Prohm is 9-16 at ISU

I feel like you don’t understand how big a gulf that is in reality. Hoiberg was .577. Floyd was .536. Prohm as was stated is .360. That is the Grand Canyon when it comes to coaching ability.

over the five year periods quoted that equates to approximately five more total wins for hoiberg that project (or one more 3 pt or less loss per year for prohm than hoiberg).... when playing around 30 games a year, is one more 3 pt or less loss per year really that big of a gap?
 
Yep. Floyd is the only coach i've ever seen that would start committing intentional fouls with 4 or 5 minutes left in the game and it always seemed to work .

Floyd had this trick, that was really bizarre. You wouldn't think it would work, but I saw it work in person. If an opposing player was getting hot, he would take an ISU deep bench player and have him very lightly foul twice in a row. Like, a light tap on the shoulder. It would take that opposing player completely out of his game. It was amazing.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: LincolnSwinger
For some reason I thought it was significantly the other way.

ISU has lost at least 5-6 games in the past 5-6 years where they had a 3 point lead inside of 10 seconds, and both Fred and Steve were guilty.

I’m pretty sure you’re wrong. Not fouling works something like 93% and fouling works 90%.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: isutrevman
It looked like Conditt was supposed to foul him, but didn't get out there in time and didn't want to foul him in the act of shooting.

Before they inbounded the ball, I wanted them to double Nembhard and be prepared to foul before the ball got over halfcourt. I know the percentages favor playing defense in that situation, but when the other team is shooting >50% from three, you have to adjust.

I'm sure it's probably been argued to death in other threads on here already, but it was inexcusable to allow Nembhard or Bane to get anything close to a clean look. They ended up 10-14 from beyond the arc.

Thanks for not crucifying me with your reply.
 
Anybody have the Larry numbers? We always wore out the opposition being in better shape than most teams we played. Went to one practice they ran for a hour straight puking in garbage can every now and then. "I didn't come here on a track scholarship" It got ugly from there.
 
Fred did this too. It's just maddeningly stupid and seems to never work. I'm pretty sure analytics have made this clear, and the laws of ISU getting ****** absolutely dictate it.
I'm pretty sure the analytics show that it's pretty much even fouling vs not fouling with a 3 point lead. Here is a good article by Ken Pomeroy that suggests it might by slightly better to NOT foul.

https://kenpom.com/blog/yet-another-study-about-fouling-when-up-3/

With our rebounding troubles that last couple years, I don't know why anyone wants us to foul in the situation. We forced TCU into a very bad, low percentage shot that happened to bank in.

Also, Prohm wanted them to foul (which I still don't agree is necessarily the right move) after TCU crossed half court, but TCU set a screen at just the right time. Conditt was a little late coming to help and commit the foul so by the time he got there, Nembhard was already pulling up for the shot from way beyond the 3pt line and Conditt obviously didn't want to foul him on the shot.

Basically, fouling the other team, without it being a shooting foul while also trying to let some clock run is a lot harder than simply saying "just foul them so they can't shoot a 3". Fouling with 8-9 seconds left on the clock is too risky in my opinion. It extends the game by adding extra possession, which is exactly what the trailing team wants. It forces you to inbound the ball successfully one more time, make free throws one more time, then defend again. I'd rather take my chances on the other team taking an extremely low percentage 3.
 
I did an analysis last year and what this doesn't take into account is how you end games. Basically, if a game was close in the last couple minutes, Prohm's teams won about 50% of the time. Its just that oftentimes his teams were able to pull away and win by about 5-10 points, so looking at the final score, it didn't seem close. Not nearly as often did the opponent pull away at the end.

I did a similar analysis last year if a game was 5 points or less at the 4 minute mark. His win percentage was less than 40%.
 
I am skeptical of this "close game magic" stuff.

The advance stats say that is mostly luck in the long-term.

Everybody regresses to the 50-50 mean with enough of a sample size.

Bill Self is damn lucky then because he is between 41-11 Over the last 4.5 years in games decided by 6 points or less (including all OT games). Some is luck and some is coaching.

Other Big 12 coaches in last 4.5 years
Scott Drew 27-22
Bob Huggins 23-16
Chris Beard 19-16 (3.5 seasons)
Lon Krueger 28-24
Bruce Webber 25-23
Jamie Dixon 22-20 (3.5 seasons)
Mike Boynton 13-13 (2.5 seasons)
Steve Prohm 22-31
Shaka Smart 29-34
 
Last edited:
Sorry if already posted but I thought someone did an analysis of recent games that were within 3 points at the 4 minute mark. To me that was more interesting since (to me) it gave a better idea of coaching down the line in a close game without excluding games where one team pulled away.

Edit: This has already been brought up! I should read the thread first.
 
Tyresse had a pretty good look
So they bank in a running 30 fitter and we miss an open 35 footer, does Prohm get credit for getting the look? I don’t recall the set very well.
 
I'm still trying to figure out why Prohm didn't have someone foul at the end of regulation Saturday. Why even risk a chance at a (miracle) 3?
It appeared we attempted to, but Dixon did an excellent job of screening the designated fouler out of the play and we didn't have a backup plan for that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: coolerifyoudid
Bill Self is damn lucky then because he is between 41-11 Over the last 4.5 years in games decided by 6 points or less (including all OT games). Some is luck and some is coaching.

Other Big 12 coaches in last 4.5 years
Scott Drew 27-22
Bob Huggins 23-16
Chris Beard 19-16 (3.5 seasons)
Lon Krueger 28-24
Bruce Webber 25-23
In fairness, Self is the clearly the outlier. I also find it interesting that Huggins has the fewest number of those games (excluding Beard).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: quasistellar
Was hb look better at end?

It's at the end of the video. IMO, he had a decent look. The defender at least got a hand up.

I'm not sure if you were trying to compare the situations, but TCU clearly wouldn't foul in that scenario and give Haliburton 2 free throws with the chance to tie it. Their only sensible option was to defend.
 
I actually would have guessed Hoiberg had a worse record in close games than 15-11. 2015 Big 12 tournament really helped him out there.

Prohm is really bad at close games though. I wouldn't expect that to change.

I don't think anyone will argue that he is a pretty poor in-game coach that lacks making solid adjustments. Which explains the poor close W-L record.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron