On the radio post game Madsen said Jeremiah was cramping up. If that was all, not serious. Also said that on the last play of the game we got shoved under the basket. Said it matter of factly, not like an angry complaint.
Stanford next. Would be really sweet to win that. Go Bears!!

Omot will be an upgrade at the 4 next year.

Fresh in from the Pollyanna Dept:

We lost to Duke by 14 points less than Furd did; and

If you are a gamblin' man…..

Bears covered and paid today!


"MezCal for everyone!"

Go!Bears said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

Gotta foul now

---

I was afraid of that. I want the ball and to know what I need at the end

---

Are you guys arguing the Bears should have fouled with the score tied and 21 seconds left? Or am I missing something? Because if so, that is certainly a new one for me.

GMP said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

Gotta foul now

---

I was afraid of that. I want the ball and to know what I need at the end

---

Are you guys arguing the Bears should have fouled with the score tied and 21 seconds left? Or am I missing something? Because if so, that is certainly a new one for me.

---

I am. On the road, with the way it was going, I figured that they were sure to score. Maybe they miss a free throw, but I liked our chances to score with 20 seconds to play with. If they make both, I'd have called for a three point attempt with 4 on the clock. Play to win, not a second overtime.

Go!Bears said:

---

GMP said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

Gotta foul now

---

I was afraid of that. I want the ball and to know what I need at the end

---

Are you guys arguing the Bears should have fouled with the score tied and 21 seconds left? Or am I missing something? Because if so, that is certainly a new one for me.

---

I am. On the road, with the way it was going, I figured that they were sure to score. Maybe they miss a free throw, but I liked our chances to score with 20 seconds to play with. If they make both, I'd have called for a three point attempt with 4 on the clock. Play to win, not a second overtime.

---

I believe they were in the double bonus on the next foul?
If so that was a bad idea to foul.

Alkiadt said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

GMP said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

Gotta foul now

---

I was afraid of that. I want the ball and to know what I need at the end

---

Are you guys arguing the Bears should have fouled with the score tied and 21 seconds left? Or am I missing something? Because if so, that is certainly a new one for me.

---

I am. On the road, with the way it was going, I figured that they were sure to score. Maybe they miss a free throw, but I liked our chances to score with 20 seconds to play with. If they make both, I'd have called for a three point attempt with 4 on the clock. Play to win, not a second overtime.

---

I believe they were in the double bonus on the next foul?
If so that was a bad idea to foul.

---

Because they might score two and leave you needing a basket, but with 20 seconds…. As opposed to needing a basket and having no time?

The reason we were in the game was because Wilkinson started. Too bad it took the whole season to figure this out.

Just want to put this out there but DJ Campbell should be running the Point Guard position for the rest of the year. We were so productive as a team with him out there

oskidunker said:

---

The reason we were in the game was because Wilkinson started. Too bad it took the whole season to figure this out.

---

He started the previous two games….

Sounds crazy, but it's really not in the right situation. Normally you would never intentionally foul unless you're behind and don't have the ball, or if you're up 3 and you don't want to give them a chance to tie.
But Georgia Tech shot 60% free throws today, and they are 329th in free throws in the nation. For the 2nd half Ndongo and George owned us … 52 points combined for those two in the game, we had no defensive plan for them.
So is it really crazy to make them earn it at the line? George is a good free throw guy, but Ndongo shoots 61%. There's more than one way to "take your chances."
In the end it was a lucky tip-in that barely made it off the rim. On the other hand, we had a 2-point lead with 1:18 on the clock… when we're having a season like this one, Madsen and staff have to manage that final minute better.
Great effort, though, let's go get the Furd next week!

That's where I was…. Doing what we did gave us zero chance to win in the first overtime. GT had all the options and the odds favored them - both in those 20 seconds and likely in the next overtime, if we had made it to that. Fouling gives us a chance to win. Maybe not a great chance, but better than no chance. It's not boneheaded, it's a calculated risk. You might not be comfortable with it, but there's risk in playing it the way we did.

ducky23 said:

---

barsad said:

---

Sounds crazy, but it's really not in the right situation. Normally you would never intentionally foul unless you're behind and don't have the ball, or if you're up 3 and you don't want to give them a chance to tie.
But Georgia Tech shot 60% free throws today, and they are 329th in free throws in the nation. For the 2nd half Ndongo and George owned us … 52 points combined for those two in the game, we had no defensive plan for them.
So is it really crazy to make them earn it at the line? George is a good free throw guy, but Ndongo shoots 61%. There's more than one way to "take your chances."
In the end it was a lucky tip-in that barely made it off the rim. On the other hand, we had a 2-point lead with 1:18 on the clock… when we're having a season like this one, Madsen and staff have to manage that final minute better.
Great effort, though, let's go get the Furd next week!

