Do you foul?

[The_Lillard_King]

Just read a short blurb about the four USA coaches discussing over dinner whether you foul when you are up by 3 and the other team has the ball in the final seconds of the game. Two coaches said you take the three-pointer out of play by putting the other team on the line. The other two coaches said trust your defense and force the opposing team to make the necessary play.

McMillan, D'Antoni, Boeheim, Krzyzewski.

If you haven't read this, which coach picked which strategy?

 

[Nikolokolus]

I don't remember what everyone else said but I seem to recall that Nate said you trust your Defense. It's bee awhile. BTW do you have the link?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I don't remember what everyone else said but I seem to recall that Nate said you trust your Defense. It's bee awhile. BTW do you have the link?

Well I was hoping to get some responses before showing the answer. But I got to run soon, so anyone who wants to see the answer, here is the link.

http://columbian.com/article/20080904/BLOGS05/809049981/-1/blazerbanter

 

[Tortimer]

I can see both side of this argument. It depends a little on the team your playing against. Normally I would just trust your defense and force them into taking a 2 points shot but if they have a bunch of great 3 point shooters especially ones that get their shot off the dribble I would probably foul.

 

[THE HCP]

I say foul. My blazers have been burnt a couple times in the past for not.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I foul unless they have great rebounding.

 

[maxiep]

Foul. It's the basketball equivalent of the prevent defense.

 

[Hank The Dwarf]

Foul. It's the basketball equivalent of the prevent defense.

Disagree... by fouling you do two things that you don't want.

1- you extend the game. The clock is your enemy when you are ahead .. stopping the clock for any reason is a bad idea.

2- fouling is the only chance you have to actually lose the game. If they make the 1st FT - then intentionally miss the 2nd - they have the opportunity to rebound kick for a 3 and win the game.

Play it straight up and hope to defend the 3 well.. if they hit it - you go to OT... worst case scenario.

 

[Ed O]

I say foul, as well. The odds of anything happening other than a win are very slim if you foul... the team would have to get an offensive rebound off of a missed free throw and/or your team would have to miss free throws at the other end.

Ed O.

 

[BlazerWookee]

If you foul and lose, you should have trusted your D.

If you trust your D and lose, you should have fouled.

Seriously, though, I think it depends on who has the ball. If you can force them to pass it to Shaq, you foul the crap out of him. If Nash has the ball, you play it straight up.

 

[THE HCP]

Wasn't it Dunleavy who refused to foul? I remember Snapper calling him out a couple times for not.

 

[maxiep]

Wasn't it Dunleavy who refused to foul? I remember Snapper calling him out a couple times for not.

I thought Dunleavy was the inventor of the "Hack-a-Shaq".

 

[THE HCP]

I thought Dunleavy was the inventor of the "Hack-a-Shaq".

You might be right. I just remember a couple games back in his day......... nevermind! It was Mo Cheeks!

 

[Minstrel]

1- you extend the game. The clock is your enemy when you are ahead .. stopping the clock for any reason is a bad idea.

More play time is bad. Stopping the clock to let them shoot free throws with only a few seconds isn't really a negative. It doesn't "extend the game"...it is essentially saying, "We'll take the possession for the remaining time left, the better to run that time off. As a trade for getting the ball back, we'll give you a good chance at 2 points, when you need 3."

2- fouling is the only chance you have to actually lose the game. If they make the 1st FT - then intentionally miss the 2nd - they have the opportunity to rebound kick for a 3 and win the game.

Since you advocate defending the three-pointer, you can lose the game letting them shoot, as well. If they nail the three-pointer and draw a foul, they can win the game on a four-point play. You can't say "Don't foul"...if you expect your team to try and defend the three-pointer well, that means close defense on the shooter which always runs the risk of a foul.

You simply have to consider the likelihoods, not just "What ways can you possibly lose?" The chance of a made free throw, a miss, offensive rebound, kick out and shot in time, and made three-pointer is remote. There are so many components to the chain, you're just snake-bitten in terms of luck if it happens.

Whereas, making them shoot free throws reduces the likelihood of their best chance at spoiling your win: making a three-pointer in a half-court set. It's always best to reduce the other team's best chance, even if it introduces an exotic new way they could tie or win.

