Here is other evidence posted as well:
We can all have our own evidence based opinions, that’s fair. The mouth breathers on here can just go eat it.
You should always foul
- Thread starter TNCatfanforever
- Start date
Here is other evidence posted as well:
We can all have our own evidence based opinions, that’s fair. The mouth breathers on here can just go eat it.
Said you were blocking me and have now quoted me twice without a reply. Obsessed?
He was sagging into help defense as if he was afraid someone was gonna drive the ball. For all the amazing things he does, he simply sucks at guarding his guy.
I think it is a valid question. We tried it your way and lost. I think maybe you should be open to an opposing line of thinking.
we foul under 10 secs, we win.
Because Cal is a terrible game coach. He just is. One of the worst you’ll find anywhere, at any level.
I don't have a "way" idc if you foul or not. I care that people are acting like there is a definite right way when the statistics tell you there isn't and coaches across all levels, the NBA included are split on it.
Idk man you were pretty adamant that fouling was wrong. I mean, if we can't debate something like this then what are we even doing here?
You can't make blanket statements like "The NBA is split on it" and such. At some point you have to watch the game and see that our kids can't guard me, my mom, or my great uncle. Given that fact and the fact that they have a kid who can't miss a 3 (because he is wide open always) I'd say fouling is the safest option.
Coaches don’t do it because they watch kids do stupid things over and over.
They don’t trust the players to not risk the game by fouling on a 3 pt attempt.
They don’t trust the players to not risk the game by fouling on a 3 pt attempt.
This. What you cannot do is allow the other team to do the ONE AND ONLY ONE thing that beats you - get off an open look from 3 from a guy shooting 50% from 3 for the game. Absolutely inexcusable.
The other way good teams win close games at the end of regulation - REBOUND and MAKE FTS. That's not coaching...that's execution.
Who GAF if florida drives for a two when they need 3? Makes no sense. Guard the threat that can actually beat you.
Florida was the team that Reed hit the FTs against in Gainesville down the stretch. Calipari has used Reed to inbound the ball and get a pass back after the inbounds pass. It has worked - in Gainesville being the first time.
Florida coach adjusted and guarded Reed on the baseline. Dillingham has to make both FTs period.
Reed had defensive lapses all night and absolutely could not stay in front of Pullen. FWIW, Dilly wasn't much better. But, it is inexcusable to leave Clayton and allow him to get off a clean look for three at the end of regulation. A CBB player shouldn't need a coach to tell him that. We can make excuses for the mistakes down the stretch (mental exhaustion, etc)...but execution and attention to detail in those situation are the difference between W's and L's.
Good points. Last night's game was a comedy of errors and there is plenty of blame to go around. it is short sighted to blame it all on the players or all on the coach. Everyone played their part. Ultimately its on the coach and it's his feet in the fire. But his guys didn't do him any favors
When I watch other games, I find myself pretty shocked to see not a lot of teams/coaches do this. It seems like the right play to me: don't let them get a 3, force two free throws, keep the lead, end the game.
But there has to be some reason teams aren't doing this. Watch tonight's games, it's seemingly rare that coaches do this, and often just let it play out.
I'd say the biggest reason they don't foul more often is because they are confident in their team's defensive ability. But this team has very little defensive capabilities and Cal has to recognize that. So it's not a one size fits all argument. But in Kentucky's case we are better off fouling because there is a very good chance we give up an open 3, which we did.
This thread gives a plethora of reasons why teams don't do it, examples of teams who don't do it, etc.
Then you have some research by Kenpom:
These results are largely consistent with what Ezekowitz found. Based on my assumptions, defending has surprisingly worked out to be a slightly better strategy over the past three-plus seasons. I’ll try to explain why, but first I think it should be obvious why it might appear that fouling is better. There are 79 cases of something bad happening when a team chose to defend to just fifteen for the foulers. You don’t have to look hard to find cases of a team hitting a three in the closing seconds to force overtime. It happens almost every weekend.
Yeah, that's probably true to some degree. Maybe Cal made the mistake of not understanding the percentages a little better with a team that's so erratic on defense.
But I'm just trying to point out.. that "not fouling" isn't some horrible and unforgivable decision on his part. There's clearly merits to it based on the data above. Maybe he should have played it safer by fouling, sure. But this isn't some monumental screw up. And it's also something a HECK of a lot of coaches dont do either.
Same as choosing Reed to inbounds. He choose to have his smartest player start the first portion of the inbounds, and just trust that the 2nd part of the inbounds (the catch) was solid as well. But if the inbounder screws up his part, than the 2nd part is moot. I think it was the right choice to have Reed inbound.
well we don't have to speculate about what cal thought because he told us in the post game. He thought there was more time on the clock. In my opinion he got caught watching the game and fell asleep at the wheel. Now, we are only in that position because dilly pissed down his leg, reed couldn't cover his man with a net, Cal didn't call TO to set up and inbounds, and nobody can hit a layup. I mean, it was a comedy of errors. Plenty of blame on the table for everyone.
We can't defend the 3, haven't all year, and Florida hit 43% from 3 yesterday. Fouling would have absolutely been a better idea than hoping we finally guard the 3 for the last possession.
A good 3 point defending team may very well just guard instead. Cal should have been self-aware enough to realize this.
I think that's my take away with a lot of these implosions late in game. The blame can go all over, but it also can't just be placed at one person.
Truth be told, for as bad as Tre executed, Florida has very good rebounding and a lot of size. That was going to be a tough game for him, and despite that he was still able to find his shot. It just didn't go in. So while, yes Tre had a bad game, he still had 9 rebounds 3 assists a block a steal and just 1 turnover. You can still make plays even if your shot is falling.
And some of the blame still goes to unforseen consequences. We got zero help from officials despite being at home, and we finished the game with 4 injured players. That's has to count for something here. Even Phil Jackson and Michael Jordan are going to lose games if players are out and he's not getting the calls.
Last edited:
Calipari said "there's was more time on the clock than I wanted." There was 11 seconds on the clock, iirc. Almost no one fouls outside of 10seconds left on the clock. The choice to defend was the right one.
He said he told the team to crowd the 3pt line and don't give an open look there. Reed sucked down into the paint giving space to Clayton to get the shot off. Again, right call...poor execution.
But, we never should have been in that position had Dillingham made the free throw...or Mitchell a handful of seconds earlier. The killer in last night's game was immaturity and poor execution...bottom line.
Because it's not the truth? You can think we should have fouled, that's fine. But it's far from as black and white as people are making it out to be. The statistics do actually say you have a 1% better chance of winning by not fouling. This is very much a matter of opinion and saying "you should always foul" just isn't accurate.
Similar threads
