PDA

View Full Version : Fouling when up by 2



thegloriousgoateeofKP
11-28-2016, 07:52 PM
Sunday's game gave me an idea. I know the Zags had fouls to give, but let's say they didn't, and they were up by 2 in the dying seconds.

Why not foul anyway?

If you let the other team get off a shot, it's probably going to be a 3, and at that point, you have about a 35% chance of losing. However, if you foul, you virtually guarantee OT (in which you have a 50-50 shot), and THAT only happens if the other team makes both free throws (just foul the worst shooter they have on the floor...a player has to be 70% or better for the odds of him making two straight free throws to eclipse 50%).

And even if he DOES make both to tie, you have 5 or 6 seconds to go try to win.

It makes so much sense to me...anyone vehemently disagree?

ZagDad84
11-28-2016, 08:07 PM
Absolutely disagree.

It is much more likely for the opponent to hit two (2) uncontested free throws, than to make a contested 3. If you then go into overtime, the other team has the momentum.

If your up by 3, hack them before the shot. If your up two, play good "D" and make them beat you, do not give the lead away at the foul line.

ZagDad

gonstu
11-28-2016, 08:08 PM
Sunday's game gave me an idea. I know the Zags had fouls to give, but let's say they didn't, and they were up by 2 in the dying seconds.

Why not foul anyway?

If you let the other team get off a shot, it's probably going to be a 3, and at that point, you have about a 35% chance of losing. However, if you foul, you virtually guarantee OT (in which you have a 50-50 shot), and THAT only happens if the other team makes both free throws (just foul the worst shooter they have on the floor...a player has to be 70% or better for the odds of him making two straight free throws to eclipse 50%).

And even if he DOES make both to tie, you have 5 or 6 seconds to go try to win.

It makes so much sense to me...anyone vehemently disagree?

I disagree, but not vehemently.

OldGoatZagFan
11-28-2016, 08:15 PM
Disagree, but no need to be vehement!

If you have a 40-50% FT shooter, maybe. But a poor FT shooter's shot isn't predictable in how it hits the rim...long rebound or tip-in possibilities. I want to keep the ball away from the rim as much as possible with a 2 point lead.

If you want to go to overtime, give them a lay up! Makes no sense! JMO:)

thegloriousgoateeofKP
11-28-2016, 09:51 PM
It is much more likely for the opponent to hit two (2) uncontested free throws, than to make a contested 3.



Of course. But don't forget about the approximately 30% chance to rush the ball down the court with 5 or 6 seconds left and make a bucket. When you add that into it, I think fouling is clearly the option that gives you a higher expected winning percentage.

MontanaCoyote
11-29-2016, 09:17 AM
I will live longer every time this isn't a problem! That much I do know, for sure.

GoZAGsMang
11-29-2016, 10:26 AM
NOPE just like the following:
1. adding Seattle U to the WCC
2. playing Harris at the 3
3. the 3 big lineup
4. having Rex talk about sportsmanship
5. getting a handshake from Randy

JPtheBeasta
11-29-2016, 10:38 AM
It's an interesting idea, but I would feel better about guarding the 3 and forcing a difficult 2-point shot.

The above statistics are nice but I assume the percentages on made 3-point FG would be much lower if the defense is selling out on defending the 3-point line. It seems to me that you can't assume the average number because theoretically you are playing a more balanced defense during the majority of the game. An analogy might be a football team focusing on stopping the run vs the pass- offensive numbers should change depending on the point of emphasis.

JPtheBeasta
11-29-2016, 10:39 AM
NOPE just like the following:
1. adding Seattle U to the WCC
2. playing Harris at the 3
3. the 3 big line up
4. having Rex talk about sportsmanship
5. getting a handshake from Randy

Thanks for the chuckle.

SWZag
11-29-2016, 11:36 AM
I don't think some are thinking like a chessmaster.

Statistics come into play.

A player who shoots 50% from the free-throw line has a 25% chance of making both free throws. If that player shoots 45% from the field and 30% from three, then maybe fouling is a good idea.

If a player shoots 80% from the line, there is a 64% chance of making both free throws. In that case, maybe fouling isn't the best idea.

Zagricultural
11-29-2016, 12:25 PM
Disagree, but no need to be vehement!

If you have a 40-50% FT shooter, maybe. But a poor FT shooter's shot isn't predictable in how it hits the rim...long rebound or tip-in possibilities. I want to keep the ball away from the rim as much as possible with a 2 point lead.

