Ames Trib: To foul or not column

Via Cody Westerlund: Westerlund

To be quick, I disagree with where he landed here even though I was one that wanted to foul the other night.

Even if you use his numbers quoted and adjusted he lands on an 11% chance that Kansas would make the first free throw, miss the second, get the rebound, and then make a three pointer. He also notes that there was a 12% chance they would make the first free throw, miss the second, get the rebound, and then make a two point shot.

Of course, you need to add those two scenarios together to come up with the probability of either of those situations happening that would result in at least as good of an outcome for Kansas as what happened by not fouling, which gets you to 23%.

He then quotes the 46% three point accuracy from McLemore but also references the NBA study where they found that the average NBA three point percentage is less than 20% when down three with less than 11 seconds left. While I wouldn't advocate using NBA numbers for this analysis that shows that the shooting percentages aren't near as good in that situation as the rest of the game. Would McLemore make that shot even 1 out of 3 times? Who knows.

Aside from all of that I disagree with his adjustments to the Kansas offensive rebounding percentage, taking it down from 32.3 to 25 because of ISU's defensive rebounding numbers, specifically Melvin Ejim. They have their offensive rebounding percentage because that is how they play. Last year they finished with a 35% offensive rebounding percentage which ended up being middle of the pack. That is because of how they play (choosing to crash the glass on offense or get back on defense) and they have played a much tougher schedule so far this season than any other B12 team. Citing the NBA rebounding percentage on free throws doesn't seem apples to apples in my eyes.

I would actually, if anything, adjust their offensive rebounding percentage up. They'll be crashing the glass in that situation with all five guys and there isn't a chance on earth that the refs call a foul on them, in that situation, in Phog Allen. Obviously, it would be best if we knew what their rebounding percentage was on there own free throws and go from there.

Long story short, I don't think the "foul or not" question is answered by this column.

Agree.

Sorry Cody and Bobby, you're off on this one.

I like the twitter posts floating around calling out Dick Vitale as he criticized CFH for not fouling, but didn't say a think last night when Izzo chose not to foul and won in a very similar situation. That is what is frustrating...it is situational and hindsight is always 20/20.

Believe me, I'm a big fan of statistics and using them, but in sports there are so many elements that do not necessarily show up on a stat sheet that a coach is considering.

When what you do works, you are right, when it doesn't, you are wrong. I had no problem with Fred's decision. Hated the outcome. Credit KU for executing a play we knew was coming and to McLemore for making the shot.

Somewhat related but unrelated, I saw a story on this technology and it is VERY intriguing:
USC News

Basically, using real time data it shows trends that you normally would not be aware of. For instance, a team may play better with a certain player on the court, who the ball is passed through, etc.

BUT, again, this is a human game and stats/science can't always help with human behavior. Players know they are not supposed to hit a guy after the whistle, etc, but they do and get 15 yrd penalties in football or run their mouth in bball and get t'd up.

After a few days now to calm down a bit... I still believe you should foul in that situation, but I have come to admit it's not quite the slam dunk decision that I thought it was.

However, Izzo got extremely lucky last night. The Iowa player had a wide open 3 attempt last night to send the game into OT. But he missed it.

I still have a beef with Fred not calling a timeout after KL's 2nd made FT though. Even if the coaching staff comes to the decision to not foul, I still think you huddle up and discuss exactly how you are going to defend them. For example, all 5 of your guys should be out at the arc defending. Then explain to them how you are going to switch on picks so there's no confusion.

It's all behind us now. We can only move on. It just still stings how that could have been a program changing win, but wasn't. Those kinds of opportunities are rare. And yet again, ISU blew it. Being a Cyclone fan is not a good way to fight depression. What can go wrong usually does.

I like Fred's game plan that put us in a position to win and have no issues with his decisions in the last 8.4 sec.

Although I was thinking at the time we should foul, I definitely wanted somebody to pick up Johnson on the inbound pass and put some 1-on-1 pressure to take time off the clock and disrupt their set up of the perimeter weave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clonedude

After a few days now to calm down a bit... I still believe you should foul in that situation, but I have come to admit it's not quite the slam dunk decision that I thought it was.

However, Izzo got extremely lucky last night. The Iowa player had a wide open 3 attempt last night to send the game into OT. But he missed it.

I still have a beef with Fred not calling a timeout after KL's 2nd made FT though. Even if the coaching staff comes to the decision to not foul, I still think you huddle up and discuss exactly how you are going to defend them. For example, all 5 of your guys should be out at the arc defending. Then explain to them how you are going to switch on picks so there's no confusion.

It's all behind us now. We can only move on. It just still stings how that could have been a program changing win, but wasn't. Those kinds of opportunities are rare. And yet again, ISU blew it. Being a Cyclone fan is not a good way to fight depression. What can go wrong usually does.

---

Right on about moving on. I just hope that staff and players can use this as a motivator, confidence builder, coachable moment, reminder on little things, etc.

