Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 181 to 195 of 195
  1. #181
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    Ah, OK. Well, I certainly agree that the Nebraska championship game was a clear choice of trying to win like a man, rather than backing into something. (and it's also yet another indictment of the ways college football has chosen to decide its championships. such a situation should never have been possible).

    But I don't think K was trying to win like a man, rather than back into it. There was no cheap way to win in this situation. I think he just saw the window of opportunity for a victory closing and decided to gamble a bit on his best chance to win the game right then.
    We are in perfect agreement, then.

    ETA: on a different note, I seem to recall a rule of thumb in basketball that, given the choice, the home team can afford to play to go to overtime, but the road team should try to win in regulation. Coach K considered this a road game (our second of the tournament).
    Last edited by Johnboy; 04-09-2010 at 12:42 PM.

  2. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post

    And, you want them at the pinnacle of their season, the opportunity for a National Championship, for their coach to tell them that they have to win how?

    By deliberately missing a basket?
    Just playing Devil's Advocate. This men and mice stuff is a little out there. Hitting a free throw to eliminate the chance you're going to lose in regulation and setting up your defense, or fouling intentionally to employ a proven strategy, isn't quite going out with your tail between your legs. I suspect that if Krzyzewski had hit the shot and then fouled intentionally, everyone on this board would be lauding it as a brilliant strategic maneuver. I respect that you're passionate about your opinion, but come on now. You're sort of attempting to paint people who disagree with you as cowards, when the strategy employed nearly proved catastrophic.

    Not that I'm saying this -- I'd like to make it clear that I'm not -- but someone could suggest in turn that it's more cowardly to not believe in your team enough to think they could win in overtime if it came to that. I know, I know, he felt out his team and the situation and all that. But it's all in how you look at it.

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Starter View Post
    Just playing Devil's Advocate. This men and mice stuff is a little out there.
    Duke once tried the 3 point lead/late foul strategy against NC State. State intentionally missed the second shot, got the rebound, and hit the shot to tie. Duke prevailed in overtime, but I recall thinking at the time that Coach K would probably not try that again. With a three point lead, I think Duke would have played defense straight up and not tried to foul. Who knows with this team, though - our best rebounding team ever.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Birmingham of the North
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnboy View Post
    I was responding to greybeard's statement that "having walked into the gym as men to win a championship, they were not going out having tried to win like mice. I think it was cool. Your way wouldn't have been." It reminded me of Osborne's decision not to play it safe and tie, but to win or lose "like a man, not a mouse." Not perfectly parallel, but a national title was on the line in both cases.
    There's a much stronger case against Osborne's strategy than there is against K's, you just have to go farther back into the game to see it.

    Nebraska was down 31-17 in that game. They then scored a touchdown to get to 31-23. If Osborne wanted to play "like a man," he should have already known that he didn't want to play for a tie, in which case he should have gone for two immediately, rather than waiting until the final touchdown to do so.

    By waiting until the final touchdown, he left himself with only a win-lose proposition. If he goes for two one touchdown earlier, he has a win-lose-tie proposition in front of him.

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    I do not think you can credit Butler for setting up a play that gave them a good look. It was a flagrant foul.

    Listen to K's interview with F. Unfortunately, F kept K from answering when F brought up the-Kyle-got-killed thing but even F did not suggest that it was anything but a flagrant foul. K said he had his defense deployed. Everyone had their man. Howard, who K described but did not single out especially as having played extremely rough throughout the game in a manner that he suggested that the refs wrongly allowed to continue due to subconscious influences throughout the game. K said his cutters were impeded throughout the game. What, Butler found a way to impede that none of the coaches, except the thug from Perdue, who had competed against Duke had? Nope, K was saying politely what Izzo point blank said after Michigan State's loss--the refs cost his team the game. A man's man if there ever was one in the sport, said it as plain as could be. K was softer but if you listen to the interview you will see quite clearly that he did not trust the refs even a little, he softly throughout the interview explained why. Had he had a chance, he would, I believe, made it clear that he was not counting on Kyle getting wiped out, and would have been a tad less forgiving of that play than he was in a comment he made just after the win.

    So, no way that Heyward gets that clear a look without a flagrant foul.

    One other thing, the rebound off the miss came off clean. What were the chances of that. If the ball bounces higher and a tad farther, as other people have said, Butler gets nothing. The game ends in the foul lane.

    Second, even with a clean rebound, time was a wasting. Let us make believe for a second that Howard arrived at the perfect time, that he did not in flagrant-foul fashion clean Kyle's clock by a double forarm shiver, and that he actually set up a perfect screen that Kyle's teammates missed and Heyward came clear in legit fashion. What is the chance that that happens?

    Everyone is singing the praises of Butler's coach. Butler's coach put Howard back into the game against Michigan State even after he was exhibiting some very disturbing concussive symptoms. Great coaches should be made of sterner stuff.

