I Can't Believe We're Still Not Fouling
Virginia Tech down three to Wisconsin at home Monday night, 11 seconds to go. They have the ball, they've just hit a couple three-pointers in the final minute to cut the Badger lead to one, and they have A.D. Vassallo, one of the nation's deadliest three-point shooters. ESPN color analyst Bill Raftery announces that if he was coaching Wisconsin, he'd order his players to foul in this situation. Bo Ryan, Wisconsin's actual head coach, chooses not to.
How are teams STILL not fouling in these situations?
The counter-argument to fouling goes something like this. If you play it straight up and don't foul, the worst you can do is overtime. If you foul, you're risking a loss.
How? Well, the argument goes, if you foul, your opponent could go to the line, make the first, miss the second, tap the rebound out to the three-point line, and sink a three to win.
Seriously?
Honestly, when was the last time you saw that happen? I've never seen it. What I have often seen, is what happened tonight: Vassallo drained a three to tie it up. (Wisconsin got a late bucket from Trevon Hughes to win 74-72.) Not fouling may well have cost Memphis the national championship last year (though Tigers coach John Calipari said his team had orders to foul, but couldn't give it before Mario Chalmers was already in the act of shooting his game-tying three).
It's a tired issue, because every time the situation arises in a game, the color guy makes a point to say that the leading team should foul. In fact, I don't know a single person who isn't a college basketball coach who thinks playing solid D is the correct strategy in this spot. And while it's generally correct to give the benefit of the doubt to give the presumptive experts (the coaches), not fouling simply can't be right.
If you choose not to foul, you're saying that the probability of the other team 1)making the first free throw, 2)missing the second free throw, 3)getting the offensive rebound, and 4)hitting a three-pointer is greater than the probability of the other team 1)hitting a three-pointer and 2)winning in overtime. (That's a bit oversimplified, but it will do for now). There's no way that's true.
As a fan, I actually don't mind it, because shots like the one Chalmers hit in April and Vassallo hit tonight are exciting, and free throws aren't. But it's the great mystery of the game that college coaches are still so skittish about this.
Quick notes from the opening of the Big Ten/ACC Challenge
-I don't remember when I first saw Vassallo, but he certainly wasn't the player then that he is now? When did he get such a complete game?
-I was really impressed with Wisconsin's Marcus Landry, especially early. I always thought of him as a glue guy, an undersized banger. But he had ten points early tonight, on a pair of three-pointers and a couple of nice turnaround jumpers on the baseline where he recognized the double team and turned away from it. I'm actually surprised he hasn't used up his eligibility yet, but he's a guy who has improved every year.
-Great crowd in Blacksburg tonight. Virginia Tech should be a tough place to win for ACC opponents not named North Carolina.
How are teams STILL not fouling in these situations?
The counter-argument to fouling goes something like this. If you play it straight up and don't foul, the worst you can do is overtime. If you foul, you're risking a loss.
How? Well, the argument goes, if you foul, your opponent could go to the line, make the first, miss the second, tap the rebound out to the three-point line, and sink a three to win.
Seriously?
Honestly, when was the last time you saw that happen? I've never seen it. What I have often seen, is what happened tonight: Vassallo drained a three to tie it up. (Wisconsin got a late bucket from Trevon Hughes to win 74-72.) Not fouling may well have cost Memphis the national championship last year (though Tigers coach John Calipari said his team had orders to foul, but couldn't give it before Mario Chalmers was already in the act of shooting his game-tying three).
It's a tired issue, because every time the situation arises in a game, the color guy makes a point to say that the leading team should foul. In fact, I don't know a single person who isn't a college basketball coach who thinks playing solid D is the correct strategy in this spot. And while it's generally correct to give the benefit of the doubt to give the presumptive experts (the coaches), not fouling simply can't be right.
If you choose not to foul, you're saying that the probability of the other team 1)making the first free throw, 2)missing the second free throw, 3)getting the offensive rebound, and 4)hitting a three-pointer is greater than the probability of the other team 1)hitting a three-pointer and 2)winning in overtime. (That's a bit oversimplified, but it will do for now). There's no way that's true.
As a fan, I actually don't mind it, because shots like the one Chalmers hit in April and Vassallo hit tonight are exciting, and free throws aren't. But it's the great mystery of the game that college coaches are still so skittish about this.
Quick notes from the opening of the Big Ten/ACC Challenge
-I don't remember when I first saw Vassallo, but he certainly wasn't the player then that he is now? When did he get such a complete game?
-I was really impressed with Wisconsin's Marcus Landry, especially early. I always thought of him as a glue guy, an undersized banger. But he had ten points early tonight, on a pair of three-pointers and a couple of nice turnaround jumpers on the baseline where he recognized the double team and turned away from it. I'm actually surprised he hasn't used up his eligibility yet, but he's a guy who has improved every year.
-Great crowd in Blacksburg tonight. Virginia Tech should be a tough place to win for ACC opponents not named North Carolina.
Labels: A.D. Vassallo, Bill Raftery, Bo Ryan, John Calipari, Marcus Landry, Mario Chalmers, Memphis, Not fouling, Trevon Hughes, Virginia Tech, Wisconsin
posted by H.S. Slam, Ph.D at 6:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home