BENNETT'S MINUTES: Fenlon thinks Purdue followed right strategy despite Virginia heroics

More than 10 years ago, DePauw men’s basketball coach Bill Fenlon satisfied his curiosity about a very specific basketball situation by writing a 2,728-word paper titled “Up Three: To Foul or Not to Foul.”

For those not familiar with this scenario, here is the basic situation:

• A team leading by three points playing defense toward the end of the game has numerous options available to preserve its lead, which are all dependent on many variables (such as whether the team with the ball is in the bonus situation or not).

For the purposes of this paper, the assumption is that the team with the ball is in the bonus. The defense has to decide if it wants to play straight-up defense and hope the offensive team doesn’t hit a 3-pointer to tie the game.

Another option, favored by Fenlon, long-time coach and broadcaster Dick Vitale and an increasing number of other coaches, is for the defensive team to foul before the offensive team is in the act of shooting. This action would result in either a one-and-one free throw situation (or double bonus if applicable).

In either case, the offensive team could only score a maximum of two points on the free throws, and the team ahead would gamble it could either get a defensive rebound or that the team made the second free throw.

The numbers

Fenlon’s paper statistically outlines every imaginable outcome, applying a percentage to each conceivable result and determining the overall likelihood of success by utilizing the strategy to foul on purpose.

To summarize the paper (excerpted below, with a link to the entire paper at www.bannergraphic.com), Fenlon says that even fouling a 3-point shooter offers the offensive team only a 67-percent chance of success since that’s the average college basketball player’s free-throw success rate. Odds are that a player would only hit two of the three free throws.

There are many other possibilities, such as fouling a 3-point shooter who makes the shot and the free throw.

We won’t regurgitate all contingencies here, but with the assistance of DePauw mathematics professors Fenlon determines that the chances of losing are 1 in 750.

A much more complex result is if a team which gets fouled hits the first free throw, misses the second, gets the rebound and scores before time runs out.

The odds applied to losing a game through this avenue are even slimmer, calculated to be 1 in 12,000.

Why does this matter?

If you watched the Purdue-Virginia NCAA regional championship game on Saturday night, you already know why this topic matters today.

The Boilermakers, seeking their first trip to the Final Four since 1980, were up by three points and opted to foul Virginia with 5.9 seconds left.

Cavalier Ty Jerome hit the first free throw but missed the second one. (While many teams in this situation choose to miss the second shot on purpose, Jerome said in the post-game press conference that he was trying to hit it.)

Virginia big man Mamadi Diakite tipped the ball toward the backcourt, and the ball was retrieved by Cav point guard Kihei Clark.

Clark whipped a bullet pass back to Diakite, who hit a 15-foot jumper at the buzzer to force overtime.

The Cavaliers went on to win 80-75 in overtime, and Purdue was left with the heartbreak of what could have been.

Still a believer

Fenlon was out of town visiting family, but was watching the game on television.

He remains confident the strategy is a sound one, despite the fact that it backfired on Purdue this time.

“I was telling Purdue to foul, foul, foul,” Fenlon said. “I like the Purdue staff, and Matt Painter has done a great job there. Normally, it takes all the energy to root on my team and I’m not a ‘fan’ of a lot of other teams.

“I would have liked to have seen those guys win.”

Fenlon has only had the situation happen in one of his games a couple of times since writing the paper, but he admits the paper has altered the strategies of opponents.

“I have become known as ‘the guy’ who is going to do it, so it skews my numbers because the other team knows I’m fouling for sure,” he said Monday afternoon. “There is more of a chance that they’re going to go into the act of shooting when they know you’re coming to get them. It tweaks the numbers a little bit, but not significantly enough to make me change my strategy.”

In Fenlon’s paper, he identified seven seconds left in the game as the optimal time in order to commit such a foul. That time standpoint is one thing he might adjust, ever so slightly.

“They maybe could have let another second or two go off the clock, and maybe that would have helped a little bit,” he said. “If I were to change anything, maybe somewhere between three and six seconds would be better.”

Happy with numbers

In reflection, Fenlon likes the numbers he assigned to the various factors — such as the 20-percent likelihood a team like Virginia would hit a 3-pointer in that scenario and win the game in regulation.

“I was trying to keep people from being able to make arguments, so I actually lowered the percentages a little,” he said. “Teams are going to get a shot up, and if you’re not going to foul a lot of times you’re going to wind up with what happened in Purdue’s previous game.”

