Why not foul on last possession of regulation?

[Dryfly88]

Ok, my blood pressure has come down some and I would like to try and have a civil conversation about this strategy.

I'm a huge proponent of fouling. That isn't a revisionist reaction to what happened today. I was standing up in Wings Ect screaming Foul, Foul the whole time they are bringing the ball up the floor.

I strongly feel that it is the best strategy. I don't know why most coaches are afraid to do it. There are so many things that have to go against you and even then you are most likely to only end up in overtime anyway. The odds of getting beat are much smaller than a guy simply making a 3.

Please give your reasons for or against. Please keep it on point and let's don't have it go into a fire Painter thing. I would just like to hear why you wouldn't use this strategy.

 

[pu1985]

I've been an advocate for years - up three and under ten, foul them.
Don't know how many times I've seen them hit the three but it's been a bunch

 

[cprh9u]

100% agree with you OP. Painter is not innovative. I wouldn't call fouling at the end innovative, but compared to Painter, it sure is.

 

[asby]

Because we have Painter on the sidelines and he can't or will not adjust his style

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Ok, my blood pressure has come down some and I would like to try and have a civil conversation about this strategy.

I'm a huge proponent of fouling. That isn't a revisionist reaction to what happened today. I was standing up in Wings Ect screaming Foul, Foul the whole time they are bringing the ball up the floor.

I strongly feel that it is the best strategy. I don't know why most coaches are afraid to do it. There are so many things that have to go against you and even then you are most likely to only end up in overtime anyway. The odds of getting beat are much smaller than a guy simply making a 3.

Please give your reasons for or against. Please keep it on point and let's don't have it go into a fire Painter thing. I would just like to hear why you wouldn't use this strategy.

Should have fouled. No brainer.

 

[Cevol03]

out of everything that went wrong today, this one was the easiest to control

 

[boiler-deuce]

Honestly, I think Painter thought he played the odds. He didn't think the 3 would be made. It was, and from that point on, it was all over. He gambled, IMO, and you don't do that when you're stacking the kind of paper he is. Sorry, but his coaching style is played out and should be unacceptable here.

 

[Dryfly88]

out of everything that went wrong today, this one was the easiest to control

I think that is exactly why I like this strategy. It puts control with you instead of the opponent.

 

[Summy1]

exactly, they should have fouled so they couldn't tie it with a 3. Makes too much since I guess?

 

[honey_badger]

Yes, even the announcer said we should have fouled and would have won the game. Total gaff by Painter. But there's always next year y'all

 

[SoCalFan]

Because coaches are afraid that the foul might occur while the player is shooting

 

[SoloBoiler]

We lost a home game against Northwesrern when they hit a 3 to send it to OT in what I think was Painter's first year as coach. He said he didn't foul then because he didn't want them to hit one free throw miss the 2nd, get the rebound and win with a 3. While things like that can happen (Penn St.last year), I still like the odds of a team, especially one who rebounds so well, to pull it out 90+% percent of the time. We lost then and we lost tonight. Maybe he'll make a different decision the next time this comes up.

 

[02Boilermaker]

I'm a huge advocate of fouling with 10 seconds or less with a 3pt lead. I think it's a no-brainer.

I don't think Painter wanted to foul (which I think is a mistake), but I'm not sure there was a good opportunity to foul in the last 10 seconds without risking a shooting foul anyway. Hagins did a little shimmy/fake where it looked like he might rise up & shoot (especially if a whistle blew)...I don't think PJ could safely foul there. Then Hagins took a big step back dribble & fired an off-balance shot from the logo with 7+ seconds left before there was another opportunity to foul. I just didn't see a huge opening to safely get the foul even though I wanted one.

 

[4IUSox2]

Definitely should have fouled, but many coaches just seem so stubborn about it. I guess Painter is in that boat. I'd rather give the foul a few seconds earlier at half court, where the offense isn't throwing up the shot yet.

