In Marquette's last two games, the coach up 3 under 10 seconds chose to not foul. It worked for both of them.
Quote from: tower912 on February 06, 2021, 09:18:52 PM
In Marquette's last two games, the coach up 3 under 10 seconds chose to not foul. It worked for both of them.
Todays possession started with 20 seconds and played straight through. Sure McD could yell from the other end and hope they hear him but I don't think any team in America is fouling in that spot.
With how frantic everything was theres a better chance they gift us and foul us for 3.
That was an abysmal possession. We had plenty of time to get a quick deuce and extend the game. It mirrored the awful possession vs Prov when we had the rock in a tie ball game with 29 secs to go. Our h-c offense and basic execution is something that will not be shown at basketball clinics.
Quote from: tower912 on February 06, 2021, 09:18:52 PM
In Marquette's last two games, the coach up 3 under 10 seconds chose to not foul. It worked for both of them.
The majority of games I personally have seen this season in which a team has had a 3-point lead in this kind of situation, the coach has chosen not to foul and his team has won every time.
Beard, Self, Wojo, McCormick, etc.
I also have seen Wright and a couple others choose to foul up 3, and they also ended up having made the right choice.
Quote from: MuggsyB on February 06, 2021, 10:34:45 PM
That was an abysmal possession. We had plenty of time to get a quick deuce and extend the game. It mirrored the awful possession vs Prov when had the rock in a tie ball game with 29 secs to go. Our h-c offense and basic execution is something that will not ne shown at basketball clinics.
Yep.
Quote from: tower912 on February 06, 2021, 09:18:52 PM
In Marquette's last two games, the coach up 3 under 10 seconds chose to not foul. It worked for both of them.
Haha—Tower you know the stats.
What is your point?
The team up by 3 pts ....with under 10 seconds wins...93% of the time.
So.....what that means....wait for it.....is that in 7% of those situations.....you can lose on a 3 pointer or....a tip in at the buzzer on a missed FT.
I find it comical, when some scoopers suggest they had the winning recipe by not fouling in this situation...yet fouling in that situation.
The moral of the story is this......do everything in your power to be winning the game by 3 points with less than 10 seconds left in the game. That is the goal. And if you do that....you will win 93% of your games. It really s that simple.
A few years ago, fouling up 3 was a huge debating point. And coaches who DIDN'T were roundly criticized. Now it appears we are back to 'depends on the situation and match ups', which I totally agree with.
It comes down to time. Both yesterday and the Butler game the trailing team got the ball with 15+ seconds left. If you're going to foul up three, you want to do it when there's just a few seconds left, maybe in the 3-7 second range. If you have a team with good enough situational awareness to understand when to make that foul, you do it, but otherwise, you play it out.
Quote from: tower912 on February 07, 2021, 06:58:11 AM
A few years ago, fouling up 3 was a huge debating point. And coaches who DIDN'T were roundly criticized. Now it appears we are back to 'depends on the situation and match ups', which I totally agree with.
This.
It ain't a no-brainer, and those who think it is ain't usin' their brains!
How about fouling down three with plenty of game and shot clock to tie if your team makes a stop? MU fouls to make a one possession game a two possession game.
I get the preserve more clock and CU still in the 1-1. Statistically, that strategy (miss a ft) is not going to work 70% of the time...and makes your hill to climb even larger...requiring even more clock.
That is not a confidence builder for your defense.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 07, 2021, 07:04:24 AM
It comes down to time. Both yesterday and the Butler game the trailing team got the ball with 15+ seconds left. If you're going to foul up three, you want to do it when there's just a few seconds left, maybe in the 3-7 second range. If you have a team with good enough situational awareness to understand when to make that foul, you do it, but otherwise, you play it out.
Yeah, I think a coach should only be criticized for not fouling up three when the losing team is inbounding the ball and have to go full length of the court with at most 8 seconds left. I think you foul when the guy reaches half court.
Quote from: CountryRoads on February 07, 2021, 09:38:41 AM
Yeah, I think a coach should only be criticized for not fouling up three when the losing team is inbounding the ball and have to go full length of the court with at most 8 seconds left. I think you foul when the guy reaches half court.
Cal, Self, Beard and others would disagree with you regarding the strategy you mentioned in your last sentence.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on February 07, 2021, 09:29:50 AM
How about fouling down three with plenty of game and shot clock to tie if your team makes a stop? MU fouls to make a one possession game a two possession game.
