PDA

View Full Version : Should a team foul in the last second of a ball game and they are ahead by 3 points?



Reborn
01-16-2015, 06:34 AM
Maybe for the first time ever Mark Few chose to foul before Pepperdine got an opportunty to shoot a 3 pointer to tie the game in the last seconds last night. And I was really happy. I had that aweful feeling that if Pepperdine was given a chance to shoot the 3 pointer, that they were going to make it and put the game into overtime. Good decision by Few, imo. I agree with that decision too.

I want to see what you all think about that decision. Should a team foul? Should a team defend the shooter and try to keep him from scoring. In the past I believe Mark Few has almost always tried to defend the shooter and NOT foul. He seemed to change his idea on that subject matter. What do you think?

Go Zags!!!
One game at a time!

gonzagafan62
01-16-2015, 06:38 AM
Maybe for the first time ever Mark Few chose to foul before Pepperdine got an opportunty to shoot a 3 pointer to tie the game in the last seconds last night. And I was really happy. I had that aweful feeling that if Pepperdine was given a chance to shoot the 3 pointer, that they were going to make it and put the game into overtime. Good decision by Few, imo. I agree with that decision too.

I want to see what you all think about that decision. Should a team foul? Should a team defend the shooter and try to keep him from scoring. In the past I believe Mark Few has almost always tried to defend the shooter and NOT foul. He seemed to change his idea on that subject matter. What do you think?

Go Zags!!!
One game at a time!

Well this is the second time I have seen Mark Few do this... the other time was this game:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QOaC0q0Ni8

Fast forward to 1:57:56 in the video, you'll see it.

But yes, I think you let the players play it out and not foul most of the time. There are certain situations when the momentum is not in your favor, like last night, where you should.

23dpg
01-16-2015, 06:42 AM
There's prettying much a formula most coaches use nowadays.
No foull if more than 6 seconds left.
Yes foul with less than 6 seconds.

The statistics show that this is indeed the proper way to handle the situation.

Ps. Yes, they have done statistical analysis on this.

TheGonzagaFactor
01-16-2015, 06:42 AM
Most of the time you definitely want to foul. Especially if the player with the ball is crossing half court with under 3 seconds left.

The odds of making 1 of the shots, getting the ball back, and scoring again that quickly are lower than the odds of making a 3 to tie (especially if a team is on a lucky streak like Pepp in the 2nd half).

It's a tough subject. I remember a year or two ago when Jay Bilas made a great point on fouling late: "If you'd foul up 3 because the other team could tie, would you foul up 2 because you could lose?" Interesting.

Fouling late can backfire, but it's usually a good idea depending on the amount of time left. It was smart last night as Pepp probably would have hit some crazy hook shot/no look/bank 3 with how things were going.

thespywhozaggedme
01-16-2015, 06:42 AM
Always. Not sure what the controvery is.
Maybe for the first time ever Mark Few chose to foul before Pepperdine got an opportunty to shoot a 3 pointer to tie the game in the last seconds last night. And I was really happy. I had that aweful feeling that if Pepperdine was given a chance to shoot the 3 pointer, that they were going to make it and put the game into overtime. Good decision by Few, imo. I agree with that decision too.

I want to see what you all think about that decision. Should a team foul? Should a team defend the shooter and try to keep him from scoring. In the past I believe Mark Few has almost always tried to defend the shooter and NOT foul. He seemed to change his idea on that subject matter. What do you think?

Go Zags!!!
One game at a time!

titopoet
01-16-2015, 06:48 AM
Maybe for the first time ever Mark Few chose to foul before Pepperdine got an opportunty to shoot a 3 pointer to tie the game in the last seconds last night. And I was really happy. I had that aweful feeling that if Pepperdine was given a chance to shoot the 3 pointer, that they were going to make it and put the game into overtime. Good decision by Few, imo. I agree with that decision too.

I want to see what you all think about that decision. Should a team foul? Should a team defend the shooter and try to keep him from scoring. In the past I believe Mark Few has almost always tried to defend the shooter and NOT foul. He seemed to change his idea on that subject matter. What do you think?

Go Zags!!!
One game at a time!

There is a history to this and it shows how Mark Few grows. He was one of the vocal supporters of not fouling, but due to the stats analysis of Brad Stevens, he changed his mind and will foul within ten seconds. It almost backfired when Bell was going to foul Dellvadova and Delly slipped past Bell and almost sank an open three to tie a game with GU in the kennel a few years back. It is now standard for a Few team. The percentages say yes that is the best move so Few does it.