If you want to go to overtime, give them a lay up! Makes no sense! JMO:)

I agree with you. The long rebound on a miss gives me nightmares! So many problems. I would say instruct the players to focus on stopping the 3 and not fouling the 2. JMO

kitzbuel
11-29-2016, 01:11 PM
I did a quick google search and it looks like the average college free throw percentage is about 69%. Once in OT each team has a 50% chance of winning.

So the compound probability of the other team winning when down by two and shooting two FTs is .69 x .69 x .5= .24, about a 24% chance of winning.

If the opposing team is shooting better than 25% from behind the arc, it might actually not be a bad idea to foul when down by two.

GoZAGsMang
11-29-2016, 01:33 PM
I did a quick google search and it looks like the average college free throw percentage is about 69%. Once in OT each team has a 50% chance of winning.

So the compound probability of the other team winning when down by two and shooting two FTs is .69 x .69 x .5= .24, about a 24% chance of winning.

If the opposing team is shooting better than 25% from behind the arc, it might actually not be a bad idea to foul when down by two.

The team that was losing going into overtime wins more than the team that gave up the lead.

Its pretty easy to hit 2 freebies, but its pretty difficult to make a 3 with Killie in your face and all of Zagland wishing your demise.

gonzagafan62
11-29-2016, 01:39 PM
I would play the game straight up, guard the 3 line hard. if they make a lucky 3 tip your hat, but if they go and make a shot to tie the game The game isn't over. I'll take straight up odds anyday hoping they don't make the 2 point shot so we can all go home

gonzagafan62
11-29-2016, 01:41 PM
Also the way the game was going if we go into overtime we lose.

What hasn't been mentioned here yet is fouled out players. It depends who is fouled out too. I still prefer to play straight up

Reborn
11-29-2016, 02:12 PM
If it's helpful, Few does NOT foul.

2wiceright
11-29-2016, 03:43 PM
IMO in this case it was a good call... We had a foul to give (no free throws) and we executed it great, if not a little too soon. As a result they had to rush to get into their offense - so much so they didn't get a shot off before all zeros on the clock. Well played Few!!! Go Zags...

kitzbuel
11-29-2016, 04:00 PM
The team that was losing going into overtime wins more than the team that gave up the lead.

Its pretty easy to hit 2 freebies, but its pretty difficult to make a 3 with Killie in your face and all of Zagland wishing your demise.
I completely suspected what you think as well, so I did some further research. There does not seem to be significant correlation between a team scoring last in regulation (coming from behind) and winning in OT. (At least for NBA)

http://www.82games.com/random21.htm

This site does show a very high correlation between scoring first in OT and winning.
It is interesting stacking up probabilities against gut instincts.

GoZAGsMang
11-29-2016, 04:16 PM
Its not the nba, and we had lost momentum.

I guess kenpom agrees with your thesis for college hoops.
this from:

Momentum in College Basketball: Do Late Rallies Carry Over to Overtime?
By John Ezekowitz

To test for the presence of momentum, I used the expected win odds and actual outcomes to create a binomial distribution (assuming all games are independent of one another). I summed the expected win odds to get the total number of expected wins for rallying teams, and summed the actual results. Rallying teams were expected to win 86 games out of 174, or a winning percentage of 0.495. They actually won only 78 games (a winning percentage of 0.448). Using a z-test for proportions, and assuming the conservative variance of p(1-p)=.25, I found that there was no significant difference between expected and actual performance for teams subject to the rally effect.

What does this mean? It is important to remember that the failure to observe an effect does not mean that it does not exist. Also, the difference between the actual and expected number of wins was not significant, so the fact that the difference was negative could easily be random chance. Nevertheless, the conclusion still remains that “rallying” teams do not win significantly more often than they are expected to. It seems hard to suggest that the momentum of rallying for the tie has any quantifiable effect on the outcome of the game.

One last word: as I understand it, Ken’s win probability formula takes into account the time, the score, and the previous performances of the two teams (including game location). It does not, however, appear to account for potentially vital in-game changes, like a star player fouling out or an injury. It may be that these omitted variables are clouding the rally effect. Also, I must point out that the results of a five minute overtime period are fairly random. There may just be too much noise in the data for the rally effect signal to come through. This seems like a good topic for future study.

thegloriousgoateeofKP
11-29-2016, 05:40 PM
I did a quick google search and it looks like the average college free throw percentage is about 69%. Once in OT each team has a 50% chance of winning.

