Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Intentionally Fouling
Tequilla
Member Posts: 20,231
For you fucktards that think it is a great idea ... THAT is why you don't do it.
Introducing a regulation loss into the equation when it otherwise doesn't exist is insanely FS and you deserve shit coaching like Romar.
If you didn't know that they were going to lose the game when up 3 and fouling ... HAHAHAHA
Introducing a regulation loss into the equation when it otherwise doesn't exist is insanely FS and you deserve shit coaching like Romar.
If you didn't know that they were going to lose the game when up 3 and fouling ... HAHAHAHA
Comments
-
Huh?
Up 3, you foul.
Romar was a dumbass when he didn't/wouldn't do that against UConn in 2006.
I didn't watch the game because CBB is awful this year and TSIO for this shit team and has been for a while. But I assume something happened where that backfired. -
So you didn't watch but decided to add your $0.02 Tommy? No wonder Puppy own you like Purina Dog Chow.ThomasFremont said:Huh?
Up 3, you foul.
Romar was a dumbass when he didn't/wouldn't do that against UConn in 2006.
I didn't watch the game because CBB is awful this year and TSIO for this shit team and has been for a while. But I assume something happened where that backfired. -
Up 3, you do foul. But only when there is less than 3 seconda on the clock. You don't do it with 7 seconds when they are inbounding at the three point line
-
No I didn't watch. But you're using one example of fouling up 3 not working as evidence against the strategy?Tequilla said:
So you didn't watch but decided to add your $0.02 Tommy? No wonder Puppy own you like Purina Dog Chow.ThomasFremont said:Huh?
Up 3, you foul.
Romar was a dumbass when he didn't/wouldn't do that against UConn in 2006.
I didn't watch the game because CBB is awful this year and TSIO for this shit team and has been for a while. But I assume something happened where that backfired.
OK! -
Bingo.SevenEleven said:Up 3, you do foul. But only when there is less than 3 seconda on the clock. You don't do it with 7 seconds when they are inbounding at the three point line
The reason you do it under 3 seconds (which BTW is hard and requires the offense to give you the opportunity to foul without being in a position to be shooting) is because your opportunity to lose the game in regulation goes way down.
Think about simple risk management here and worst things that can happen:
Scenario #1:
Foul with 3 seconds left up 3
Opponent makes 1st free throw
Intentionally misses 2nd free throw
Ball gets batted out beyond the 3 point line + Opponent gets the ball + Makes 3 point shot
OR
Offense rebounds ball + makes shot + gets fouled + makes free throw
Result: Down 1 with LIMITED (if any) time left
Scenario #2:
Foul with 3 seconds left up 3
Opponent makes both free throws (more likely in NBA game where you can advance the ball)
Struggle to inbounds ball and throw "up for grabs" ball into opposing back court that is stolen
Remaining time + pass/dribble results in 40+ foot jump shot in a completely scrambled and unscripted situation (unless they have a timeout - which Oregon State didn't have in this example)
In either of the above situations, the odds of the opponent winning are probably sufficiently below 10%.
Compare against what UW was faced with tonight:
Ideal Scenario by Fouling:
Foul with 5 seconds left up 3
Opponent misses free throws
You get fouled and make free throws
Up by more than 1 possession ... game over
Very Possible Scenario by Fouling (what played out):
Foul with 5 seconds left up 3
Opponent makes 2 free throws to be down 1
Now, this is where I really disagree with fouling with this much time left as here are all the ways that you can really introduce losing into the equation:
1) Turnover on inbounds pass
2) Turnover on opponent's trap and poor pass (can't be discounted with freshmen)
3) Travel turnover
4) Fouled but fail to make 2 FTs allowing a 3 to beat you
The best case is that you make 2 FTs to get you back up 3 and then you're executing the scenarios above. The problem with having to shoot FTs though is that even for an 80% shooter, the odds of making both FTs is 64%. In a high pressure situation, I would expect that the odds drop under 60%. Which means that you're introducing the opportunity of a loss into the equation at least 40% of the time. Even if the opposition is able to find a 3 point shot that results in them making it 30% of the time, you're now losing over 10% of the time ... and let's be honest, by not fouling, the odds of losing the game in regulation probably fall somewhere in the 1-2% range. It's introducing risk with really limited upside in my opinion.