DixieZag
01-16-2015, 06:48 AM
I usually look at it through - "what would I want the other team to do to us?"

I would want the other team to not foul and allow us a shot at the 3. So, I always want us to do so.

Few did it a few years ago at LMU - same situation.

zagfan24
01-16-2015, 06:48 AM
I remember an interview with Coach Few a few years ago where he argued against the strategy because, in theory, they could make the first FT, hit a three after missing the second and win. While that's always a possibility, it seems like he has evolved as the data has made it clear that fouling is the optimal strategy with that little time left. The way Pepperdine was hitting shots (including a banked in three), I think it was a very wise move last night.

Zagger
01-16-2015, 07:02 AM
If it's the other team - NO. If it's us - YES (uttered with sheet-eating-grin)

Actually, I'd really rather see the game played out than see any intentional fouls (in a make-believe BB world). But, hard to determine what is intentional and what is not (if there were some sort of rule against intentional fouls). Thinking more about it ... it is likely a safer game with intentional fouls allowed as there could be quite some battles at the end of a game to try and get the ball (or whack a player). Intentional fouls near a game's end likely keeps a few players out of the hospital (IMHO).

CDC84
01-16-2015, 07:31 AM
From 2013:

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2013-01-26/full-court-press-jim-boeheims-no-foul-strategy-at-end-backfires-as-it-so-often-d


A friend of mine, Steve Finamore, the head coach at East Lansing High in Michigan, has been charting these situations throughout the season 2012-13 season. He became fixated on the issue after twice choosing not to foul last season and giving up tying 3s—against the same team, to the same player, from the identical spot on the floor.

According to Finamore’s numbers, there have been 279 total situations this season in which a team was ahead three points with the other team in possession of the ball and seven seconds or less to play.

— 259 times the team did not foul relied on its defense; 46 allowed a game-tying 3-pointer that forced overtime. That’s a 17.7 percent failure rate.

— 20 times the team chose to foul on purpose to prevent the 3-pointer; only one, Kent State in a game against Valparaiso, was tied by a team that rebounded a free-throw miss and converted a basket. That’s a 5 percent failure rate.

As far as Finamore is concerned, this season’s failure rate of the fouling strategy should be zero percent.

“Upon further review, the officials blew this,” he said. “A Valpo player committed a lane violation, which was not called.” He added that Kent coach Rob Senderoff told him he still would call for a foul the next time he encountered this situation.

Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim said he ordinarily would call for a foul but opted against it because SU center Baye Moussa Keita and forward Jerami Grant had been disqualified. That led him to go with a smaller lineup that might not have been as successful rebounding a free-throw miss. This was odd reasoning, because he still had 6-8 C.J. Fair, 6-9 Rakeem Christmas and 6-9 DaJuan Coleman available to him.

The principle problems with the “play good defense” concept is right there on the video of Villanova’s final play of regulation Saturday.

As an initial 3-pointer was launched by Villanova’s James Bell with about nine seconds left, two SU players dashed in from the perimeter to challenge for the rebound. That left the Orange dangerously exposed on the perimeter, with four Wildcats players uncovered. Freshman guard Ryan Arcidiacono slipped into the left corner and fielded a pass from the rebounder, Mouphtaou Yarou.

At that point, SU’s Michael Carter-Williams had a great chance to challenge the shot. He closed out hard—but when he arrived simply stood to the side and allowed Arcidiacono to shoot freely.

“I didn’t want to foul, so I didn’t really put a high hand up,” Carter-Williams told the Syracuse Post-Standard.

Therein lies the problem.

So many of a player’s defensive instincts leading up to the shot are wrong for the situation, as we’ve said before: Covering the rim, containing penetration, crashing the boards.

Psychozag
01-16-2015, 07:51 AM
The UConn game in the Battle in Seattle is another example where GU didn't foul up three, and ended up losing the game in overtime. I knew as soon as UConn hit that shot that we weren't going to win in overtime. I was calling for that foul so Pepperdine wouldn't get that chance, and I was really happy to see it happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_0zgdCboms

CDC84
01-16-2015, 07:53 AM
Mario Chalmers' three in the national title game vs. Memphis a few years back..........

