MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: 94Warrior on January 29, 2020, 09:45:40 PM
-
Why is this so difficult?
-
He can't foul for them idiot
-
He called for the foul dumbass
-
It’s tough. I’m sure he told them to, but these kids struggle with the execution part of things at times.
-
Symir needs to foul harder.
-
Symir needs to foul harder.
Kick him in the nads next time😉
-
Delete your account.
-
Symir did not try to foul. Period.
-
Anim was not instructed to intentionally miss that free throw. Wow...
-
Fire Travis Steele!
He had his guy pass.
-
Can a whole thread be teal?
-
I’ve been very critical of Wojo but he called for the foul, Symir just didn’t execute it
-
Fire Travis Steele!
He had his guy pass.
That is a good porn name. Perhaps he has career choices?
-
That is a good porn name. Perhaps he has career choices?
Guy Pass?
-
Symir was told to foul and gave him a live tap
Sacar going under the screen when they had to shoot a 3 was equally bad tho
-
Like Wojo or not, if u cant tip ur hat to Wojo n the team after that win on the road w/o Markus then u are a complete loser and simply a hater. Coach K and John Wooden lose that game down 6-8 late with no Markus 99 out of 100
-
According to Wojo they even told the refs they were going to foul. That’s lazy. Wojo should have gone out and foul them himself. He should be fired
-
Symir made a little freshman bump foul. Not called.
-
FWIW, neither Bruce Pearl nor Pat Chambers fouled when up 3 tonight. And on both occasions, the opponent missed the 3s, so the coaches' no-foul strategy worked.
In the Penn State - Michigan State game, Winston got a better look than the Providence guy did vs us. One of the best players in the country missed his tonight; some no-name who was shooting 25% made his vs Marquette.
-
FWIW, neither Bruce Pearl nor Pat Chambers fouled when up 3 tonight. And on both occasions, the opponent missed the 3s, so the coaches' no-foul strategy worked.
In the Penn State - Michigan State game, Winston got a better look than the Providence guy did vs us. One of the best players in the country missed his tonight; some no-name who was shooting 25% made his vs Marquette.
Constant, consistent, reality based feedback, is the only thing that works on some of the harder cases.
Keep up the good work.
-
I have zero issue with not fouling. I think in MUs case we have been snake bitten with makes and fouling might been the right call against depaul just for the player (and fans) psyche
Coin flip either way. If ur gonna foul better put jayce in for the fts
-
Also, Ohio State tried but failed to foul up 3 tonight, but Michigan missed a decent look at a 3 and OSU won.
-
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
-
All you have to do to foul without getting called for an "intentional foul" is as soon as the player comes over center court ......Veer across his body with the weak side arm and arm guard his movement and give him a subtle "shove" with that off arm.....AKA.....an opposite arm .....arm bar.....
Simir did it exactly right in the last game.....Cain literally tried to grab the guy in that previous failed instance and missed him completely.....Lucky he did not get him because that could be construed as an "intentional" also.....Just keep Cain and ball handling away from themselves.....
PS.....Perfect record.....Every time we have fouled....we have won.....every time we didn't of screwed it up.....we have lost in OT.....
Anyway.....It is a very delicate move to "foul" but not give the ref the chance to call an "intentional"......Because we all know how the "Big East cooking" ref wise always turns out in our favor (LOL)......Ex.....The Seton Hall game last year when half our team was either kicked out or fouled out and none from Seton Hall.....
-
All you have to do to foul without getting called for an "intentional foul" is as soon as the player comes over center court ......Veer across his body with the weak side arm and arm guard his movement and give him a subtle "shove" with that off arm.....AKA.....an opposite arm .....arm bar.....
Simir did it exactly right in the last game.....Cain literally tried to grab the guy in that previous failed instance and missed him completely.....Lucky he did not get him because that could be construed as an "intentional" also.....Just keep Cain and ball handling away from themselves.....
PS.....Perfect record.....Every time we have fouled....we have won.....every time we didn't of screwed it up.....we have lost in OT.....
Anyway.....It is a very delicate move to "foul" but not give the ref the chance to call an "intentional"......Because we all know how the "Big East cooking" ref wise always turns out in our favor (LOL)......Ex.....The Seton Hall game last year when half our team was either kicked out or fouled out and none from Seton Hall.....
Couple things wrong with this. First, its Symir. Second, Koby was the one who committed the foul you described against DePaul. Third, Symir was the one who failed to foul against X, not Jamal. Fourth, after failing to foul against X and them hitting a game tying 3, we won, so there is an instance where we failed to foul and still won (although if we had fouled we would have won in regulation).