 

[banshee90]

Honestly, I think Painter thought he played the odds. He didn't think the 3 would be made. It was, and from that point on, it was all over. He gambled, IMO, and you don't do that when you're stacking the kind of paper he is. Sorry, but his coaching style is played out and should be unacceptable here.

the odds? The odds of a good player hitting both ft (.9 to .8)^2 = .81 to .64 or 64 and 81%, but this has way more thought to it way more choking no flow maybe they have to talk. Do you miss the second one and try to score a 2, do you hit 2 and hope for a turnover? What happens if I miss the first 1 do I just miss the 2nd and try to rebound.

As painter has shown when you stop and think you lose, when you put up a prayer you are more likely to win.

 

[Summy1]

We lost a home game against Northwesrern when they hit a 3 to send it to OT in what I think was Painter's first year as coach. He said he didn't foul then because he didn't want them to hit one free throw miss the 2nd, get the rebound and win with a 3. While things like that can happen (Penn St.last year), I still like the odds of a team, especially one who rebounds so well, to pull it out 90+% percent of the time.

I would have fouled. So what if they make the first and miss the 2nd and get the rebound. Chances are it will go our way and help us win.

 

[BoilerBiker]

yes, agree.

there's probably many sources out there, but this paper is fairly recent.
"One of the most surprising outcomes of our model demonstrates that the leading team should foul more often than the trailing team. Recent discussion among sports analysts supports the idea of fouling when ahead by three points during the final seconds. However, our model goes further, suggesting that teams foul earlier with larger leads as well."
edit: i believe it is in this paper too that they mention the 'bonus' free throw and how that relates to the incentives of fouling.
http://www.caam.rice.edu/~fhk2/basketballendgame.pdf

another quick analysis from a rose-hulman guy:
"The basic conclusion we come to is this:
With time running out (final possession), and a 3-point lead, the defensive team is roughly 4 times more likely to "blow the lead" and have to play overtime if they choose to play defense, rather than foul in the waning seconds of the game."
http://www.82games.com/lawhorn.htm

 

[BoilerBulldog]

Except virtually no coach fouls in that position. And it was a crazy shot that went in. I think we all would be OK with a contested 28 foot shot. It went in. That's not what lost the game.

 

[Cevol03]

Painter has said he is usually against fouling in these situations, but we actually did this last year against O$U because Painter was worried about Deangelo Russell making a last second 3. Worked like a charm and we won the game.

 

[Dryfly88]

Except virtually no coach fouls in that position. And it was a crazy shot that went in. I think we all would be OK with a contested 28 foot shot. It went in. That's not what lost the game.

Even after the meltdown in the last 3 minutes, if the fouling strategy had been employed we stood a better chance of winning in regulation. No one play loses a game. My point was this one play could have prevented going into OT which was the last thing we wanted to do after losing all momentum.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Ok, my blood pressure has come down some and I would like to try and have a civil conversation about this strategy.

I'm a huge proponent of fouling. That isn't a revisionist reaction to what happened today. I was standing up in Wings Ect screaming Foul, Foul the whole time they are bringing the ball up the floor.

I strongly feel that it is the best strategy. I don't know why most coaches are afraid to do it. There are so many things that have to go against you and even then you are most likely to only end up in overtime anyway. The odds of getting beat are much smaller than a guy simply making a 3.

Please give your reasons for or against. Please keep it on point and let's don't have it go into a fire Painter thing. I would just like to hear why you wouldn't use this strategy.

I've been a Painter supporter for a long time.....That being said, you're up three you foul with less than 10 seconds. And then you call one of your two time outs to set up your offense and get an inbound play. I was sitting in a great neighborhood bar in Indy and at the same time, the entire bar.....including IU fans beside me.....shouted in unison, "Foul him". And then, after he hit the three, once again, "Time out....time out". While the players choked with a 14 point lead, the end of the game in regulation was on Painter. This loss will hurt recruiting for a long time.