Wilkes & Scruggs
- Thread starter *Shockerrr*
- Start date
It's always a hell of a lot easier to say this in after the fact. But at the time you cannot just decide to foul a guy who is well defended 30 feet from the basket on each of the possessions down the stretch. The guy hit shots that rarely are made at any level. The real problem was not scoring when we had the ball.
Actually he is 4-2. If we were an 11 seed losing to VCU we had to beat the 6 seed in the 1st round. Even better!!
My point is that we have yet to see Painter make the foul-the-player choice instead of letting them shoot in that scenario (up 3 and on D in the closing seconds).
That's because much can go wrong with that choice as well. You can foul on the shot. You can give up an offensive rebound. You can miss your free throws when they foul you after. You can turn the ball over when they press you full court afterwards.
I remember him having Davis foul in a similar situation in a close game I believe in the 2015 season. I can't remember which game, but Purdue was up by 3 late.
The point of fouling is to disrupt the flow of a teams "final play" leaving them little time after inbounding two run an organized play. The time to do it is around 4 or 5 seconds with no chance of creating a shooting foul and with the ball on the floor in a position that results in a sideline inbounds play as far from the rim as possible, not a baseline inbounds play (easier to score). That's a lot of requirements to be met, which is one reason it rarely happens. You have to watch a lot of ball to see it happen.
It's also tough to do in a catch and shoot situation because if the shooter can make it look like he's in the act of shooting he gets 3 free throws. I've seen that happen in the NCAA Tournament as well.
Specifically in the ALR game: It was the perfect time to implement the foul strategy.
1. We had a time out to draw up the plan and make sure everybody knew what was expected.
2. They were in the bonus, so they would have to make the first, miss the second, get the rebound and score.
3. We had not one, but 2 7 footers that could be on the foul lane to secure the rebound.
4. They were a poor shooting free throw team 16/28 (57%) for the game. So very good chance they couldn't make first and miss second.
There was enough time for me to be hollering at the top of my lungs in Buffalo Wild Wings to foul them as they brought the ball up (no, I'm not still bitter at all).
We beat this to death after the game. Either you are a proponent of the strategy or your not. Obviously I am. I watch a lot of college basketball and I would much rather take my chances of all the things having to happen to have this strategy "backfire" versus letting a kid take a 3. There are just too many good 3 point shooters to let them take the shot.
There are very few things that I agree with Dick V. on, but this is one of them. Don't let them take the 3 to tie you. Make all of those unlikely things happen instead of just 1 (shooter makes a 3).
I edited to add that if you are really into this and want to read some statistics. Google Bill Fenlon, DePauw University foul or don't foul. I was going to link it, but it asks you not to do that without permission and I try to honor those. But his article directly addresses the percentages of these strategies. His conclusion is without a doubt you foul.
1. We had a time out to draw up the plan and make sure everybody knew what was expected.
2. They were in the bonus, so they would have to make the first, miss the second, get the rebound and score.
3. We had not one, but 2 7 footers that could be on the foul lane to secure the rebound.
4. They were a poor shooting free throw team 16/28 (57%) for the game. So very good chance they couldn't make first and miss second.
There was enough time for me to be hollering at the top of my lungs in Buffalo Wild Wings to foul them as they brought the ball up (no, I'm not still bitter at all).
We beat this to death after the game. Either you are a proponent of the strategy or your not. Obviously I am. I watch a lot of college basketball and I would much rather take my chances of all the things having to happen to have this strategy "backfire" versus letting a kid take a 3. There are just too many good 3 point shooters to let them take the shot.
There are very few things that I agree with Dick V. on, but this is one of them. Don't let them take the 3 to tie you. Make all of those unlikely things happen instead of just 1 (shooter makes a 3).
I edited to add that if you are really into this and want to read some statistics. Google Bill Fenlon, DePauw University foul or don't foul. I was going to link it, but it asks you not to do that without permission and I try to honor those. But his article directly addresses the percentages of these strategies. His conclusion is without a doubt you foul.
Last edited:
there were several studies on this i linked after that game... both came to the conclusion that fouling is better. one even said that fouling more throughout the entire game is more advantageous as well (which is happening even more in the nba now, to the point they said they may have to address it).Specifically in the ALR game: It was the perfect time to implement the foul strategy.
1. We had a time out to draw up the plan and make sure everybody knew what was expected.
2. They were in the bonus, so they would have to make the first, miss the second, get the rebound and score.
3. We had not one, but 2 7 footers that could be on the foul lane to secure the rebound.
4. They were a poor shooting free throw team 16/28 (57%) for the game. So very good chance they couldn't make first and miss second.
There was enough time for me to be hollering at the top of my lungs in Buffalo Wild Wings to foul them as they brought the ball up (no, I'm not still bitter at all).
We beat this to death after the game. Either you are a proponent of the strategy or your not. Obviously I am. I watch a lot of college basketball and I would much rather take my chances of all the things having to happen to have this strategy "backfire" versus letting a kid take a 3. There are just too many good 3 point shooters to let them take the shot.
There are very few things that I agree with Dick V. on, but this is one of them. Don't let them take the 3 to tie you. Make all of those unlikely things happen instead of just 1 (shooter makes a 3).
even without the math to back it up, as mentioned - if you do not foul, only one shot needs to be made; if you do foul, several more events must happen in favor of the opponent.
Last edited:
This analysis concluded otherwise (though the differences were statistically insignificant): https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordp...-points-the-first-comprehensive-cbb-analysis/
I don't know the answer. This is just the first analysis Google returned. I can hardly believe I've let myself get sucked into this rehash. I felt that Painter kept playing the odds and everything went against the odds during those last four minutes.
ya that differs a bit from what i remember on others. quite the disparity for that particular year, would be interesting to see what coaches practiced 5 years later/if there were major changes.
i imagine most major programs have had someone within their respective teams/schools do continual analysis. would be interesting to see the different game situations/scenarios planned out ahead of time. seems like that stuff is still not talked about as much yet like football or baseball does.