It didn't look to me like Marquette actually was trying to foul (if we're thinking of the same situation). It looked like our guys were ticked off at the call.
Quote from: MU82 on February 07, 2021, 02:47:36 PM
It didn't look to me like Marquette actually was trying to foul (if we're thinking of the same situation). It looked like our guys were ticked off at the call.
Made DJ three at :45. Time out Wojo. Sy in for Theo. In bounds and foul by Cain at :41. Theo back in for Sy.
Seemed like a Wojo situational to me.
I don't mind the foul with 41 seconds left. ~30% chance you get the ball back with no time taken off and no points scored. Greater than 50% chance you get the ball back with no time taken off and only one point or less scored. Worst case scenario is you get the ball back with no time taken off and 2 points scored. Potentially sets up a 2 for 1 as well. We ended up with the worst case scenario this time. High risk, high reward call.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 07, 2021, 03:30:24 PM
I don't mind the foul with 41 seconds left. ~30% chance you get the ball back with no time taken off and no points scored. Greater than 50% chance you get the ball back with no time taken off and only one point or less scored. Worst case scenario is you get the ball back with no time taken off and 2 points scored. Potentially sets up a 2 for 1 as well. We ended up with the worst case scenario this time. High risk, high reward call.
10% chance of success for the miss and tying three. Certainly a high risk making a one possession game a two.
Despite that, Carton came down after the made free throws and hit a three at 0:35...and it then took MU 12 seconds to foul.
Frankly, that whole sequence of situationals is a head scratcher.
Quote from: MU82 on February 07, 2021, 02:47:36 PM
Cal, Self, Beard and others would disagree with you regarding the strategy you mentioned in your last sentence.
The point is not all "foul up three" situations are created equal and many people try and fit them all in the same box anyway. There's a difference between being up 3 with 10 seconds when the opposing team has already been running offense in the half court for 10+ seconds and when they are up 3 with 10 seconds and haven't inbounded yet and need to go the full length. Certain situations lend themselves to more criticism than others, IMO.
Both situations the OP referenced were similar in that respect. The difference is against Butler our team went to double the ball handler with 3 seconds left and left a wide open three point shooter and MU barely got a shot off against Creighton's defense because they switched everything.
I get the sense that the OP is trying to give praise to Wojo's decision not to foul, but that still doesn't give enough context and mean the final play was executed correctly by both coaches.
Quote from: CountryRoads on February 07, 2021, 04:34:24 PM
The point is not all "foul up three" situations are created equal
Yep. Many aren't "foul up 3" situations at all.
Was watching "Bad Beats" on Sportscenter last night and they showed the end of the Samford-Mercer game.
Up 3 with a few seconds left, Samford tried to foul Mercer. But the Samford player pushed the Mercer player as the Mercer guy was beginning his shooting motion, and 3 FTs were correctly awarded. The Mercer player hit all 3, and Mercer went on to win in double OT.
That was one of the things Majerus used to talk about going wrong if you foul up 3, though he was most concerned about "FT make, FT miss, tap out to wide-open shooter, made 3, loss."
Dumb play. If your players don't know how and when to foul to begin with....you should probably just play it out.
Quote from: We R Final Four on February 09, 2021, 12:36:06 PM
Dumb play. If your players don't know how and when to foul to begin with....you should probably just play it out.
Without seeing it but looking at the time and situation, there were only 4 seconds left when Samford scored. That's pretty much an ideal situation to commit the foul asap. It may not have worked out, but 4 seconds left and up by 2, I'm calling for the foul every time. Even if they foul in the act of shooting, the guy was a 76.9% shooter, so 45.5% chance he makes all three (admittedly better than his 3PFG%, but I'd take those odds hoping to get the foul before the shot).
82 said they were up 3.
I certainly wouldn't foul a shooter...in the act of shooting.....on a 3.
Quote from: We R Final Four on February 09, 2021, 12:56:34 PM
82 said they were up 3.
I certainly wouldn't foul a shooter...in the act of shooting.....on a 3.
Agreed -- never. Unless you can foul a guy who shoots a higher 3-point percentage than his free throw percentage. And then better make damn sure that you foul him hard enough that there's no chance he makes the three. But not so hard that you get assessed a flagrant. LOL.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 09, 2021, 12:41:49 PM
Without seeing it but looking at the time and situation, there were only 4 seconds left when Samford scored. That's pretty much an ideal situation to commit the foul asap. It may not have worked out, but 4 seconds left and up by 2, I'm calling for the foul every time. Even if they foul in the act of shooting, the guy was a 76.9% shooter, so 45.5% chance he makes all three (admittedly better than his 3PFG%, but I'd take those odds hoping to get the foul before the shot).
