I took a look at St. Peter's before our game, and the one thing that jumped at me was how much they foul! If you think Texas fouls a lot, guess what, St. Peter's has an even higher FTrate! In fact, they led the entire field in defensive FTrate.
But I also notice another thing. All those teams that fouls a lot has very high adjusted defensive efficiency. In fact, when I sort by FTrate and look at the Tournament teams, the median for the top 7 schools (median #316 in FTrate) are has a median #10 in defensive efficiency.
On the flip side of things, when I look at the bottom 7 schools that fouls the least (Purdue included), the median FTrate is #8, but the median defensive efficiency is only #74.
But we've seen how fouling a lot leads to double bonus, when every foul becomes 2 FTs? Well, if it's a shooting foul, it's 2 FTs anyway, and many times, players miss FTs when it is a heated and physical game when adrenaline overwhelms. More importantly, where they give up in FTs, they make back in getting TOs. The top 7 foul-happy teams has median defensive TO% #29, compared to #327 for the bottom 7 teams.
So that's clearly an interesting coaching philosophy. It seems that it does pay to foul more, all else considered. Now obviously I don't recommend our starters go reckless (plus Tre, I always see him as a starter), but I thought our bench players can afford to be a little bit more aggressive when defending. For example, what IT lacks in size and strength, if he can be a pest and just annoy the hell out of his man, it might be able to cover up some of his deficiency. Same with Furst. Be a little bit more physical in the post and enforce the no layup rule.
That said, I fully don’t expect nor do I think it’s a particular good idea to change defensive philosophy with 4 games left in the season. Yet, I think the numbers do show that erring on fouling (physical) is a net benefit.
Go Boilers!! Beat the Peacocks! Make Final Four!!!
But I also notice another thing. All those teams that fouls a lot has very high adjusted defensive efficiency. In fact, when I sort by FTrate and look at the Tournament teams, the median for the top 7 schools (median #316 in FTrate) are has a median #10 in defensive efficiency.
On the flip side of things, when I look at the bottom 7 schools that fouls the least (Purdue included), the median FTrate is #8, but the median defensive efficiency is only #74.
But we've seen how fouling a lot leads to double bonus, when every foul becomes 2 FTs? Well, if it's a shooting foul, it's 2 FTs anyway, and many times, players miss FTs when it is a heated and physical game when adrenaline overwhelms. More importantly, where they give up in FTs, they make back in getting TOs. The top 7 foul-happy teams has median defensive TO% #29, compared to #327 for the bottom 7 teams.
So that's clearly an interesting coaching philosophy. It seems that it does pay to foul more, all else considered. Now obviously I don't recommend our starters go reckless (plus Tre, I always see him as a starter), but I thought our bench players can afford to be a little bit more aggressive when defending. For example, what IT lacks in size and strength, if he can be a pest and just annoy the hell out of his man, it might be able to cover up some of his deficiency. Same with Furst. Be a little bit more physical in the post and enforce the no layup rule.
That said, I fully don’t expect nor do I think it’s a particular good idea to change defensive philosophy with 4 games left in the season. Yet, I think the numbers do show that erring on fouling (physical) is a net benefit.
Go Boilers!! Beat the Peacocks! Make Final Four!!!
School | adjDE | TO% (defense) | FTrate (defensive) |
St. Peter's | 28 | 48 | 348 |
Texas | 15 | 15 | 336 |
LSU | 6 | 3 | 325 |
ISU | 5 | 4 | 316 |
Montana St | 145 | 182 | 304 |
Houston | 10 | 29 | 287 |
Auburn | 8 | 84 | 279 |
Duke | 42 | 309 | 2 |
Creighton | 18 | 327 | 4 |
Purdue | 86 | 347 | 6 |
South Dakota St | 216 | 313 | 8 |
UNC | 43 | 348 | 10 |
Jacksonville St | 185 | 258 | 11 |
Notre Dame | 74 | 334 | 16 |
Last edited: