Clock and foul management

[willingtonfan]

OK, so after the two made free throws by Morgan Tuck, we have a three-point lead with twelve seconds to go.

Why not simply do the following:

1. Harass the inbounds pass. (I would even consider doing so in such a way that we commit an endline violation, take the delay of game warning - you get one free per game - and make them try to inbound it again!) Recall that, at this point, Stanford has no timeouts, so cannot call one to avoid a five-second violation. (Well, technically they can, but it would give us two shots and the ball on the team technical foul for calling a time out you don't have.)

2. If they do get it in, press in the backcourt to (a) try to induce a ten-second violation and (b) at least make Stanford use more of the twelve seconds available to it than they would like.

3. Once the ball crosses midcourt, FOUL SOMEBODY - ANYBODY - before they can hoist a three-point shot.

In that case, the WORST case scenario is UConn gets the ball back up by one with a few seconds left. Of course Stanford will foul, but now time is on OUR side, and even if we only hit one we've got a two point lead and can repeat the above with the new worst case being a tie.

This is something I've seen happen in almost EVERY close game we have lost in the past five years. (I even recall a Notre Dame game some years back that we were in an almost identical situation, with a two point lead with like eight second to play, the only way we can lose is to give up a three, so I'm yelling at the screen, "Just foul someone! Anyone! They can't get three points on a common foul through free throws!") We have the chance to close out the game with some clock/foul management and we simply can't do it. I don't know if it's that Geno doesn't like the idea of fouling on purpose to limit the potential opponent scoring on the possession to two. Sometimes I think in those end-of-close-game situations the kids (and maybe also the coaches) are so unused to being in that situation they don't think of things like this or they get caught up in the moment or what. But it seems to me that with all the assistant coaches, stat monitors, etc., on and near the bench, SOMEONE could have pointed this out to somebody with a suggestion as to how to win the game in regulation.

But the reality is that this is what other teams do to win close games at the end, and I think perhaps we should do so as well.

Just a thought that I feel like I've had after virtually all of our close losses over the past decade or so....

 

[Shenandoah]

I could not agree with you more. I can't repeat the words that I was using when we not only failed to foul, but then allowed a veritable uncontested 3...ughhhhh....

 

[Icebear]

I could not agree with you more. I can't repeat the words that I was using when we not only failed to foul, but then allowed a veritable uncontested 3...ughhhhh....

The uncontested three was the result of MoJeff trying to jump the pass to Orrange instead of realizing she was the last available defensive rotation and going directly to defend Orrange. If she goes to Orrange she forces Orrange to move instead of being spotted up and possibly take a two, a dribble or two burning the remaining clock, or at least a moving three.

 

[OldAlum]

Yeah, I was yelling "Foul!" too. Did Geno not order that? If not, why?
And what about the end of OT? There was time for a hail-Mary, but instead they dribbled it out!

It is one thing to lose to a really good team playing really tough. But it is difficult to see questionable strategy and choices from UConn.

 

[UConnCat]

Most coaches don't foul when up 3 on the last possession. I'm not a fan of fouling in that situation. You play tight man defense and switch on every screen. Moriah made a defensive mistake particularly since Samuelson was well covered and would have had to throw up a prayer. Moriah needed to stay with Orange.

 

[Blakeon18]

If it is obvious that a defender is going to intentionally foul you, the offensive player will chuck it up from wherever she is....
trying to draw the contact while shooting. Will the ref always call the foul? No. Sometimes...yes. If the ref does call the foul, the offensive team would gladly [imo] take the three free throws instead of a wild field goal attempt.
And...heavens forbid...if the wild trey attempt does go in despite the foul, you could lose the game on a 4 point game.
Unlikely....yes. Possible...yes.

 

[stamfordhusky]

OK, so after the two made free throws by Morgan Tuck, we have a three-point lead with twelve seconds to go.

Why not simply do the following:

1. Harass the inbounds pass. (I would even consider doing so in such a way that we commit an endline violation, take the delay of game warning - you get one free per game - and make them try to inbound it again!) Recall that, at this point, Stanford has no timeouts, so cannot call one to avoid a five-second violation. (Well, technically they can, but it would give us two shots and the ball on the team technical foul for calling a time out you don't have.)

2. If they do get it in, press in the backcourt to (a) try to induce a ten-second violation and (b) at least make Stanford use more of the twelve seconds available to it than they would like.

3. Once the ball crosses midcourt, FOUL SOMEBODY - ANYBODY - before they can hoist a three-point shot.

In that case, the WORST case scenario is UConn gets the ball back up by one with a few seconds left. Of course Stanford will foul, but now time is on OUR side, and even if we only hit one we've got a two point lead and can repeat the above with the new worst case being a tie.

A few of the counter-arguments that a coach might put forth:

1. If you press in back court, you might foul. Then the other team hits two shots and then intentionally fouls you. If you hit only one of two, they now only need a two - which obviously is a lot easier - and they still have a lot of time.

