Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Nalod wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:There ARE RAGING debates about this:

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/intentionally-fouling-up-3-points-the-first-comprehensive-cbb-analysis/

but keep being small minded when it comes to your man-crush.

- Please add: "This is a dumb pole that makes me look dumb"

Good article and study.

Basically, no conclusion.

Thus, the hate is pre determined

That's the point of the article. There is no conclusion since its pretty much a statistical dead heat, hence, the need for human brains/game time decisions based on real time variables.

I guess Harvard studies are not meant for the laymen kvetch. They should have dumbed it down.

Conclusions can be debated. The conclusion I take from the study is that whichever strategy you use, you'll lose about 10% and win about 90% of the time in that situation. There is no research I'm aware of showing that when guys with big brains (you or anyone else) determine the last second decision, there's a higher than 90% success rate with either strategy.

You just answered your own (genius) question. There is know study that incorporates player/team specific variables. Hence, an incomplete study with no conclusive conclusion. So, why use this effin stat machine as the barometer?

Let me know if I need the puppets to better explain this

No, it's not that the study is inconclusive. It's that the conclusion of the study is that there is no difference between the two strategies.

That is the conclusion that the deviation is too negligible rendering it inconclusive. Therefore, the need for a coach with the fortitude and gumption to gauge and assess real-time scenarios.

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Nalod wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:There ARE RAGING debates about this:

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/intentionally-fouling-up-3-points-the-first-comprehensive-cbb-analysis/

but keep being small minded when it comes to your man-crush.

- Please add: "This is a dumb pole that makes me look dumb"

Good article and study.

Basically, no conclusion.

Thus, the hate is pre determined

That's the point of the article. There is no conclusion since its pretty much a statistical dead heat, hence, the need for human brains/game time decisions based on real time variables.

I guess Harvard studies are not meant for the laymen kvetch. They should have dumbed it down.

Conclusions can be debated. The conclusion I take from the study is that whichever strategy you use, you'll lose about 10% and win about 90% of the time in that situation. There is no research I'm aware of showing that when guys with big brains (you or anyone else) determine the last second decision, there's a higher than 90% success rate with either strategy.

You just answered your own (genius) question. There is know study that incorporates player/team specific variables. Hence, an incomplete study with no conclusive conclusion. So, why use this effin stat machine as the barometer?

Let me know if I need the puppets to better explain this

No, it's not that the study is inconclusive. It's that the conclusion of the study is that there is no difference between the two strategies.

That is the conclusion that the deviation is too negligible rendering it inconclusive. Therefore, the need for a coach with the fortitude and gumption to gauge and assess real-time scenarios.

Not fouling in that situation works 91% of the time according to the study. How high a percentage chance do you think your strategy would have? How much higher than 91? Give me a number.

94 +/- 3

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Nalod wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:There ARE RAGING debates about this:

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/intentionally-fouling-up-3-points-the-first-comprehensive-cbb-analysis/

but keep being small minded when it comes to your man-crush.

- Please add: "This is a dumb pole that makes me look dumb"

Good article and study.

Basically, no conclusion.

Thus, the hate is pre determined

That's the point of the article. There is no conclusion since its pretty much a statistical dead heat, hence, the need for human brains/game time decisions based on real time variables.

I guess Harvard studies are not meant for the laymen kvetch. They should have dumbed it down.

Conclusions can be debated. The conclusion I take from the study is that whichever strategy you use, you'll lose about 10% and win about 90% of the time in that situation. There is no research I'm aware of showing that when guys with big brains (you or anyone else) determine the last second decision, there's a higher than 90% success rate with either strategy.

You just answered your own (genius) question. There is know study that incorporates player/team specific variables. Hence, an incomplete study with no conclusive conclusion. So, why use this effin stat machine as the barometer?

Let me know if I need the puppets to better explain this

No, it's not that the study is inconclusive. It's that the conclusion of the study is that there is no difference between the two strategies.

That is the conclusion that the deviation is too negligible rendering it inconclusive. Therefore, the need for a coach with the fortitude and gumption to gauge and assess real-time scenarios.

Not fouling in that situation works 91% of the time according to the study. How high a percentage chance do you think your strategy would have? How much higher than 91? Give me a number.

94 +/- 3

Well then that overlaps with 91% anyway!

Bonn, its a debate that inspired numerous studies. Asking me for a number is pointless. Read the studies. However, if you read them, you will see that there are too many holes it the study that render it unreliable.

Doc Rivers, Carlisle and all of Europen basketball employ the foul scenario. I wonder what MDA did in Europe. Did he just change here to go with the Norm? That would be sad.

Nalod wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Nalod wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:There ARE RAGING debates about this:

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/intentionally-fouling-up-3-points-the-first-comprehensive-cbb-analysis/

but keep being small minded when it comes to your man-crush.

- Please add: "This is a dumb pole that makes me look dumb"

Good article and study.

Basically, no conclusion.

Thus, the hate is pre determined

That's the point of the article. There is no conclusion since its pretty much a statistical dead heat, hence, the need for human brains/game time decisions based on real time variables.

I guess Harvard studies are not meant for the laymen kvetch. They should have dumbed it down.

Conclusions can be debated. The conclusion I take from the study is that whichever strategy you use, you'll lose about 10% and win about 90% of the time in that situation. There is no research I'm aware of showing that when guys with big brains (you or anyone else) determine the last second decision, there's a higher than 90% success rate with either strategy.

You just answered your own (genius) question. There is know study that incorporates player/team specific variables. Hence, an incomplete study with no conclusive conclusion. So, why use this effin stat machine as the barometer?

Let me know if I need the puppets to better explain this

No, it's not that the study is inconclusive. It's that the conclusion of the study is that there is no difference between the two strategies.

That is the conclusion that the deviation is too negligible rendering it inconclusive. Therefore, the need for a coach with the fortitude and gumption to gauge and assess real-time scenarios.

aaaaand none of the coaches who were coaching those games had any gumption to guage and assess real time scenarios?

They just folded there arms and said: "I don't foul, I don't play that ****!"?

Just MDA.

This is not just an issue with MDA (you think its always about your SWEETIE)!

I have an issue with the philosophy. Obviously, many coaches, good coaches, believe in this. I don't - and will be against any coach that does.

Hollinger is a big proponent of fouling especially when the opposing team has no timeouts. He still has not figured out at what point you foul - 10 or less? It all depends on the game.

Yesterday, 2 teams got screwed like the knicks - I see it time and time again.

Europeans are just smarter players? Is that why they can do it there? Maybe ...

Nalod wrote:"philosophically" speaking........

foul or not, Yeah, I can go either way.

I see your point.

You called me "Sweetie". First time to day!

I was calling MDA your seetie - but you're sweet too

It was fun debating this with you. Let's hope these threads don't need to be regurgitated this season and we don't put ourselves in bad situations.