In that game, a thrilling win over Tennessee, Purdue trailed by two points with just a couple of seconds left and got the ball inbounds from under its own basket to star guard Carsen Edwards in the corner.

Edwards launched a quick shot, and the Volunteers were called for a foul. Edwards received three free throws, missing the first but hitting the last two (there’s your 67 percent) to force overtime. Purdue went on to win that game 99-94.

Fenlon said that recent rule changes have better protected a 3-point shooter, such as Edwards in the case above.

“There has been a huge increase in calls on the 3-point line,” he said.

Biggest surprise

Fenlon agreed the revelation that Virginia’s Jerome not trying to intentionally miss the second free throw was the most surprising thing about the entire sequence.

“Usually if you’re going to intentionally miss a free throw, you have some kind of stunt going on where you have a player immedialy going to a pre-determined spot,” he said. “When you’re up around five or six seconds, it’s more likely that teams will not try to miss those and take another crack at getting another shot.”

Cavalier coach Tony Bennett is also a believer, as Virginia’s Kyle Guy admitted after the game that he and his teammates were instructed to foul but they couldn’t get the job done.

It didn’t matter, because Edwards threw a pass out of bounds that sealed Purdue’s fate.

Any team wanting to utilize this strategy, or to learn how to play against it, cannot simply wing it with a 30-second instruction during a timeout.

Fenlon says the play must be rehearsed well in advance.

“We don’t practice it enough,” he said. “You should, because it’s a scenario that is going to come up 2-3 times a year. The whole idea of giving a foul is not natural, and there are a bunch of other things going on.

“In basketball, there is a rule against intentionally fouling,” Fenlon added. “If I intentionally foul you, it should be a technical foul. But for some reason, we look the other way in cases like this.”

Fenlon said that players may tend to foul too early, because they are leery of fouling someone in the act of shooting or by letting someone dribble past them.

“The more you practice it, the more you can have a little bit of patience,” he said.

Endless possibilities

Yet another possibility to learn an opponent’s plan in advance is for the winning team in these scenarios to intentionally commit a lane violation. This would be irrelevant if the shot were made, but in the case of a miss would let the coach see what the other team was planning.

“Most teams do not have a huge list of intentionally missed free throw plays, so you pretty much know what people are going to do,” Fenlon said.

Many online comments about the situation wondered why Purdue’s widest-bodied player — conservatively listed 6-8, 250-pound freshman Trevion Williams — was not on the lane to rebound.

“He shoots free throws in the 50s [in terms of percentage],” Fenlon noted. “If they put him down there and he gets the rebound, he’s getting fouled immediately and his chances of making the free throw are less.”

Successful usage

Former Butler coach Brad Stevens, now of the NBA’s Boston Celtics, successfully utilized the strategy in one of his team’s Final Four runs.

The Bulldogs fouled Michigan State in the semifinal round and the ploy worked. Fenlon noted that different NBA rules (such as advancing the ball to midcourt on a timeout) minimize the usage of the strategy, and that Stevens is not totally sold on the concept.

“He was still caught up in what kind of rebounders you have out there, how big the other team is and who’s shooting the free throws,” Fenlon said. “I don’t think any of those things move the numbers very much in terms of the bad things that have to happen for it to not work.”

At the high school level, on the surface it may appear to be a 100-percent valid theory since the overall skill level is lower than in the college game — and completing all the necessary facets to beat the strategy is less likely to happen.

Fenlon noted one other aspect, though.

“In high school they are much less likely to come down and hit a three,” he said, indicating the fouling strategy might not be as valid when that is the case. “You can’t go in the lane until the ball hits the rim in high school, while players can go in the lane at the shot in college. It’s harder to get an offensive rebound.”

Fenlon’s phone “blew up” on Sunday, following the failure of his strategy in Saturday night’s game, with several colleagues in the coaching fraternity making sure to contact him.

He said the attention the big play has received is an indicator of why it’s a valid theory.

“That’s why it’s such a big deal when it happens,” Fenlon said of the strategy’s failure. “Because it never happens. There are all kinds of people fouling up all the time up three and it normally works.

“I didn’t say it was fool proof, I just said I like those numbers and percentages better.”

Of course, if Purdue’s Ryan Cline hits both free throws prior to the fouling the whole thing wouldn’t matter.

Excerpt from “Up Three: To Foul or Not to Foul”

By Bill Fenlon (Written in 2010)

We can probably all agree that the team with the ball with less than 10 seconds to play down 3 is going to get a shot. It might not be a great shot, but barring a turnover a game- tying attempt will be made.