-
Couple things wrong with this. First, its Symir. Second, Koby was the one who committed the foul you described against DePaul. Third, Symir was the one who failed to foul against X, not Jamal. Fourth, after failing to foul against X and them hitting a game tying 3, we won, so there is an instance where we failed to foul and still won (although if we had fouled we would have won in regulation).
Correct, although with one nit ...
We would not necessarily have won in regulation had we fouled X. Maybe they hit the first FT, miss the second, get a quick pass out to an open shooter at the 3-point line, he hits it, and we lose. That potential scenario is exactly why Majerus always refused to foul up 3. "Fouling up 3 is the only way you give yourself a chance to lose the game in regulation," he'd say. A more likely negative outcome is that they get the rebound, score a layup, and it's tied.
Just last night, in 3 games we know of, a highly-regarded coach (Pearl, Chambers) either opted not to foul, or a team (Ohio State) failed to execute ... and those teams were 3-0. Of course, on other nights -- usually when we play >:( -- a foul isn't committed and the opponent makes the 3 to tie it.
Someday soon, one of these analytics lovers needs to do a real study on what the best strategy is. I'm talking real data instead of a bunch of anecdotes, which right now is all any of us can provide.
-
It’s tough. I’m sure he told them to, but these kids struggle with the execution part of things at times.
Coach I want you to foul them, but make sure you do not foul them when they are shooting and make sure you do not foul too hard because we do not want a flagrant foul. I could see this type of message making a freshmen a little hesitant.
-
Coach I want you to foul them, but make sure you do not foul them when they are shooting and make sure you do not foul too hard because we do not want a flagrant foul. I could see this type of message making a freshmen a little hesitant.
Good points.
The middle-school team I coach, I actually taught them in practice how to commit a foul without it being close to being deemed intentional or flagrant. And then we practiced it, which you can imagine was fun for them.
The couple of games where we had to foul, it all came off well ... except on one occasion, when an excitable kid in the heat of action did a two-handed shove that was correctly called intentional. The opponent hit the 2 FTs, got the ball, and what already had been a near-impossible situation became impossible.
I'm guessing Wojo -- and every other college coach -- does something similar in practice. But athletes don't always execute the plan. And sometimes it's even the ref's fault; last night, the OSU player clearly grabbed the Michigan player but the ref doesn't call it and Michigan ends up with a decent look at a tying 3. Shot hit the rim.
-
FWIW, neither Bruce Pearl nor Pat Chambers fouled when up 3 tonight. And on both occasions, the opponent missed the 3s, so the coaches' no-foul strategy worked.
In the Penn State - Michigan State game, Winston got a better look than the Providence guy did vs us. One of the best players in the country missed his tonight; some no-name who was shooting 25% made his vs Marquette.
I don't agree with this logic. Because the losing team missed a game tying 3 is not evidence that this approach 'worked.' A 0% or 1% 3 point shooter can tie the game if given the opportunity. Its not that this guy is their best shooter vs. this guy shoots only 25%.
Take the chance to tie the game by the losing team out of the equation. Remove it.
I know...I know....always the chance of a made FT, followed by a missed FT, followed by a tip out, followed by a made 2 or 3 by the shooting team. Neither of these scenarios is a guarantee. We have witnessed this season alone a few times what not fouling gets you.
Additionally, we have seen what fouling up 3, and NOT allowing a game tying 3 had done for us.
-
Someday soon, one of these analytics lovers needs to do a real study on what the best strategy is. I'm talking real data instead of a bunch of anecdotes, which right now is all any of us can provide.
It has been done. https://kenpom.com/blog/yet-another-study-about-fouling-when-up-3/
W L OT Cases
Foul 122 5 11 138
Defend 598 2 76 676
Looking at percentages, that means if you Foul, theres a 11.5% chance of losing (3.5% chance) or going to OT (8% chance). If you figure that you lose half the time you go to OT, that means that Fouling up three gives you about a 7.5% chance of losing the game, 92.5% to win.
If you don't foul. There is a very similar 11.5% chance of losing or going to OT. However, that chance is way more heavily slanted toward OT (11.2% chance) than losing outright (0.3% chance). Again, figuring that you lose half the time in OT, that makes a 5.9% chance of losing the game, or 94.1% chance to win.
Either way, theres an 88.5% chance to win in regulation and about a 6-7% chance of losing at some point. However, Foul is more likely to produce an outright regulation win, whereas Defend almost always leads to OT at the very least.
