Fouling up 3, revisited

[GooooMarquette]

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."

[MU82]

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.

[Billy Hoyle]

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

[MU82]

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.

[Billy Hoyle]

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.

[GOO]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[bilsu]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[wisblue]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[PGsHeroes32]

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.

[MU82]

No way should HOuston of fouled at any point on that possession.

Agreed.

[We R Final Four]

Oregon St up by 3, fouls Colorado's McKinley Wright. He makes both FTs. OSU inbounds. Game over.
OSU secures PAC-12 championship.

[MU82]

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!

[We R Final Four]

Congrats to Oregon State!

Agreed. OSU wins their first conf tournament title, and did so by securing the victory by fouling up 3. Congrats.

[MU82]

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.

[We R Final Four]

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/

[MU82]

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.

[We R Final Four]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[We R Final Four]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[We R Final Four]

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.