So the compound probability of the other team winning when down by two and shooting two FTs is .69 x .69 x .5= .24, about a 24% chance of winning.

If the opposing team is shooting better than 25% from behind the arc, it might actually not be a bad idea to foul when down by two.

kitzbuel is talking a lot of sense here.

And don't forget, even if the other team makes both FT's, you still have a chance to go win at the other end! You stack the odds so much more in your favor by fouling than you do in playing D, where even if you force a contested shot, it'll still go in ~33 percent of the time, and you lose automatically.

Also, yeah, "momentum" doesn't really exist. It's a made up, convenient narrative for broadcasters to use to simplify randomness.

mgadfly
11-29-2016, 05:52 PM
kitzbuel is talking a lot of sense here.

And don't forget, even if the other team makes both FT's, you still have a chance to go win at the other end! You stack the odds so much more in your favor by fouling than you do in playing D, where even if you force a contested shot, it'll still go in ~33 percent of the time, and you lose automatically.

Also, yeah, "momentum" doesn't really exist. It's a made up, convenient narrative for broadcasters to use to simplify randomness.

There have been studies done. You don't foul up 2. It is break even if you foul when up 3 with six seconds. The reason why is because the extra possessions can end up for your opponent. Made ft, missed ft, offensive rebound.

team6
11-29-2016, 05:52 PM
kitzbuel is talking a lot of sense here.

And don't forget, even if the other team makes both FT's, you still have a chance to go win at the other end! You stack the odds so much more in your favor by fouling than you do in playing D, where even if you force a contested shot, it'll still go in ~33 percent of the time, and you lose automatically.

Also, yeah, "momentum" doesn't really exist. It's a made up, convenient narrative for broadcasters to use to simplify randomness.

Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in
In kitzbuels situation (fouling and going into overtime) you have a 24% chance of winning or a 76% of loosing.. let's say the last theee has a 33% chance of going in this would probably be lower with contested D.. that would be you have a 33% chance of losing and 67% of winning

Bottom line give me a 67% chance of winning anyday over a 24% chance of winning... I think you guys are looking at the numbers wrong they'd have to take a shot with a 76% chance of going in for it to be equal and a three is never that high of a chance... I'd never foul in that situation but again that's just my opinion (unless I'm total reading the numbers wrong)

Edit: I did read those numbers wrong, however it didn't take into account of a chance of rebounding... It really is a tuff call but way more math would have to accounted for to do proper statistics on the matter

kitzbuel
11-29-2016, 06:41 PM
The other thing to remember is that it is a very narrow set of circumstances where this applies, a two point game with nearly no time left, probably less than 5 seconds. Otherwise there are way too many other things that could happen.

gonzagafan62
11-29-2016, 06:43 PM
kitzbuel is talking a lot of sense here.

And don't forget, even if the other team makes both FT's, you still have a chance to go win at the other end! You stack the odds so much more in your favor by fouling than you do in playing D, where even if you force a contested shot, it'll still go in ~33 percent of the time, and you lose automatically.

Also, yeah, "momentum" doesn't really exist. It's a made up, convenient narrative for broadcasters to use to simplify randomness.

I have to disagree with the momentum point. Momentum does exist, just luckily Gonzaga in the case with Iowa state was mentally tough. If the game was played between 2007-2012 this team loses. Something after that changed where no matter what happens we don't get rattled. It's fews coaching demeanor... best in college sports

thegloriousgoateeofKP
11-29-2016, 07:55 PM
I have to disagree with the momentum point. Momentum does exist, just luckily Gonzaga in the case with Iowa state was mentally tough. If the game was played between 2007-2012 this team loses. Something after that changed where no matter what happens we don't get rattled. It's fews coaching demeanor... best in college sports

A few snippets from a great book called Scorecasting that takes an empirical look at sports cliches:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hx1ych9ofoyfkm1/Momentum%201.png?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ttytrhppr3x5a9v/Momentum%202.png?dl=0

gonzagafan62
11-29-2016, 08:32 PM
Thanks goatee! Very good reads for sure. Definitely puts a lot of things in a new perspective for me and sheds a new light on things that I've missed completely. I still believe there is something with momentum and you can feel the tide switching. And there's something to that. But I'm really glad you shared these. Really great info that all fans should read.

gonzagafan62
11-29-2016, 08:47 PM
I do wanna mention one point that wasn't brought up in either of those pieces which is the unquantifiable portion of teams that get tentative when a team has the aforementioned "momentum"

Let's use the zags game as an example again. When Iowa state retrieved some momentum by forcing a couple turnovers and scoring four points, Gonzaga got tentative and didn't share the basketball as well, forced shots and almost played not to lose. Did they win the game? Sure. I'm not sure momentum actually helps teams win. In fact, we saw the same thing last season a bunch of times when Gonzaga blew big leads but managed to win games. UCONN game being one of them.