With all of that said, I still contend that Wojo made the right call in two of three games.
Providence: No foul. Let a bad shooter shoot a three. We only go to OT if he gets lucky, which he did. Lost a crapshoot in OT.
Xavier: Foul. We were already in bad foul trouble, and down a few players. X not a good FT team. Go for the win in regulation. Unfortunately the play was poorly executed. But we pulled it out in OT.
DePaul: Foul. I would have chosen NOT to foul. DePaul hadn't been doing much from beyond the arc all game and their whole team was in deep foul trouble. IF that game goes to OT, we're in good shape to win. Don't risk the 3.5% of a weird rebound leading to a loss.
-
It has been done. https://kenpom.com/blog/yet-another-study-about-fouling-when-up-3/
W L OT Cases
Foul 122 5 11 138
Defend 598 2 76 676
Looking at percentages, that means if you Foul, theres a 11.5% chance of losing (3.5% chance) or going to OT (8% chance). If you figure that you lose half the time you go to OT, that means that Fouling up three gives you about a 7.5% chance of losing the game, 92.5% to win.
If you don't foul. There is a very similar 11.5% chance of losing or going to OT. However, that chance is way more heavily slanted toward OT (11.2% chance) than losing outright (0.3% chance). Again, figuring that you lose half the time in OT, that makes a 5.9% chance of losing the game, or 94.1% chance to win.
Either way, theres an 88.5% chance to win in regulation and about a 6-7% chance of losing at some point. However, Foul is more likely to produce an outright regulation win, whereas Defend almost always leads to OT at the very least.
With all of that said, I still contend that Wojo made the right call in two of three games.
Providence: No foul. Let a bad shooter shoot a three. We only go to OT if he gets lucky, which he did. Lost a crapshoot in OT.
Xavier: Foul. We were already in bad foul trouble, and down a few players. X not a good FT team. Go for the win in regulation. Unfortunately the play was poorly executed. But we pulled it out in OT.
DePaul: Foul. I would have chosen NOT to foul. DePaul hadn't been doing much from beyond the arc all game and their whole team was in deep foul trouble. IF that game goes to OT, we're in good shape to win. Don't risk the 3.5% of a weird rebound leading to a loss.
There have been articles explaining criticism of KenPom's research -- it was incomplete, too small a sample size, didn't take some mitigating factors into consideration, etc.
Otherwise, I like the way you look at each situation and come up with a reasonable strategy in each one. This is what Calipari does, too; every situation is not the same.
I don't agree with this logic. Because the losing team missed a game tying 3 is not evidence that this approach 'worked.' A 0% or 1% 3 point shooter can tie the game if given the opportunity. Its not that this guy is their best shooter vs. this guy shoots only 25%.
Take the chance to tie the game by the losing team out of the equation. Remove it.
I know...I know....always the chance of a made FT, followed by a missed FT, followed by a tip out, followed by a made 2 or 3 by the shooting team. Neither of these scenarios is a guarantee. We have witnessed this season alone a few times what not fouling gets you.
Additionally, we have seen what fouling up 3, and NOT allowing a game tying 3 had done for us.
It would appear that many coaches, perhaps even the majority these days, agree with you.
Bruce Pearl and Pat Chambers are pretty good coaches. They disagree with you - or at least they did last night. Rick Majerus was a pretty good coach, and he disagreed with you. Calipari has won a lot of games and he takes each situation as it comes. I am NOT saying they are right and you are wrong. I'm just saying I don't think, "Foul when up 3" is a no-brainer. If it is, then what does it say about the basketball intelligence of Pearl, Chambers, Majerus, Calipari and others?
-
"It would appear that many coaches, perhaps even the majority these days, agree with you.
Bruce Pearl and Pat Chambers are pretty good coaches. They disagree with you - or at least they did last night. Rick Majerus was a pretty good coach, and he disagreed with you. Calipari has won a lot of games and he takes each situation as it comes. I am NOT saying they are right and you are wrong. I'm just saying I don't think, "Foul when up 3" is a no-brainer. If it is, then what does it say about the basketball intelligence of Pearl, Chambers, Majerus, Calipari and others?"
Add Tony Bennett to this list....I watched his game against Wake Forest ....it was the same situation as Wojo had against Providence. 3 point lead....20 seconds left. He played defense......Wake dribbled into a double team with 10 seconds left and called time out. So with 10 seconds left......Wake taking it out at half court.....and a minute to talk about strategy......Tony decides again to not foul.....his guys play good defense....and then foul the shooter with less then a second left. Guy makes 3 free throws.....and then end up in OT.....Virginia wins in OT......