Now, consider if you don't foul and Oregon State makes a 3 with say 2-3 seconds left in the game leaving you in a position where you maybe win the game 20% of the time in regulation on the resulting inbounds play. The odds that Oregon State makes a highly contested 3 is probably 40% at the most. That means that you're going to win the game in regulation at minimum the 60% of the time that they miss the 3 plus close to an incremental 10% of the time that you make the winning shot in regulation. There's also 30% of the existing scenario where the game goes to overtime which is at minimum a coin flip. So at worst you're looking at being 85%+ likely to win the game with virtually no downside to lose in regulation.
It's the downside risk that keeps me away from the fouling scenario with too much time left on the clock. You could maybe talk me into it if my team was in a situation where the idea of foul trouble and being a decided overtime underdog shifted the odds (but let's be honest, college coaches aren't thinking about that). Otherwise, the odds tell you that you are comparably expected to win in either scenario to the point that neither is really enough of a significant advantage to the other on upside (both say you should win often) ... but the immediate downside risk to one far outweighs any benefits that it has in my opinion. -
Except that I've been consistently against the strategy with few exceptions ... if the fouling team's FTs matter in the scenario being executed, then fouling isn't the right strategy.ThomasFremont said:
No I didn't watch. But you're using one example of fouling up 3 not working as evidence against the strategy?Tequilla said:
So you didn't watch but decided to add your $0.02 Tommy? No wonder Puppy own you like Purina Dog Chow.ThomasFremont said:Huh?
Up 3, you foul.
Romar was a dumbass when he didn't/wouldn't do that against UConn in 2006.
I didn't watch the game because CBB is awful this year and TSIO for this shit team and has been for a while. But I assume something happened where that backfired.
OK! -
You oppose the statistically superior strategy?Tequilla said:
Except that I've been consistently against the strategy with few exceptions ... if the fouling team's FTs matter in the scenario being executed, then fouling isn't the right strategy.ThomasFremont said:
No I didn't watch. But you're using one example of fouling up 3 not working as evidence against the strategy?Tequilla said:
So you didn't watch but decided to add your $0.02 Tommy? No wonder Puppy own you like Purina Dog Chow.ThomasFremont said:Huh?
Up 3, you foul.
Romar was a dumbass when he didn't/wouldn't do that against UConn in 2006.
I didn't watch the game because CBB is awful this year and TSIO for this shit team and has been for a while. But I assume something happened where that backfired.
OK!
Bold move. -
All about downside risk ... why would I want to risk losing in regulation when I don't need to?ThomasFremont said:
You oppose the statistically superior strategy?Tequilla said:
Except that I've been consistently against the strategy with few exceptions ... if the fouling team's FTs matter in the scenario being executed, then fouling isn't the right strategy.ThomasFremont said:
No I didn't watch. But you're using one example of fouling up 3 not working as evidence against the strategy?Tequilla said:
So you didn't watch but decided to add your $0.02 Tommy? No wonder Puppy own you like Purina Dog Chow.ThomasFremont said:Huh?
Up 3, you foul.
Romar was a dumbass when he didn't/wouldn't do that against UConn in 2006.
I didn't watch the game because CBB is awful this year and TSIO for this shit team and has been for a while. But I assume something happened where that backfired.
OK!
Bold move.
The other problem is that the variables in play are very much fluid in nature and just complicated enough that I find it hard to believe that the average basketball coach can calculate as much on the fly.
The statistical superiority in my mind isn't vast (my very rough calculations would say that at minimum you're going to win 85%+ of the games that you just play sound defense) ... at least not vast enough to compensate me for that immediate risk of losing.