Agreed that when studying that one particular season there wasn't much difference in either strategy. I would like to see the numbers over a longer period. There is no doubt that statistically it is the better move to foul (Fenlon analysis) but I really think the reason you don't see more of it is coaches are afraid they will get burnt and look foolish. It is much easier to just "do the norm" and don't foul. If the kid makes the 3 you just chalk it up to "he made a tough shot" and go to overtime. I agree with you, basketball has been slower than baseball to look at analytics. I'm not a number junkie, but for some reason this particular scenario has grabbed my attention over the past several seasons. The ALR game just brought it too close to home!!
The Fenlon analysis is based on the model that might contain some incorrect assumptions. For example, it contains an assumption that there is a 0.67% chance that the shooter will be fouled in the act of shooting leading to overtime. In my estimation that number is way too low, especially if the d signals that the foul is coming or if the shot clock gets under about 6 seconds. It is very difficult to determine the accidental foul probability parameter accurately because it needs to be based on situational data. I felt like, in the Little Rock game, that once Hagins got in the half court with about 12 seconds to go that he was in good position to get into a shooting motion if PJ fouled tried to foul him. (Certainly, the odds would have been much higher than 1/150 that he would have received and made 3 free throw attempts.)
Again, I'm not saying that the right choice was made. I'm just saying that I don't see a definitive answer based on the data that I have seen. I would also be interested in seeing the results of a multi-year statistical analysts of actual scenarios.
Last edited:
Your absolutely right he makes several assumptions in his analysis but I think he takes a pretty conservative approach to those assumptions. The one you site, he actually assigns a 2% chance to fouling in the act of shooting not .67%. Maybe that is still too low but if you embrace this strategy as he suggests you would practice this not just surprise your players with it on game day. Of the 2% times that you do foul in the act of shooting he assigns a 67% chance the player will make all 3 free throws (national free throw %).
We both agree we would like to see the actual numbers from several seasons. The problem is so few coaches employ the strategy it doesn't come up that often. I know we have now beat this again so I will drop it. Just find it interesting to discuss.
This is our point though: it wasn't a catch-and-shoot situation. Josh Hagins was dribbling around for at least 5 seconds before he shot it. In the future, Painter should use the foul strategy in that situation.
Another nage nugget from his world of absolutes.
Yes. With 6 seconds to play, Davis let De'Angelo Russell catch the ball on the sideline in a non-shooting position and immediately fouled him. Russell then made both free throws. OSU then immediately fouled Kendall Stephens who missed the first free throw, but very fortunately made the second (because it allowed Painter sub for D and didn't allow OSU to rebound and get going with a head of steam). OSU inbounded with about 5 seconds left and Russell fortunately missed a 32 footer for the win at the buzzer.
Interestingly, two weeks earlier Penn State used the foul up by 3 strategy unsuccessfully against Purdue as Kendall Stephens hit a three pointer at the buzzer. http://btn.com/2015/01/17/video-kendall-stephens-proves-fouling-up-three-doesnt-always-work/
Sure, but there was quite a bit of time on the clock and if you are going to foul in that situation, you want as little time on the clock as possible, preferably no more than 6 seconds. Hagins shot with 6 seconds left, which means that if Thompson had fouled with six seconds left he very likely would have put Hagins on the line. If he fouled with 10 seconds left, for example, that's just extending the game in my opinion, because it leaves a lot of time for Little Rock to foul and then get off another possession with plenty of time.
Painter did what most coaches would do and most coaches would be ok with giving up that shot. At the time, I thought that Purdue probably should have fouled before the shot, but the more I look into it and see the data, the more I think that Painter made the right decision.
Or he can stick with his strategy that hasn't worked in either of the last two NCAA Tournament games. I'd rather he try something new. If you want him to keep using a strategy that hasn't worked in either of the two biggest games of the last two seasons, that's your prerogative.
I do remember that now, thanks. Yep, Hammons made a perfect tip rebound/pass off the missed free-throw. Purdue has had extremely good luck in close games with Penn State over the years.
What are you talking about? Purdue wasn't up by 3 in the closing seconds against Cincinnati.
Let me see if I can explain it in a way even you should understand. You have two routes to your class at Ziggy's School of Useless Knowledge. Route 1 is the fastest way but there is risk of accidents and backups, costing you time and making you late to class. Route 2 takes a little longer but is consistent and safe. Travel time is the same every day. After considering all the variables (this is fiction so you are actually capable of this) and using history as a guide, you wisely choose to take route 2 every day for years.
But come Monday, there's bad wreck on route 2, traffic will be backed up for hours. You divert to route 1 and make it to class in time for the morning snack.
So now it's Tuesday, what do you do? By your logic, route 2 is no longer an option. Although it has been the safest and most consistent option for a long time, you choose to change because it didn't work yesterday. No thought, no evaluation of the circumstances, just change because it didn't work the last time.
I don't recall a time when Painter fouled the shooter to prevent the three, maybe it has happened. I have heard him say he's not crazy about fouling in that situation. He goes with what has worked consistently........not fouling....... as do MOST college coaches. Point is, he will always evaluate the situation and do what he thinks will work..........not just make a 180 because his decision didn't work once or twice. If he coached like that in every situation you would be the first to complain about his lack of consistency.
The game is played on both ends. Instead of focusing your complaining on a defensive strategy which can work AND can fail, why not look at the true culprit in each of the two losses you are citing. That being the inability to score when the opposing defense packed their entire defense inside the paint possession after possession down the stretch. Score the ball, win the games.