Now I have to say I would have fouled when they threw it in with 10 seconds left....they had plenty of chances....but the point still stands......Tony Bennett is a great coach who just won a NC........he not only didn't foul once.......he didn't foul twice.
-
It has been done. https://kenpom.com/blog/yet-another-study-about-fouling-when-up-3/
W L OT Cases
Foul 122 5 11 138
Defend 598 2 76 676
Looking at percentages, that means if you Foul, theres a 11.5% chance of losing (3.5% chance) or going to OT (8% chance). If you figure that you lose half the time you go to OT, that means that Fouling up three gives you about a 7.5% chance of losing the game, 92.5% to win.
If you don't foul. There is a very similar 11.5% chance of losing or going to OT. However, that chance is way more heavily slanted toward OT (11.2% chance) than losing outright (0.3% chance). Again, figuring that you lose half the time in OT, that makes a 5.9% chance of losing the game, or 94.1% chance to win.
Either way, theres an 88.5% chance to win in regulation and about a 6-7% chance of losing at some point. However, Foul is more likely to produce an outright regulation win, whereas Defend almost always leads to OT at the very least.
You statistics say that you also have the best chance of outright losing in regulation if you foul.
But as MU82 points out there were flaws in that collection of data and analysis.
-
What I have learned from these discussions, and previous discussions and posts by MU82 (thank you), is that those who call for fouling when up 3 - as if not to do so is a terrible inherent mistake - don't get it. It is not so simple. The Kenpom info is also well done above by SaveOD, with a slight possible advantage to not fouling.
The other factor that isn't discussed is the "when to foul." We know not to make it intentional, not to foul in the act of shooting, etc. Foul too soon and the other team can make both free throws... and then the team that is up by one has to inbound the ball and advance it, etc. Not always an easy task. MU at Creighton last year is an example. Make 2, then foul on inbound - may only need a two to win, which is a big problem if the foul is committed too soon.
There is a lot that can go wrong fouling. I'd say fouling with more than 4 or 5 seconds on the clock would make me nervous. If there is a stat someday for fouling up three with more than 7 or 8 second on the clock, I'd like to see it.
-
What I have learned from these discussions, and previous discussions and posts by MU82 (thank you), is that those who call for fouling when up 3 - as if not to do so is a terrible inherent mistake - don't get it. It is not so simple. The Kenpom info is also well done above by SaveOD, with a slight possible advantage to not fouling.
The other factor that isn't discussed is the "when to foul." We know not to make it intentional, not to foul in the act of shooting, etc. Foul too soon and the other team can make both free throws... and then the team that is up by one has to inbound the ball and advance it, etc. Not always an easy task. MU at Creighton last year is an example. Make 2, then foul on inbound - may only need a two to win, which is a big problem if the foul is committed too soon.
There is a lot that can go wrong fouling. I'd say fouling with more than 4 or 5 seconds on the clock would make me nervous. If there is a stat someday for fouling up three with more than 7 or 8 second on the clock, I'd like to see it.
I was thinking about timing yesterday while watching the end of OSU v Michigan. Michigan had the ball with 17 secs left I believe and was able to run a great set to get an open 3 (which they bricked horribly). But it looked like OSU was trying to foul, but couldn't get the call.
My point is actually the strategy of the team with the ball when you have 10+ seconds. Doesn't it make sense now to get down the court and fire? At least you will be able to get that 3 pt shot off before the team fouls. It will be interesting to see how the offensive strategy shifts as more teams do start to foul.
-
My whole thing with fouling is that this team is exactly what you would want to close out a game by fouling. Two separate guards that have been clutch from the line all season, one of whom is a likely AA that is at or near the top in fouls drawn, the other is 6'-4". We also have a legit 7'er that is near or at the top in rebounding %. We also have a two 5th year Sr, a 4th year Sr, a 4th year Jr, and a 22 year old Sophomore, I'm not sure you could ask for more experience. Our team should be able to execute that game plan correctly. Next year when Markus, Sacar and Jayce are gone I might have a different opinion, but with this current squad we should be able to get it done 99.99% of the time.
-
Add Tony Bennett to this list....I watched his game against Wake Forest ....it was the same situation as Wojo had against Providence. 3 point lead....20 seconds left. He played defense......Wake dribbled into a double team with 10 seconds left and called time out. So with 10 seconds left......Wake taking it out at half court.....and a minute to talk about strategy......Tony decides again to not foul.....his guys play good defense....and then foul the shooter with less then a second left. Guy makes 3 free throws.....and then end up in OT.....Virginia wins in OT......
