That is exactly what Iowa should have done with Minnesota. I'm still bitter about this game Iowa should have won. Happy about being tied for first but we should be undefeated in the BIG and solely in first place. Oh well.
Purdue FOULED Ohio St. up 3 with seconds left
- Thread starter wbrhawkeye
- Start date
Yep, I was saying foul him foul him. Imagine many others were too. Cost us the game, along with the missed free throws and a couple of their players be unconscious from 3 🙄
I'm not a believer in a "good loss". But I think the team learned a ton from that game and will not repeat those mistakes again. After that game, Fran started figuring out how to use his bench & so many other things. After what Minnesota did to Michigan Saturday, to think we're MUCH better now than we were a month a go has me so excited for the rest of the year.
I agree. I just wish we played Michigan before March. They are only going to get better. And it makes me a little nervous that the game is in Ann Arbor.
I recall a few years back when Syracuse did this to us in a very closely contested preseason game,.. Right thing to do but it Just made me despise Boeheim even more...
I'm still pissed about Iowa losing to UNLV in 1987
I posted this in the lounge after the criticism following the Minnesota game. I, too, thought that fouling was a statistically better approach with 5 seconds or so left in a game.
However, upon research, I found fairly conclusively that there is no statistical difference in choosing either approach (the average 3 point FG% when defended in these situations was 16%). So if we are to be led by "science" (partially tongue in cheek), then we shouldn't criticize coaches for either decision - it's a coin flip, give or take the other team's personnel perhaps:
A few links to analysis of the late game foul when up by 3:
https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordp...-points-the-first-comprehensive-cbb-analysis/
Of the 52 teams that committed a foul, six lost the game for a winning percentage of 88.46%. Of the 391 teams that did not foul, 33 lost the game for a winning percentage of 91.56%. Both a two sample t-test of proportion and a Chi-squared test fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is a difference in winning percentage between the two strategies. In this sample, teams that did not foul won slightly more often. For the less statistically inclined, this means that there is no significant difference between the two strategies.
Another one by Kenpom founder shows similar results.
https://kenpom.com/blog/yet-another-study-about-fouling-when-up-3/
The leading team is assumed to have a 50/50 shot to win if the game goes into the extra period. According to my records 48 of the 87 overtime games (55%) were won by the team coming back to tie it. I’m skeptical whether that’s real, but using that figure for OT games, the defenders win 93.4% of the time and foulers win 92.3% of the time.
These results are largely consistent with what Ezekowitz [DHP - this is the author of the first link] found. Based on my assumptions, defending has surprisingly worked out to be a slightly better strategy over the past three-plus seasons
Another reason the fouling strategy isn’t as useful as one would think is that teams really stink at three-pointers when the defense knows they need one and there is a significant time constraint. In the 814 cases studied, teams made 98 out of 608 three-point shots (16.1%) during the possession in question. [DHP - unless you go under the screen, lol!]
However, upon research, I found fairly conclusively that there is no statistical difference in choosing either approach (the average 3 point FG% when defended in these situations was 16%). So if we are to be led by "science" (partially tongue in cheek), then we shouldn't criticize coaches for either decision - it's a coin flip, give or take the other team's personnel perhaps:
A few links to analysis of the late game foul when up by 3:
https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordp...-points-the-first-comprehensive-cbb-analysis/
Of the 52 teams that committed a foul, six lost the game for a winning percentage of 88.46%. Of the 391 teams that did not foul, 33 lost the game for a winning percentage of 91.56%. Both a two sample t-test of proportion and a Chi-squared test fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is a difference in winning percentage between the two strategies. In this sample, teams that did not foul won slightly more often. For the less statistically inclined, this means that there is no significant difference between the two strategies.
Another one by Kenpom founder shows similar results.
https://kenpom.com/blog/yet-another-study-about-fouling-when-up-3/
The leading team is assumed to have a 50/50 shot to win if the game goes into the extra period. According to my records 48 of the 87 overtime games (55%) were won by the team coming back to tie it. I’m skeptical whether that’s real, but using that figure for OT games, the defenders win 93.4% of the time and foulers win 92.3% of the time.
These results are largely consistent with what Ezekowitz [DHP - this is the author of the first link] found. Based on my assumptions, defending has surprisingly worked out to be a slightly better strategy over the past three-plus seasons
Another reason the fouling strategy isn’t as useful as one would think is that teams really stink at three-pointers when the defense knows they need one and there is a significant time constraint. In the 814 cases studied, teams made 98 out of 608 three-point shots (16.1%) during the possession in question. [DHP - unless you go under the screen, lol!]
Too soon dude...
And Jacksonville 1970.
I'm finally prepared to accept this loss...
i am glad we played Gonzaga, clearly the best team in the country. And I would rather have these 2 losses now because I think they have served as wake up calls to the players AND the coaches on what they need to focus on & improve upon.
Learn your lessons now, not in March.
We match up great with Michigan and anyone who thinks Dickinson is going to have his way with Luka is, quite frankly, delusional.
Dickinson is going to see first hand what being in shape means. Wagner is good and we have match-ups for him as well.
Not guaranteeing a W but we certainly won't get smoked.
I don't care what the analytics say, even without the benefit of hindsight, I am always in favor of committing the foul in that situation. The only real danger is if the player can convince the refs that he is in the act of shooting the ball no matter where he is on the court, or worse case scenario, he actually makes the shot.
Does the statistical analysis include the three point shooting percentage of the trailing team? I recognize that hindsight is 20/20, but everyone watching knew what was about to happen.
Still don't know why that game was as close as it was the entire time. Haven't bothered to rewatch or look at stats obviously. Same deal as Minny this year, if Bru makes that 2nd free throw vs NW State (or Touissant vs. Minny) the game is over.
Ok, so I had to look at that game's stats as I don't remember much from that St. Patrick's Day in 2006. Nobody played lights out, NW State shot 38% from 2 (pretty poor) and 38% from 3 so that's interesting. However, they got a ton of offensive rebounds (12) and tallied 9 steals so that helped them.
Iowa stats that day?
43% from 2 point land
33% from 3
8 offensive boards
4 steals
18 turnovers! This is probably the game
80% from the line this day
Last edited:
Uthoff (I think) tried selling the half court shot as he got intentionally fouled. I'll never forget that stupid grin on Boeheims face. I wanted to punch him in the mouth through the TV screen. Never seen a smug FU look quite like that before.
You mean defensive 3 point FG percentage?
No, it would not. Iowa isn't great at it, but currently rank 225 out of 340 in that statistic. The difference between us, and the 170th ranked team (average), however, is only 1.2% (33.0% to 31.2%).
That small difference pales in comparison to the average 3 point shot (33%) to a 3 point shot with the clock running down and a defense that is denying the 3 and will give up a free 2 pointer (16% as stated above).
So while I technically agree it's a factor that should be considered and isn't in the analysis, I don't believe it's significant enough to change the result all that much.
Minny loss was avoidable, but honestly the Hawks probably stole one at Rutgers, so I think we are where we should be. We just need to keep winning them one at a time. Beat the Hosers!
I'm still pissed about losing to Dr. Dunkenstein and Louisville in 1980!
Similar threads
