Relevant given the ending to tonight's game. The box score says that Penn State started the possession with ten seconds left and that Carr's shot fell through the hoop with three seconds left.
An ESPN NBA article says that "Although the sample sizes are small, it seems hard to make the case that fouling, up three, with '1-10' seconds left is clearly advantageous." It cited their statistician John Hollinger's analysis and gave opinions from coaches: "Stan Van Gundy said his own rule of thumb was six seconds, while Jackson said his was five; regardless, it sure as heck isn't 11."
The Harvard Sports Collective Analysis says it doesn't matter whether you foul up three or not. Deadspin says it does because: "'In only 3 of 52 cases did a team miss the 2nd free throw, successfully get the offensive rebound, and score.' And therein lies the problem with this study. The whole purpose of fouling when up three is to force exactly that scenario. The rest of the times that the team being fouled ended up scoring three, it was because they were fouled in the act of shooting the three. They went on to sink all three free throws." The Harvard Sports Collective Analysis responded to the Deadspin critique and said "the reason that the intentional foul strategy is not significantly different from not fouling are the cases in which the team fouls a player in the act of shooting a three."
Pomeroy found that with 5-12 seconds left, there's a slightly better chance of winning if you defend rather than foul.
The New York Times cites Synergy Sports Technology saying that in the 2008 and 2009 seasons, 165 times the situation presented itself where an NBA team could foul up three with 1-10 seconds left and NBA coaches fouled just 19 times. Doc Rivers strongly believes in fouling in that situation. Former Hawks coach Mike Woodson says he'd never foul in that situation.
In an Xavier newsletter, Jay Bilas says that he'd only foul if there were five or less seconds left and he was confident that his players could execute the late game situation.
In a USA Today article, former Tennessee coach Donnie Tyndall says: "Our deal is kind of six or seven seconds or less, we'll probably foul." Coach K after fouling with three seconds left said this: "Probably if you did stats, it would still be a low percentage of guys actually hitting a 3, but that's what you see. You see it over and over again. So you don't want that happening to you. And then can you in a disciplined way be able to take a foul, make sure they're not shooting? Can you rebound it when they miss and all that kind of stuff?"
A DePauw professor's analysis says it's advantageous to foul up three with seven seconds left, and Brad Stevens agrees.
An ESPN NBA article says that "Although the sample sizes are small, it seems hard to make the case that fouling, up three, with '1-10' seconds left is clearly advantageous." It cited their statistician John Hollinger's analysis and gave opinions from coaches: "Stan Van Gundy said his own rule of thumb was six seconds, while Jackson said his was five; regardless, it sure as heck isn't 11."
The Harvard Sports Collective Analysis says it doesn't matter whether you foul up three or not. Deadspin says it does because: "'In only 3 of 52 cases did a team miss the 2nd free throw, successfully get the offensive rebound, and score.' And therein lies the problem with this study. The whole purpose of fouling when up three is to force exactly that scenario. The rest of the times that the team being fouled ended up scoring three, it was because they were fouled in the act of shooting the three. They went on to sink all three free throws." The Harvard Sports Collective Analysis responded to the Deadspin critique and said "the reason that the intentional foul strategy is not significantly different from not fouling are the cases in which the team fouls a player in the act of shooting a three."
Pomeroy found that with 5-12 seconds left, there's a slightly better chance of winning if you defend rather than foul.
The New York Times cites Synergy Sports Technology saying that in the 2008 and 2009 seasons, 165 times the situation presented itself where an NBA team could foul up three with 1-10 seconds left and NBA coaches fouled just 19 times. Doc Rivers strongly believes in fouling in that situation. Former Hawks coach Mike Woodson says he'd never foul in that situation.
In an Xavier newsletter, Jay Bilas says that he'd only foul if there were five or less seconds left and he was confident that his players could execute the late game situation.
In a USA Today article, former Tennessee coach Donnie Tyndall says: "Our deal is kind of six or seven seconds or less, we'll probably foul." Coach K after fouling with three seconds left said this: "Probably if you did stats, it would still be a low percentage of guys actually hitting a 3, but that's what you see. You see it over and over again. So you don't want that happening to you. And then can you in a disciplined way be able to take a foul, make sure they're not shooting? Can you rebound it when they miss and all that kind of stuff?"
A DePauw professor's analysis says it's advantageous to foul up three with seven seconds left, and Brad Stevens agrees.