---

I understand all those things, and trust me, I'm not one who says no to something just because it goes against conventional sports thinking.

However, this is why you don't do it. (If it were 1 and 1, I'd consider it btw)

- your chances of scoring go way down the less time is on the shot clock. So with 20 seconds left, you have a better chance of stopping your opponent and a less likely chance of scoring on the next possession if you do foul

- they were shooting 2 with a common foul, we were not at 10 fouls yet

- the last three offensive possessions we had turned the ball over

- there is a chance that GT gets an offensive rebound after any missed FT

- but by far the biggest reason you don't do it is because if you're Madsen, you're building towards the future. You want to build an identity of toughness on this team. You are sending an absolutely awful message to the team if you foul in this situation. The team needs to believe they can get a stop on that situation. And they need to know their coach has the belief that they can get a stop on that situation.

---

i don't have a strong opinion (tho I'm open to the possibility). kenpom.com had a study about it a few years ago:

https://kenpom.com/blog/the-guide-to-fouling-when-leading-or-tied/

It goes through the different possibilities and probabilities, and does have break even points based on a few factors (opponent in the bonus/1-and-1, pre-game win-probabilities, opponent FT shooting percentage, etc). I haven't digested it all, but I think it's something that good teams (or better, smart teams) should be thinking about in advance.

And I think the one point I have to pick with you is the thought that Madsen needed to build his identity of toughness by letting the team play out that defensive possession. I actually think Madsen needs to be showing his team that he is doing everything he can to win games, and to explain to his team why you can maximize your chance of winning with certain strategies. That demands a lot of work in advance, having plans for these specific situations that you might not see even once in advance, and then communicating that to the team. In a way it reminds a bit about Dan Campbell and the Detroit Lions with their 4th down strategies. He has clearly communicated to the team that in many situations they are going to go for it on fourth down, and why that strategy maximizes winning. A given 4th down may not work, but the idea is that in the aggregate, you come out ahead by going for it more frequently, and he has worked to explain that to the team. Similarly, if you do the work ahead of time to explain why you might foul when tied in and end game situation and how that maximizes your chance of winning, the team should understand in the case you do employ that plan in the end game situation.

Maybe that's asking too much of (1) Madsen at this point in his Cal career, with so much roster turnover, and (2) the current state of college athletics generally where you don't have the same players with longer-term knowledge of the coach's plans who can help explain the thinking. But I don't know that I necessarily agree that Madsen had to let the defensive possession play out.

What I find a bit interesting. If Madsen DID use the foul strategy and we ended up losing, I have a strong suspicion that it would have resulted in an avalanche of posters here calling for his job. Got to say, I'm glad that scenario was avoided.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

What I find a bit interesting. If Madsen DID use the foul strategy and we ended up losing, I have a strong suspicion that it would have resulted in an avalanche of posters here calling for his job. Got to say, I'm glad that scenario was avoided.

---

This also reminds of the 4th down discussion... When a team goes for it on 4th down and gets it and ends up scoring (or they go for the FG and end up missing), that never used to be counted in the win column for going for it (things are slowly changing in that regard as the commentary catches up to the analytics ). I guess that's why the real onus is on the coach to really explain the strategy in advance so the team at least understands what the benefits of the strategy are and also that just because it doesn't work in a particular instance is not a sign it was the wrong strategy.

In this case, even though the bears ended up losing, most posters are still arguing it was the right strategy (and I'm not saying it wasn't). Just humorous that bucking the conventional wisdom and failing will always attract criticism, while following the conventional wisdom and failing rarely does . I guess that's why it's called conventional wisdom .

