certainly 1% or less), it's about the lowest percentage play imaginable. By fouling, Buzz increased the odds of USF scoring three points (through a make-miss-tip) by at least 5x -- and maybe more. That's a major error.
There was a 2.47% chance the player would make the 3/4 court shot. There was a 1.92% chance that they'd make the first FT, miss the second FT and get a tip in. Thus, fouling increased our odds of winning by 0.55%. As long as we're going to manufacture statistics, I figured I'd play too.
MULS is absolutely right. One other wrinkle that was not pointed out was that you open up the possibility of actually losing in regulation. Make free throw and some fluke (tip out for three or a put back with another foul). It was really a poor decision. On that play, you let them rebound, jump the passing lanes and let them heave one. If they make it, so be it, OT. It was bad.
Quote from: MULS1999 on February 10, 2011, 02:30:13 PM
Honestly, fouling at the end was a poor decision with that little time on the clock and USF out of timeouts. There's really no defense for it. I realize that it "worked out," but focusing on the result rather than the correct process is a mistake.
As many have pointed out, with no timeouts and 1.8 seconds left on the clock, the rebounding USF player was never likely to get past 3/4 quarter court before attempting a desperation heave. Whatever the probability of him making it to the tie the game (certainly 1% or less), it's about the lowest percentage play imaginable. By fouling, Buzz increased the odds of USF scoring three points (through a make-miss-tip) by at least 5x -- and maybe more. That's a major error.
Besides your imagination, upon what are you relying for these figures?
A guy who studied this during the 2009-10 season found that there were 52 times a team down three with under 10 was fouled and attempted to tie the game off the rebound of a missed second free throw. There of them succeeded. That's 6 percent. But that's with as many
10 seconds remaining. Are you suggesting that there's no difference between being able to accomplish this with 1.1 seconds versus as many as 8 or 9 seconds?
Interested in knowing how you're deriving your figures.
QuoteBy electing to "intentionally" foul, there was a risk that Crowder -- if he hadn't made a sufficient play on the ball -- may have been called for an intentional foul. It's a relatively low risk, but it's certainly higher than zero. And an intentional foul actually brings losing in regulation back into the equation.
There was no chance, under those circumstances, that any official would have called that an intentional foul. As I said earlier, if that's an intentional foul, then USF committed about four of them in the final minute or so last night.
This is so far outside the spirit of the rule that it's not worth discussing.
Quotewas a real risk that the foul could have occurred in the act of shooting. With only 1.8 second left, there is a very small window in which to make the foul before the act of shooting has begun. Again, this risk is probably greater than the risk of the player making the 3/4 shot in the first place.
Unless Fitzpatrick was going to try a two-handed backwards heave over his head, the foul was not going to be committed in the act of shooting.
Quote from: BrewCity on February 10, 2011, 02:21:00 PM
No, worst case scenario is we foul the shooter as he's heaving the 80 footer, it goes in, and he makes the FT for a 4-point play. Game Over.
BTW, with under 2 seconds and 90 feet away, I'd defend about 2 feet away and let them try the heave--NO FOUL. With any more time, I agree with what Buzz did.
+1
I played with a guy who practiced and made FULL COURT shots damn near every practice. Heaved it like throwing a discus.
This call is debatable but I can see why some have reservations over this foul when in the past Buzz has always played for D instead of fouling up 3.
This whole thread reminds me of people who like to say you're more likely to be struck by lighting twice than win the lottery. The truth is that you're much more likely to never know anyone that has experienced either.
In that 1.8 second situation last night, a team in MU's position is going to win the game 99.999% of the time. Honestly, who cares about which outcome is more likely to lead to a .001% chance of USF winning?
Quote from: Benny B on February 10, 2011, 03:17:26 PM
This whole thread reminds me of people who like to say you're more likely to be struck by lighting twice than win the lottery. The truth is that you're much more likely to never know anyone that has experienced either.
In that 1.8 second situation last night, a team in MU's position is going to win the game 99.999% of the time. Honestly, who cares about which outcome is more likely to lead to a .001% chance of USF winning?
True... But in that situation, by fouling, you create the possibility of actually losing. IF you tell your guys to just lay off and let them shoot a three, you can't lose.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 10, 2011, 11:41:51 AM
If that's your definition of an intentional foul, wouldn't every one of USF's fouls in the final minute or so also qualify?
Fortunately, that's not really the intent or spirit of the intentional foul rule.
The definition of an intentional foul is fouling without trying to go for the ball. Going by my visual memory Crowder grabbed the player form behind with no attempt to go for the foul. It definately fits the definiation of an intentional foul. Now there are a lot of intentional fouls, but as long as the ref can see you swiping at the ball it is not considered intentional. Grabbing a player from behind is intentional and was stupid on Crowders part. He should of went agressively after the ball either creating a foul or knocking the ball away.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 10, 2011, 02:50:17 PM
Besides your imagination, upon what are you relying for these figures?
A guy who studied this during the 2009-10 season found that there were 52 times a team down three with under 10 was fouled and attempted to tie the game off the rebound of a missed second free throw. There of them succeeded. That's 6 percent. But that's with as many 10 seconds remaining. Are you suggesting that there's no difference between being able to accomplish this with 1.1 seconds versus as many as 8 or 9 seconds?
Interested in knowing how you're deriving your figures.
I saw that info, as well, and I think it's instructive -- but all of the stats on this are culled from fairly small sample sizes and from contexts that are not all that analogous. And much of what we are all relying on here (including me) is anecdotal.
