Just listening to espn radio and Riscillo is bemoaning the lack of intelligence in college basketball and called out MU for that last foul down the stretch.
"Marquette beating Syracuse, Syracuse down two possessions, they're just trying to get a layup, and Marquette fouls Syracuse... and they're coach is going, 'What are you doing?'"
Elmore voiced the same opinion during the game. I can not for the life of me see why that is a bad foul. We were up 5 with under ten seconds left. Syracuse had just previously raced down the court for an easy layup on the previous possession, and the clock stops on a made bucket. Why is it a bad idea to actually challenge the shot, and then if you do end up fouling, force the guy make two huge pressure free throws. Worse case scenario is the guy gets an and 1, and you are still up 2 with a chance to make 2 and seal the game. I'd rather have that then give 2 freebies, and then have to inbound the ball against a full court press.
It just frustrates me when analysts criticize college athletes for being dumb without thinking through the scenario in any depth.
Great win, let's go MU!
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on March 21, 2011, 10:16:48 AM
Just listening to espn radio and Riscillo is bemoaning the lack of intelligence in college basketball and called out MU for that last foul down the stretch.
"Marquette beating Syracuse, Syracuse down two possessions, they're just trying to get a layup, and Marquette fouls Syracuse... and they're coach is going, 'What are you doing?'"
Elmore voiced the same opinion during the game. I can not for the life of me see why that is a bad foul. We were up 5 with under ten seconds left. Syracuse had just previously raced down the court for an easy layup on the previous possession, and the clock stops on a made bucket. Why is it a bad idea to actually challenge the shot, and then if you do end up fouling, force the guy make two huge pressure free throws. Worse case scenario is the guy gets an and 1, and you are still up 2 with a chance to make 2 and seal the game. I'd rather have that then give 2 freebies, and then have to inbound the ball against a full court press.
It just frustrates me when analysts criticize college athletes for being dumb without thinking through the scenario in any depth.
Great win, let's go MU!
Because if Cuse makes the layup and we don't foul, you're up 3, in the double bonus and only have to inbound the ball and make one free throw to win the game.
It was a bad foul because it was almost an and 1 play... if they did it while he wasn't shooting I would understand that, but to give them the opportunity for a three point play is a terrible decision.
In Otule's defense, I wasn't sure why he's in the game in that scenario anyway. He's not a great FT shooter, he's not going to slow or harass a ball handler on the perimeter, and if/when Syracuse attacks the rim, hes a stationary big man trying to defend cutters at high rates of speed. At the time, I wasnt sure exactly what he does for you in that situation as opposed to someone like Joe Fulce.
Agree that the problem is potential for 3 point play.
As a snarky aside, Otule has been with the program for 3 years now, not sure why so many of us can't spell his name.
Put simply, the running clock is your friend at that point. Don't stop it.
It's all about the clock. When you have a lead that late, you don't ever want to give the opposing team a chance to score with the clock stopped. If MU gives away the lay-up, they can quickly inbound the ball and run more time off before getting fouled. If MU fouls, then the clock stops and on a made FT, Cuse can call timeout or simply make a substitution to stop the action and get their press set up. On a miss, Cuse can foul immediately or get the rebound (like they did) and an easy putback.
I realize the threat of a 3 point play, but there is small chance of that happening as opposed to certainly giving up two quickly. Actually playing D takes more time off the clock then letting them race down for a layup unguarded. I'll take the small risk of giving up 1 more point for that extra time. You can still run off clock on the inbound after the And 1 if that worst case scenario actually happens.
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on March 21, 2011, 10:39:01 AM
I realize the threat of a 3 point play, but there is small chance of that happening as opposed to certainly giving up two quickly. Actually playing D takes more time off the clock then letting them race down for a layup unguarded. I'll take the small risk of giving up 1 more point for that extra time. You can still run off clock on the inbound after the And 1 if that worst case scenario actually happens.
On behalf of coaches, analysts and intelligent fans, I'd like to agree to disagree.
I'm not saying it was great that he fouled him. What I am saying is that it is actually intelligent to play defense rather than give up an undefended 2 when you are up 2 possessions. As others have pointed out, the clock is the key, and playing D uses up the most clock at an low expected cost. In fact I would say that the expected points given up by playing D is lower than that by allowing an easy two, due to the small probability of a three point play.
