This was a very interesting read. http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop...ut-the-Ball--To-Foul-or-Not--New-Insight.html [rquoter] Many statistical experts feel that NBA coaches are too timid in intentionally fouling when their team is on defense, up three points, in the closing seconds of a game. It's an old coaching question. Now there's some new evidence to inform the debate. The idea is that a good foul would give the opponents a measly two free throws and your team the ball. Presto, you've eliminated the possibility of a game-tying 3! Tidy! Nice! If all goes according to plan, that would ice the game, right? Is it true? Does that work? ... [/rquoter]
If I were a coach of the team that was up by 3, I'm not sure what I would do. While both options do seem viable from a fans point of view, I'm sure it would be different in a real time game situation. The options would all have to vary from players and how the game is going.
[rquoter] Then Winston does something delightfully simple. He asks: Has it worked? He presents, for the first time I'm aware, the evidence: A student in my sports and math class, Kevin Klocke, looked at all NBA games from 2005 through 2008 in which a team had the ball with 1-10 seconds left and trailed by three points. The leading team did not foul 260 times and won 91.9% of the games. The leading team did foul 27 times and won 88.9% of the games. This seems to indicate that fouling does not significantly increase a team's chances of winning when they are three points ahead. He adds a key footnote: We believe more work needs to be done to determine the definitive answer to this question. We are working on a simulation model of the last minute of a basketball game that should help settle the issue. [/rquoter]
I agree, and that's pretty much the point David Thorpe makes. A good rule of thumb is to look to foul with about 5-6 seconds left, I think. But you have to smart about when/how you deliver that foul.
It seems to me that the number of instances where the leading team DID foul is small enough that a 3% difference can't be considered significant. In addition, 1-10 seconds actually seems like a fairly wide spectrum. For example, I'd probably foul if I were up 3 with 2 seconds left. I'd be much less likely to foul up 3 with 8 or 9 seconds left.
Wait. Where is the more important statistic? Which is, what happened in those games at the end of regulation? Who wins doesn't matter. The point is how many times the game gets sent into overtime(or the trailing team won in regulation on some bizarre 4-point play or whatnot).
I think part of the decision on whether to foul or not has to be your chances of winning if the game heads to over-time. A road team or the underdog, generally speaking, should be less willing to go to overtime.
I think I would foul as long as the opposing team has no more timeouts left. As soon as the clock goes down below 10 I would foul in that situation.
Would the decision of fouling or not to foul be not somewhat concerned with whether there is a superstar clutch performer on the opposing team capable of converting on low-percentage shots? I.e. Brandon Roy/Kobe Bryant/LeBron James I'm pretty sure if we were trailing with 3 with the ball in our hands with Brooks-Battier-Ariza-Scola-Dorsey on the court the opposing team would in no way touch our players when they go up for the potentially game-tying shot. These stats I say do not convert to real-life situations well if decisions were to be solely based on these numbers.
That wasn't my point. My point is using "who won the game" is a deceiving statistic. Suppose the following: Leading team decides to foul 100 times, won 90 times in regulation(10 times the trailing team sent it into OT), goes 5-5 in overtime. 95% overall. Leading team decides to not foul 100 times. Won 80 times in regulation(20 times game go into OT) Goes 15-5 in overtime. 95% overall. You can't possible say that because the winning pecentage is 95% in both cases, that the result is a tossup. Obviously, given the above hypothetical statistic, it's much better to not foul.
Ok, I see what you're saying, but I think you meant that the team that won 90% of the time in regulation had the better strategy. You're right, it makes more sense to separate it. The team that's leading by 3 is thinking, primarily, "What do I need to do to make sure I win this thing in regulation?" But if they're only up 1 or 2, I think getting to overtime becomes more relevant in evaluating the decision.
the deciding factor is NOT win %. if you are up 3 with a few seconds left, the whole point of fouling is so the opponent can't TIE the game. if you don't foul and the opponent ties the game, it was the wrong decision wether or not you win in overtime.
Its better not to fault. Fouling only give a chance for the opponent to score points with the time stop. And then a lot of things could go wrong. 1) Opponent got the first FT, miss the 2nd ft, got the offensive board, and now its a 2 point lead. 2) Opponent got both fts, steal the inbound pass, and now its a 1 point lead. 3) Opponent got both fts, foul on the inbound pass, and you miss your fts. Although, there is also endless possibilities that it will go right. But I never understand why foul, all you got to do is defend a shot that only goes in less than 40%, and thats all you need to do, you do not even have to defend the paint. If you do it right, the opponent will get off an unbalance fade away 3p shot under pressure which will drop the percentage even lower.
It's too risky to foul when up 3 because there's always the chance that if a player realizes that strategy whenever time runs down, he could possibly draw a three-shot foul.
I wouldn't foul if I had someone like Zach Randolph or Lamar Odom on the team, too much blunt smoke in their brain.
In the early days of the NBA, the offensive team got 1 freethrow for the 1st 5 defensive fouls of the quarter. They then went to the current "get the ball out of bounds" for the 1st 5 fouls because of too much early fouling by the leading team. The leading team would give up 1 point & get the ball back in a 2 for 1 oppertunity. I think fouling before a 3pt shot is a good ploy. The only problem is the continuation call by the refs.
I loved it when Battier fouled Kobe when up 3 during that opener in 07. And it was close too since Kobe placed the ball perfectly for the offensive rebound and Rafer (I think) pulled it out. It's an interesting debate since both sides have good arguments.
Yes. Because that is obviously the goal of the team leading by 3. No coach would actually think "Which strategy gives me a better chance to win in OT". That just makes no sense. I think smoothie pointed this out much more eloquently than myself. Anyway, I don't disagree with the premises of the article. There are definitely specific instances when fouling is better, and intances when it's not. I just hated the fact that they used such a bad stat to make their argument.