Now I have to say I would have fouled when they threw it in with 10 seconds left....they had plenty of chances....but the point still stands......Tony Bennett is a great coach who just won a NC........he not only didn't foul once.......he didn't foul twice.
Tony Bennett has had the one of the best defensive teams in the country for the last several years. It's who they are. Its their identity. Their defense is an advantage to him and them.
He can rely on his team's defense in the closing seconds because they are very, very good at it. It seems his lack of fouling did hurt him in this case. He very well could have avoided OT and won in regulation.
-
Tony Bennett has had the one of the best defensive teams in the country for the last several years. It's who they are. Its their identity. Their defense is an advantage to him and them.
He can rely on his team's defense in the closing seconds because they are very, very good at it. It seems his lack of fouling did hurt him in this case. He very well could have avoided OT and won in regulation.
I don't dispute a thing you say here. But again ... not a no-brainer. An awful lot of coaches with very highly respected basketball brains choose not to automatically foul up 3 in the closing seconds.
-
was it the South Florida game around 2010/2011 where Buzz intentionally fouled a guy with about a second left, who was standing with his back to the basket which was 90 feet away? I'm not sure of the odds of his making a three to tie from that place on the court.
Buzz said the numbers say foul. But in reality, they moved the opponent from 90 feet away to the free throw line in position to make one, miss the second and possibly rebound and tip to tie.
-
was it the South Florida game around 2010/2011 where Buzz intentionally fouled a guy with about a second left, who was standing with his back to the basket which was 90 feet away? I'm not sure of the odds of his making a three to tie from that place on the court.
Buzz said the numbers say foul. But in reality, they moved the opponent from 90 feet away to the free throw line in position to make one, miss the second and possibly rebound and tip to tie.
Buzz has many screws loose in his head. Although he is a stat-junky, he doesn't understand a thing about statistics, or situational awareness.
-
Tony Bennett has had the one of the best defensive teams in the country for the last several years. It's who they are. Its their identity. Their defense is an advantage to him and them.
He can rely on his team's defense in the closing seconds because they are very, very good at it. It seems his lack of fouling did hurt him in this case. He very well could have avoided OT and won in regulation.
Tony Bennett's team this season is allowing opponents to make 29.4% of its 3 pointers........MU is allowing teams to make 31.4% of their 3s.
That difference when it comes down to 1 attempt at the end of a game is minimal.
Now again you can argue that fouling is the right thing to do......but its not a no brainer in the minds of many coaches....and its certainly not a no brainer for any coach when 20 seconds are still on the clock.
-
Never said as much.
Great coaches on both side of this argument.
-
I think GOO came close to MU82s unspoken point.
People were losing their minds when the team didn't foul at the end of regulation against Providence, and declared it proof that Wojo sucks.
The numbers say it's a close call and Wojo has already stated that the team has been coached to foul when the shot clock is under ten seconds and Marquette is up by three.
A lot of different scenarios can happen when fouling up three with over ten seconds on the clock.
It isn't a no brainer like many portrayed it to be.
-
So, it appears to be a no brainer for the some coaches.
Not fouling was a no brainer for Majerus, fouling is a no brainer for Wojo.
-
So, it appears to be a no brainer for the some coaches.
Not fouling was a no brainer for Majerus, fouling is a no brainer for Wojo.
I guess it comes down to ideology, but no one should use either one as justification to declare that a coach sucks based on fouling up three under ten seconds or not. It's basically a coin flip.
-
Coach I want you to foul them, but make sure you do not foul them when they are shooting and make sure you do not foul too hard because we do not want a flagrant foul. I could see this type of message making a freshmen a little hesitant.
I know this is probably the case, but let's get in the way back machine and go back in time a year ago, when Symir was a senior in high school. He's the top dog, big cheese, number one guy, head honcho, of his high school team. They're up 3 with 8 seconds to play and the coach told his team to foul, similar to what Wojo did. Why is Symir THE guy to probably make that foul in the correct way as the senior star, but now that he's a freshman in college, he can't be expected to do it properly?
-
Correct, although with one nit ...
We would not necessarily have won in regulation had we fouled X. Maybe they hit the first FT, miss the second, get a quick pass out to an open shooter at the 3-point line, he hits it, and we lose. That potential scenario is exactly why Majerus always refused to foul up 3. "Fouling up 3 is the only way you give yourself a chance to lose the game in regulation," he'd say. A more likely negative outcome is that they get the rebound, score a layup, and it's tied.