So let’s say that 95% of the time a shot will be attempted. We’ll assign 5% to the number of times your opponent will turn it over or not get the shot off in time. Good 3-point shooting teams shoot nearly 40% from the arc.

We must assume however this won’t be a great look, even though it may be taken by a great shooter, and we’ll assign a much lower value of 20% to this desperation shot. This means that 1 out of 5 times this situation comes up you are going to overtime.

When you go to overtime your opponent has the momentum and the emotion that comes with hitting the shot that we all thought was so unlikely. This will happen about 19% of the time. Those aren’t long odds; they are very real possibilities.

What is the alternative? FOUL! You must practice this situation. You must train your team to let as much clock run down as possible (7 seconds and under is my time) and foul, going for the ball, BEFORE your opponent is in the act of shooting. So you are afraid you could get beat in regulation?

Three bad things can happen here.

First, you could foul the shooter taking a 3. Big mistake. That is why you practice the situation. If you do foul the shooter, the national free throw percentage indicates the odds are against your opponent making all three free throws. The national average hovers around 67%.

Even if he does make all three free throws, it is still a tie game. The percentage of time you would make this mistake I am assigning as 2% (which may be high).

The second bad thing is fouling the 3 point shooter who makes the 3. This is one of the two scenarios in which you could lose the game in regulation. He hits the 3 and makes the free throw and you lose by one. Given we have established a 2% chance you will make the mistake of fouling the shooter, we can say that in 10% of those cases he will hit the shot, and in 67% of those cases he will make the free throw and you will lose in regulation.

Based on these numbers, Professor Mark Kannowski of DePauw University calculates that the chances of you losing in regulation in this manner are 0.134 or about 1 in 750. The second way you can lose in regulation is by fouling intentionally, your opponent makes the first free throw, rebounds the intentional miss on the second free throw, gets the ball back to the arc and knocks in a 3.

Let’s look at this scenario. Remember an average free throw shooting team shoots 67%. So when your opponent steps to the line there is a 33% chance he will miss the first attempt. If this happens the second free throw if missed intentionally puts you right back in the “Up 3” Situation. If your opponent rebounds the miss your team should foul immediately, eliminating the possibility of being beaten or tied at the buzzer.

When you rebound the miss the game is essentially over. In both cases your opponent has been deprived of a shot to tie the game. Assuming your opponent makes the first, which he will do 67% of the time, he now must miss the second intentionally. There is a slight chance he will miss the shot without hitting the rim, which is a violation. Your ball. Game over.

There is also a chance he could make the shot while trying to miss. I’ll assign a 2% chance to these possibilities or 1 in 50. Assuming he hits the rim, your opponent must now rebound the ball.

In recent years this situation has turned even more to the fouling team’s advantage as the rules committee has removed all but two offensive players from the free throw lane. As the defensive team you know what is coming, have the inside spots, can have your best rebounders in the game and have a 4 to 2 advantage in the lane. I’ll assign an extremely generous 20% to the chances your opponent can rebound the ball. Should he get the rebound your opponent still must score to tie the game. Even the most optimistic of us would not allow a better than 45% chance of scoring in this situation.

If all of this happens the game is still only tied. Computing the relationship of these percentages gives us a 4.9% chance of being tied in this manner at the end of regulation. Compare that to a 19% chance of going to overtime after a made 3 on the last possession. Coaches devour stats and percentages like so much post game pizza. Is it possible to ignore the difference in those numbers?

When I send a shooter to the line to shoot a technical do I send the player shooting 75% or the one shooting 59%? Now it is also possible that the rebound will be thrown out to the 3-point line. The chances of looking to pass rather than score in this situation are low, maybe 15%. The pass opens up the possibility of a turnover, another 15%, and another 5% possibility of not getting the shot off in time after the pass.

The odds of you getting beaten like this are a little better than me winning the lottery, but not much, .008% or less than 1 in 12,000. Not very good. That, my friends, is a long shot. To review, don’t foul and you are going to overtime 1 out of 5 times. Foul and there is a less than 1 in 20 chance you can be tied in the missed free throw scenario. The only reason to choose not to foul is fear of the two losing scenarios which are 1 in 750, and 1 in 12,000 respectively. There is not a gambler in Vegas or a statistics professor east of the Mississippi who wouldn’t take that bet and foul.

(Link to complete paper appears on right side of screen)