But I will say, without momentum you can't really win games, but it certainly doesn't guarantee winning games either. I think the definition of "momentum" is very broad and to a certain extent can be placed out of context.

What are your thoughts on that? This is a great topic and debate by the way. Thanks for sharing

kitzbuel
11-29-2016, 08:48 PM
Without a doubt there is momentum. It is psychological and has two components; an increase in confidence and focus for one side with a corresponding decrease of confidence, loss of focus, and increased sense of doubt for the opponent.

I have coached soccer games where it seems that we can do nothing wrong and every kid wants to get in on the goal scoring. The very next week we have a lead and somehow a sense of dread sneaks in and the kids are just trying to hold on and hope the game ends. The other team senses it and it bolsters their confidence. It takes discipline to focus on execution and restore confidence in that situation. That is where veteran players help.

thegloriousgoateeofKP
11-29-2016, 10:45 PM
What are your thoughts on that? This is a great topic and debate by the way. Thanks for sharing

Definitely a great topic, and one that I've thought about a lot.

But basically, to respond to what kitzbuel said, anytime we see what seems to be "momentum," we're just seeing sports crazy games played by flawed humans (even more so in kids' soccer games!)

What you said about momentum being hard to define is right on. Let's say a team goes on a 10-0 run...if it has the momentum, why would that run ever stop? Why doesn't it turn into a 20-0 run, and then a 30-0 run? If momentum truly existed (in the way broadcasters use it) the team that scores first would win every game 150-0, right? If UCLA had no momentum in 2006, and if they were emotionally shattered, lacking confidence, etc....how did they come back?

Personally, I would prefer the word "streak" to "momentum." Streaks and runs come and go, but no streak is predictive of what will happen next. The term "momentum" suggests that what just happened is likely to continue happening.

The answer, to me, is simply that sports have a great deal of pure randomness. When you say you can "feel the tide switching," I know what you mean, but I feel like that's just a way for us sports fans to try to make sports easier to understand. It's easier to point to one specific moment (Wiltjer's missed layup vs. Duke; Buckner missing the ground ball in '86) as a turning point. But there is no clear, simple turning point. A basketball game is a chain of events and probabilities with thousands of turning points. Every dribble, every pass, everything changes the odds slightly. That reality just happens to be more difficult for us to wrap our minds around, so we narrow it down to one seemingly obvious one.

zagfan24
11-30-2016, 05:36 AM
A few snippets from a great book called Scorecasting that takes an empirical look at sports cliches:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hx1ych9ofoyfkm1/Momentum%201.png?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ttytrhppr3x5a9v/Momentum%202.png?dl=0

One of my favorite books. And a very interesting thread. The increasing use and understanding of statistics and analytically driven coaching decisions is fascinating. Thanks to all who have provided insight in this conversation.

gozagswoohoo
11-30-2016, 05:55 AM
Interesting thought. Never really looked at it that way.

I'll say this though, once we fouled them, and they had roughly 5 seconds left to make their final shot....I would venture to guess the final three pointer they DO get off is going to be more rushed, more contested, and maybe not even in the hands of their best 3pt shooter, which would all lead me to believe their chances of making it might be significantly less than the 35%.

This is just me personally, but I play it straight up. If my team is well-coached, and everyone does their job, I would hope we can keep them from getting a decent look in that final hectic 5 seconds.

Pretty interesting discussion and thoughts though. Your idea is much more believable/considerable, the more I read through everything in this thread.

gozagswoohoo
11-30-2016, 05:59 AM
Oh, one other thing to consider. Let's say you do foul when you're up 2, and the other team gets a couple free throws or a 1 and 1 situation. There's also always that chance that you don't get the rebound off of the FT, and they hit a bunny or kick it out for a quick jumper and you lose THAT way. Just one more thing that makes me want to tell my defense to put their big boy britches on and play some hard-nosed defense for 5 seconds, and the W is right there for us.

