Kenpom wrote this a few years ago. The gist was only foul sub 70% FT shooters in the up by 2 situations.
And sometimes it just goes in even when defended well. One Shining Moment videos are filled with those kinds of shots.
If the shoe were on the opposite foot and I'm the Iowa coach, I'm fouling all day. I've seen nearly every 3 in history go in against the Hawks in a game winning scenario. F that noise.
Steph Curry Olympic Gold dagger 3 over 2 defenders for example
There's a rumor that the Tarheels are after him as their next coach after the Hubert Davis firing.
Good thing the scenario never came to pass so it doesn't matter who the coach is? I think Golden was just trying to cover for how awful Florida played on both ends over the last 8.9 seconds. If they were trying to foul you don't play behind the primary ball handler. And given your height advantage you take literally any shot at the end with enough time for a tip rebound opportunity. It was the sort of epic dipshittery I expect to happen against the Hawks, not in favor of them. But that's also my innate coping mechanism for Iowa being unable to have nice things.
That is coach BS. That is like letting a football team you are ahead of intentionally reach your territory to kick a game tying field goal with a minute left so you could march down on the next possession and kick a game winning FG with 4 seconds left.
An 80% free throw shooter has a .64% of making both free throws but that is not great odds that they might miss one. Because if they make the first then you can look at the 2nd free throw as an 80% probability it will be made. A good shooter, with a sweat and all warmed up etc has a good chance at both.
This scenario isn't just about the free throws though. IF the shooter makes both the idea is you still get the ball for last shot, so you basically steal the opportunity of making a field goal from the other team. Florida got the ball to the basket, they still could have won the game. Fouling early would have given them a few extra seconds and kept the 3 from happening. Coulda, shoulda, woulda, but there's no way of knowing for sure if that was going to be the right decision. In this particular example fouling would have been the right call. The article I posted from the Pomeroy site gives his chart on free throw percentage. As someone else said it basically says you should always foul a 70 percent shooter or under. In the age of analytics, I bet we will soon start seeing fouling occur in these scenarios. I didn't realize it was a consideration, but if the philosophy is out there, it will eventually happen.
I was only commenting on the fact end of game fouling up 2 seems like the antithesis of Ben’s philosophy and I’m happy for that.
This is a case where analytics acts like games happen in vacuums. Game state matters. I know analytics has taken over basketball in the last decade, but I don’t see a world where coaches don’t get dragged for willingly conceding points. I don’t think the risk is worth the reward.
Sure, a 70% FT shooter is .7 times .7 equals a .49% chance of making both. But if you are up 2 pts and foul and a player makes one and misses but the shooting team has a 40% chance of getting the rebound and a put back to put you behind. I would never foul intentionally when up by 2 and play good solid defense and if the opponent breaks toward a fairly open shot have your players foul before the act of shooting, foul strong enough so they cant get the And One
Criticizing the strategy & the result is not odd. Of course this Kirk Goldsberry-wannabe can’t fathom that the strategy would be a cause for why it wasn’t properly executed.
You’re not including the other variables that come with that pu$$y-a$$ strategy. Variables like two defenders getting taken out by a pick when you’re trying to foul a guy 90 feet from the cup. How likely is a wide open three if you’re playing normal defense? You f—- up normal D at the end, you get a wide open layup. Not a wide open three.
Also why have someone on the ball if your goal is to waste time/trap/foul? Better off playing an extra man middle of the court near the three point line to funnel. Just weird all around.
It was weird. I really don't understand why he went away from the press they used most of the second half. I mean I'm not mad about it lol just wild he played the last two possessions as poorly as possible.
I’m not. They still may end up not tying, fouling you with 5-7 second left, then pressure back on you to hit two free throws, and then presented with yet another opportunity. Too much game extension.
I hear you, but you could say the same thing about playing it straight up. Iowa did it on the very next possession. Analytics have unearthed some great strategies, but this is one where the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
You keep missing the fact that Florida’s execution absolutely does provide a case study. If they weren’t guarding the Hawks in the backcourt (because they were trying to foul) the wide open three would not have happened. Are you able to comprehend that?
Oh sorry, you’re right. Execution has nothing to do with strategy.
Fouling up three is quite common. It’s burned multiple NBA teams in the past two weeks. The research says it’s a percentage point or two in either direction depending on the level of basketball, strengths/weaknesses of the two teams, etc. You’ll have ~91% chance of winning either way.
Game state dependent, I am pro fouling up 3, but that's apples and oranges. With college balls new focus on continuation, that could become less of a "sure thing" as players starting to game shooting motions; we already saw Stirtz motion this idea in the BTT. But if new sh*t comes to light, I'll gladly change my mind.
Jokes on you, fivecard. I've got volumes of spreadsheets and they all say "don't shoot the midrange."