They were up 3.
And Cal, Self and Beard (among many) would disagree with you. As would have Majerus.
Doesn't mean you're "wrong." It means (IMHO) it's not a no-brainer. I probably would side with the aforementioned coaches and not foul - make the guy hit a tough 3 to tie. But I wouldn't say those who foul are wrong. I WOULD say those who foul somebody in the shooting motion are wrong. I would never want to give up a 4-point play.
Quote from: MU82 on February 09, 2021, 01:20:36 PM
They were up 3.
And Cal, Self and Beard (among many) would disagree with you. As would have Majerus.
Doesn't mean you're "wrong." It means (IMHO) it's not a no-brainer. I probably would side with the aforementioned coaches and not foul - make the guy hit a tough 3 to tie. But I wouldn't say those who foul are wrong. I WOULD say those who foul somebody in the shooting motion are wrong. I would never want to give up a 4-point play.
Unless they were trying to foul him in the act of shooting, I think it's fine. It sucks, sometimes the opponent gets a shot off when you're trying to foul on the floor. I mistyped the 2, I knew you said 3, but it's been an insane day, so what can you do.
For me, it's probability. If they go to the line for 2 shots (which I assume was the plan) the odds of them scoring 3 points is far more remote than the 32.3% chance he hits a three from open play. Yes, fluky things happen and sometimes the other team pulls it off, but basketball is a game of numbers. You figure out the best odds and you gamble on them. Those that make the best bets are going to win more often than not. I won't argue that some very good coaches might decide to do what is statistically disadvantageous to them. That doesn't make them smart, it just means they've gotten away with making bad bets.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 09, 2021, 07:46:33 PM
Unless they were trying to foul him in the act of shooting, I think it's fine. It sucks, sometimes the opponent gets a shot off when you're trying to foul on the floor. I mistyped the 2, I knew you said 3, but it's been an insane day, so what can you do.
For me, it's probability. If they go to the line for 2 shots (which I assume was the plan) the odds of them scoring 3 points is far more remote than the 32.3% chance he hits a three from open play. Yes, fluky things happen and sometimes the other team pulls it off, but basketball is a game of numbers. You figure out the best odds and you gamble on them. Those that make the best bets are going to win more often than not. I won't argue that some very good coaches might decide to do what is statistically disadvantageous to them. That doesn't make them smart, it just means they've gotten away with making bad bets.
OK, brew. I'm not gonna get into one of these classic Scoop arguments. I respect your opinion, and I'll say good night to this topic (for now).
Last night, Shaka fouled up 3; Bruce Weber didn't.
Worked out well for both.
Bilas is a big proponent of fouling up 3.
I'm gonna try to remember to post here in these situations as they come along - not because I'm trying to "prove" anything but because I think it's interesting to note which coaches use this tactic and which don't.
If I happen to see any comments from coaches explaining their thinking, I'll post them too.
I encourage others to do the same.
Quote from: MU82 on February 24, 2021, 06:50:55 AM
Bilas is a big proponent of fouling up 3.
I loved his comment last night as he was promoting the strategy: "unless you're stupid enough to foul when they're shooting."
Quote from: GooooMarquette on February 24, 2021, 09:57:46 AM
I loved his comment last night as he was promoting the strategy: "unless you're stupid enough to foul when they're shooting."
Yeah, but it's not just a matter of being "stupid" every time. They are 18-22 year olds, and they make mistakes. No coach is telling them to be stupid, and every coach works on it in practice. But sometimes even smart players make stupid mistakes. And when your strategy is to foul up 3, every once in awhile one of your players will "stupidly" foul a guy who's shooting - as happened in the Samford-Mercer game I mentioned earlier in the thread. Not saying the strategy is bad at all, just saying a coach who uses might have that happen. Just as I'm not saying the no-foul strategy is bad; sometimes a coach will have to live with an opponent making one a 3.
Quote from: MU82 on February 24, 2021, 06:50:55 AM
Last night, Shaka fouled up 3; Bruce Weber didn't.
Worked out well for both.
Bilas is a big proponent of fouling up 3.
I'm gonna try to remember to post here in these situations as they come along - not because I'm trying to "prove" anything but because I think it's interesting to note which coaches use this tactic and which don't.
If I happen to see any comments from coaches explaining their thinking, I'll post them too.
I encourage others to do the same.