LongIslandZagFan
11-30-2016, 06:02 AM
Here is my issue... If you don't have the foul to give, you run a higher risk. If it is, say, a 1 and 1. If the player makes the first and misses the second, but they get the board and put back... just as bad as them hitting a three and at a closer range. Yes, they are less likely to get the rebound. I'd prefer they play the D and work hard to deny the clean 3.

ETA ^^^^ Woohoo and I think alike at the same time it seems.

gonzagafan62
11-30-2016, 06:04 AM
Definitely a great topic, and one that I've thought about a lot.

But basically, to respond to what kitzbuel said, anytime we see what seems to be "momentum," we're just seeing sports — crazy games played by flawed humans (even more so in kids' soccer games!)

What you said about momentum being hard to define is right on. Let's say a team goes on a 10-0 run...if it has the momentum, why would that run ever stop? Why doesn't it turn into a 20-0 run, and then a 30-0 run? If momentum truly existed (in the way broadcasters use it) the team that scores first would win every game 150-0, right? If UCLA had no momentum in 2006, and if they were emotionally shattered, lacking confidence, etc....how did they come back?

Personally, I would prefer the word "streak" to "momentum." Streaks and runs come and go, but no streak is predictive of what will happen next. The term "momentum" suggests that what just happened is likely to continue happening.

The answer, to me, is simply that sports have a great deal of pure randomness. When you say you can "feel the tide switching," I know what you mean, but I feel like that's just a way for us sports fans to try to make sports easier to understand. It's easier to point to one specific moment (Wiltjer's missed layup vs. Duke; Buckner missing the ground ball in '86) as a turning point. But there is no clear, simple turning point. A basketball game is a chain of events and probabilities with thousands of turning points. Every dribble, every pass, everything changes the odds slightly. That reality just happens to be more difficult for us to wrap our minds around, so we narrow it down to one seemingly obvious one.

Why would a teams momentum stop?

Since you're a facts guy I dug deep to look some things up from the great Sir Isaac Newton.

He discovered that mass and velocity are the most important factors In determining momentum. M x V = P (momentum)

A large bus can have a lots of momentum even when moving slowly because it has a large mass. But if you look at this clearly, why would a buses momentum ever stop? Would it hit a tree? Or a building? Or run out of gas? Same thing with basketball in my opinion. Momentum can be generated but it's kinda like that old cliche... "what goes up must come down"

What momentum starts must stop. Part of the laws of motion too. It must stop at some point. That's why In basketball games you don't usually see (but it's happened!!!!) 30-0 runs before. Everything must stop

JPtheBeasta
11-30-2016, 06:14 AM
Why would a teams momentum stop?

Since you're a facts guy I dug deep to look some things up from the great Sir Isaac Newton.

He discovered that mass and velocity are the most important factors In determining momentum. M x V = P (momentum)

A large bus can have a lots of momentum even when moving slowly because it has a large mass. But if you look at this clearly, why would a buses momentum ever stop? Would it hit a tree? Or a building? Or run out of gas? Same thing with basketball in my opinion. Momentum can be generated but it's kinda like that old cliche... "what goes up must come down"

What momentum starts must stop. Part of the laws of motion too. It must stop at some point. That's why In basketball games you don't usually see (but it's happened!!!!) 30-0 runs before. Everything must stop

It seems to me that it is common enough to see a team expel a huge effort to tie the game only to fizzle out in OT.

gozagswoohoo
11-30-2016, 06:19 AM
Here is my issue... If you don't have the foul to give, you run a higher risk. If it is, say, a 1 and 1. If the player makes the first and misses the second, but they get the board and put back... just as bad as them hitting a three and at a closer range. Yes, they are less likely to get the rebound. I'd prefer they play the D and work hard to deny the clean 3.

ETA ^^^^ Woohoo and I think alike at the same time it seems.

So I think this is a case where two rights make a....confirmed hypothesis? So pretty much LIZF and I just successfully answered/solved this debate.

Everyone, you are MOST welcome. :cheers: :o

bballbeachbum
11-30-2016, 07:19 AM
Oh, one other thing to consider. Let's say you do foul when you're up 2, and the other team gets a couple free throws or a 1 and 1 situation. There's also always that chance that you don't get the rebound off of the FT, and they hit a bunny or kick it out for a quick jumper and you lose THAT way. Just one more thing that makes me want to tell my defense to put their big boy britches on and play some hard-nosed defense for 5 seconds, and the W is right there for us.

agree with this and LIZF. been beaten by plays just like that over the decades.
difference Sunday was Zags had a foul to give. so giving it screwed up whatever ISU was setting up.

willandi
11-30-2016, 07:31 AM
To really understand momentum...we need to break the word up into it's components and see what they are.

mo-men-tum

Mo means more, men must refer to players and Tum is an antacid. So the coach with more men AND antacids will win.

