Should Coaches Foul when up by three in the waning seconds?



My teams haven't practiced missing FT's lately, but we used to.

I think this is entirely dependent upon the situation. I think each level of competition, high school, college and NBA are completely different beasts as well. I'm not sure I would foul to put the other team on the FT line every time up by 3, but I would definitely waste every foul that didn't put them at the line so they had to reset and run the play with little to no time to work with.
 


Bigtenchamp said:
There are a lot of variables - but everytime I've seen the foul used it worked.
Click to expand...
I was involved in the situation in hs and the other team fouled. Our pg made the first, missed the second and our pf got a tip in as the buzzer went to send it to OT. It does backfire.
 


Foul, especially if the other team is a hated rival, in fact do it every time. If you have fouls to spare, foul them over and over to run the clock down, making them throw the ball in from out of bounds. That happens all the time and is effective but frustrating strategy if you are on the wrong side of the situation......

2740382306_My_Two_Cents_answer_6_xlarge.jpeg


:cool:
 










Tough call. I'd say your odds of making a three are about half of normal when the other team is only defending the perimeter because they know you need a three to tie. So I'd put the odds of making the three at about 20%. Now if you're in a one-and-one situation, I'd say definitely foul. If you're in a two-shot situation, assuming you foul a guy making about 75% of his FTs, that means he's got a 75% chance of getting into a situation where he can either make the 2nd shot and hope for a steal and quick score (probably about 5%) or miss the 2nd and hope for an offensive board and putback (maybe about 20% on the offensive board... normally ORBs are about a 15% chance but an intentionally missed FT would carom a little harder... and about a 70% chance of hitting the putback from that close). 75% (for making the first FT) x 20% (getting the ORB after the missed 2nd) x 70% (hitting the putback) = 10.5% as a best-case scenario to tie the game for the team who gets fouled. The three gives them about a 20% chance, so I'd say foul.
 






It's hard to accurately gauge the risks. They're probably close to identical, but here's how I see the 'cons' sorting themselves out:

Fouling:
1. May foul in the act of shooting (but an 80% FT shooter only makes all three about half the time: .8^3=.512)
2. Shooter (if shooting 2) may make first, miss second with long rebound for last-second shot (I can't see this probability being very high, given that the probability of making the shot after the miss+rebound, even assuming everything before that, probably doesn't exceed 55% on average for all the types of shots that may result.
3. May give quick two, turn it over on the inbound, and surrender another two for loss (can't even estimate, but we can say their chance of converting if you turn it over in the backcourt with a couple seconds left is ~50%).

Not Fouling:
1. Dude makes a three (20-52% over the long run depending on shooter, shot, balance, defense, time left at inbounds; we'll go with the median at 36%).

You'd have to determine the chances of each of the bad scenarios after a foul to fully value it, but instinctively it seems like fouling is probably best. It won't work all the time, but because each of the bad fouling scenarios is only converted about 50% of the time, then all you have to do to make the odds even is avoid the situation at which we calculated the odds 28% of the time (50% of the remaining 72% is 36% [the odds of them making the three]).

I'd like to think that more than 30% of attempted fouls there avoid 1) putting a 3-point shooter on the line, 2) giving up an offensive board after a made front end, and 3) turning the ball over after two made FTs.

There are other scenarios, of course (i.e., offensive rebound on third FT after first two of three foul shots), but the more bizarre the outcome, the less it affects the calculus.
 


The same scenario goes when coaches are down and decide to start fouling and lengthen the game.

I like fouling, but not just recklessly, it has to be planned out.
 


JonDMiller said:
The problem with just stats is they don't account for the human element...some teams/players are more savvy than others and can execute a coach's plan...or are even in place to do it. It's not a vacuum
Click to expand...

You definitely foul when on the road. I'm guessing percentage of hitting the 3 ball goes up at home.
 


In my opinion you should definitely foul regardless of being home or away. With how little time was left they could have fouled and Kansas would have only had 2 or 3 seconds to pull off something crazy. In my opinion you'd have a lot better chance of winning doing that than last night letting them get a pretty good look at a three.
 


Ive always thought the foul makes sense but also kind of think its a cheap move. If it was done more you can almost bet some lame rule will be invented to give them a 3rd free throw if they make the first 2.
 


sportstalent said:
The same scenario goes when coaches are down and decide to start fouling and lengthen the game.

I like fouling, but not just recklessly, it has to be planned out.
Click to expand...

I do not watch much basketball but yeah a good foul strategy can really help keep a game close. Or a dominant player at bay.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.


Latest posts

Share this page






Top