This reminds me, I saw Hoiberg talk last year and he said people were actually emailing him asking if he was working with Royce on free throws. Hoiberg can be sarcastic and his response was so great...basically, he said, "wow, I never thought of that...OF COURSE we are working with Royce on this." Our coaches dissect games/players FAR more than us message board jockey's (and likely with more basketball knowledge than us.) I mean, remember CPR going for 2 vs Nebraska?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThatllDoCy

When what you do works, you are right, when it doesn't, you are wrong. I had no problem with Fred's decision. Hated the outcome. Credit KU for executing a play we knew was coming and to McLemore for making the shot.

---

I'd credit McLemore if he hadn't banked it.

Since McLemore (5 for 5 at one point and Babb could not stop him) and Relaford were the two people that shot pressure threes well, why not call a timeout and basically make sure everyone guards those two people at the perimeter? For that matter, just foul the 7 footer Withey and put him on the line for three and away from the rebound. I think we should have called a timeout.

KU is well coached enough to know what to do anyway without a TO. A timeout would have helped us more than them IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Go2Guy

I like Fred's game plan that put us in a position to win and have no issues with his decisions in the last 8.4 sec.

Although I was thinking at the time we should foul, I definitely wanted somebody to pick up Johnson on the inbound pass and put some 1-on-1 pressure to take time off the clock and disrupt their set up of the perimeter weave.

---

Agreed. Put heavy pressure on with probably Lucious. Get a steal, game over. If you foul, so be it. Same situation we've been debating here for two days.

After last night's Iowa game, I visited Hawkeye Nation just to see what might be discussed there, since Izzo had chosen not to foul in the last few seconds of the Iowa/MSU game when MSU was up by 3......he allowed a 3 point shot by the Iowa point guard, which of course failed.

Jon Miller had a thread on the subject of if coaches should foul or not foul, which he had started before the game, obviously to shed some light on whether or not Hoiberg had made the correct call. Anyway........Jon linked this article about the subject from a coach.........http://www.depauw.edu/ath/mbasket/images/up3.pdf

He also provided another link that contained this little tidbit:
In 2010, John Ezekowitz of the Harvard College Sports Analysis Collective found 443 instances during the 2009-2010 college season when a team had the ball down three points during its last possession of the second half or overtime. In 391 cases, Ezekowitz found that the team leading did not foul and only lost 33 times (91.56 winning percentage). In the 52 cases when the team fouled, six lost (88.46 percent winning percentage). In other words, it was a statistical wash. Granted he didn't have it broken down to exactly how many seconds were left when the team got the ball. That's important, too.

So should you foul or not?

"I think it varies," UConn women's coach Geno Auriemma said. "Some coaches swear fouling is better. Some say no way. There are studies that show you have the same chance of winning if you foul or if you don't foul. A team that's 0-for-14 on threes, maybe you don't foul."

Gallagher's theory?

"If you're a great rebounding team, I think [fouling] is a good option," he said. "The worst place to expose rebounding is from the foul line. So if you're not a great rebounding team [UConn obviously isn't], it's not something that's in your cards. And, two, you've got to practice it. If you don't, don't do it. I see intentional fouls happen [two fouls shots and retain possession of ball]. You've got to be smart."

Based on these two articles, and CFH's comments, I am absolutely convinced that CFH was aware of all the math in these articles, made his own math calculations regarding ISU's situation in his head, in the heat of the game, and made his call. After reading these articles......I think he made the call many, if not most coaches would make......with the possible exception of Dick Vitale......but let's not forget.......Johnny O kicked his ***.....so does he really count? :pwink:

Let's move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khaal53

Via Cody Westerlund: Westerlund

To be quick, I disagree with where he landed here even though I was one that wanted to foul the other night.

Even if you use his numbers quoted and adjusted he lands on an 11% chance that Kansas would make the first free throw, miss the second, get the rebound, and then make a three pointer. He also notes that there was a 12% chance they would make the first free throw, miss the second, get the rebound, and then make a two point shot.

Of course, you need to add those two scenarios together to come up with the probability of either of those situations happening that would result in at least as good of an outcome for Kansas as what happened by not fouling, which gets you to 23%.

---

You can't add 11 plus 12 to conclude there is a 23% chance of KU scoring after a missed FT because the predicate act (regaining possession) is common to both scenarios.

Ames Trib people need to read The Signal and The Noise by N. Silver.

What all these proponents of fouling are not taking into account is Paul Janssen. You cannot put the game in his hands anymore than it already is in that situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dryburn

Based on these two articles, and CFH's comments, I am absolutely convinced that CFH was aware of all the math in these articles, made his own math calculations regarding ISU's situation in his head, in the heat of the game, and made his call. After reading these articles......I think he made the call many, if not most coaches would make......with the possible exception of Dick Vitale......but let's not forget.......Johnny O kicked his ***.....so does he really count? :pwink:

Let's move on.

---

Before we moved on this part had to be repeated.:smile: