College Basketball 2010-2011 - Page 29 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Put 'Em Under Pressure
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-25-2011, 07:59 AM   #421
Blue Crack Addict
 
Hewson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your own private Idaho
Posts: 26,488
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Big Grin

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedracer View Post
And before anybody else pops in with some sort of appeal-to-authority argument about how ridiculous it is, international coaches sometimes foul intentionally in tie games.
I fail to see how this backs up your argument:

Quote:
It happened in the 2006 World Championship semifinals in Japan when Argentina and Spain were tied, and the Argentines intentionally fouled Jose Calderon so that they would get the final shot. Calderon made one of two, and Argentina got an open look for Andres Nocioni just before the buzzer, but he missed.
The one time in history a coach was stupid enough to do as you say and foul in a tie game, he lost on a free throw. Hopefully this morning whatever you were smoking last night has worn off. Sports can't always be broken down into mathematical equations.
__________________

__________________
Hewson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 08:20 AM   #422
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,435
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedracer View Post
As has been already said, that rhetorical dodge is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand.

If the other team is 35% to score on their possession and has a 50% FT shooter who you can foul immediately, your team is 90% to rebound a missed FT, 30% to score on the ensuing possession, doesn't have any 50% FT shooters (so the other team can't intentionally foul you back if they miss two) and 45% to win the overtime period, then fouling is actually correct. Tell me which of these percentages you think is unrealistic.
how is it a dodge to not answer a question about a situation that would never take place?

if we were coaching against each other, and the game was tied and the shot clock dead and i had the ball, i would be thrilled if you fouled my worst free throw shooter. i'd be jumping with glee that you would give me the chance to take the lead.

stats, numbers, percentages... they're all fine and dandy. but eventually you have to leave the numbers behind and use common sense. the game is tied. the worst thing that can happen is that the other team scores. why on earth would you purposely make the worst possible outcome a reality? so that you can get the ball back, with zero guarantee that you're going to score on your possession?

is it possible that you could go by this theory and have it work in your favor? yes, it is. absolutely possible. just because something is possible doesn't make it a good idea. what happens if blind ben wallace banks in both shots? you now just put your team in a position where they absolutely have to score in a short amount of time or the game is over.

so would i foul on purpose in a tie game in any realistic, could actually happen in real life and not in a video game situation? absolutely not. no. never.

if the game was the monstars vs. the toon squad? sure... i'd consider it.
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 08:22 AM   #423
Blue Crack Addict
 
Hewson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your own private Idaho
Posts: 26,488
Local Time: 09:21 AM
If I were an owner of a team and my coach pulled what the Argentinian coach pulled and lost the game in that manner...I'd fire him before he reached the locker room.
__________________
Hewson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 08:29 AM   #424
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,435
Local Time: 09:21 AM
YouTube - IMG 0046


reggie miller sounds as if gus johnson just asked him if the earth was flat.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 11:27 AM   #425
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,366
Local Time: 10:21 AM
No way do you foul. I get the numbers, and I think there's a point where it swings toward fouling being smart percentage-wise. But you're coaching human beings...what does it say to your guys when you're basically telling them "you guys can't guard anybody, I'd rather put their guy on the line than trust you to D up". If you're playing LSU and they throw it in to Shaq in the paint then yea, I'd foul him rather than give him a bunny since nobody could really stop Shaq in college (not many in the NBA either). But no way I foul on the inbounds or away from the basket.

I liked BB's call though, going for it 4th and 2 at his 22 vs. Peyton. And I still think they made it and got screwed on the spot. The way that game was going, even if they punt Indy back to their own 25 I still think Peyton drives for the win, the D was gassed and not stopping anybody.
__________________
CTU2fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 04:14 PM   #426
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedracer View Post
Would you do it if the other team scored on 99% of their offensive possessions but hit only 1% of their free throws
This makes no sense at all. It's not a dodge for them not to answer it, because that 1) is impossible and 2) has never happened and never going to happen.

You never foul. I cringed when Gus said that because I love him and don't want to have to rip him. But it was stupid.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 07:23 PM   #427
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Apologies for the late replies all. I don't have teh intarwebs at work. I'll try to address all the counter-arguments as best I can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
how is it a dodge to not answer a question about a situation that would never take place?
Because of this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedracer
Fouling when the other team is 99% from the field and 1% from the free throw line is pretty obviously correct. My point is that it's not at all obvious where the break-even point is. It can't be known unless you do the calculations.
Now in response to

Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
if we were coaching against each other, and the game was tied and the shot clock dead and i had the ball, i would be thrilled if you fouled my worst free throw shooter. i'd be jumping with glee that you would give me the chance to take the lead.

stats, numbers, percentages... they're all fine and dandy. but eventually you have to leave the numbers behind and use common sense. the game is tied. the worst thing that can happen is that the other team scores. why on earth would you purposely make the worst possible outcome a reality? so that you can get the ball back, with zero guarantee that you're going to score on your possession?

is it possible that you could go by this theory and have it work in your favor? yes, it is. absolutely possible. just because something is possible doesn't make it a good idea. what happens if blind ben wallace banks in both shots? you now just put your team in a position where they absolutely have to score in a short amount of time or the game is over.

so would i foul on purpose in a tie game in any realistic, could actually happen in real life and not in a video game situation? absolutely not. no. never.

if the game was the monstars vs. the toon squad? sure... i'd consider it.
There are a number of cognitive and strategic errors in this post.