Another possible would be

Moment-um

A moment is a brief interlude, and um is a pause for when you are seeking the right words, so

trying to come up with words for what happened so quickly!

I hope this helps, but hey...ZAGS WON!!!

gozagswoohoo
11-30-2016, 07:44 AM
To really understand momentum...we need to break the word up into it's components and see what they are.

mo-men-tum

Mo means more, men must refer to players and Tum is an antacid. So the coach with more men AND antacids will win.

Another possible would be

Moment-um

A moment is a brief interlude, and um is a pause for when you are seeking the right words, so

trying to come up with words for what happened so quickly!

I hope this helps, but hey...ZAGS WON!!!


:roll:

gonzagafan62
11-30-2016, 07:46 AM
It seems to me that it is common enough to see a team expel a huge effort to tie the game only to fizzle out in OT.

It happens commonly both ways. Beauty of the game. It's never over till it's actually over

Robzagnut
11-30-2016, 08:40 AM
Disagree, but no need to be vehement!

If you have a 40-50% FT shooter, maybe. But a poor FT shooter's shot isn't predictable in how it hits the rim...long rebound or tip-in possibilities. I want to keep the ball away from the rim as much as possible with a 2 point lead.

If you want to go to overtime, give them a lay up! Makes no sense! JMO:)


I disagree too. But, never say never...

I remember Jimmy Valvano had his team foul in the final seconds of the national championship with the score TIED.

kitzbuel
11-30-2016, 08:54 AM
Interesting thought. Never really looked at it that way.

I'll say this though, once we fouled them, and they had roughly 5 seconds left to make their final shot....I would venture to guess the final three pointer they DO get off is going to be more rushed, more contested, and maybe not even in the hands of their best 3pt shooter, which would all lead me to believe their chances of making it might be significantly less than the 35%.

This is just me personally, but I play it straight up. If my team is well-coached, and everyone does their job, I would hope we can keep them from getting a decent look in that final hectic 5 seconds.

Pretty interesting discussion and thoughts though. Your idea is much more believable/considerable, the more I read through everything in this thread.

I pretty much dismissed the original idea off hand as crazy, but took a quick couple of seconds to run the probability. All of the sudden it didn't look so crazy. Ends up being a fascinating discussion with real insight on a 'money ball' approach to this situation.

maynard g krebs
11-30-2016, 11:43 AM
Sunday's game gave me an idea. I know the Zags had fouls to give, but let's say they didn't, and they were up by 2 in the dying seconds.

Why not foul anyway?

If you let the other team get off a shot, it's probably going to be a 3, and at that point, you have about a 35% chance of losing. However, if you foul, you virtually guarantee OT (in which you have a 50-50 shot), and THAT only happens if the other team makes both free throws (just foul the worst shooter they have on the floor...a player has to be 70% or better for the odds of him making two straight free throws to eclipse 50%).

And even if he DOES make both to tie, you have 5 or 6 seconds to go try to win.

It makes so much sense to me...anyone vehemently disagree?

Just opened the thread for 1st time, so haven't read responses. But I would question the 35% assumption. That's true overall for 3's, but I would assume it's considerably lower for contested desperation 3's as the game clock expires. 15-20 range would be my guess.

Only way you foul up 2 is to prevent a layup, or you are fouling a really bad ft shooter. And even then you better have checked out that he's not one of those guys that nuts up in the clutch.

Protect the 3 pt line and the rim; make them take a tough 2 pt shot, or a desperation heave from 3.

bballbeachbum
11-30-2016, 11:52 AM
I disagree too. But, never say never...

I remember Jimmy Valvano had his team foul in the final seconds of the national championship with the score TIED.

master of the tactical foul and how to apply that pressure to the right opponent, very unconventional but effective for him. the 30 for 30 'survive and advance' pays proper dues to that magic touch he had for it

LongIslandZagFan
11-30-2016, 12:19 PM
What is the % of rebounds off FTs for the shooting team. Not sure that stat exists... but I guess one would need to balance that, along with personnel on the floor for the shooting team, to the number of 3 pt shooters. Also, where are we talking about on the clock? Are we talking about leaving enough time on the clock that if things go south the ball can be advanced to at least mid-court? Seems like way too many parameters and open questions. It is an interesting proposition... but I go back to my original response... much rather D up and force a contested 3.