CalLifer said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

barsad said:

---

Sounds crazy, but it's really not in the right situation. Normally you would never intentionally foul unless you're behind and don't have the ball, or if you're up 3 and you don't want to give them a chance to tie.
But Georgia Tech shot 60% free throws today, and they are 329th in free throws in the nation. For the 2nd half Ndongo and George owned us … 52 points combined for those two in the game, we had no defensive plan for them.
So is it really crazy to make them earn it at the line? George is a good free throw guy, but Ndongo shoots 61%. There's more than one way to "take your chances."
In the end it was a lucky tip-in that barely made it off the rim. On the other hand, we had a 2-point lead with 1:18 on the clock… when we're having a season like this one, Madsen and staff have to manage that final minute better.
Great effort, though, let's go get the Furd next week!

---

I understand all those things, and trust me, I'm not one who says no to something just because it goes against conventional sports thinking.

However, this is why you don't do it. (If it were 1 and 1, I'd consider it btw)

- your chances of scoring go way down the less time is on the shot clock. So with 20 seconds left, you have a better chance of stopping your opponent and a less likely chance of scoring on the next possession if you do foul

- they were shooting 2 with a common foul, we were not at 10 fouls yet

- the last three offensive possessions we had turned the ball over

- there is a chance that GT gets an offensive rebound after any missed FT

- but by far the biggest reason you don't do it is because if you're Madsen, you're building towards the future. You want to build an identity of toughness on this team. You are sending an absolutely awful message to the team if you foul in this situation. The team needs to believe they can get a stop on that situation. And they need to know their coach has the belief that they can get a stop on that situation.

---

i don't have a strong opinion (tho I'm open to the possibility). kenpom.com had a study about it a few years ago:

https://kenpom.com/blog/the-guide-to-fouling-when-leading-or-tied/

It goes through the different possibilities and probabilities, and does have break even points based on a few factors (opponent in the bonus/1-and-1, pre-game win-probabilities, opponent FT shooting percentage, etc). I haven't digested it all, but I think it's something that good teams (or better, smart teams) should be thinking about in advance.

And I think the one point I have to pick with you is the thought that Madsen needed to build his identity of toughness by letting the team play out that defensive possession. I actually think Madsen needs to be showing his team that he is doing everything he can to win games, and to explain to his team why you can maximize your chance of winning with certain strategies. That demands a lot of work in advance, having plans for these specific situations that you might not see even once in advance, and then communicating that to the team. In a way it reminds a bit about Dan Campbell and the Detroit Lions with their 4th down strategies. He has clearly communicated to the team that in many situations they are going to go for it on fourth down, and why that strategy maximizes winning. A given 4th down may not work, but the idea is that in the aggregate, you come out ahead by going for it more frequently, and he has worked to explain that to the team. Similarly, if you do the work ahead of time to explain why you might foul when tied in and end game situation and how that maximizes your chance of winning, the team should understand in the case you do employ that plan in the end game situation.

Maybe that's asking too much of (1) Madsen at this point in his Cal career, with so much roster turnover, and (2) the current state of college athletics generally where you don't have the same players with longer-term knowledge of the coach's plans who can help explain the thinking. But I don't know that I necessarily agree that Madsen had to let the defensive possession play out.

---

I understand what you're saying, but I think using the 4th down analogy is a bad one. Going for it on 4th down shows your team you believe in them.

Early on in Wilcox's career, I was very critical of Wilcox's 4th down strategy because I believed his overt conservatism showed a lack of faith or confidence in his team. I thought when he went for 4th down at SC to win the game was a huge turning point in his coaching maturation. Showing his team he believed in them.

I think a better analogy to this situation would be buck showalter walking bonds intentionally with the bases loaded. However in that situation, even at the time, I thought it was a brilliant move because they had Brent mayne (not Kent) hitting next.

The point here being, GT is not Barry bonds. They are a mid level team. You need to be able to get one stop.

I'm fine using unorthodox strategies if it gives you a clear advantage. In this situation, I'm not sure fouling even does give you an advantage (and even if it does it's much more slight than people here realize). So I'm not going to tell my team I don't believe in them for a minuscule advantage (if there even was one).

If we fouled in that situation it would have been the first time I've seen a D1 coach do it

HoopDreams said:

---

If we fouled in that situation it would have been the first time I've seen a D1 coach do it

---

Would've been a first for me too. Again, if you're going to make history, you better at least have a clear advantage.