I have a D1 coach friend who explained his philosophy to me once. Foul up three with under 6 seconds left. The odds are in your favor as the following things have to happen:
1 - shooter has to make the first
2 - shooter has to miss the second and hit the rim (not all tries at an intentional miss work)
3 - shooting team has to get the rebound
4 - rebounder has to make the shot to tie it
Now, in one game for this coach all of that happened and the rebounder was fouled at the buzzer, resulting in a walk-off three point play, but it hasn't changed his philosophy. And, the ideal time to foul is just as the ball handler crosses center court. An official will almost never call "in the act of shooting" out there, even in the NBA. If the ball handler gets a pass off you're more likely to get an "in the act of shooting" foul called. The Xaiver/K-State Sweet 16 game from 2010 at the end of regulation is a class example of that (and damn, I miss Gus Johnson doing March Madness). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVEIeD91vIc
Quote from: Billy Hoyle on February 24, 2021, 01:07:57 PM
I have a D1 coach friend who explained his philosophy to me once. Foul up three with under 6 seconds left. The odds are in your favor as the following things have to happen:
1 - shooter has to make the first
2 - shooter has to miss the second and hit the rim (not all tries at an intentional miss work)
3 - shooting team has to get the rebound
4 - rebounder has to make the shot to tie it
Now, in one game for this coach all of that happened and the rebounder was fouled at the buzzer, resulting in a walk-off three point play, but it hasn't changed his philosophy. And, the ideal time to foul is just as the ball handler crosses center court. An official will almost never call "in the act of shooting" out there, even in the NBA. If the ball handler gets a pass off you're more likely to get an "in the act of shooting" foul called. The Xaiver/K-State Sweet 16 game from 2010 at the end of regulation is a class example of that (and damn, I miss Gus Johnson doing March Madness). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVEIeD91vIc
Reasonable.
I'd be curious to hear your friend's thoughts on why all D1 coaches - including several Hall of Famers - don't do something that seems to be favored by the odds.
Quote from: MU82 on February 24, 2021, 01:13:09 PM
Reasonable.
I'd be curious to hear your friend's thoughts on why all D1 coaches - including several Hall of Famers - don't do something that seems to be favored by the odds.
Sometimes it's situational. I asked one coach friend why he didn't foul up three and he said "our rebounding was s--t all day, they would have gotten the rebound." Fortunately, the shooter missed.
Quote from: Billy Hoyle on February 24, 2021, 01:07:57 PM
I have a D1 coach friend who explained his philosophy to me once. Foul up three with under 6 seconds left. The odds are in your favor as the following things have to happen:
1 - shooter has to make the first
2 - shooter has to miss the second and hit the rim (not all tries at an intentional miss work)
3 - shooting team has to get the rebound
4 - rebounder has to make the shot to tie it
Now, in one game for this coach all of that happened and the rebounder was fouled at the buzzer, resulting in a walk-off three point play, but it hasn't changed his philosophy. And, the ideal time to foul is just as the ball handler crosses center court. An official will almost never call "in the act of shooting" out there, even in the NBA. If the ball handler gets a pass off you're more likely to get an "in the act of shooting" foul called. The Xaiver/K-State Sweet 16 game from 2010 at the end of regulation is a class example of that (and damn, I miss Gus Johnson doing March Madness). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVEIeD91vIc
For a last second play, the odds of that happening go up versus a regular free throw. The shooting team and crash the boards hard, and it is a lot less likely that a foul gets called.
Anyway, didn't someone run some stats, that even if not perfect, pretty much concluded that the odds are close to equal if one fouls or does not foul? I thought I saw that last fall on this board.
Quote from: GOO on February 24, 2021, 03:52:33 PM
Anyway, didn't someone run some stats, that even if not perfect, pretty much concluded that the odds are close to equal if one fouls or does not foul? I thought I saw that last fall on this board.
I thought I saw that, too. Maybe whichever Scooper posted it can bring it back here again.