Just last night, in 3 games we know of, a highly-regarded coach (Pearl, Chambers) either opted not to foul, or a team (Ohio State) failed to execute ... and those teams were 3-0. Of course, on other nights -- usually when we play >:( -- a foul isn't committed and the opponent makes the 3 to tie it.
Someday soon, one of these analytics lovers needs to do a real study on what the best strategy is. I'm talking real data instead of a bunch of anecdotes, which right now is all any of us can provide.
Have seen a number of times.... make first , miss the second , offensive team gets rebound and in the scramble/chaos makes the layup and gets foul. Makes ft... ball game!
-
What has been mostly lost in the whole Xavier game discussion and discussing a Freshman’s mistake has been the play of Sacar. 5th year senior goes under the screen up 3 with 2 seconds left leading by 3. Simply baffling decision on Sacars part, leaving Marshall’s shot completely unhurried and uncontested. Really really bad.
-
Really? You’ve seen that described scenario a number of times?
That’s crazy that you’ve seen it a number of times because it is extremely rare.
Not even OT....from down 3 and win it outright?
Wild.
Only time I can recall is Mason hitting the corner 3 and the foul.
-
I guess it comes down to ideology, but no one should use either one as justification to declare that a coach sucks based on fouling up three under ten seconds or not. It's basically a coin flip.
That's some mighty fine insight, sir (or ma'am). Please keep sharing it with us.
-
Really? You’ve seen that described scenario a number of times?
That’s crazy that you’ve seen it a number of times because it is extremely rare.
Not even OT....from down 3 and win it outright?
Wild.
Only time I can recall is Mason hitting the corner 3 and the foul.
Yep
Thx
-
That's some mighty fine insight, sir (or ma'am). Please keep sharing it with us.
Are you Goose's parrot now??
That's kinda funny actually.
A goose having a pet parrot.
Polly want a cracker??
-
Have seen a number of times.... make first , miss the second , offensive team gets rebound and in the scramble/chaos makes the layup and gets foul. Makes ft... ball game!
Out of curiosity, what games specifically?
-
Are you Goose's parrot now??
That's kinda funny actually.
A goose having a pet parrot.
Polly want a cracker??
Well done, Parody Troll.
-
Holy F’N SHIZ!
Could you imagine if WOJO fouled up 3?
Could end up in the same situation as DUKE and UNC tonight.
-
I thought fouling up 3 was a panacea. Now I have to accept that there are multiple variables involved and I just can't handle that.
-
Fouling by UNC was still the correct move.
-
WOJO DIDNT FOUL UP 3!! FIRE HIM.
Shiz happens both ways people. But you will all ignore this cause it doesn’t fit the narrative. Providence 25% shooter hits a 3.
-
It was the right move by UNC. But it’s doesn’t always end the way we think.
-
It was the right move by UNC. But it’s doesn’t always end the way we think.
Correct
-
https://kenpom.com/blog/yet-another-study-about-fouling-when-up-3/
I’m good with coaches doing either. Weird stuff happens either way. Marquette’s 3-point defense has been pretty good this year. Some of that is luck driven
-
Just in the past week, we have seen several good coaches not foul up 3 and their teams won the games. Now comes the UNC-Duke game, when the coach fouled up 3 and it backfired. And yet some Scoopers are 100% certain that the one and only "right" strategy is to foul up 3.
Chambers didn't foul up 3. Pearl didn't foul up 3. Majerus never fouled up 3. Calipari does it sometimes and doesn't do it sometimes.
Morons 1, 2, 3 and 4, I guess.
-
What those numbers tell me is the most important thing is not to foul or not, but to get the point in the game up 3 with 10 seconds left. That is more important that to foul or not.
-
I thought fouling up 3 was a panacea. Now I have to accept that there are multiple variables involved and I just can't handle that.
As I posted earlier in the thread, there are so many things that have to go right for it to backfire. In the Duke/UNC situation, a well placed FT miss, a perfect bounce, a missed double dribble, and a lucky shot.
-
Coach K is a MORON!!!
If fouling up 3 is not done by the great Pat Chambers, why in the world would he do it??!?!!
Doesn’t Coach K know that Majerus never did it??!!!?!
What an idiot!!!!
-
Coach K is a MORON!!!
If fouling up 3 is not done by the great Pat Chambers, why in the world would he do it??!?!!
Doesn’t Coach K know that Majerus never did it??!!!?!
What an idiot!!!!
Coach K did it. Chambers, Pearl and Calipari are morons. Don't they know that fouling up 3 is the ONLY acceptable strategy?