 

[mook]

Funny, you'd think some economist or statistician somewhere would've done an analysis of both strategies and determined the likelihood of the better outcome. Seems like it'd be pretty easy to study and arrive at a conclusive answer.

 

[maxiep]

Funny, you'd think some economist or statistician somewhere would've done an analysis of both strategies and determined the likelihood of the better outcome. Seems like it'd be pretty easy to study and arrive at a conclusive answer.

They did that very thing for football. They came to the conclusion that coaches punt on 4th down too often and they don't go for two enough.

 

[Minstrel]

They did that very thing for football. They came to the conclusion that coaches punt on 4th down too often and they don't go for two enough.

And there's a whole quasi-field for it in baseball, called "sabermetrics." I find the application of advanced statistical models to sports to be quite fascinating, especially when it validates or belies conventional wisdom.

I've always thought coaches were too conservative on fourth downs! (I'm sure I was the only one... )

 

[BlazersBlood]

They did that very thing for football. They came to the conclusion that coaches punt on 4th down too often and they don't go for two enough.

I read that article and it was amazing. It even had teams going for it on 4th down on their own end of the field. Good stuff.

I think you should foul. I didn't click on the link, but I'm sure Nate is a "trust your defense" guy.

If you are at home, maybe you trust your D. If it goes into OT, you've got the home crowd advantage. If you are on the road, you should foul and turn it into a FT battle.

I read an article on ESPN that talked about international coaches and their strategy for ending games. They were asked if it was a tie game, who do you defend at the end of the game, Lebron, Kobe, or Wade. All the coaches laughed and said they'd foul to get the ball back, EVEN IN A TIE GAME! They all said they'd rather have the ball last to have a chance to win the game. It's obvious they don't preach defense like they do in the states.

 

[Minstrel]

All the coaches laughed and said they'd foul to get the ball back, EVEN IN A TIE GAME! They all said they'd rather have the ball last to have a chance to win the game.

Well, a related thing that has always been interesting to me: would you rather be up 1 and defending on the last possession, or down 1 and with the ball for the last possession?

Obviously, the offensive and defensive abilities of each team make a big difference, but let's say both teams are dead average offensively and defensively.

I'm generally pro-active, so I'd want the ball, trailing by 1. I'd want to "decide it" so to speak, and I think the defensive team is in the passive role. A defense can, of course, make a play to decide things, but generally it comes down to whether the other team can execute and make the play. I feel it is more in the hands of the offensive team. Yet, despite preferring to trail by 1 and have the ball, I can't imagine having the guts (perhaps stupidity!) to intentionally put the other team on the line with a 1 point lead and the other team having last possession.

 

[Ed O]

I'm generally pro-active, so I'd want the ball, trailing by 1. I'd want to "decide it" so to speak, and I think the defensive team is in the passive role. A defense can, of course, make a play to decide things, but generally it comes down to whether the other team can execute and make the play. I feel it is more in the hands of the offensive team. Yet, despite preferring to trail by 1 and have the ball, I can't imagine having the guts (perhaps stupidity!) to intentionally put the other team on the line with a 1 point lead and the other team having last possession.

Ladies and gentlemen... risk aversion on display!

Minstrel believes that being down by one with 10 seconds and the ball is superior to being up by one with 10 seconds and on defense.

So with 12 seconds to go, up by one and on defense, Minstrel should have his team foul, right?

After all, the odds of even a good free throw shooter making both is only about 80% (with a 90% free throw shooter)... so there's a 1 in 5 chance that his team will be tied with the ball with 10 seconds to go... but even if the opponent makes both? Back to the "down by one, with the ball" scenario.

Which is superior than up by one with 12 seconds to go on defense.

And yet Minstrel can't see himself having his team foul!



(I'm not picking on Minstrel except insofar as this is an interesting dissonance in a logical and thoughtful basketball mind.)

Personally? I'd prefer to be up and on defense, all other things being equal.

Ed O.

 

[Jurassic]

Its silly to foul...its basically a decision between trusting your defense or your foul shooting. At the same time it really depends which of their players has the ball. You also are putting trust that if their player does miss on the 2nd shot, that your rebounding is good enough to prevent an offense rebound for the other team.

I say play it out, generally a team will not wait for a buzzer beater if they are down three, so even if they make the trey to tie it you still get the ball back and can draw up a play (assuming you have a timeout left). If you don't have one left you are screwed, because you have to push the ball all the way up.

