Fouling up 3, revisited

[MU82]

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."

[We R Final Four]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This is a weird fight. Even by Scoop standards

[MU82]

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.

[MU82]

Florida's Mike White chose not to foul up 3, and VaTech made the tying 3.

Fortunately for White, Florida won in OT.

[MarquetteMike1977]

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.

[MU82]

Oral Roberts coach Paul Mills' team did not foul up 3, and his team won.

A bazillion brackets exploded.

[lawdog77]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[MU82]

Kelvin Sampson does not foul up 3.

Rutgers misses the shot; Houston rebounds and wins.

[MuggsyB]

I assume everyone wants Oregon St?  Regardless of pools?

[MU82]

I assume everyone wants Oregon St?  Regardless of pools?

Wrong thread, Muggs.

[MuggsyB]

Wrong thread, Muggs.

Ty

[Dr. Blackheart]

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

[MU82]

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!

[Galway Eagle]

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

[MU82]

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.

[We R Final Four]

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.

[MikeDeanesDarkGlasses]

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. 

[bradforster]

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. 

[MU82]

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.

[bradforster]

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.

[We R Final Four]

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.

[MU82]

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:

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.