The sting still hurts.  I can’t stop thinking about it.  So, why not blog on it.  It was my premise that I hate Matt Painter’s decision to foul with 6 seconds while being up 3 points.  But lets be fair – if Purdue had got the defensive rebound on the missed FT, the Boilermakers would be heading to the Final Four and people would be talking about how smart it was of Painter to foul.

It is easy to play arm-chair coach after you know the results of the decision.  I can say it is the wrong decision because I saw after that decision was made, Virginia did tie the game.  But who knows – maybe Virginia would have hit a three pointer if they had defended – and the overtime still happens with the Cavaliers prevailing.

Then, my friend Dave sent me down the rabbit hole.  He texted me that a stat study showed playing defense was the right decision.   And he is right – both John Ezekowitz and Ken Pomeroy did studies on this.  I will use Pomeroy’s study – since he is known as one of the premier college basketball statisticians, and because his study had more data points since he accumulated data over more seasons.

Pomeroy found 814 games where a team got the ball down 3 points between 5 to 12 seconds.   138 of the cases, the leading team decided to foul.  In those cases, 5 times that leading team ended up losing in regulation, while 11 went to overtime.  If you made the assumption that overtime was a 50/50 event, fouling in this situation led to a 92% winning percentage.

On the other hand, for the 676 cases where the leading team defended – they only lost twice in regulation (on the dreaded four point play where the three pointer went in – and they got fouled giving them the chance to win the game).  Another 76 games went to overtime – leading to a 93.5% winning percentage.

What does this information tell the Lunatic……

• It is crazy hard to hit a three pointer when the defense knows your only choice is to shoot a three pointer.  It appears as though some coaches already have planned defenses for this to make it even more difficult.  But you are not looking at the normal 30-40% three point percentage that teams take during the normal parts of the game.  Pomeroy mentioned later in his study that teams only hit 16% of these types of three-pointers (and remember for the most part, these only tie the game).
• What if you could develop a defense that does this better – the reason coaches foul is that a team can’t tie the game from the FT line – but the problem is it lets the other team get closer without time coming off the clock.  What if you could create a defense that double-teamed the ball at the expense of allowing the opponent to have any two-point shot that they want.  You end up with the same result as the FTs – except more time has been taken off the clock and there is no chance of an offensive rebound leading to a bad result.  I bet a good coach could make that 16% Pomeroy observed be even less.
• I still think there are more risks to the fouling strategy.  Pomeroy noticed that 5 out of 138 cases ended with a loss in regulation.  Stranger things happen because of the dynamic the fouls create.  You have extended the game.  You have the defensive rebound situation that happened to Purdue – that could have just as easily ended in a three-pointer…  But even if they make both FTs, there is still 5-6 seconds left and now your lead is one point and they are going to foul you.  If you miss one of the FTs, you have now given the other team basically the same amount of time, but now this time, a three-pointer wins the game and they can still drive to the basket to force overtime.  Sure – they have to go the distance of the court – but most teams can do that with 5 seconds.
• That being said, while there is a slight edge towards defending, you are looking at two strategies that end up with relatively the same results.  So, while painful, you can’t really second guess this decision – teams lose either way at a relatively equal rate.

And then there is one last more painful realization this information gives.  With 6 seconds left in the game, Purdue had a 92% chance of making their first Final Four since 1980.  And they were in the unlucky 8% chance that ended their season.

This exercise didn’t help the Lunatic at all – while the stats show the Lunatic is probably  right, it is not by enough of a margin that it matters.  And it puts into focus that at that  fateful moment in time last night, my Boilers had a 92% of making the Final Four.   92%!!!!!!!