Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

Do you think your team should foul up 3 late in the game? (Under 15 seconds left)

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 82.8%
  • No

    Votes: 5 17.2%
1 - 20 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,881 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Do you foul up 3? (under 10 ignore the 15 originally said)

It has been a very debated topic the last few years and has effected many of the A10 teams. So I want to know if your team is up 3 late in the game (last 10 seconds) do you think you should play it out or foul before they can take a shot?

The first big debate about this was probably the Xavier and Ohio State tournament game a few years back, they didn't foul OSU tied it up and X lost in OT. Earlier this year URI was up 3 on Loyola with 10 seconds left and didn't foul and lost the game in OT. Since then URI has fouled up 3 late. The next URI game against Auburn, Auburn did not foul up 3 and lost. Last night VCU was up 3 on Richmond and didn't foul and we know what happened.

Against SLU in OT, up 3 URI fouled at 7 seconds to go and won. Earlier in the year Richmond was up 3 on URI and attempted to foul (somehow the refs failed to call the obvious foul)

So I open this up for debate/discussion.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
335 Posts
Under 10 seconds, the numbers are so overwhelmingly in favor (like idiocy the other way), its an automatic.

Google ----> Fenlon AND Depauw AND "fouling"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
376 Posts
I'm really fine with either strategy but my opinion is to just let the game play out because if the opposing team hits a 3, the game will either go to overtime or you'll still get the ball with a chance to win it. If you foul, they may only be able to get 2 points, but you still extend the game for the opposing team and all it takes is for you to miss a free throw or 2 and it could easily be a 1 or 2 point game and then all of a sudden they can win it in regulation.

I know that sounds like a lot, but we've all seen how much scoring is possible in the last 15 seconds of a game.

If it's under say 7 seconds, I'd probably just foul knowing that there just simply isn't enough time for the opposing team to have a chance to get enough possessions.

Also I guess it depends on the team I'm playing against. If they have multiple 3 point snipers or proven clutch shooters, I might be more inclined to foul.

I hate when teams foul at the end of games because I like to see the game played out but I can't complain about the strategy and like I said, I'd definitely at least consider fouling
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,881 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
yeah it should probably say last 10 seconds (i'll see if I can edit it)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
Make it under 10 seconds.
Last night, VCU who prides itself on "havoc" let Richmond advance the ball without pressure into the frontcourt. Why? totally out of form. They decided to set up the defense. Why not ride the guard into a corner and foul with at least under 10 if you had applied any sort of pressure. VCU's frontcout defense is easier to beat than the pressure. What had Richmond shot on 3's to that point?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
In hindsight maybe you foul after they cross half court, but we did force him to take a three from nearly 10 feet behind the line. He made it, credit to him and their team. its inexcusable to give up a last second three from the line, but when he comes off screen from 28-30 feet, I'll take it all day long. Odds are against it, last night he made it. good on him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,478 Posts
Also I guess it depends on the team I'm playing against. If they have multiple 3 point snipers or proven clutch shooters, I might be more inclined to foul.
I agree with this, the foul becomes the better strategy in some situations. I'd also argue the coach should weigh their perimeter defenders' abilities, which you'd think VCU would be quite strong with.

And no, it's not obvious that you should foul. Frankly, the Depauw "study" by Fenlon is a joke, unless I'm not looking at the right one. The guy arbitrarily assigns probabilities to different outcomes and then draws conclusions from them. Well gee, that's surprising, your arbitrarily picked percentages ended up supporting your gut feeling. Who could have predicted that?

This study was at least based on actual data: http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/intentionally-fouling-up-3-points-the-first-comprehensive-cbb-analysis/

This was a really interesting set of comments to that article too, that I think coaches see and fans do not:
Alex says:
August 25, 2010 at 8:02 pm

Stile is right on in the second paragraph. It sounds like your data makes it look like the strategies give almost identical results but only because of the situation where fouls were in the act of shooting. The whole point of the strategy is to foul while the opposing team is bring the ball up so that time is wasted, they only get 2 shots on the line.
Reply

jezekowitz says:
August 25, 2010 at 8:20 pm

Alex,

Yes that is the point of the strategy, but what if teams can’t execute that strategy correctly? Luke Winn quotes Frank Martin as saying his guys mess up the foul about 1/8th of the time in practice. Using my data, the number is slightly lower than that, but regardless: you have to take that possibility for the strategy failing into account when you analyze the two strategies.
Both strategies will normally result in the team up 3 winning when there's so little time left on the clock. So just because it works to foul most of the time doesn't mean that it's the best choice, because teams that don't foul end up winning most of the time. There's also the risk of losing without ever getting the ball back (player reacts a fraction slow and fouls a 3 pt shooter who hits it).

I also think that if teams start doing this more often that the NCAA change it so that refs will call an intentional foul in that situation, just because it looks bad and takes away some excitement, not because it is that much more effective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,420 Posts
In hindsight maybe you foul after they cross half court, but we did force him to take a three from nearly 10 feet behind the line. He made it, credit to him and their team. its inexcusable to give up a last second three from the line, but when he comes off screen from 28-30 feet, I'll take it all day long. Odds are against it, last night he made it. good on him.
True, but you can't wait until the player gets close to the line b/c at that point they are likely already getting into the act of shooting or can draw a foul and you are putting them at the line for 3. That is also why some coaches don't like to foul, they don't want the ballhandler to recognize the foul coming and have him draw a foul in the act of shooting.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
335 Posts
You can Tweet at @CoachFinamore if you'd like to talk about it. He's sort of become the Twitter center point of the "discussion" with his #foulordefend hash tag.