Quote from: StillWarriors on March 21, 2011, 10:30:43 AM
Put simply, the running clock is your friend at that point. Don't stop it.
The clock stops after made baskets in college basketball under the 1 minute mark (I believe). It definitely stops after made baskets near the end of games...
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on March 21, 2011, 10:57:33 AM
I'm not saying it was great that he fouled him. What I am saying is that it is actually intelligent to play defense rather than give up an undefended 2 when you are up 2 possessions. As others have pointed out, the clock is the key, and playing D uses up the most clock at an low expected cost. In fact I would say that the expected points given up by playing D is lower than that by allowing an easy two, due to the small probability of a three point play.
They defended him loosley the entire length of the court in an effort to slow him up a little and eat some clock. Once he got near the basket and went up for the shot, they needed to get out of his way. The risk isn't worth the reward.
I can't be too upset at Otule. I think he made two blocks in two different games in similar situations. I think the reason why such a huge mistake is that you open up the possibility for the AND 1, miss FT, hit a 3 to tie.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 21, 2011, 11:05:18 AM
They defended him loosley the entire length of the court in an effort to slow him up a little and eat some clock. Once he got near the basket and went up for the shot, they needed to get out of his way. The risk isn't worth the reward.
So let's assume you play D up to the point he gets into the lane, then give him the basket. Thats a near certainty of 2 points. Now if you play D continuing through the shot lets be generous and say he has a 75% chance of still making the basket. That gives you an expected point total of 1.5 points. Now add in a 50% chance of fouling (generous in the last seconds of a game where officials swallow their whistles, and when the foul rate is much lower than that over the course of a game), with Scoop's 66% FT rate you have an expected .33 points due to the foul.
Here your expected points given up with D is 1.83 < 2 by just giving up the layup. I just think you are giving up fewer points by playing D, and still have the chance to cut more time off the clock via added time to get the shot off and the possibility of a missed shot.
Quote from: ErickJD08 on March 21, 2011, 11:10:32 AM
I can't be too upset at Otule. I think he made two blocks in two different games in similar situations. I think the reason why such a huge mistake is that you open up the possibility for the AND 1, miss FT, hit a 3 to tie.
This is probably the best argument for why its a bad foul even though the threat of a made bucket, missed FT, offensive rebound, kickout to 3 is extremely low.
My main point is that there is a good argument to be made for playing D and having analysts go with the simple argument that you give up free points because of some scary outcome that could possibly occur and throw college kids under the bus in the media without any thought I find objectionable.
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on March 21, 2011, 11:17:55 AMHere your expected points given up with D is 1.83 < 2 by just giving up the layup. I just think you are giving up fewer points by playing D, and still have the chance to cut more time off the clock via added time to get the shot off and the possibility of a missed shot.
First off, you obviously decrease the chance of the other team scoring by playing defense. Otherwise teams would be letting team drive for uncontested layups all the time and basketball would be like those Westhead-coached Loyola Marymount games.
When you're up 5, you want to eliminate the 3 pointer if at all possible, because if they get 3 points you need to make 2 FTs on your next possession to secure the win. So letting they guy have the layup while making him waste some time getting the ball down the court gives them a 0% chance at 3 points, while fouling in your scenario gives them a 50% chance (75% x 66%) of getting 3 points. And since 3 points is much worse than 2, I think it is a bad gamble.
I agree with your other point that stopping the clock is really not an issue because the clock stops on a made basket at the end of the game anyway.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 21, 2011, 11:27:33 AM
First off, you obviously decrease the chance of the other team scoring by playing defense. Otherwise teams would be letting team drive for uncontested layups all the time and basketball would be like those Westhead-coached Loyola Marymount games.
When you're up 5, you want to eliminate the 3 pointer if at all possible, because if they get 3 points you need to make 2 FTs on your next possession to secure the win. So letting they guy have the layup while making him waste some time getting the ball down the court gives them a 0% chance at 3 points, while fouling in your scenario gives them a 50% chance (75% x 66%) of getting 3 points. And since 3 points is much worse than 2, I think it is a bad gamble.
I agree with your other point that stopping the clock is really not an issue because the clock stops on a made basket at the end of the game anyway.
