Source: Found hereWe could do 5,000 words on this. Well, I could. You'd probably hang in for about 600 if the readership analytics people are accurate.
(Anyone who does research on something and has information on it is an "analytics person" at this point, in case you didn't know.)
In perpetuating the great college basketball debate — foul or defend, while up three points in the closing seconds — I talked to several Division I men's basketball head coaches and assistants, and a few mentioned how the "analytics people" believe it's smarter to foul. That sums up the general perception, right?
NBA coaches always foul because the math says fouling gives you a higher probability of winning, but these college coaches can't trust their players and think the refs stink and have this macho "we can get a stop" mindset and … welp, there's a 30-footer off the glass from a career 19 percent 3-point shooter.
The actual data makes me wonder if we as a society have aggregated the analytics people and in the process misrepresented their information. As aggregators are wont to do. The anecdotal data says yes, more college coaches foul in that situation, put their opponents at the line and challenge them to make a free throw, miss the next one, get the rebound and score. Many more, it seems, in the past decade.
"I think a lot more programs have that philosophy now and practice it so they can execute it," said Justin Gainey, Tennessee associate head coach and "defensive coordinator," who has drills to make sure the Vols can do just that.
"When I played in the early 2000s it was, 'Just get a stop,' " said Ohio State associate head coach Joel Justus, who played at UNC Wilmington and who has been an "actual" analytics person — director of analytics for John Calipari at Kentucky. "Now it seems like everyone is at least OK fouling up three. It's been what I would call a seismic shift. Honestly, I think part of it is people being terrified of being crucified for not fouling and giving up a 3 and losing."
No comments:
Post a Comment