A defensive proposition

[tmh8286]

In situations like ORU's last two games, where our opponents were trying to mount last minute come-backs, they took risks offensively that they hadn't taken during the rest of the game.  The result - Valpo buries several treys, ties us in regulation and wins in OT; UMKC scores 28 points in the final 4:32.  The defensive strategy is, avoid fouling and keep the clock running.  That strategy has led to disappointing results.

My proposition is, why not foul on defense?  I concede - it stops the clock, and lengthens the game.  BUT, it might prevent a team like UMKC from going off for 28 points so quickly.  It would take away the mad dash coast to coast that Day used so effectively last night, and it would take away the three point shot that buried us at Valpo.  Make them earn the points at the line.  It would basically make the final minutes of the game a free throw shooting contest.  If the team has a significant lead, I think it would be easier to maintain with that than the "prevent defense" routine. 

It would be boring to watch, though.

I'm curious what others think of this option.

[Old Titan]

In situations like ORU's last two games, where our opponents were trying to mount last minute come-backs, they took risks offensively that they hadn't taken during the rest of the game.  The result - Valpo buries several treys, ties us in regulation and wins in OT; UMKC scores 28 points in the final 4:32.  The defensive strategy is, avoid fouling and keep the clock running.  That strategy has led to disappointing results.

My proposition is, why not foul on defense?  I concede - it stops the clock, and lengthens the game.  BUT, it might prevent a team like UMKC from going off for 28 points so quickly.  It would take away the mad dash coast to coast that Day used so effectively last night, and it would take away the three point shot that buried us at Valpo.  Make them earn the points at the line.  It would basically make the final minutes of the game a free throw shooting contest.  If the team has a significant lead, I think it would be easier to maintain with that than the "prevent defense" routine. 

It would be boring to watch, though.

I'm curious what others think of this option.

The "Coach's Book" says (supposedly - I've never actually SEEN the book):  "thou shalt not let thy opponent score points during a comeback while thy clock is stopped".  Or something to that effect.

The idea is to make them earn it from the floor, while the clock is running, rather than from the line, when it is not.  After all, the team trying to mount the comeback is fighting two adversaries:  us AND the ticking clock. 

But your point is well taken about playing better defense to the point of fouling.  The Valpo game was "The Perfect Storm":  we played lousy defense the last two minutes, we turned the ball over, we missed free throws that could have iced it, and we didn't score a single field goal the last five minutes or more.  Against UMKC, it was a little different:  we just had no one that could stop Quinton Day.  The guy was even laughing HIMSELF after one of those circus shots!  And we still need to do a better job of ball handling and free throw shooting down the stretch.  Adam has GOT to hit his free throws - and someone tell me again why 30% shooting deep-knee-bending Yemi is in the game in that situation? (I know, I know:  his defense.    It's a rhetorical question).

If we shore up those other areas, we should be OK and not have to go against the proverbial "book" when it comes to not fouling with a lead...

[tmh8286]

Very well stated, OT.  I re-wrote my post three times and still didn't say it just the way I wanted, but you got the idea.  My thought on the Valpo game was, foul early in the possession (while the ball is still out of bounds?? JK) and take away the three point shot, when they seemed to be in a groove.  AT MOST they would have only been able to score two points per possession, sometimes only one, and maybe miss both.  How often have you seen a guy that can't miss from three-point range go to the line and miss two (or three)?  It's fairly common.

By doing that you increase the possessions but decrease the scoring potential per possession.  In addition, and maybe more importantly, you take away some of the chaos that is occurring in that end-of-game situation,  where things are being forced, both offensively and defensively.  I posted some of Ken Pomeroy's "core hoops beliefs" last week - one of them was, "The single most important factor in determining the outcome of close games is chaos. I used to call this luck, but that hurts people?s feelings, so the new PC term is ?chaos.? Anyway, there?s no silver bullet to winning close games. It helps to be better than the opponent, but aside from that, there are dozens of factors that influence the outcome of the one-possession game, some of which a team has no control over."

I'm suggesting using the defensive foul as a means of controlling some of that chaos.

The application to last night's game is pretty obvious - foul Day on his dash down court and let him shoot free throws.  He was making every shot anyway, he couldn't have scored any more from the line than he was in field goals. 

Anyway, just a thought I had.  So many things all enter into those final possessions, and I'm sure that not going by the book would catch a coach a lot of flack, particularly if he still lost.  The other thing is, it would only take a miss or two to have altered the way both of those last two games went.  Or a defensive stop or two.  I guess there's really no absolute answer for what to do in those situations.