If you have access to something that shows the statistical superiority, the calculation of such, and the underlying assumptions, I'd love to see it. -
Like T said....there are a lot of variables involved...I'd be nervous about fouling a team if they are in a one in one or double bonus situation with more than say 2 or 2.5 seconds left. If they get the rebound, they can kick it out for a three fairly easily, or score a two if that's all they need. It still seems worth the risk, but it's not with seven seconds.
-
Dude, no one is going to read all that. NO ONE. Good effort though.Tequilla said:
Bingo.SevenEleven said:Up 3, you do foul. But only when there is less than 3 seconda on the clock. You don't do it with 7 seconds when they are inbounding at the three point line
The reason you do it under 3 seconds (which BTW is hard and requires the offense to give you the opportunity to foul without being in a position to be shooting) is because your opportunity to lose the game in regulation goes way down.
Think about simple risk management here and worst things that can happen:
Scenario #1:
Foul with 3 seconds left up 3
Opponent makes 1st free throw
Intentionally misses 2nd free throw
Ball gets batted out beyond the 3 point line + Opponent gets the ball + Makes 3 point shot
OR
Offense rebounds ball + makes shot + gets fouled + makes free throw
Result: Down 1 with LIMITED (if any) time left
Scenario #2:
Foul with 3 seconds left up 3
Opponent makes both free throws (more likely in NBA game where you can advance the ball)
Struggle to inbounds ball and throw "up for grabs" ball into opposing back court that is stolen
Remaining time + pass/dribble results in 40+ foot jump shot in a completely scrambled and unscripted situation (unless they have a timeout - which Oregon State didn't have in this example)
In either of the above situations, the odds of the opponent winning are probably sufficiently below 10%.
Compare against what UW was faced with tonight:
Ideal Scenario by Fouling:
Foul with 5 seconds left up 3
Opponent misses free throws
You get fouled and make free throws
Up by more than 1 possession ... game over
Very Possible Scenario by Fouling (what played out):
Foul with 5 seconds left up 3
Opponent makes 2 free throws to be down 1
Now, this is where I really disagree with fouling with this much time left as here are all the ways that you can really introduce losing into the equation:
1) Turnover on inbounds pass
2) Turnover on opponent's trap and poor pass (can't be discounted with freshmen)
3) Travel turnover
4) Fouled but fail to make 2 FTs allowing a 3 to beat you
The best case is that you make 2 FTs to get you back up 3 and then you're executing the scenarios above. The problem with having to shoot FTs though is that even for an 80% shooter, the odds of making both FTs is 64%. In a high pressure situation, I would expect that the odds drop under 60%. Which means that you're introducing the opportunity of a loss into the equation at least 40% of the time. Even if the opposition is able to find a 3 point shot that results in them making it 30% of the time, you're now losing over 10% of the time ... and let's be honest, by not fouling, the odds of losing the game in regulation probably fall somewhere in the 1-2% range. It's introducing risk with really limited upside in my opinion.
Now, consider if you don't foul and Oregon State makes a 3 with say 2-3 seconds left in the game leaving you in a position where you maybe win the game 20% of the time in regulation on the resulting inbounds play. The odds that Oregon State makes a highly contested 3 is probably 40% at the most. That means that you're going to win the game in regulation at minimum the 60% of the time that they miss the 3 plus close to an incremental 10% of the time that you make the winning shot in regulation. There's also 30% of the existing scenario where the game goes to overtime which is at minimum a coin flip. So at worst you're looking at being 85%+ likely to win the game with virtually no downside to lose in regulation.
It's the downside risk that keeps me away from the fouling scenario with too much time left on the clock. You could maybe talk me into it if my team was in a situation where the idea of foul trouble and being a decided overtime underdog shifted the odds (but let's be honest, college coaches aren't thinking about that). Otherwise, the odds tell you that you are comparably expected to win in either scenario to the point that neither is really enough of a significant advantage to the other on upside (both say you should win often) ... but the immediate downside risk to one far outweighs any benefits that it has in my opinion.