How do you think the players would've felt being on sportscenter as the team whose coach had to foul because he had zero confidence in them to get a stop. And yes, it would've made sportscenter cause it's that unorthodox.

HoopDreams said:

---

If we fouled in that situation it would have been the first time I've seen a D1 coach do it

---

A completely ridiculous proposition to foul there.

ducky23 said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

barsad said:

---

Sounds crazy, but it's really not in the right situation. Normally you would never intentionally foul unless you're behind and don't have the ball, or if you're up 3 and you don't want to give them a chance to tie.
But Georgia Tech shot 60% free throws today, and they are 329th in free throws in the nation. For the 2nd half Ndongo and George owned us … 52 points combined for those two in the game, we had no defensive plan for them.
So is it really crazy to make them earn it at the line? George is a good free throw guy, but Ndongo shoots 61%. There's more than one way to "take your chances."
In the end it was a lucky tip-in that barely made it off the rim. On the other hand, we had a 2-point lead with 1:18 on the clock… when we're having a season like this one, Madsen and staff have to manage that final minute better.
Great effort, though, let's go get the Furd next week!

---

I understand all those things, and trust me, I'm not one who says no to something just because it goes against conventional sports thinking.

However, this is why you don't do it. (If it were 1 and 1, I'd consider it btw)

- your chances of scoring go way down the less time is on the shot clock. So with 20 seconds left, you have a better chance of stopping your opponent and a less likely chance of scoring on the next possession if you do foul

- they were shooting 2 with a common foul, we were not at 10 fouls yet

- the last three offensive possessions we had turned the ball over

- there is a chance that GT gets an offensive rebound after any missed FT

- but by far the biggest reason you don't do it is because if you're Madsen, you're building towards the future. You want to build an identity of toughness on this team. You are sending an absolutely awful message to the team if you foul in this situation. The team needs to believe they can get a stop on that situation. And they need to know their coach has the belief that they can get a stop on that situation.

---

i don't have a strong opinion (tho I'm open to the possibility). kenpom.com had a study about it a few years ago:

https://kenpom.com/blog/the-guide-to-fouling-when-leading-or-tied/

It goes through the different possibilities and probabilities, and does have break even points based on a few factors (opponent in the bonus/1-and-1, pre-game win-probabilities, opponent FT shooting percentage, etc). I haven't digested it all, but I think it's something that good teams (or better, smart teams) should be thinking about in advance.

And I think the one point I have to pick with you is the thought that Madsen needed to build his identity of toughness by letting the team play out that defensive possession. I actually think Madsen needs to be showing his team that he is doing everything he can to win games, and to explain to his team why you can maximize your chance of winning with certain strategies. That demands a lot of work in advance, having plans for these specific situations that you might not see even once in advance, and then communicating that to the team. In a way it reminds a bit about Dan Campbell and the Detroit Lions with their 4th down strategies. He has clearly communicated to the team that in many situations they are going to go for it on fourth down, and why that strategy maximizes winning. A given 4th down may not work, but the idea is that in the aggregate, you come out ahead by going for it more frequently, and he has worked to explain that to the team. Similarly, if you do the work ahead of time to explain why you might foul when tied in and end game situation and how that maximizes your chance of winning, the team should understand in the case you do employ that plan in the end game situation.

Maybe that's asking too much of (1) Madsen at this point in his Cal career, with so much roster turnover, and (2) the current state of college athletics generally where you don't have the same players with longer-term knowledge of the coach's plans who can help explain the thinking. But I don't know that I necessarily agree that Madsen had to let the defensive possession play out.

---

I understand what you're saying, but I think using the 4th down analogy is a bad one. Going for it on 4th down shows your team you believe in them.

Early on in Wilcox's career, I was very critical of Wilcox's 4th down strategy because I believed his overt conservatism showed a lack of faith or confidence in his team. I thought when he went for 4th down at SC to win the game was a huge turning point in his coaching maturation. Showing his team he believed in them.

I think a better analogy to this situation would be buck showalter walking bonds intentionally with the bases loaded. However in that situation, even at the time, I thought it was a brilliant move because they had Brent mayne (not Kent) hitting next.

The point here being, GT is not Barry bonds. They are a mid level team. You need to be able to get one stop.