2. If they get the ball up court quickly and you intentionally foul, say with 8 seconds left, they may make two foul shots. Then they intentionally foul and say you only make one. Again, they now only need two points, which is a lot easier, and there is enough time to get a decent shot.

3. You harass them and play tough defense, running some time off the clock. Then you intentionally foul with, say five seconds left. They make the first FT and intentionally miss the second (hard). Ball is tipped by an offensive player and ends up in the hands of another one, who either gets a decent shot or kicks to an open wing for a shot. It's hard to play good man-to-man off a scramble for a missed FT.

4. You go to intentionally foul and a smart player suddenly puts up a shot just as you grab them. Now it's three FT's - and a chance to tie the game.

All of the above have happened in college games, some more frequently than others, but it's something coaches think about. My view is that you intentionally foul once the clock is down to about six seconds AND if you are certain the player you are about to foul won't be able to launch a shot just as you grab them. Even then, you run the risk of an intentionally missed FT followed by an offensive rebound, but the odds are in your favor.

 

[pap49cba]

Geno with second thoughts.... From Fuller:

"On the other side of things, UConn Geno Auriemma immediately questioned his decision not to commit a foul which would have prevented Stanford from tying the game.
"Don't remind me of that," Auriemma said. "That is just inexcusable. I keep going back and forth, should I, should I and so far I haven't made the right decision very often."

 

[Shenandoah]

Geno has won 9 more National championships than I have, but, given that situation, I would have my player foul, and take my chances. Especially considering the fact that my players were just not "on" defensively for most of the game.

 

[Icebear]

If it is obvious that a defender is going to intentionally foul you, the offensive player will chuck it up from wherever she is....
trying to draw the contact while shooting. Will the ref always call the foul? No. Sometimes...yes. If the ref does call the foul, the offensive team would gladly [imo] take the three free throws instead of a wild field goal attempt.
And...heavens forbid...if the wild trey attempt does go in despite the foul, you could lose the game on a 4 point game.
Unlikely....yes. Possible...yes.

If one is going to foul you do it early in the back court. That option is why in international ball there is option of shots or the ball. If you intend to foul you need to make sure the shot has NO possibility of reaching the basket or being on line.

 

[slug25]

And while we are piling on . . . I hate it when Geno calls a time out to set up a play for the final possession. The last time this worked out was when Sue Bird was on the team.

 

[UConnCat]

And while we are piling on . . . I hate it when Geno calls a time out to set up a play for the final possession. The last time this worked out was when Sue Bird was on the team.

If you mean the shot at the buzzer against ND Geno didn't call a timeout before that last possession. I'm not sure if he had a timeout left but he pulled Sue over while Riley was shooting her FTs and told her to get it and go.

 

[Tonyc]

Tara had a terrific game plan. It appears UConn didn't and didn't make adjustments. To give Stanford a wide open shot to end the game should never happen. Just one of the many mistakes we made on defense. To take a shot when we should be holding the ball and to not know what to do with 2.6 sec left in ot is another mistake. We didn't appear to know what to do and we panicked . We looked lost and confused. Not keeping Kia and Stewie close to the basket was another mistake. Our guards need weak side back side help. There is a lot to learn from this. Heck we scored 80+ pts and lost. That doesn't happen to often to a UConn team. We will learn from this. On a bright note Saniya looked like when the going got tuff she got going reminiscent of HS. I think this was her break out game offensively. We got in foul trouble which didn't help either something uncharacteristic of UConn. Yeah there were some chippy fouls and some that didn't go our way however we were on the road. This is what happens on the road. As poorly as we looked we lost by 1. Next big game is at ND. They have height and good guards. We will see if our team has made any changes.

 

[meyers7]

And while we are piling on . . . I hate it when Geno calls a time out to set up a play for the final possession. The last time this worked out was when Sue Bird was on the team.

I mentioned that in the game thread. We never seem to be able to carry out a play coming out of a time out.

 

[Wbbfan1]

Kiah in the preseason said she was going to take three point shots. Last night she attempted one, when she shouldn't have. If the team runs clock and misses a shot as time expired, Stanford doesn't have enough time to run the last play. Kiah probably doesn't commit the foul putting Stanford on the line. Kiah took her shot when only 19 seconds had elapsed on the Shot Clock. Of Course if she makes the shot we're praising her for the courage to take the shot.

I'm not blaming Kiah for the loss as all players contributed to it, by they're poor defense and other poor decisions/executions.

Kaleena and/or Geno have got to find a way to create her own shots, as Stanford gave ND and other similarly talented teams the blueprint to beat UConn. Face guard Kaleena all over the court and don't let her setup for her shot. Stanford set hard picks, which caused Kia to pick up a couple of fouls, didn't see many hard picks by Kiah and Morgan to get Kaleena open for her shot or draw fouls on Stanford.

 

[NutmegDog]

Most coaches don't foul when up 3 on the last possession. I'm not a fan of fouling in that situation. You play tight man defense and switch on every screen. Moriah made a defensive mistake particularly since Samuelson was well covered and would have had to throw up a prayer. Moriah needed to stay with Orange.