Quote from: Billy Hoyle on February 24, 2021, 01:07:57 PM
I have a D1 coach friend who explained his philosophy to me once. Foul up three with under 6 seconds left. The odds are in your favor as the following things have to happen:
1 - shooter has to make the first
2 - shooter has to miss the second and hit the rim (not all tries at an intentional miss work)
3 - shooting team has to get the rebound
4 - rebounder has to make the shot to tie it
Now, in one game for this coach all of that happened and the rebounder was fouled at the buzzer, resulting in a walk-off three point play, but it hasn't changed his philosophy. And, the ideal time to foul is just as the ball handler crosses center court. An official will almost never call "in the act of shooting" out there, even in the NBA. If the ball handler gets a pass off you're more likely to get an "in the act of shooting" foul called. The Xaiver/K-State Sweet 16 game from 2010 at the end of regulation is a class example of that (and damn, I miss Gus Johnson doing March Madness). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVEIeD91vIc
You are ignoring the thing that worries me the most about this MU team. Foul with 4 seconds to go. They make two free throws. MU fails to get the ball inbounds successfully. They score two more points and we lose. This MU team should never foul up three.
Quote from: bilsu on February 24, 2021, 04:09:25 PM
You are ignoring the thing that worries me the most about this MU team. Foul with 4 seconds to go. They make two free throws. MU fails to get the ball inbounds successfully. They score two more points and we lose. This MU team should never foul up three.
That's a legit concern, and not just for Marquette.
Creighton fans are STILL pissed about 1/9/19.
Pomeroy tried to do a review of this based on actual game results and concluded that the probability of the team with the 3 point lead winning is about the same (around 90%) whichever strategy is used. I think that's why a lot of coaches will choose not to foul except in the most favorable situations, like the opponent inbounding in the backcourt with no more than 3 or 4 seconds left.
Getting players to do something unnatural and expecting them to make a snap decision about the situation can lead to bad results, like a player fouling an opponent as he begins to launch a 3, which might result in 3 FTs or a 4 point play opportunity.
Another thing I've seen happen is the leading team knocking the missed FT out of bounds. That gives the opponent the ball under the basket trailing by just 2 with a chance to tie or win.
Trying to assign a probability based on that 4 step sequence oversimplifies what might happen.
Quote from: wisblue on February 24, 2021, 05:11:25 PM
Pomeroy tried to do a review of this based on actual game results and concluded that the probability of the team with the 3 point lead winning is about the same (around 90%) whichever strategy is used. I think that's why a lot of coaches will choose not to foul except in the most favorable situations, like the opponent inbounding in the backcourt with no more than 3 or 4 seconds left.
Getting players to do something unnatural and expecting them to make a snap decision about the situation can lead to bad results, like a player fouling an opponent as he begins to launch a 3, which might result in 3 FTs or a 4 point play opportunity.
Another thing I've seen happen is the leading team knocking the missed FT out of bounds. That gives the opponent the ball under the basket trailing by just 2 with a chance to tie or win.
Trying to assign a probability based on that 4 step sequence oversimplifies what might happen.
Outstanding insight. Thanks.
Kelvin Sampson chose not to do it ... and Memphis missed a contested 3 but got the rebound and hit an open 3 to tie.
Houston then won on a miracle heave at the buzzer.
Quote from: MU82 on March 07, 2021, 01:16:13 PM
Kelvin Sampson chose not to do it ... and Memphis missed a contested 3 but got the rebound and hit an open 3 to tie.
Houston then won on a miracle heave at the buzzer.
No way should HOuston of fouled at any point on that possession.
Quote from: PGsHeroes32 on March 07, 2021, 01:19:23 PM
No way should HOuston of fouled at any point on that possession.
Agreed.
Oregon St up by 3, fouls Colorado's McKinley Wright. He makes both FTs. OSU inbounds. Game over.
OSU secures PAC-12 championship.
Quote from: We R Final Four on March 14, 2021, 08:04:26 AM
Oregon St up by 3, fouls Colorado's McKinley Wright. He makes both FTs. OSU inbounds. Game over.
OSU secures PAC-12 championship.
Congrats to Oregon State!
Quote from: MU82 on March 14, 2021, 08:08:15 AM
Congrats to Oregon State!
Agreed. OSU wins their first conf tournament title, and did so by securing the victory by fouling up 3. Congrats.
Quote from: We R Final Four on March 14, 2021, 08:18:42 AM
Agreed. OSU wins their first conf tournament title, and did so by securing the victory by fouling up 3. Congrats.
I was sincere. The coach employed a strategy he believes in, and the result came out as he had hoped. Good on him and OSU!
Self or Cal or Beard probably would not have employed that strategy in that situation, and they probably also would have gotten the result they wanted.
No Majerus?
There was this coach of Memphis a few years back, who decided not to foul up 3 with under 6 seconds in a National Championship game. His team lost.
I find it odd that you continue to reference Cal as your proof (even though you will say you are not trying to prove anything). To continue to reference certain coaches who always do it one way or another doesn't mean that they are correct....even though they maybe HOF coaches.
