That whole "fouling or not when up 3" thing...

**khaal53** · 02-12-2013, 11:24 AM

Pomeroy posted a blog article today that dives into this hot mess again. With his parameters over the past 2.5 seasons he actually came out with a better winning percentage with teams that chose to not foul.

I wonder about how it would break out had he also shown the results for games with less than 5 seconds but it is still very interesting.

I personally think the main takeaway shouldn't be that one option is better than the other but that it is so close it is situational and at the coach's discretion, like the other 1,000 decisions coaches make in the flow of the game.

the kenpom.com blog

**JJ4ISU** · 02-12-2013, 11:31 AM

I think this goes back to officiating, too. For example, I don't think Freddy trusted the officials in the KU game wouldn't go out of their way to call a shooting foul if the ball handler tossed it at the hoop after being fouled on the floor. Likewise, there's always a risk a player could accidentally foul when a player begins shooting the ball, even when they meant to foul before that.

**CyDude16** · 02-12-2013, 11:46 AM

Stop it Khaal, you're ruining my mantra of being a better and smarter coach than Hoiberg from my couch.

**TurbulentEddie** · 02-12-2013, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by JJ4ISU

I think this goes back to officiating, too. For example, I don't think Freddy trusted the officials in the KU game wouldn't go out of their way to call a shooting foul if the ball handler tossed it at the hoop after being fouled on the floor. Likewise, there's always a risk a player could accidentally foul when a player begins shooting the ball, even when they meant to foul before that.

Just to note, that is somewhat taken into account in KenPom's analysis. Check out some of the situations in the appendices. (JVB's after-the-buzzer shot against Creighton makes an appearance!)

I think another important result from his analysis is that three point shooting is significantly worse in these situations (even after removing desperation half-court shots with under 5 seconds to go):

Another reason the fouling strategy isn’t as useful as one would think is that teams really stink at three-pointers when the defense knows they need one and there is a significant time constraint. In the 814 cases studied, teams made 98 out of 608 three-point shots (16.1%) during the possession in question. Basically, assume a player is about half as effective as normal in hitting threes when his team is down three facing a limited clock. He might even be worse since it’s possible these shots were skewed towards more effective shooters.

**klamath632** · 02-12-2013, 11:46 AM

The issue I have with the end of the Kansas game is that defenders went underneath picks.

Underneath.

For **** sake... WHY?!??!?! We didn't care if they made a 2-pointer with 5 seconds left in the game. I don't understand why anybody was defending a man that was inside the three-point-line.

**Cyclonepride** · 02-12-2013, 11:47 AM

Fouling is a darling of fans and the media, more so than coaches. That is my impression. Easy call to make from the cheap seats.

**intrepid27** · 02-12-2013, 12:35 PM

Most teams do not even have one player who shoots the three better than 40%. That give you 60% odds of winning in regulation if you don't foul. At worst you go to OT.

**JJ4ISU** · 02-12-2013, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by klamath632

The issue I have with the end of the Kansas game is that defenders went underneath picks.

Underneath.

For **** sake... WHY?!??!?! We didn't care if they made a 2-pointer with 5 seconds left in the game. I don't understand why anybody was defending a man that was inside the three-point-line.

Totally agree! McGee was standing just past the free throw line area when McLemore caught the pass. We shouldn't have had 1 player standing inside the 3-pt line at any time during that scenario.

**The_Architect** · 02-12-2013, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by klamath632

The issue I have with the end of the Kansas game is that defenders went underneath picks.

Underneath.

For **** sake... WHY?!??!?! We didn't care if they made a 2-pointer with 5 seconds left in the game. I don't understand why anybody was defending a man that was inside the three-point-line.

Giving up 2 straight layups to Elijah Johnson in the last 30 seconds and only making them burn ~5 seconds off the clock was worse.

**CTTB78** · 02-12-2013, 03:51 PM

Most coaches do not foul. May be some unique situations, but in general I think it's the prudent call to foul and eliminate the 3 ball.

I think the Michigan coach is the latest guy that's saying,"Man, we foul and the game's over.' Cost them the No. 1 rating.

**TurbulentEddie** · 02-12-2013, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by CTTB78

Most coaches do not foul. May be some unique situations, but in general I think it's the prudent call to foul and eliminate the 3 ball.

I think the Michigan coach is the latest guy that's saying,"Man, we foul and the game's over.' Cost them the No. 1 rating.

Well, someone didn't read the article. Michigan was the only one of eleven teams in that situation on Saturday to lose. Also, their coach did want to foul (had one to give, iirc) but UW moved the ball too fast and you don't want to foul the shooter.

But seriously, read the article. The evidence is there. Fouling doesn't change the odds significantly (if anything, it makes the odds of losing greater).

**CRCy17** · 02-12-2013, 05:53 PM

I personally feel the status of home/away may factor into my decision to foul +3. If I am on the road (especially at a hostile environment like KU) I foul to keep the possibility of home crowd swaying the momentum greatly during overtime. At home, I like my chances more if we dont foul and face OT.

**Bobby45** · 02-12-2013, 05:58 PM

I really luv this discussion on foul or not foul. There is NO rite or wrong answer or solution because its all situational,

it just depends on who you are playing and where the game is being played. The truth be known even if we had fouled at KU we still could have LOST... But you will never get me to admit that we would have LOST...LOL

Go Cyclones Beat those bums from Austin Texas dee horns...

**andymhallman** · 02-12-2013, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by The_Architect

Giving up 2 straight layups to Elijah Johnson in the last 30 seconds and only making them burn ~5 seconds off the clock was worse.

Totally agree. I haven't seen many posters complain about this but it really irked me. The last two minutes of that game, we just stopped playing defense because we had some guys in foul trouble.

**CTTB78** · 02-13-2013, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by TurbulentEddie

Well, someone didn't read the article. Michigan was the only one of eleven teams in that situation on Saturday to lose. Also, their coach did want to foul (had one to give, iirc) but UW moved the ball too fast and you don't want to foul the shooter.

But seriously, read the article. The evidence is there. Fouling doesn't change the odds significantly (if anything, it makes the odds of losing greater).

Well, somebody didn't watch the Michigan game. They had every oppurtunity to foul before WI got to half court. Could have made it 12/12 who won that day.