To foul or not to foul if up by 3?

[wamfam]

To foul or not to foul if up by 3? Why or why not?

 

[im4cyclones]

Here is one thought...

Late game defensive strategy with a 3-point lead -- NBA research for 82games.com

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.

 

[mj4cy]

I'd kill to be in that position tomorrow night.

 

[awd4cy]

 

[kucyclone]

If I was coaching, I'd try to have my team foul, but only if we had practiced good (non-shooting and non-flagrant) fouls. I'm shocked more teams don't just run through screens, or hold jerseys on off-ball cuts, in this scenario, because there is no chance it would be a shooting foul.

 

[tejasclone]

When the Cyclones are involved, either decision would invariably be the wrong one.

Play defense, and that 13% 3PT shooter on the other team banks it in at the horn and the Clones go down in OT.

Foul, and the 11% FT shooter on the other team makes the first to cut the deficit to 2, misses the second but his teammate gets the rebound, passes out, and another 13% 3PT shooter nets a 3 at the horn to win by 1.

It will happen every time. Because Cyclones.

 

[cloneu]

To foul or not to foul if up by 3? Why or why not?

That depends, are you Iowa State or any other team at any level of basketball.

 

[TurbulentEddie]

Here is one thought...

Late game defensive strategy with a 3-point lead -- NBA research for 82games.com

There are a lot of assumptions (which one has to take, so not bashing the guy) in the purely theoretical approach taken in the above link. Play-by-play data from actual games show it's not quite so clear cut and, with either method, the team up 3 wins over 90% of the time: the kenpom.com blog

          W   L   OT   Win%   Cases
Foul    122   5   11   92.0    138
Defend  598   2   76   93.5    676

 

[WastedTalent]

If I was coaching, I'd try to have my team foul, but only if we had practiced good (non-shooting and non-flagrant) fouls. I'm shocked more teams don't just run through screens, or hold jerseys on off-ball cuts, in this scenario, because there is no chance it would be a shooting foul.

Good idea, but have to be weary of the intentional foul or flagrant foul. These are very rarely called at the end of the game, but as stated before...Iowa State.

 

[NorthCyd]

As if the dozens of other threads where people have argued in circles on this subject weren't enough...troll on.

 

[abe2010]

There are a lot of assumptions (which one has to take, so not bashing the guy) in the purely theoretical approach taken in the above link. Play-by-play data from actual games show it's not quite so clear cut and, with either method, the team up 3 wins over 90% of the time: the kenpom.com blog

          W   L   OT   Win%   Cases
Foul    122   5   11   92.0    138
Defend  598   2   76   93.5    676

only when the odds are long in the wrong direction can we make it happen

 

[3TrueFans]

Overall I don't think it matters, I prefer the idea of fouling with less than 5 seconds or so though.

 

[JWIL4CY]

Whatever Fred chooses is the correct answer.

 

[3TrueFans]

Whatever Fred chooses is the correct answer.

Unless we lose.

 

[TurbulentEddie]

only when the odds are long in the wrong direction can we make it happen

Seems like the football team sucks up all the good karma every year

 

[CycloneErik]

Never give away points. Don't foul.

 

[CYUL8R]

would be interesting to see how many of those 'foul' decisions actually resulted in shots for the opposing team or if they were still under the bonus threshold...could have material impact to the decision.

I'm SURE that most of them would create at least a 1-and-1 situation, but still, my curiosity is piqued.

 

[Doc]

I don't care as long as they don't leave somebody wide open again like Pappapetrou or McCabe.

 

[3TrueFans]

would be interesting to see how many of those 'foul' decisions actually resulted in shots for the opposing team or if they were still under the bonus threshold...could have material impact to the decision.

I'm SURE that most of them would create at least a 1-and-1 situation, but still, my curiosity is piqued.

If you have fouls to give it's a no brainer.

 

[TurbulentEddie]

would be interesting to see how many of those 'foul' decisions actually resulted in shots for the opposing team or if they were still under the bonus threshold...could have material impact to the decision.

I'm SURE that most of them would create at least a 1-and-1 situation, but still, my curiosity is piqued.

Yeah, the one strategy I definitely feel should always be employed is to use up any fouls to give in the backcourt to whittle away as much clock as possible away from the hoop. I *think* KenPom only considered in the "foul" cases fouls that led to foul shots, but not 100% sure.