    Howard goes 0 for 10 in the first half, but on a number of occasions in the first five minutes there were pill ups on Duke's end after a miss that resembled a football field. I don't know if Howard was the guy who was defending Kyle on a play in the final minute when the refs inexplicably made a call against Kyle when his legs were taken out from him--Scheyer made a 3 that didn't count--but I think he was. Howard also drove square into Z's sterum, with Z not leaning not even a little, and the call went against Z. It should have been Howard's fifth. More evidence of the Cinderela factor.

    The play that Howard made on Singler at the end has no place in basketball. It could have knocked Singler out, broken his collar bone, etc.

    Butler is a nice story. I love Heyward's game, and the defense its exterior players, I forget their names, play. But, their coach teaches over-the-top defense which if Duke or Michigan State or any other major tried would get called all the time. Everybody likes a Cinderella story, but there were no glass slippers in this one. Just a rough and irresponsible play which fit to a T an unattractive quality the kid's coach exhibited on the biggest stage in the game. The kid at least was acting in the moment; the coach, and his defensive strategy that stretched the rules, not so much.

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluedevildaddy View Post
    ...I still want to take a look at how many times, during the season, Brian made the second of two FT attempts after making the first. I am curious what the probability was that Brian would make that second FT on Monday night when he stepped to the line! If any of you brainiacs have that answer, please pass it along!
    Not sure I qualify as a brainiac, but I think I can answer your question.

    If Brian is a 55% free-throw shooter, then before he shoots the first free-throw, the chances that he will make both of them is 0.55 X 0.55, which is 29.75%, or approximately 30%.

    HOWEVER, once he has already MADE the first free throw, the chance that he will make the second one is 55%, because the outcome of the first free throw is already known.


    It's like tossing coins. There is a 50% chance you will throw heads on any one throw. The chance of throwing two heads in a row, however, is 50% of 50%, or 25%. Having already thrown one head, though, the chance the second throw will be heads is 50%.

  7. #187

    thanks Greybeard

    Excellent post. You managed to describe perfectly what I've been thinking but have been unable to articulate.

    I did not watch the Butler-MSU game so was unclear what was bugging Izzo in the post game press conference. It didn't take me long on Monday night to figure it out.

  8. #188
    Yes, or more precisely

    Before the first FT had made 41/76 = 53.95%, rounds to 54%

    After making the first 42/77 = 54.55%, rounds to 55%.

    So effectively about 54% on each, but very slightly higher chance on second one, still 29.4% when you cross multiply.

  9. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by InSpades View Post
    I never said they didn't go against the odds. Heck I've been saying for this entire thread that K went against the odds. All I said was that no coach is going to voluntarily pick the choice with worse odds. In their mind (which may be entirely incorrect) they are always picking the option they think will give them the best chance to win the game. Also I'm pretty sure that every coach in america knows that games can't end in ties .
    K knew the critical factors, assessed them, and went *with* the odds (based on his assessment of the individual factors).

    You know the critical factors, assessed them differently, and would have chosen a different strategy, but you still would have gone *with* the odds (based on your assessment of the individual factors).

    Some (including coaches) do not know the factors or how the factors play together -- like Mike Greenberg. They believe the end of game decision is win or tie at worst, and do not factor in OT percentage success multiplied by another end of game situation strategy ... but if you ask the coach the discrete questions, including chance of winning in OT, and do the proper math, the coach should come up with a different strategy based on his individual answers. Read Sackrowitz and Ernie Adams -- the coaches are not considering things they should be considering. There are blind spots.

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    Not sure I qualify as a brainiac, but I think I can answer your question.

    If Brian is a 55% free-throw shooter, then before he shoots the first free-throw, the chances that he will make both of them is 0.55 X 0.55, which is 29.75%, or approximately 30%.

    HOWEVER, once he has already MADE the first free throw, the chance that he will make the second one is 55%, because the outcome of the first free throw is already known.


    It's like tossing coins. There is a 50% chance you will throw heads on any one throw. The chance of throwing two heads in a row, however, is 50% of 50%, or 25%. Having already thrown one head, though, the chance the second throw will be heads is 50%.
    Actually, that's only true if the two FTs are truly independent events.

    Some FT shooters have less or more confidence in their second FT depending on the result of their first. Brian might have a tendency to make the second FT more frequently after making the first, which could bump up the chances of making that second FT.

    (Then, of course, you couldn't adjust for the fact that Brian was shooting a second FT to try to help seal a National Championship, which has never happened before, and therefore we have no data.)

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    There is still flesh on this long since departed equine?

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by jafarr1 View Post
    Actually, that's only true if the two FTs are truly independent events...
    This is certainly true. Since we don't currently have any data concerning his second-free-throw-after-made-free-throw shooting percentage, I went with the data available to us, but you're absolutely correct that the calculation assumes independence.