As we have learned, the most important statistic in these situations is this:
Do whatever you can to have your team up by 3 points with under 6 seconds to go. If you do that, you will win 93% of the time.....regardless of what happens in the last 6 seconds (fouling or not).
https://kenpom.com/blog/yet-another-study-about-fouling-when-up-3/
Quote from: We R Final Four on March 14, 2021, 10:28:31 AM
No Majerus?
There was this coach of Memphis a few years back, who decided not to foul up 3 with under 6 seconds in a National Championship game. His team lost.
I find it odd that you continue to reference Cal as your proof (even though you will say you are not trying to prove anything). To continue to reference certain coaches who always do it one way or another doesn't mean that they are correct....even though they maybe HOF coaches.
As we have learned, the most important statistic in these situations is this:
Do whatever you can to have your team up by 3 points with under 6 seconds to go. If you do that, you will win 93% of the time.....regardless of what happens in the last 6 seconds (fouling or not).
https://kenpom.com/blog/yet-another-study-about-fouling-when-up-3/
I appreciate that link, something that has been posted before and something I've read. And I just read it again.
You do realize that both the stats and the conclusion favor defending rather than fouling, right?
The fact is, chances of losing are close to remote in either case, but execution errors, an inflated offensive rebounding percentage, poor three-point shooting, and the chance of an extra possession are enough to counteract what might otherwise be the advantage of forcing a team to shoot free throws. In cases where the opponent has multiple good three-point shooters and you have confidence in rebounding a missed free throw, fouling may be the better option. But it appears the default decision should be to not foul.It seems an odd link for you to have provided to support what seems to be your thesis, since it actually better supports the thesis you think I espouse.
I say, "the thesis you think I espouse" because while you apparently believe I support always not fouling, I honestly think that either strategy is just fine -- assuming the coach has had his team thoroughly practice whichever strategy he and she favors.
Personally, if I were a coach, I think I would favor the not-fouling strategy. I would take my chances on the worst-case scenario being going to OT (by not fouling) vs the worst-case scenario being a regulation loss (by fouling and having something crazy happen). But that's easy for me to say as I sit in my La-Z-Boy. Maybe if I actually were a D1 head coach, I would think otherwise.
The only argument I don't care for is,
"You HAVE to foul, and anybody who disagrees is WRONG." Especially when the few studies that have been done seem to narrowly support the opposite strategy, and when some very successful coaches have used the opposite strategy for years.
My thesis?
There is only one person on here who keeps beating to death that if coach Cal doesn't foul....and he is likely HOF coach....then who should disagree with him?
Your position on this topic has been well defined by you. You can call whatever you like.
Quote from: We R Final Four on March 14, 2021, 03:09:26 PM
My thesis?
There is only one person on here who keeps beating to death that if coach Cal doesn't foul....and he is likely HOF coach....then who should disagree with him?
Your position on this topic has been well defined by you. You can call whatever you like.
You are wrong.
I have consistently, both in this thread and others, said that neither strategy is "wrong." The only thing I have criticized at all is when folks claim there is one and only one proper strategy.
Quote from: MU82 on March 14, 2021, 04:55:11 PM
You are wrong.
I have consistently, both in this thread and others, said that neither strategy is "wrong." The only thing I have criticized at all is when folks claim there is one and only one proper strategy.
Yeah, you have been far from neutral on this subject. But, whatever.
Quote from: We R Final Four on March 14, 2021, 04:57:21 PM
Yeah, you have been far from neutral on this subject. But, whatever.
Wrong again.
If you can show even one example of me saying that not fouling is "right" and fouling is "wrong," I will be happy to admit what you claim is true.
Quote from: MU82 on March 14, 2021, 05:02:58 PM
Wrong again.
If you can show even one example of me saying that not fouling is "right" and fouling is "wrong," I will be happy to admit what you claim is true.
Please show me equal examples in which you were neutral....and provided examples when you disagreed with Self/Cal/Majerus/Beard and thought fouling when up by 3 was the correct call.
If you're as neutral/indifferent as you claim, you should have about equal examples of both.
Quote from: We R Final Four on March 14, 2021, 05:25:09 PM
Please show me equal examples in which you were neutral....and provided examples when you disagreed with Self/Cal/Majerus/Beard and thought fouling when up by 3 was the correct call.
If you're as neutral/indifferent as you claim, you should have about equal examples of both.
Well, you made the accusation. I would think you'd be able to back up your accusation. Apparently not.