-- Having the lead or a tie with :15 left isn't the ultimate goal. Having the lead when the game ends is the ultimate goal. Giving the other team a chance to hit FTs and increasing your foul count works against the goal, but having the chance to get the ball back and avoid OT works in favor of the goal. There are multiple factors at work and it's not obvious how they all contribute.

-- You consider only the best-case scenario in the "conventional" case (we force a stop, we go to OT, we have a chance win. What if the other team scores at or near the buzzer? What if we run out of gas in OT?). Conversely, you consider only the worst-case scenario in the "radical" case (they make 2 FTs. What if they make 1 or 0 FTs, as will happen 75% of the time if the guy is a 50% FT shooter?). All the major possibilities must be considered and weighed appropriately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewson
The one time in history a coach was stupid enough to do as you say and foul in a tie game, he lost on a free throw.
This is a results-oriented/hindsight fallacy. BYU lost badly in overtime, but that has no place in my argument because I didn't know that would happen. I did think that BYU was a dog before OT started, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTU2fan
But you're coaching human beings...what does it say to your guys when you're basically telling them "you guys can't guard anybody, I'd rather put their guy on the line than trust you to D up"
NFL, :00 left, you score a TD to pull to within 1. Other team commits a foul on the XP, so now you have a try from the 1-yard line instead of the 2. The two team are roughly evenly matched. Do you kick or go for 2?

NFL defenders are long past the point where they feel disrespected if the coach goes for 2 here. Many of them have endorsed decisions to go for the win from the 2-yard line.

Defense is only a means to the ultimate goal of winning, just as offense is (as well as foul/clock management). Players realize that the relative importance of the concepts changes over the course of a game.

Please understand that I am not saying that fouling the 50% FT shooter is massively optimal. At best it's a 2% edge or so. I think it's simple enough to say "you guys are to foul these two guys hard if they get the ball off the inbounds, otherwise back off and play D," but I understand if the coach disagrees. What I am saying that dismissing the idea out of hand is incorrect.

 

If the other team shoots 1-and-1 instead of 2, fouling the 50% FT shooter is massively optimal assuming the other percentages I quoted.
__________________
speedracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 07:30 PM   #428
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,435
Local Time: 09:21 AM
... you're giving the other team the lead! With very little time on the clock!

No. Never. 100% never ever ever ever. I don't care what percentages you show us. Fuck percentages. No. Never. Incredibly stupid. Any coach who does that in a big spot should be fired.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 07:38 PM   #429
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
... you're giving the other team the lead! With very little time on the clock!
I was unsure of this at first, but it seems clear to me now that there's also an illusion-of-control bias at work here -- i.e., that creating a situation where the other team has a chance to score without your interference is inherently wrong (it isn't) while creating a situation where you have control over the other team's score is inherently right (it isn't -- no matter how hard you sack up, the other team is going to score sometimes).
__________________
speedracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 07:54 PM   #430
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,435
Local Time: 09:21 AM
There's a common sense issue at work here.

You seem to be in love with these percentages. So here are a few.

The average team field goal percentage is well below 50%. Most teams shoot in the 30s. That means that 60 to 70% of the time the offense misses.

Why in god's name would you want to put yourself on the other end of that percentage, down points, when you're tied late?

Play it out. If they score they score
. But don't let them score. That's just incredibly stupid.

Hey, I stuck by my ref hatred after the pitt game, but when everyone else seemed to agree with the calls, I had to at least think that hey, Mary i'm letting my hatred of refs skew my view.

Everyone now thinks you're nuts for sticking to this. Maybe you should rethink your stance...
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 08:04 PM   #431
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post

The average team field goal percentage is well below 50%. Most teams shoot in the 30s. That means that 60 to 70% of the time the offense misses.
Via ESPN, the median FG% for NCAA D-I teams is around 43.7%. That includes more difficult 3-point shots, which a team that is tied at the end of the game doesn't need, so this nudges their relevant FG% higher (the median 2P% is 48.3% or so). Of course, they will want to stall until around :10 or so, which is a disadvantage. But then again, the other team really can't foul under :10, so that's an advantage. And of course, the team won't always get a shot off, which nudges the chance of scoring lower.

I estimated that the team that had the ball to start had only a 35% chance of scoring, though. Upon request, I will happily post my full calculations.
__________________
speedracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 08:07 PM   #432
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,435
Local Time: 09:21 AM


You probably think john hollinger is a genius too, right?
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 08:10 PM   #433
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post


You probably think john hollinger is a genius too, right?
Haven't read most of his work. It's damn difficult to isolate a single player's performance from that of the other nine guys on the court, so I'm not surprised that he receives criticism from fans and quants alike. But endgame situations are much simpler.
__________________
speedracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 08:18 PM   #434
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,435
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Yet you're still fucking it up to epic proportions
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 08:22 PM   #435
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
Yet you're still fucking it up to epic proportions
How so? I'm pretty sure I'm not the one using less information here.
__________________

__________________
speedracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com