The fact that a team was able to make-miss-rebound-score 3 times out of 52 (10 seconds vs. 1.8 seconds notwithstanding) demonstrates to me a certain degree of feasibility. I mean, 52 occurrences is a very small number compared to the hundreds of desperation 3/4 court heaves that are attempted each year at the end of halfs -- much less heaves that come off of FT misses with under 2 seconds left. Have you ever seen that happen in a game -- a guy get a rebound, turn and fire from 85 feet and make it? I think I saw a youtube of it happening in a high school game once. But I doubt it's happened more than a dozen times in the past 20 years of college hoops. On the other hand, I've seen the intentional miss tip-in executed in games on several occassions.
To be clear, I wasn't attempting to assign specific percentages so much as to suggest that I think the make-miss-tip scenario is some multiple of x more likely to occur than the rebound-turn-make-3/4-court-shot-in-1.8-seconds scenario. It might not be an opinion backed by empirical evidence, but the anecdotal support for the proposition seems pretty strong --at least to me.
Quote from: ErickJD08 on February 10, 2011, 03:24:17 PM
True... But in that situation, by fouling, you create the possibility of actually losing. IF you tell your guys to just lay off and let them shoot a three, you can't lose...
...in regulation.
I'm no basketball (or statistical) expert, but I've seen more teams sink "impossible" end-of-game buzzer beaters than I've seen execute the last second make FT; intentionally miss FT; tip-in.
That said, I have to agree with Benny B.
Quote from: Benny B on February 10, 2011, 03:17:26 PM
This whole thread reminds me of people who like to say you're more likely to be struck by lighting twice than win the lottery. The truth is that you're much more likely to never know anyone that has experienced either.
In that 1.8 second situation last night, a team in MU's position is going to win the game 99.999% of the time. Honestly, who cares about which outcome is more likely to lead to a .001% chance of USF winning?
This thread has 3 general points of view: it was a good decision, it was a bad decision, & we won so it doesn't matter.
To the third: Why do you care so much that we're talking about it? It's interesting to some of us. It's a discussion about the strategy behind the game. It's more of a macro discussion about the "proper" way to handle the situation (of course there is no one "proper" way, but everyone has an opinion). It's about evaluating the decisions the coach makes in crunch time and discussing whether we agree or disagree with them. It's not hurting anyone, so please stop complaining about it.
Also, to the one who said "Buzz knows more about basketball than any of us" - true, but that doesn't in any way mean that he will always make the right decision or is somehow above criticism because of it.
According to this piece at SportsQuant -- http://www.sportsquant.com/AnnisJQAS1030.pdf -- the win percentage associated with make-miss-tip is 95.88%, which suggests a conversion rate of 4.12%. Now, again, assumptions in this analysis abound, but I've neither read nor seen anything to suggest the conversion rate for rebound-turn-heave is anywhere close to that.
The SQ study is based on Mark Few's decision not to foul and, instead, to defend against the three pointer on his defensive side of the court in a Maui Invitational game against Mich. St. In his comments after the game, Jay Bilas came out strong against fouling, even in that situation, in order to not bringing losing in regulation back into the equation. I'm not sure I would go that far, but this is an interesting read nonetheless.
Quote from: MULS1999 on February 10, 2011, 03:49:01 PM
According to this piece at SportsQuant -- http://www.sportsquant.com/AnnisJQAS1030.pdf -- the win percentage associated with make-miss-tip is 95.88%, which suggests a conversion rate of 4.12%. Now, again, assumptions in this analysis abound, but I've neither read nor seen anything to suggest the conversion rate for rebound-turn-heave is anywhere close to that.
The SQ study is based on Mark Few's decision not to foul and, instead, to defend against the three pointer on his defensive side of the court in a Maui Invitational game against Mich. St. In his comments after the game, Jay Bilas came out strong against fouling, even in that situation, in order to not bringing losing in regulation back into the equation. I'm not sure I would go that far, but this is an interesting read nonetheless.
I'm not going to pretend to understand all the statistics and math in that, but isn't this the conclusion: "
These computations suggest two things. First, immediately fouling the offensive team is a superior strategy; and second, this is a problem many coaches envy, as even the sub-optimal strategy results in winning in excess of 85% of the time."
Another thing I noticed in there: "
The debate is one of college basketball's most spirited: Leading by three points in the final seconds, do you foul before a shooter can fire in a [three-point field goal] that ties the game?" It certainly always is a spirited debate on this board, and I know that ultimately we all just agree to disagree.
Quote from: Benny B on February 10, 2011, 01:04:34 PM
Just in case anyone wants to know... after the game, I talked to Benny A in the parallel dimension where Crowder didn't foul. USF missed the half-court heave.
So this was going to be a W, foul or not. The right decision is the one that yields the desired outcome. In this case, either decision was the "right" decision.
I talked to Benny Z.
USF won on a 3/4 court shot.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on February 10, 2011, 07:44:30 PM
I talked to Benny Z.
USF won on a 3/4 court shot.
That dimension sucks!
I think this is a very interesting question ever if it both strategies result in very high winning percentages. It may be a bit esoteric, but it is an interesting facet of the game and makes for a good discussion.
Quote from: MULS1999 on February 10, 2011, 03:49:01 PM
According to this piece at SportsQuant -- http://www.sportsquant.com/AnnisJQAS1030.pdf -- the win percentage associated with make-miss-tip is 95.88%, which suggests a conversion rate of 4.12%. Now, again, assumptions in this analysis abound, but I've neither read nor seen anything to suggest the conversion rate for rebound-turn-heave is anywhere close to that.
Thanks for the paper. It was very interesting. He added another layer of complexity on top of the basic probabilities. As far as choosing values - "We find that for virtually any reasonable values of these probabilities, intentionally fouling the opponent increases the chances of eventually winning the game." It would be interesting to compare this a large pool of game data, and I'd be surprised if this hasn't been done for a large data set. It wouldn't be hard to do if you had detailed digitized score book information.