Most Scoopers seem to believe that fouling up 3 is a total no-brainer. I do not believe that is the case (and neither do you, based on your comments in this exchange of ours). So I mentioned the outstanding coaches who also do not believe it is the case.
However, if you actually read what I've written in this thread, you will see that I have repeatedly said that I can understand why a coach might use either strategy. And indeed, several times, I pointed out examples of those who had succeeded by fouling up 3. And I will continue to point out both, because I find it to be an interesting subject -- just as I found that link you posted to be interesting.
But you go on trying to keep playing "gotcha."
I've only seen your multiple defense of coaches (over and over) who play it out and do not foul.
I haven't read your posts about coaches who do implement fouling in these situations.
I've seen you post these late game situations in which coaches do not foul...and they win the game, but not the contrary.
You can say that you are neutral, but you are not—which is fine...just say as much.
This is a weird fight. Even by Scoop standards
Quote from: We R Final Four on March 14, 2021, 09:33:23 PM
I've only seen your multiple defense of coaches (over and over) who play it out and do not foul.
I haven't read your posts about coaches who do implement fouling in these situations.
I've seen you post these late game situations in which coaches do not foul...and they win the game, but not the contrary.
You can say that you are neutral, but you are not—which is fine...just say as much.
Judging by what I bolded from your above statement, it's pretty obvious you made an accusation without actually having read my comments in the thread. Either that, or you are intentionally being dishonest. I won't accuse you of lying, so I'll assume it's the former.
I mean, in my very first post in this thread I said:
"I also have seen Wright and a couple others choose to foul up 3, and they also ended up having made the right choice."In a later post, I specifically cited Shaka for fouling up 3 and Weber not doing so, saying it "worked out well for both." I then said, without offering any opinion at all, that "Bilas is a big proponent of fouling up 3."
So that's twice in this thread alone I did what you claimed I never do -- "the contrary," to use your phrase. As a bonus, I pointed out that Bilas (not a coach) was a proponent of the foul-up-3 strategy. And I repeatedly have said I respect both strategies, that my only bone to pick was with those who say fouling up 3 is a complete no-brainer -- because, as the article you linked pointed out, that's not true at all.
Look, man ... you can say you are neutral, but you are not. You clearly have an agenda, which is to play "gotcha" -- even if you have to make up stuff to "win." Which is fine. Just say as much.
Florida's Mike White chose not to foul up 3, and VaTech made the tying 3.
Fortunately for White, Florida won in OT.
Quote from: MU82 on March 19, 2021, 02:56:08 PM
Florida's Mike White chose not to foul up 3, and VaTech made the tying 3.
Fortunately for White, Florida won in OT.
Yes agree saw that and fortunately for my brackets Florida won.
Oral Roberts coach Paul Mills' team did not foul up 3, and his team won.
A bazillion brackets exploded.
Quote from: MU82 on March 19, 2021, 04:20:25 PM
Oral Roberts Next Marquette Coach Paul Mills' team did not foul up 3, and his team won.
A bazillion brackets exploded.
Fixed it. A coach who knows how to win in March with the nations leading scorer.
Quote from: lawdog77 on March 19, 2021, 04:23:01 PM
Fixed it. A coach who knows how to win in March with the nations leading scorer.
I dunno ... lots of Scoopers think not fouling up 3 is a crime. I think it's a coin flip, as do the only studies that have been done, but the "fouling up 3 is a no-brainer" crowd is very adamant.
Kruger (Okla) fouls up 3 against Mizzou, and the strategy works perfectly.
Mizzou makes the first, misses the second intentionally, Okla gets the rebound, gets fouled, makes 2 FTs, game over.
Kelvin Sampson does not foul up 3.
Rutgers misses the shot; Houston rebounds and wins.
I assume everyone wants Oregon St? Regardless of pools?
Quote from: MuggsyB on March 21, 2021, 09:18:12 PM
I assume everyone wants Oregon St? Regardless of pools?
Wrong thread, Muggs.
Quote from: MU82 on March 19, 2021, 04:20:25 PM
Oral Roberts coach Paul Mills' team did not foul up 3, and his team won.
A bazillion brackets exploded.
But he did intentionally foul down one with three minutes to go. Brilliant move.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/the-clever-strategy-that-helped-15th-seeded-oral-roberts-make-history-035136745.html
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 22, 2021, 09:08:10 AM
But he did intentionally foul down one with three minutes to go. Brilliant move.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/the-clever-strategy-that-helped-15th-seeded-oral-roberts-make-history-035136745.html
Nice ... hack-a-Osifo ... I didn't see that. Must have been watching one of the other games when that happened.