You're right that you want to give up 3 points, and playing D does increase your chance of doing that (although not up to 50% given our assumed numbers since the foul isn't a certainty). I'm just saying that the expected points given up may actually playing D is less than no D and potentially enough less to compensate for the risk you run by the chance of a 3 point play, since you increase the run off in the clock and with a given 2 there is a greater chance for a steal, and three to tie.
I just don't think the foul is worthy of criticism, especially in a pressure packed situation
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on March 21, 2011, 11:17:55 AM
So let's assume you play D up to the point he gets into the lane, then give him the basket. Thats a near certainty of 2 points. Now if you play D continuing through the shot lets be generous and say he has a 75% chance of still making the basket. That gives you an expected point total of 1.5 points. Now add in a 50% chance of fouling (generous in the last seconds of a game where officials swallow their whistles, and when the foul rate is much lower than that over the course of a game), with Scoop's 66% FT rate you have an expected .33 points due to the foul.
Here your expected points given up with D is 1.83 < 2 by just giving up the layup. I just think you are giving up fewer points by playing D, and still have the chance to cut more time off the clock via added time to get the shot off and the possibility of a missed shot.
If you give up the lay-up, it's a sure 2. If you play true D, it could 0 points or it could be as many as 5 (basket made, FT miss, o-reb, 3-pointer). Most coaches would give up a sure 2 instead of risking the 5, as low as those percentages might be.
Buzz is a big numbers/stat geek. Make your presentation to him. See what he thinks of it. (As Buzz might say, and I don't mean that in a condescending way :) )
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on March 21, 2011, 11:35:53 AM
I just don't think the foul is worthy of criticism, especially in a pressure packed situation
I agree with you here. I wouldn't expect Otule to be doing all that math while someone is driving to the hoop. He's an interior defender and his instinct is to try to block that shot. I really didn't have that big a problem with the foul, especially when you consider it was a foul they could have let go.
Its normally not smart but it actually kinda helped us. Since the shot missed and it wasnt an and 1, Cuse realized making 2 fts with only 5 secs left gives them a very slim chance to win down 3. So this didnt even put the pressure on us to inbound and make a free throw but instead made them have to MISS, get a rebound, score, and find a way to still get the ball back in 5 secs.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 21, 2011, 10:28:25 AM
As a snarky aside, Otule has been with the program for 3 years now, not sure why so many of us can't spell his name.
Isn't it O'Toole?
It's Kris O'Tuulay
It's a good foul if he fouls a half-second earlier, before the act of shooting. Put them on the line with a one-and-one and you're fine. It becomes stupid because he had a clear lane, but at least he missed the shot. I was hoping for a foul as they were bringing it up, let them get across half-court, then foul with 6-8 seconds left on the clock. Either way, we won. I can live with it.
Quote from: Niv Berkowitz on March 21, 2011, 02:36:06 PM
It's Kris O'Tuulay
That sounds Klingon.
"O'tule" sounds like someone's still coming around from St. Patty's day.
Al used to coach that you never allow an easy "bunny." You foul the guy hard so he cannot get the shot off and challenge him to shoot 2 for 2.
It's a little different when there's only 10 seconds left. It's important to let the clock run. I can see it played either way; but, overall love Otule's shot blocking attempt.
Quote from: msbjim on March 21, 2011, 03:26:15 PM
It's a little different when there's only 10 seconds left. It's important to let the clock run.
The clock stops on a made basket at the end of games. So if you just let them have a lay-up it doesn't save any time as opposed to fouling.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 21, 2011, 04:08:25 PM
The clock stops on a made basket at the end of games. So if you just let them have a lay-up it doesn't save any time as opposed to fouling.
Which to me is why I have NO problem contesting the shot...in a very signficant manner and thereby greatly increasing the degree of difficulty and reducing the liklihood of a make for 2 points. Make the kid earn 2 points at the line where he shoots 70% (as opposed to 99% on a virtual uncontested layup).
Aside from giving up an and-1, the other reason you dont foul in that situation is because it allows the scoring team to properly set up their press and make it 100000x harder to inbound the ball. If they just score, they likely are scrambling and aren't able to properly deny the inbounds pass - they have to just play a helter skelter man to man inbounds denial.