Fouling When Up By 3
- Thread starter KyCatFan1
- Start date
Did it say how many actually went to overtime... that is the real question.
I dunno. I mean it's probably very rare but I could see a team that has the strategy of fouling, fouling too late and ending up doing so while the player is in the act of shooting.
Or the player anticipates he's about to get fouled so he just jacks a shot up.
Or the player anticipates he's about to get fouled so he just jacks a shot up.
Did Mississippi state foul us on purpose while up 3 in the sec title game that year?
Yes, after the in bounds side out about 3/4 court, Bledsoe brought the ball across half court and blew past Barry Stewart, who swipes at the ball from behind and fouls Bledsoe.
Here is the play after the foul.
No biggie unless the shot is made and the foul is called; It is the referee's discretion to determine whether the shooter was fouled "in the act of shooting" or not. Imagine giving up a 4 point play and losing the game when you were up by 3 and couldn't lose in regulation. This is the type of thing that can get a coach fired. Play defense and let the chips fall where they may.
Given what I read in that Kenpom article tho it seems like when defenses are keying on the 3, the opponents 3 pt FG% goes way down. 18 percent. Conversely, offensive teams keying on offensive rebounds, the offensive rebounding % goes up.
I'm thinking just play it out. If teams only make 18% of those threes and even if they make it's 50/50 in OT. I mean you are talking about a win probability of 9% if you just play it out.
I'm thinking just play it out. If teams only make 18% of those threes and even if they make it's 50/50 in OT. I mean you are talking about a win probability of 9% if you just play it out.
Also, calling timeouts is not a good thing when tied in late game situations.
http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2010/08/late-game-timeouts-if-the-game-is-tied-let-them-play/
In the case of teams with the ball when the score is tied, the data clearly show that it is more effective not to call timeout. In my 2009-2010 dataset, 452 teams fit the above criteria. 235 of those teams called timeout, 217 did not. Of the teams that called timeout, only 35.7 percent scored on the subsequent possession. Teams that did not call timeout scored 53.0 percent of the time. A simple two sample t-test with unequal variances shows that this difference is strongly statistically significant (p=0.0002).
Teams that called timeout scored an average of 0.773 points per possession whereas teams that did not call timeout scored an average of 1.06 PPP. Another hypothesis test showed that this difference, too, was statistically significant (p=0.022).
Thus teams that do not call timeout not only score more often, but also score more points on their possessions than teams that do.
http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2010/08/late-game-timeouts-if-the-game-is-tied-let-them-play/
In the case of teams with the ball when the score is tied, the data clearly show that it is more effective not to call timeout. In my 2009-2010 dataset, 452 teams fit the above criteria. 235 of those teams called timeout, 217 did not. Of the teams that called timeout, only 35.7 percent scored on the subsequent possession. Teams that did not call timeout scored 53.0 percent of the time. A simple two sample t-test with unequal variances shows that this difference is strongly statistically significant (p=0.0002).
Teams that called timeout scored an average of 0.773 points per possession whereas teams that did not call timeout scored an average of 1.06 PPP. Another hypothesis test showed that this difference, too, was statistically significant (p=0.022).
Thus teams that do not call timeout not only score more often, but also score more points on their possessions than teams that do.
This is from Kenpom:
Code:
W L OT Win% Cases
Foul 122 5 11 92.0 138
Defend 598 2 76 93.5 67648 of the 87 overtime games (55%) were won by the team coming back to tie it. Using that figure for OT games, the defenders win 93.4% of the time and foulers win 92.3% of the time.
So less chance of overtime. BUT a much larger chance of losing in regulation. WITH foiling.
Who woulda thought.
Thanks for posting.
I think spiking the ball is good strategy. Most normally means that you have just scored a TD! [banana]
It don't happen often but I was just listening on the radio to the end of the South Dakota State vs North Dakota State game and once again a team up 3 fouled and ended up losing in regulation when if they had not fouled worst case would been OT. Now it was pretty much a miracle but those kind of miracles never happen if you don't foul up 3.
NDST hit 2 FT's to go up 3 with 8 seconds left. SDST was fouled in the back court with 4.5 seconds left. They decided to go ahead and make both FT's to cut it to 1. SDST inbounded to an 87% FT shooter and he was fouled with 3.7 seconds left. He made 1st missed the 2nd and SDST rebounded the ball pushed it up the court and threw up a 45 footer that banked in at the buzzer for the win.
NDST hit 2 FT's to go up 3 with 8 seconds left. SDST was fouled in the back court with 4.5 seconds left. They decided to go ahead and make both FT's to cut it to 1. SDST inbounded to an 87% FT shooter and he was fouled with 3.7 seconds left. He made 1st missed the 2nd and SDST rebounded the ball pushed it up the court and threw up a 45 footer that banked in at the buzzer for the win.
Last edited:
Do you mean kneeling and burning time?
Not being a D. Just confused because alimony the ball stops the clock and burns a down and if you’re trying to stop the clock then you are behind...and trying to score so downs matter.
Of course that’s what I meant. Not sure why this thread got resurrected. But anyone with a brain knew what I meant and critiquing my football terminology when I don’t like the sport is a very poor argument to make and even dumber than the simple misuse of a word when what I was saying was clear as day