I do agree that most coaches won't "give the foul" when up by three in the final seconds, but I have never understood why not. I've watched college hoop for 50 years. I have seen any number of situations where the foul shooter is put in a situation where he or she must try to hit the first and then miss the second (hoping for a put-back). And in all that time I don't think I've seen it work more than a couple of times. Mostly, the foul shooter actually makes the second attempt, even as he or she is trying to miss.

You know what I've seen many, many, many more times than a successful "make-one, miss-one" FT situation? Last second 3 pointers that put the game into OT, and generally with the team that has gained "new life" stoked up and full of momentum.

To me it's a no brainer. Up three with less than 10 secs left, you give the foul.

 

[baggerbob]

I do agree that most coaches won't "give the foul" when up by three in the final seconds, but I have never understood why not. I've watched college hoop for 50 years. I have seen any number of situations where the foul shooter is put in a situation where he or she must try to hit the first and then miss the second (hoping for a put-back). And in all that time I don't think I've seen it work more than a couple of times. Mostly, the foul shooter actually makes the second attempt, even as he or she is trying to miss.

You know what I've seen many, many, many more times than a successful "make-one, miss-one" FT situation? Last second 3 pointers that put the game into OT, and generally with the team that has gained "new life" stoked up and full of momentum.

To me it's a no brainer. Up three with less than 10 secs left, you give the foul.

The Notre Dame game 2 years ago up 3, and McBride hit the 3 to send the game into overtime, and UConn lost. Geno might change his mind, after last night about giving the foul.

 

[CL82]

The uncontested three was the result of MoJeff trying to jump the pass to Orrange instead of realizing she was the last available defensive rotation and going directly to defend Orrange. If she goes to Orrange she forces Orrange to move instead of being spotted up and possibly take a two, a dribble or two burning the remaining clock, or at least a moving three.

Ice are you sure the plan wasn't to double the shooter? Orrange isn't known for her three point prowess. I'm not sure that MJ went off script.

 

[UConnCat]

Ice are you sure the plan wasn't to double the shooter? Orrange isn't known for her three point prowess. I'm not sure that MJ went off script.

You could be right about the plan, though it looked like Stewie had the Samuelson kid pretty bottled up. I'll be interested to hear what Geno says about Mo's defense on that shot if he's asked.

 

[Icebear]

Ice are you sure the plan wasn't to double the shooter? Orrange isn't known for her three point prowess. I'm not sure that MJ went off script.

No, she cut the angle on the pass. If was to double she took a terrible angle.There was no script involve it was defensive rotation.

 

[CL82]

No, she cut the angle on the pass. If was to double she took a terrible angle.There was no script involve it was defensive rotation.

Interesting, I'll look at it again tonight.

 

[Icebear]

Interesting, I'll look at it again tonight.

I had a chance this afternoon and it is a bit of both. The close up replays masked the double a bit. She never fully closed on the double and then tried to jump the pass. Either way leaving Orrange was the wrong choice without anyone else to rotate to coverage. Orrange isn't a bad shooter she just doesn't take many. About 33%.

 

[nimzovich]

I do agree that most coaches won't "give the foul" when up by three in the final seconds, but I have never understood why not. I've watched college hoop for 50 years. I have seen any number of situations where the foul shooter is put in a situation where he or she must try to hit the first and then miss the second (hoping for a put-back). And in all that time I don't think I've seen it work more than a couple of times. Mostly, the foul shooter actually makes the second attempt, even as he or she is trying to miss.

You know what I've seen many, many, many more times than a successful "make-one, miss-one" FT situation? Last second 3 pointers that put the game into OT, and generally with the team that has gained "new life" stoked up and full of momentum.

To me it's a no brainer. Up three with less than 10 secs left, you give the foul.

Nope - it is not a no-brainer. . Studies have actually been made, and while it is very close, the odds of winning have been slightly higher when the team doesn't foul. Very good discussion here of a 3-year study at kenpom.
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/yet_another_study_about_fouling_when_up_3

btw, you are right that you've seen more OTs when defense is chosen over the foul, but there have been more cases where coaches chose defense, and that is the reason. btw, just coincidentally, i was watching the end of Manhattan-UMass men today. UMass, up 3, fouled, the 2nd Manhattan FT missed the rim with 2 sec to give UMass the ball up one, and the game STILL went to OT....it does happen

 

[UConnCat]

I had a chance this afternoon and it is a bit of both. The close up replays masked the double a bit. She never fully closed on the double and then tried to jump the pass. Either way leaving Orrange was the wrong choice without anyone else to rotate to coverage. Orrange isn't a bad shooter she just doesn't take many. About 33%.

Typically in that situation defenders are instructed to play tight man and switch on screens so as not to give the shooter any space. I'm pretty sure Mo's job was to stay with Orrange as there was no way Bonnie Samuelson was going to get a good shot off with Stewie guarding her. I think she lost her composure and made a defensive mistake.

 

[Huskies Rule]

Interesting, I'll look at it again tonight.

Masochist