  13. #193
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Quote Originally Posted by Starter View Post
    Just playing Devil's Advocate. This men and mice stuff is a little out there. Hitting a free throw to eliminate the chance you're going to lose in regulation and setting up your defense, or fouling intentionally to employ a proven strategy, isn't quite going out with your tail between your legs. I suspect that if Krzyzewski had hit the shot and then fouled intentionally, everyone on this board would be lauding it as a brilliant strategic maneuver. I respect that you're passionate about your opinion, but come on now. You're sort of attempting to paint people who disagree with you as cowards, when the strategy employed nearly proved catastrophic.

    Not that I'm saying this -- I'd like to make it clear that I'm not -- but someone could suggest in turn that it's more cowardly to not believe in your team enough to think they could win in overtime if it came to that. I know, I know, he felt out his team and the situation and all that. But it's all in how you look at it.
    I can live with your first point, although for me personally, and this is just me, a Championship won on a last-play deliberate foul by Duke would have been tainted, tainted so much that I would have taken no joy in it. I root for Duke; have for years although did not go there. Given the Duke hate out there, you do the math. I think "mice" is the nicest thing you'd have gotten from the talking Heads.

    From K's perspective a lose off a make after Brian missed was not catistrophic; he was more than willing to live with that remote possibility. As I see it, a loss on a hope and a prayer play, even one that miraculously gets set up by a flagrant foul that "never gets called," was not in the universe of catastrophic. It is the luck of the game, a game my team, if I am K, had won. Luck took it from them or I did; either way my kids did NOTHING TO HAVE DEFEAT SNATCHED FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY.

    If Brian tries to make, under any scenario of a Duke loss we are, in my view, talking "catastrophic." The press would have a field day resurrecting the Duke hate that infused their misjudgments going into the tournament; they would have said that Duke got a pass into the final four and blew it because their players . . . . (you fill in the blanks).

    Why in the world put the latter possibility on the table, when you can have your team with the lead and the only way they can loose is by lady luck and a "stupid" coach? The coach wasn't stupid, the percentages were all with K, he chose where to make a stand, and his team emerged CHAMPIONS. If they didn't, you get to say HE was stupid. Frankly, I don't think he could give a damn about how many people called him stupid. His kids amazing season, amazing accomplishments, remained intact.

    You don't through the deed to the family home into the pot, especially when you can play with house money and only loose if lady luck pulls out a miracle, with more than a little help from the refs.

    You bet the house and loose, you are neither the man nor the coach that we all know K is. Your assessment of the choices and their consequences falls of their own weight.

    As for "not believing in your team," what are you talking about? K had his team deployed to defend against exactly what he invited--a last second shot to decide it. On the other hand, forget all the stuff that K said caused him to decide that OT was not an option, the refs, the fouls, the home-town court and crowd, etc, and forget also that we can objectively say, although K didn't, that, while Duke was ahead the entire second half, it was gassed--had gotten at least four looks that could have ended it in the last two minutes but did not make one, forgetting all that, "WE CAN AT LEAST ALL AGREE THAT LADY LUCK WAS GOING TO DECIDE THIS THING, MAYBE WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM THE REFS, EITHER WHEN K CHOSE OR LATER, WHEN HE FELT THE ODDS WERE NOT SO GOOD.

    How is that not believing in your team?

    As for the deliberate foul business, if you think that that is the way a national championship should be decided, if that is the way that you if you were a coach would have asked your warriers to have it decided, it is a free country. I think that that play is an unfortunate off shoot of the three point shot, which I do not think has added anything to the game. Unfortunate because I don't know of another game in which such a thing can happen. Before you come up with one, I hate that play too.
    Last edited by greybeard; 04-09-2010 at 03:29 PM.

  14. #194

    free throw independence

    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    This is certainly true. Since we don't currently have any data concerning his second-free-throw-after-made-free-throw shooting percentage, I went with the data available to us, but you're absolutely correct that the calculation assumes independence.
    IIRC, this issue has been examined as part of the debate about whether hot streaks are real in basketball. I will try to dig up the reference, but I am pretty sure that the conclusion was that free throws were independent (ie the chance of making or missing the second did not depend on making or missing the first)

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Birmingham of the North
    Quote Originally Posted by mike88 View Post
    IIRC, this issue has been examined as part of the debate about whether hot streaks are real in basketball. I will try to dig up the reference, but I am pretty sure that the conclusion was that free throws were independent (ie the chance of making or missing the second did not depend on making or missing the first)
    I think Tversky wrote that one up.

    Related to the probability of a make, Z's ft% as a starter was over
    70 according to a recent post at Basketball Prospectus, iirc.

Similar Threads

  1. Free Throw Shooter(s)
    By Hancock 4 Duke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-19-2010, 11:28 PM
  2. Singler Free Throw Question
    By Carter431 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-16-2009, 04:15 PM
  3. Scheyer's Free Throw Routine
    By ChrisP in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-15-2009, 12:54 PM
  4. Free throw question
    By rthomas in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-21-2008, 01:52 PM
  5. Free throw shooting
    By EarlJam in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 03-02-2008, 09:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •