• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

2014-2015 B1G Men's Basketball

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Northwestern with the big win to keep Iowa 1 back in the loss column from us especially since they hold tie breaker with the sweep. Still a good shot Ohio State can finish as a top 3 seed just need to win 4 out of the last 5 games I think could do it. Need to beat Purdue and Nebraska at home for sure then need to win 2 of the 3 at Michigan at Penn State home to Wisconsin.
 
Upvote 0
DZ83CK said:
While there has been limited data, I don't think it is in favor of fouling up 3 overall, the odds of winning are essentially the same. The risk is the insta-loss by the other team making one FT, missing the second and getting the rebound and hitting a 3. So at least you give yourself OT by not fouling. NW forced Iowa into a very difficult 3-point shot, I don't have a problem with doing that. It looks like NW will take it in OT.
Click to expand...
That was an insane shot Uthoff made to end regulation to send it to OT. Most times it pays off to foul up 3 if the clock is below 5 seconds if you know they have to miss the 2nd FT on purpose. Teams seem to foul more and more up 3 now at the 10 second mark or less and if it's between 5-10 seconds you run the risk of losing if they make both FT's then they either turn you over on the inbounds or if they foul you and you miss 1 of the 2. I think fouling with more than 5 seconds left is a big risk for any team because of all the things that can go wrong but fouling up 3 with less than 5 seconds is a pretty high % play but I have seen a few times where a team hits one FT then misses gets rebound then ends up hitting a 3 for the win but that's a rarity.
 
Upvote 0
HenryMuto said:
That was an insane shot Uthoff made to end regulation to send it to OT. Most times it pays off to foul up 3 if the clock is below 5 seconds if you know they have to miss the 2nd FT on purpose. Teams seem to foul more and more up 3 now at the 10 second mark or less and if it's between 5-10 seconds you run the risk of losing if they make both FT's then they either turn you over on the inbounds or if they foul you and you miss 1 of the 2. I think fouling with more than 5 seconds left is a big risk for any team because of all the things that can go wrong but fouling up 3 with less than 5 seconds is a pretty high % play but I have seen a few times where a team hits one FT then misses gets rebound then ends up hitting a 3 for the win but that's a rarity.
Click to expand...

Where is your proof that most times it pays off? I don't think you have anything backing you up with that at all, I'd like for you to cite something other than your personal opinion. KenPom did a study that said it was basically an even proposition, in fact a slight advantage to not foul as far as odds of winning up 3 under 15 seconds. I believe why some think there is an advantage to fouling is people see not fouling A LOT more often, and therefore the times when it doesn't work to defend and not foul there have been more cases where the team lost, but percentage wise it was actually slightly better than to foul.
 
Upvote 0
OSU was perilously close to an insta-loss last year in the BTT against Purdue, they fouled up 3, PU made the first and missed the second FT, Smith knocked the ball out of bounds, then Purdue barely missed a 3 that would've won the game in regulation. Easy to forget because the Purdue 3 was missed, but the foul strategy was extremely close to being a disaster the one instance that I recall OSU utilized it last season.
 
Upvote 0
DZ83CK said:
Where is your proof that most times it pays off? I don't think you have anything backing you up with that at all, I'd like for you to cite something other than your personal opinion. KenPom did a study that said it was basically an even proposition, in fact a slight advantage to not foul as far as odds of winning up 3 under 15 seconds. I believe why some think there is an advantage to fouling is people see not fouling A LOT more often, and therefore the times when it doesn't work to defend and not foul there have been more cases where the team lost, but percentage wise it was actually slightly better than to foul.
Click to expand...

Henry has so many favorite teams, I'm sure he's seen it work a time or two.....
 
Upvote 0
DZ83CK said:
Where is your proof that most times it pays off? I don't think you have anything backing you up with that at all, I'd like for you to cite something other than your personal opinion. KenPom did a study that said it was basically an even proposition, in fact a slight advantage to not foul as far as odds of winning up 3 under 15 seconds. I believe why some think there is an advantage to fouling is people see not fouling A LOT more often, and therefore the times when it doesn't work to defend and not foul there have been more cases where the team lost, but percentage wise it was actually slightly better than to foul.
Click to expand...

Don't take my word for it just google it yourself. I said to foul when less than 5 seconds left not 15. I said that fouling with more than 6 seconds left was a risk because of the other team being able to knock down 2 FT's and not having to miss on purpose but ya I have seen a lot of college basketball and I hardly ever see the team foul up 3 with less than 5 seconds less lose. It takes a made FT then a miss then a basket just to get the game to OT. Sure there is the long shot of a chance the guy makes first FT misses the 2nd then they hit a 3 but that's a lot to ask when below 5 seconds to start. The reason I don't like fouling with 6 or more seconds left is if they make both they can turn you over and you can lose I believe I said that already or you could miss a FT then they hit a 3 to win it instead of tying and again I already said that. There is always the chance a ref calls a foul shooting so they get 3 shots ala Xavier in the NCAA tourney vs K-State years back to tie it as well.

With less than 5 seconds left most of the time it works well in your advantage I am sure you can go look online and find some proof yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.
 
Upvote 0
Found this too and it supports your theory of that it is about the same. The numbers here though account for the team going on to win in OT as well so if your goal is to prevent OT then fouling works out better but as far as winning and losing it ends up about the same according to this site.

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/yet_another_study_about_fouling_when_up_3

After reading more here they are counting ones I wouldn't count like a team fouls up 3 they make both FT's then the other team makes both FT's then they hit a 30 foot 3 for OT I would say that doesn't count against a team fouling up 3 because they hit a 3 point shot after FT's from both sides were made.

Another is the guy missed the FT went out of bounds off the defense so they got the ball back down 3 and then were not fouled and hit a 3. Again I would not count that one either.

So it looks like a couple of these have inflated the stats for fouling to be a bad thing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top