-
You are the only one on here calling the HOF Coach Chambers a moron.
-
You are the only one on here calling the HOF Coach Chambers a moron.
The "moron" and "idiot" stuff is just me having some fun as I counter the argument that fouling up 3 is the one and only acceptable strategy. And I think you are smart enough to know that.
I really don't think coaches who ascend to the P6 level are morons or idiots, no matter which strategy they choose.
Just as Roy Williams employed a reasonable strategy - foul up 3 - only to have it backfire, I believe Wojo employed a reasonable strategy against Providence - don't foul up 3 - only to have it backfire.
Sadly, there really are some Scoopers who think Wojo screwed up royally because a 25% shooter who hadn't scored all night threw one in with Bailey's hand in his face.
-
Not fouling, up 3 increases your chance of going to OT.
As with most things, there are exceptions.
I’m glad our coach is now on board with this sound strategy.
On the whole, Wojo’s doing a great job.
-
As a coach, when your team is up 3 points with 10 seconds remaining, you are trying to win the game...not get to overtime.
I understand that It’s safer to defend and AT WORST go to OT. That can suck the life out of a team to lose in OT when game was in hand.
I’m glad Wojo is employing his foul strategy, even if that means a loss once in a blue moon.
Again, the best strategy is to be up by 3 points with 10 seconds left in the game. Teams in that position win in regulation almost 90%, regardless of fouling or not.
-
Fouling up 3 with 12 seconds left almost cost Maryland tonight.
Guy for Nebraska hits 2 free throws.....Maryland inbounds....immediate foul....Cowens misses front end ......Nebraska with plenty of time down 1 to win the game.....guy gets to the hoop and gets blocked at the rim by Jalen Smith.
So they survive......but fouling too early can be every bit as costly as not fouling at all.
Both announcers called it out right away as a mistake.....they got lucky.
-
Not fouling, up 3 increases your chance of going to OT.
As with most things, there are exceptions.
I’m glad our coach is now on board with this sound strategy.
On the whole, Wojo’s doing a great job.
Hes always been on board with it.
Providence was not a botched opportunity. They started the possession with like 20 something seconds left. And the dude launched the prayer with like 12 seconds left.
It happened to go in.
-
Hes always been on board with it.
Providence was not a botched opportunity. They started the possession with like 20 something seconds left. And the dude launched the prayer with like 12 seconds left.
It happened to go in.
Yep.......
-
Must have been the slowest shot in history. It went through the net and the clock stopped at :04.
0:18 Brendan Bailey made Free Throw. 64 - 66
0:18 Brendan Bailey made Free Throw. 64 - 67
0:04 A.J. Reeves made Three Point Jumper. Assisted by David Duke. 67 - 67
0:04 Marquette Timeout 67 - 67
0:00 End of 2nd half 67 - 67
Anyway, Wojo may have always been on board with the strategy, but judging by our execution in the PC and X games, we were not too committed to it.
It appears that has now been addressed. Better late, than never.
-
Must have been the slowest shot in history. It went through the net and the clock stopped at :04.
0:18 Brendan Bailey made Free Throw. 64 - 66
0:18 Brendan Bailey made Free Throw. 64 - 67
0:04 A.J. Reeves made Three Point Jumper. Assisted by David Duke. 67 - 67
0:04 Marquette Timeout 67 - 67
0:00 End of 2nd half 67 - 67
Anyway, Wojo may have always been on board with the strategy, but judging by our execution in the PC and X games, we were not too committed to it.
It appears that has now been addressed. Better late, than never.
Yeah it was probably like 8 seconds. You never, ever should foul a dude catching and shooting with 8 seconds left especially when hes shooting 25%. And if you foul anyone before that......well thats simply bad strategy.
X it was called for, Symir just blew it. Wojo wanted it. Hes always wanted it, when the time calls for it. Providence didnt.
-
Again, no one has said that fouling will work 100% of the time, so I'm not sure why an example of when a team fouled and won is being brought up. Cowan is a 80% ft shooter and Nebraska has a 44% three point shooter on their team (with a solid sample size of over 3.5 attempts per game too). Survey says, put the ball in Cowan's hand's and don't even let the 44% three point shooter get a chance to tie it.
Side note; solid game for Haani.
-
He didn't shoot at 8 seconds either. If you don't believe in the strategy that is fine, but you don't have to embellish the clock to make your point. No shot takes 4 seconds.
Simply stated we lost that game because of poor execution, and would have lost the X game for the same reason, if not for Koby and Sacar's heroics. Time to move on.
-
Hes always been on board with it.
