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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hewson said:
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.
CTU2fan said:
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.
... 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.
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).
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...
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.
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.
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.
My feeling on it is you don't really want to do something like that unless the numbers are heavily in favor of it. And there's just not going to be a realistic scenario where that's the case. Sure, if there was literally a 15% FT shooter on the court, and at the same time his team scored on something like 66% of its possessions, then maybe you think about it. You also can't just look at shooting percentages; you've got to factor in turnovers too. And also consider your opponent doesn't have a full shot clock to run its offense.
Now if you want to talk about fouling a crappy FT shooter on a final possession when you're up 2, that I could see thinking about. In that scenario you come out tied 25% of the time, and it's likely your opponent would have a better than 25% chance of hitting a tying shot from the floor (or beating you with a 3, depending on what kind of shooters they've got). So if you're up 2, and they've inbounded to Ben Wallace (with or without a blindfold), and you've got Ray Allen on your side to get the ball to if you come out of the exchange still leading...maybe you foul. But it's still dicey; when you do that you're extending the game, and allowing for more randomness.
My feeling on it is you don't really want to do something like that unless the numbers are heavily in favor of it. And there's just not going to be a realistic scenario where that's the case.
I dislike making the conventional option the "default" option, though I certainly see why coaches do it.
You also can't just look at shooting percentages; you've got to factor in turnovers too. And also consider your opponent doesn't have a full shot clock to run its offense.
I considered these things when setting the offense's scoring percentage at 35%. I think it's fair, though maybe it's too high.
Or maybe the defense has a 5% chance of forcing a turnover and scoring in regulation without fouling. Or maybe they're only 25% to go the length of the floor and score if they foul and get the ball back. But nobody else is arguing anything of the sort.
Again, I'm not saying that giving the 50% FT shooter 2 FTs is a massive edge. (1-and-1 is completely different.) I'm just saying that Gus Johnson's question was fair.
Yeah, it's thinking like that that has a manager leaving his ace in even though the numbers say he gets lit up once he's thrown >100 pitches. To face Bernie Williams...and Hideki Matsui...AND Jorge Posada.
Yeah, it's thinking like that that has a manager leaving his ace in even though the numbers say he gets lit up once he's thrown >100 pitches. To face Bernie Williams...and Hideki Matsui...AND Jorge Posada.
There is no stat that shows the added pressure you are potentially putting on your players by purposely putting them down with limited time left.
There is also no percentage to measure the pressure you have taken off the other team by giving them the lead.
I've been struggling with my three point shot in mens league. Doing very well otherwise, but just overthinking my release from deep. With the game on the line the other day, the guy guarding me backed off to prevent penetration, giving me an open shot to win the game. I buried and then talked all sorts of KG type shit right in his face.
VCU was told on national television that they didn't belong in the tourney. They have played above and beyond their abilities ever since. There is no stat to tell us why.
There is no stat to measure the players ability to be offended by somebody pretty much declaring that you can't do something.
There is no stat that will ever convince me that fouling while tied is smart.
There is no stat that shows the added pressure you are potentially putting on your players by purposely putting them down with limited time left.
There is also no percentage to measure the pressure you have taken off the other team by giving them the lead.
I've been struggling with my three point shot in mens league. Doing very well otherwise, but just overthinking my release from deep. With the game on the line the other day, the guy guarding me backed off to prevent penetration, giving me an open shot to win the game. I buried and then talked all sorts of KG type shit right in his face.
VCU was told on national television that they didn't belong in the tourney. They have played above and beyond their abilities ever since. There is no stat to tell us why.
There is no stat to measure the players ability to be offended by somebody pretty much declaring that you can't do something.
There is no stat that will ever convince me that fouling while tied is smart.
Let's go back to the NFL example. Patriots vs. Colts. Patriots score to pull to within 28-27 at the gun in Indy. Steve Gostkowski kicks the XP to tie it up and the scoreboard reads 28-28, but the Colts are offside on the play. The Patriots now have the option of (1) declining the penalty and going into overtime, probably as a slight dog on the road or (2) giving back the XP and going for the deuce from the 1-yard line, probably as a decent favorite. (In this case the point really is being given away; the Colts don't have to do anything to claim it.)
If Belichick chooses to go for 2, do you think Tom Brady is nervous with the knowledge that a bad read costs his team the game? Do you think that Pat Angerer feels good about cutting off Wes Welker's option routes and stuffing Danny Woodhead off the direct snap? Does the Patriots defense mutiny against Belichick? (They've had two chances to do so in the last two years and passed it up both times.)
Now back to basketball. We've all seen whatever it is Jimmer Fredette does when his team doesn't have the ball. Psychologically, which do you think fires him up more: (1) one possession on defense, and if he wins that, a guaranteed five more minutes of pain, or (2) one possession on offense with a shot (depending on the FT outcomes) to win it in regulation?