That being said, when Few had them foul with the foul to give and no more time outs for ISU... I turned to my son and said... that there was genius. It was possible though doubtful that in the 30 second TO that ISU drew up a second play in contingency and it certainly would not have been drawn up in a way to plan for a 5 second time frame.

thegloriousgoateeofKP
11-30-2016, 12:48 PM
I disagree too. But, never say never...

I remember Jimmy Valvano had his team foul in the final seconds of the national championship with the score TIED.

If the other team has a bad enough free throw shooter on the court, I would absolutely do the same!

A 60% free throw shooter is unlikely to make both FTs. So you get the ball, down by 1, with the chance to drive and draw a foul (in a situation where the refs are more likely to call fouls). Even if he makes both, you can tie or take a 3 and win. Better to do that than play D, hope to get a stop, hope the refs don't call a foul on you with 0.2 left on the clock when you'd have no chance to answer...

oh, and and even THEN, you have to win a 50-50 proposition in OT.

People seem to forget that getting to OT only gives you a 50-50 shot. Why is that the goal so often in these end-game situations?

thegloriousgoateeofKP
11-30-2016, 12:50 PM
Interesting thought. Never really looked at it that way.

I'll say this though, once we fouled them, and they had roughly 5 seconds left to make their final shot....I would venture to guess the final three pointer they DO get off is going to be more rushed, more contested, and maybe not even in the hands of their best 3pt shooter, which would all lead me to believe their chances of making it might be significantly less than the 35%.

FWIW, I have seen evidence that defense doesn't actually have a big effect on 3-point shooting percentages.

Game-to-game variance is more the result of randomness. Zags shoot 50% one game, 25% the next game, that doesn't indicate the other team played better defense in Game 2. More likely, the Zags just had a rough shooting day. So my instinct is that contesting a shot doesn't change the chances that it goes in by very much. I think by contesting, you're actually more likely to commit a foul than you are to meaningfully alter the shot.

thegloriousgoateeofKP
11-30-2016, 12:55 PM
Here is my issue... If you don't have the foul to give, you run a higher risk. If it is, say, a 1 and 1. If the player makes the first and misses the second, but they get the board and put back...

Finally (and sorry for the multiple posts, but wanted to respond to three separate ideas), my guess is that this scenario is rare enough so as to be statistically negligible. Certainly much, much rarer than the chance of a three (even a long, contested one) going in. By fouling when up 2, you're virtually guaranteed not to lose in regulation.

gozagswoohoo
11-30-2016, 01:31 PM
FWIW, I have seen evidence that defense doesn't actually have a big effect on 3-point shooting percentages.

Game-to-game variance is more the result of randomness. Zags shoot 50% one game, 25% the next game, that doesn't indicate the other team played better defense in Game 2. More likely, the Zags just had a rough shooting day. So my instinct is that contesting a shot doesn't change the chances that it goes in by very much. I think by contesting, you're actually more likely to commit a foul than you are to meaningfully alter the shot.

Yeah, I see your point there. That's probably pretty accurate. That being said, my thoughts on it are that there's a decent chance things play out exactly like they did against Iowa St. You foul them with just a few seconds left on the clock, and then the other team is left trying to get a decent shot up with just a few seconds on the clock, and if you play solid defense, they might NOT even GET a shot off in regulation. But if they do, it's going to be rushed and may not even be their best 3 point shooter.

gonzagafan62
11-30-2016, 01:33 PM
Just to be clear Iowa state didn't get that shot off the other day. Not sure who all caught that lol

SWZag
11-30-2016, 01:35 PM
If a foul were to happen and a free-throw is missed, I would believe the team that is behind will be trying extra hard to get the rebound. I've seen many games with this scenario and there is often a foul with a long walk to the other end for free-throws, essentially ending the game. If a player is in a "panic" to get a last second shot up off a missed free-throw, there is often extracurricular activities taking place. There are the flukes where a ball bounces perfectly for an offensive board, but chances are slim.

gozagswoohoo
11-30-2016, 01:37 PM
Just to be clear Iowa state didn't get that shot off the other day. Not sure who all caught that lol

Right, exactly. That's what I'm sayin! That strategy was executed perfectly.

gozagswoohoo
11-30-2016, 01:45 PM
"You will make 0% of the shots you don't get off in time" ~Alexander Hamilton

Shanachie
11-30-2016, 02:11 PM
Kenpom has written about fouling when up 3 (http://kenpom.com/blog/yet-another-study-about-fouling-when-up-3/) and fouling when tied (http://kenpom.com/blog/studying-whether-to-foul-when-tied-part-3/), but I haven't seen anything about fouling up 2.