CdAZagFan
01-16-2015, 07:57 AM
I think it is a good call to foul in that situation...

webspinnre
01-16-2015, 08:01 AM
Especially that low in the clock. If you're under 4 seconds, fouling is definitely the right choice statistically.

LongIslandZagFan
01-16-2015, 08:08 AM
Especially with under 4-5 seconds left. Yeah, wouldn't be happy if the Zags were on the other side of it... but I would get why it was done. The probability of a miss/kick out three requires a rebound and pass... that is 2-3 seconds on its own depending on how the ball bounces... is much lower.

webspinnre
01-16-2015, 08:15 AM
And the fact that they were in 1 and 1 makes it even better, as if they miss the first one and then get the rebound and kick out, at best they're still looking at a tie. Last night was the ideal situation to foul.

mgadfly
01-16-2015, 10:57 AM
As in all things stats, Ken Pomeroy did a very extensive study and published it some time back. Here (http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/yet_another_study_about_fouling_when_up_3)

You have to be careful when you foul because if you do so too early you are about twelve time more likely to lose the game. That's the controversy.

Last night, since there was under five seconds on the clock and the player wasn't shooting it was the "right" move.

I don't think there is a "right" decision.

bartruff1
01-16-2015, 11:15 AM
And the fact that they were in 1 and 1 makes it even better, as if they miss the first one and then get the rebound and kick out, at best they're still looking at a tie. Last night was the ideal situation to foul.

Yup...but really...... always if there are only 6 or so seconds left.

MDABE80
01-16-2015, 11:21 AM
Strategic gem in my view. What wouldn't a coach foul? Put em on the line for 1 and 1 or 2 even instead of giving them and opportunity to steal a game. It's not a difficult decision. Last night the nnumbers scremed for thst foul..a 3 point lead and the best they could do with our foul was make 2. That move at the end assured a nore favorabe outcome for the Zags.

zagamatic
01-16-2015, 11:28 AM
There's never going to be an all encompassing hard and fast rule in regards to this, there are just too many variables. I'm generally in favor of fouling when up 3 with under 6 seconds left. But I don't see why you can't be making a legitimate effort to get a steal in the process? I guess that I just don't understand why you would automatically concede a foul when you can at least commit a foul with a possibility of a positive outcome. But hey, I'm sitting on my couch, not the sidelines.

B Wayne
01-16-2015, 06:17 PM
Ask Coach Few this question.

In fact he was asked a year or two ago on the Mark Few show.

Coach Few said that he used to be categorically opposed to intentionally fouling when up three, but has softened his position.

He then said he will do it now depending on the situation.

When asked what situation applies, he said it depends on several factors.

Done

KStyles
01-16-2015, 07:19 PM
I don't think there is a "right" decision.

Agree. Enough variables to consider that there's not a clear-cut answer.

seacatfan
01-16-2015, 08:40 PM
There was one hilarious counterpoint in a Tourney game a number of years ago, UW vs. UNC. The Heels were up late, UW had the ball. Everybody's favorite ex-Husky (and pimp) Venoy Overton brought the ball over the mid court line and a Heel defender moved towards him as if to commit the foul. Thinking he'd be clever and get fouled in the act of shooting Overton heaved a 30 or 35 foot air ball. The defender pulled back, never got close to making contact. It was awesome.

WBM
01-16-2015, 09:29 PM
Well this is the second time I have seen Mark Few do this... the other time was this game:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QOaC0q0Ni8

Fast forward to 1:57:56 in the video, you'll see it.

But yes, I think you let the players play it out and not foul most of the time. There are certain situations when the momentum is not in your favor, like last night, where you should.

The announcer totally called that before the play based on "Body language in the time out." Wow.
Also, I really miss Elias. We're loaded, this season and the current roster kick ass. But man, I really enjoyed watching Elias.

I like the decision to foul when up 3 in that situation. We were missing our FTs left and right so another short possession that ends in 1/2 or 0/2 is essentially a turnover. And Pepperdine was shooting well at that point, so risking them making a game-tying shot was not attractive. I agree with what Few did.

roxdoc
01-16-2015, 11:06 PM
of course if the shot after the first FT make bounces right back to the foul shooter you could have a tie. Think the clock starts when the ball is touched. I noticed last night on the miss there didn't seem to be much effort to get in front of the shooter. Glad we got it anyway!