 

[Magnum]

You absolutely foul.

I thought 82games did a study on this and it wasn't even close.

Anyone on here who said, "The only way you can lose is by fouling" is missing the point. YOU CAN LOSE IN OVERTIME! Just because you didn't lose in regulation doesn't mean your strategy worked. By winning in regulation at a higher rate and thus not going to overtime (where you lose half the time), you overcome the slightly increased risk of losing in regulation.

To lose in regulation by fouling, this scenario has to happen all in the minuscule time remaining.

Made FT: 75%
Missed FT: could be done on purpose
Offensive rebound: 10%? anyone have a stat for this?
Pass to open teammate: Opportunity for a foul to occur, or a turnover
Made 3: 35%

Multiply that out and you've got a 2.5% chance of losing

or they could make a 2 for a 3.5% chance of overtime, or a 1.75% chance of losing.

If they take a 3 to tie, and lose half the time in overtime, you lose 17.5% of the time. vs 5.25%...

I know these numbers are approximate and rough, but even if you adjusted percentages a little, it isn't going to be enough to make the not fouling strategy effective.

The fact that you can't convince nate of this with numbers scares me a lot

*edit* I looked up the off reb % for missed FTs and it's 14%. That'd make the final ration 2:1 rather than 3:1, but it's still an obvious choice.

 

[BlazersBlood]

Another point that is funny when it comes to "not fouling" and playing defense for the 3 is that the coaches tell the players to let them take the quick 2 if they go for it. Why not just foul?

 

[Minstrel]

Ladies and gentlemen... risk aversion on display!

Absolutely. But this risk aversion is easy to explain: I haven't put much effort into a rigorous analysis of whether this preference of mine is reasonable. It's just a gut feeling. I don't trust that gut feeling enough to take such an enormous risk on giving up a lead in hand.

 

[Jurassic]

The thing about fouling is that it gives the other team of bringing it within a 1 point margin. Then before you inbound they can pack it in and double your good shooters, while leaving a Shaq type to catch the ball so they can foul him. Its a huge risk to me, I always say play it out defensively. The offense won't shoot a contested shot unless they've got a Kobe, so they aren't going to get anything unless you give it to them or it's late in the shot clock (the latter option being your goal).

The only time I would foul would be if Robert Horry was on the other team.

 

[Minstrel]

The thing about fouling is that it gives the other team of bringing it within a 1 point margin. Then before you inbound they can pack it in and double your good shooters, while leaving a Shaq type to catch the ball so they can foul him.

You don't have to put a "Shaq type" on the floor for that situation.

The only time I would foul would be if Robert Horry was on the other team.

The only time you'd reverse your policy is if the other team had a thoroughly mediocre player?

 

[Jurassic]

The only time you'd reverse your policy is if the other team had a thoroughly mediocre player?

Do you not watch basketball? Robert Horry is one of the greatest clutch shooters of all time. Tim Duncan calls him "big shot Bob". In fact he ended Portland's season with a clutch three (right in front of their bench with Mo Cheeks screaming at him) just a couple years back after Scottie Pippen missed some clutch free throws. So maybe the Blazers should have implemented the foul strategy since Horry was in the game.

 

[Minstrel]

Do you not watch basketball? Robert Horry is one of the greatest clutch shooters of all time.

I do watch basketball. I'd be more inclined to believe someone who judges Horry on the basis of 3-4 shots in his career doesn't watch basketball.

 

[Jurassic]

I do watch basketball. I'd be more inclined to believe someone who judges Horry on the basis of 3-4 shots in his career doesn't watch basketball.

Well then your inclination would be wrong. A clutch shot doesn't have to be a game winner, to not acknowledge Horry speaks volumes about you.

 

[Minstrel]

Well then your inclination would be wrong. A clutch shot doesn't have to be a game winner, to not acknowledge Horry speaks volumes about you.

It says I'm not fooled by a handful of shots into thinking Horry is more valuable than his overall production and defense wold indicate. Ironically, he was a much better player in his youth and prime, before he got his "clutch" label.

You can feel free to believe Horry had some magical clutch powers that turned him into a superstar when the game was on the line. Believing in late-game witchcraft is clearly the logical stance.