Providence was not a botched opportunity. They started the possession with like 20 something seconds left. And the dude launched the prayer with like 12 seconds left.
It happened to go in.
Why do you say 12 seconds when he didn’t even receive the pass til under 6 seconds??
-
Why do you say 12 seconds when he didn’t even receive the pass til under 6 seconds??
That's what I'd like to know.
I point out that the shot goes through the net at :04, and the response is: hmmm? perhaps the shooter released the ball with :08 on the clock, as :12 just wouldn't make sense.
Whatever , I'm just glad Wojo dedicated some practice time to it prior to the DePaul game. Wish he would have done so sooner, but at least he identified the problem and corrected it.
-
So ... we have concluded that Bruce Pearl and Pat Chambers are just plain wrong then, yes?
-
So ... we have concluded that Bruce Pearl and Pat Chambers are just plain wrong then, yes?
In most coach's eyes, YES!
You can agree with them if you like, you are entitled to your opinion.
-
In most coach's eyes, YES!
You can agree with them if you like, you are entitled to your opinion.
I think it's a case-by-case deal, FWIW. If I am playing a team that doesn't shoot the 3 well, and our defense is really playing well, I don't foul up 3. If I am playing a team that knocks down lots of 3s, I probably foul up 3. That's how Calipari does it.
I would like to see a survey showing what most college coaches do. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to see the survey. I believe KenPom said it was close which strategy gives the best mathematical chance of winning, with a slight edge to not fouling?
-
6.7 seconds and holding the ball at the top of the key...hasn’t passed yet.
-
6.7 seconds and holding the ball at the top of the key...hasn’t passed yet.
Thank you for providing this visual evidence. It definitely was way less than the folks in denial had been saying. We had ample opportunity to foul there had Wojo chosen to do so.
Like Wojo (and Pearl and Chambers and Majerus and many others), I wouldn't have fouled there.
Providence ended up with an extremely low-percentage shot -- a contested 3 by a 23.6% 3-point shooter who was fading away from the basket, a guy who had attempted only 3 shots all game to that point and had missed his first two attempts from deep.
-
Hindsight is certainly 20/20.
I wonder if Wojo forced his defense to allow PC’s 25% shooter to shoot the ball OR did Cooley draw up a play for Duke (I believe) with staggered screens SPECIFICALLY to get him a shot?
Why in the world would Cooley draw up in the last few seconds to get his 25% 3 point shooter, who was 0-2 on the night, the game tying shot?
Yet, he did.
It wasn’t a terrible shot as you want to make it out to be. It was a desperation heave. It was a designed play and it worked.
Not fouling in this situation stole defeat from the hands of victory, and I am thrilled that Wojo has improved his coaching style and approach.
-
Hindsight is certainly 20/20.
I wonder if Wojo forced his defense to allow PC’s 25% shooter to shoot the ball OR did Cooley draw up a play for Duke (I believe) with staggered screens SPECIFICALLY to get him a shot?
Why in the world would Cooley draw up in the last few seconds to get his 25% 3 point shooter, who was 0-2 on the night, the game tying shot?
Yet, he did.
It wasn’t a terrible shot as you want to make it out to be. It was a desperation heave. It was a designed play and it worked.
Not fouling in this situation stole defeat from the hands of victory, and I am thrilled that Wojo has improved his coaching style and approach.
Yep, the old "results prove it" model. I guess that means fouling in the exact same situation stole defeat from the hands of victory for UNC.
Look, I acknowledge that there are arguments for both strategies, as reflected by the fact that many good coaches choose one strategy while many other good coaches choose the other. The only thing you acknowledge is: "Nope. I'm right. Any coach who chooses not to foul up 3 is wrong."
So there's no need for us to keep going on this. You can have the last word if you want. Have a nice day.
-
The part of the Providence game that makes me ok that we didn’t foul is the players would have to keep an eye on the clock and the action. The MU bench is on the other side of the court, so I’m not sure how easily they could yell to foul. Plus, the player with the ball has a heads up to shoot for a 3 pt foul.
I’d rather the players have a single focus in mind to play defense. I would foul if it is between 3-8 seconds and the team has to go full court. Then you can say, fouls once they cross half court.
-
I’m just impressed that you knew the 3 pt % of the PC players on the floor in the last few seconds and were OK with Duke shooting that shot PRIOR to the shot. You knew he was 25% BEFORE he shot, you didn’t learn that after the shot? Wow-Good job.
That would certainly not be a “results based model” then.
Your “nope I’m wrong, your right” statement is comical.