As of last week, he said it was something like 12% of teams had lost not fouling. None have lost fouling.

You always foul.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,866 Posts
Richmond lost to St. Louis early in Mooney's tenure when he allowed that good lefty jumpshooter (can't recall his name) to shoot from deep when down 3, then UR lost in OT. Since then, UR has fouled in that situation.

I think you have to foul right at the half court line as that is about the maximum time off the clock without the ballhandler being in position to try a shot (or fake it) when getting fouled. Generally they are dribbling up frantically in that position on the court and nowhere near in shooting position, so the foul will work.

I think you must foul in that spot. Guys can hit uncontested 25-28 footers no problem, as evidenced last night.

Good point about not pressing up 3 with 12 seconds left, not sure why VCU went that route too. Afraid of getting beaten by the guards off the dribble and a defensive breakdown ensuing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
368 Posts
After sitting front-row for the OSU/Xavier NCAA Second Round (Round of 32 then) game back in 2007, I am a strong supporter of fouling the shooter before he gets a chance to tie it up with a three. That is the saltiest I have ever been after a Xavier loss and never want to feel that feeling again. It sucked. FOr those of you who don't remember, we were up three with about 7-10 seconds left. Justin Cage missed free throw and OSU got rebound. Instead of fouling and putting OSU to the line, we allowed Ron Lewis to shoot a three, which he buried sending game to OT. We got smoked in OT.

Sean Miller, I think, agrees with me. He was in a similar situation I think two seasons ago, in the NCAA TOurney with Zona and never gave the opposing team a chance at tying. That OSU/XU game obviously still sticks with him as well.

I think it's a no-brainer to foul if up 3 and less than 15 seconds left. Why risk it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,881 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
just looking at URI, so far this year they have been in that situation 5 times:
-the team up 3 is 2-2 when not fouling (Richmond technically was a no foul situation even though they did foul)
-they are 1-0 when fouling
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,881 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
the other part of this is you have to trust and have faith in your rebounding and free throw shooting, if they miss the second one you have to grab the rebound, and you have to trust your guy is going to make both free throws when he is fouled
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,203 Posts
The Bonnies were burned by not fouling against Kentucky in the 2000 NCAA Tournament, so ever since that day I've been in favor of fouling. When it's down to 10 seconds or so and you're up three, fouling puts the odds far into your favor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,478 Posts
15 seconds is way too much time to foul on purpose, and waiting after (when they'll already have the ball up the court) means you might foul a 3 point shooter. You have to wait until about 5 seconds or less for it to make sense. More than that means the other team gets multiple possessions with a shot to win.

The problem is that fouling at the end on purpose has a low sample size at this point, because few teams do it. Coaches know that their players make mistakes, and they'll get crucified if one of their players fouls a guy in the act of shooting a 3 (which I've seen happen before), goes a little too hard and draws a flagrant or intentional foul, or fouls too early on the clock. Those are the bigger concerns than rebounding a ft miss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,420 Posts
After sitting front-row for the OSU/Xavier NCAA Second Round (Round of 32 then) game back in 2007, I am a strong supporter of fouling the shooter before he gets a chance to tie it up with a three. That is the saltiest I have ever been after a Xavier loss and never want to feel that feeling again. It sucked. FOr those of you who don't remember, we were up three with about 7-10 seconds left. Justin Cage missed free throw and OSU got rebound. Instead of fouling and putting OSU to the line, we allowed Ron Lewis to shoot a three, which he buried sending game to OT. We got smoked in OT.

Sean Miller, I think, agrees with me. He was in a similar situation I think two seasons ago, in the NCAA TOurney with Zona and never gave the opposing team a chance at tying. That OSU/XU game obviously still sticks with him as well.

I think it's a no-brainer to foul if up 3 and less than 15 seconds left. Why risk it?
I'd be interested in seeing if Shaka Smart changes his ways going forward. Sometimes that is all it takes, get burnt once and you quickly change your mind on it. Miller's lesson being worse than others given the magnitude of the situation.

Bob Knight has shared his thoughts on the matter in more than one telecast that I have seen/heard and he says that after getting burnt by not fouling, his teams started fouling when up 3 and minimal seconds left.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,881 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
URI played the SLU game differently than the Loyola game earlier in the year. I feel like once a coach gets burned on it they seem to change the way they play it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
950 Posts
This is a no brainer.
FOUL

I don't care is there is 15 seconds or 5 seconds---it doesn't matter.

The objective is not to allow a team to tie you with what is a very common thing---a three point shot.

So what if there's 15 seconds?

Idealy you would want it to be under ten-- I get that.
But lets not pretend that 15 seconds is a deal breaker.
You would feel foolish if you didn't foul---the guy gets away from you and hits a three because you were afraid there was too much time on the clock.

The one other thing that drives me crazy is college coaches refusing to play two for ones......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,750 Posts
Division 3's Rhode Island College's coach Bob Walsh actually practiced the other day fouling up 3 with less than 10 seconds left.

You always foul. The percentages are overwhelmingly in your favor of winning the game fouling as opposed to letting the game play out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,750 Posts
The one other thing that drives me crazy is college coaches refusing to play two for ones......
I can live with this. I'd rather get the 2 for 1, but if given the choice I'd rather get a open look with 28 seconds, then a contested 3 witha defender in your face with 43 seconds just to get the "2 for 1."
 
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
Top