It's an old strategy that dates back to Wilt and became pretty standard fare in the NBA for a few years when Shaq played. But you don't see it much these days, especially not in college hoops, and with 3-point shooting so popular I think it's pretty darn smart. I like it!
Quote from: MU82 on March 22, 2021, 09:18:36 AM
Nice ... hack-a-Osifo ... I didn't see that. Must have been watching one of the other games when that happened.
It's an old strategy that dates back to Wilt and became pretty standard fare in the NBA for a few years when Shaq played. But you don't see it much these days, especially not in college hoops, and with 3-point shooting so popular I think it's pretty darn smart. I like it!
oh great this argument again
Not quite sure if Cronin didn't want to foul up 3 vs Bama or his players just weren't in the right spots to do so, but either way UCLA didn't foul up 3 and a guy who hadn't scored all game for Bama burned 'em by swishing a 3.
I don't know what that was.
Cronin is a foul up 3 coach.
Announcers are suggesting it's coming.
However, as the camera cuts to Campbell in the huddle he says "no fouls".
I think Cronin was attempting to outsmart Oats and Bama....who may have been expecting a foul. Great coaching if that was his play. Didn't work for Cronin, but good coaching move nonetheless.
I need to see the replay, but I don't think there was an opportunity to foul an Alabama player when the ball was inbounded.
There was indeed an opportunity to foul at the mid court stripe but instead of going after the ball handler a pair of Bruins put their arms in the air and stood in place. They absolutely should have fouled there. Thank goodness for the Bruins sake they went wire to wire in OT for the win.
Quote from: We R Final Four on March 28, 2021, 09:09:33 PM
I don't know what that was.
Cronin is a foul up 3 coach.
Announcers are suggesting it's coming.
However, as the camera cuts to Campbell in the huddle he says "no fouls".
I think Cronin was attempting to outsmart Oats and Bama....who may have been expecting a foul. Great coaching if that was his play. Didn't work for Cronin, but good coaching move nonetheless.
Thanks for that, WRFF. I didn't notice it. I'm always interested in the chess games within the game.
EDIT: Just saw Cronin interview. He said he was worried that Oats would order whoever had the ball to shoot, even from midcourt, as a UCLA made contact. Cronin didn't want to give up a 3-shot foul on a desperation heave.
Cronin just confirmed in a post game interview he didn't want to foul there. He said his team "bailed him out," essentially admitting he made a strategic miscue.
82–was just thinking about something that I think you will appreciate. Similar, but different to the topic.....I saw a team (I believe it was HOU...round of 32?)
utilize the hack-a-shaq for their bonus FTs.
A poised team who does not foul a lot, and for example has 6 team fouls with 5 minutes left....could put their goon(0 fouls in the game) in to foul the opponents center—who's let's say is sub 50% FT shooter. He fouls him 3 consecutive times down the court.
That is 3 trips down the court (fouls 7,8, and 9) which could potentially ensure 3 empty trips down the court.
We certainly have seen 40% FT shooters hit 2 FTs late in the game in this tourney .....and again this would only work for a disciplined team...but I think you can see the potential value this may add.
Quote from: We R Final Four on March 30, 2021, 05:42:11 PM
82–was just thinking about something that I think you will appreciate. Similar, but different to the topic.....I saw a team (I believe it was HOU...round of 32?)
utilize the hack-a-shaq for their bonus FTs.
A poised team who does not foul a lot, and for example has 6 team fouls with 5 minutes left....could put their goon(0 fouls in the game) in to foul the opponents center—who's let's say is sub 50% FT shooter. He fouls him 3 consecutive times down the court.
That is 3 trips down the court (fouls 7,8, and 9) which could potentially ensure 3 empty trips down the court.
We certainly have seen 40% FT shooters hit 2 FTs late in the game in this tourney .....and again this would only work for a disciplined team...but I think you can see the potential value this may add.
Dr. B brought it up last week:
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 22, 2021, 09:08:10 AM
But he did intentionally foul down one with three minutes to go. Brilliant move.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/the-clever-strategy-that-helped-15th-seeded-oral-roberts-make-history-035136745.html
I like it! The old Hack A Shaq reborn. It can be especially effective against a team that shoots 3s well - even if the bad FT shooter lucks out and happens to hit 2 FTs, at least you didn't give up a trey.
Day late, dollar short.