He thinks fouling when up 3 is too close to call:


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.

Fouling when tied depends on whether you're the favorite (i.e., how likely you are to win in overtime) and on the quality of the free throw shooter.


What is the % of rebounds off FTs for the shooting team. Not sure that stat exists...

Kenpom notes that on average, it is about 15%, but in end-of game cases with the shooting team behind, it's more like 40% because they are desperate and don't care about getting back to prevent an uncontested layup at the other end.

maynard g krebs
11-30-2016, 02:49 PM
FWIW, I have seen evidence that defense doesn't actually have a big effect on 3-point shooting percentages.

Game-to-game variance is more the result of randomness. Zags shoot 50% one game, 25% the next game, that doesn't indicate the other team played better defense in Game 2. More likely, the Zags just had a rough shooting day. So my instinct is that contesting a shot doesn't change the chances that it goes in by very much. I think by contesting, you're actually more likely to commit a foul than you are to meaningfully alter the shot.

That's not the issue he (and I) were pointing out. It's a last second shot, where you don't have the 30 seconds to run your offense till you get the shooter open. You are much more likely to have to take a deep or highly contested shot to beat the buzzer in this situation; hence a much lower percentage of making that particular shot. Has nothing to do with game to game variance.

While I'm at it, some 60% ft shooters become 90% shooters in the last minute of a tight game, and some 90% shooters drop off in that situation. Gotta consider that too.

gonzagafan62
11-30-2016, 03:12 PM
Goatee,

Clear your messages bud. Trying to send you one.

Thanks,

62

thegloriousgoateeofKP
11-30-2016, 04:56 PM
Goatee,

Clear your messages bud. Trying to send you one.

Thanks,

62

Done.

gozagswoohoo
12-01-2016, 11:38 AM
Goatee,

Clear your messages bud. Trying to send you one.

Thanks,

62



Secrets secrets are no fun, secrets secrets hurt someone.

FrancisTheGoat
12-01-2016, 11:39 AM
Secrets secrets are no fun, secrets secrets hurt someone.

I got a secret for you Woohoo. It envolves me and yor muther.

gozagswoohoo
12-01-2016, 11:41 AM
I got a secret for you Woohoo. It envolves me and yor muther.

For the love of all that is holy. I dropped you off at the humane society?!? I'm not sure what is more surprising, the fact that you're now somehow OUT, or the fact that you have gained access to a computer again.

Rangerzag
12-01-2016, 12:18 PM
For the love of all that is holy. I dropped you off at the humane society?!? I'm not sure what is more surprising, the fact that you're now somehow OUT, or the fact that you have gained access to a computer again.

I predict more Francis dreams for woohoo ;^)

jake
12-01-2016, 01:10 PM
Just opened the thread for 1st time, so haven't read responses. But I would question the 35% assumption. That's true overall for 3's, but I would assume it's considerably lower for contested desperation 3's as the game clock expires. 15-20 range would be my guess.

Only way you foul up 2 is to prevent a layup, or you are fouling a really bad ft shooter. And even then you better have checked out that he's not one of those guys that nuts up in the clutch.

Protect the 3 pt line and the rim; make them take a tough 2 pt shot, or a desperation heave from 3.

I agree with this. A significant portion of three point shooting percentage from game to game may be random variance, but putting up a 3 with less than 5 or 10 seconds left rarely leads to a look that is as clean as the "typical" three point shot. It is often rushed, over a defender, off-balance, etc.

There is also always the chance if you D it up the other team fumbles the ball, throws a bad pass, turns it over, doesn't get the shot up in time etc. You lose that % when you send them to the line. You also introduce other variables like an offensive rebound on a missed free throw or bone head play off a made or missed free throw (Chris Weber or GU vs. Florida in 99). In those scenarios the team down 2 ends up getting another chance for a last second shot that has 10%, 20%, 30%, whatever it is, chance of going in.

My opinion is it makes the most sense to play defense, but the original post still has me thinking and made me consider the alternative a lot more than I originally thought.

MDABE80
12-01-2016, 01:14 PM
Think Jimmer vs Meech. Which would YOU foul? This is the crux of it. Simple.