I'm fine using unorthodox strategies if it gives you a clear advantage. In this situation, I'm not sure fouling even does give you an advantage (and even if it does it's much more slight than people here realize). So I'm not going to tell my team I don't believe in them for a minuscule advantage (if there even was one).

---

I appreciate your point about the 4th down analogy maybe being imperfect... I think my point was that the key is less the 4th down strategy itself rather than making sure that if you are going to try unorthodox strategies, you *have* to communicate the when and the why well in advance of using that strategy. I agree that Madsen definitely can't spring this with absolulely no warning in the GT game. It has to be a strategy that is identified in advance for this type of situation and practiced and explained and has buy-in from the team. That's more the analogy i was trying to use... I guess it reminded me of how much heat Dan Campbell took for his 4th down decisions in the NFC championship game vs. the Niners in last year's playoffs, and how he (and the team) were all aligned on the decisions because of how much work he and the coaching and analytics staff had done in advance to communicate why consistenly being agressive on 4th down leads to the best chance of winning.

Independent of this specific decision in this game, I do think one thing I would like Madsen to really think about is what are the strategies that can provide gains in the margins to help his team win (a really analytics focused team), and how to consistently communicate to the team why they are employing those strategies. I've definitely read others on this board make the same statements, so I'm merely repeating/amplifying them, but I do think it's something I'd love for Madsen to be forward-thinking about.

I was looking up close in relation to the last play, and our player definitely was shoved with an aggressive arm-bar move under the hoop before the tip in. But the refs just let both teams play mostly, but then again they gave Rytis and Drej cheap fouls to have them on the brink at 4 for most of the last of the second half and in OT (so they had to play soft defense, and Drej could not drive as aggressively to the hoop)

ducky23 said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

If we fouled in that situation it would have been the first time I've seen a D1 coach do it

---

Would've been a first for me too. Again, if you're going to make history, you better at least have a clear advantage.

How do you think the players would've felt being on sportscenter as the team whose coach had to foul because he had zero confidence in them to get a stop. And yes, it would've made sportscenter cause it's that unorthodox.

---

Regardless of whether it was the right strategy or not, you are wrong about this…

"How do you think the players would've felt being on sportscenter as the team whose coach had to foul because he had zero confidence in them to get a stop."

A stop only gets you a tie. A foul gets you the ball and a chance to win. To me this would say that the coach has enough confidence in your ability to get a bucket when you need one that he will give the other team a pair of free throws just to get the ball into your hands. The idea that it is a lack of confidence, rather than an expression of confidence makes no sense.

Go!Bears said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

If we fouled in that situation it would have been the first time I've seen a D1 coach do it

---

Would've been a first for me too. Again, if you're going to make history, you better at least have a clear advantage.

How do you think the players would've felt being on sportscenter as the team whose coach had to foul because he had zero confidence in them to get a stop. And yes, it would've made sportscenter cause it's that unorthodox.

---

Regardless of whether it was the right strategy or not, you are wrong about this…

"How do you think the players would've felt being on sportscenter as the team whose coach had to foul because he had zero confidence in them to get a stop."

A stop only gets you a tie. A foul gets you the ball and a chance to win. To me this would say that the coach has enough confidence in your ability to get a bucket when you need one that he will give the other team a pair of free throws just to get the ball into your hands. The idea that it is a lack of confidence, rather than an expression of confidence makes no sense.

---

Totally agree, this idea that a coach makes decisions based on player psychology and what they or the sports public will think of the coach's belief in his own team is bogus. The coach spends months building the confidence of the players in him and vice versa. If you don't already have that in February and you're worried about play-calling affecting confidence, you've lost already.
No one's saying it was a sure thing if you foul. But I will reiterate: four of the five Tech players shoot under 70% at the FT line. One guy shoots 25%! I would have liked to get those shooters to the line, then set up a play with us down 1 or 2 points, then die on our sword with a missed Cal shot instead of watching that ball fall through the hoop on our end.

barsad said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

If we fouled in that situation it would have been the first time I've seen a D1 coach do it

---

Would've been a first for me too. Again, if you're going to make history, you better at least have a clear advantage.

How do you think the players would've felt being on sportscenter as the team whose coach had to foul because he had zero confidence in them to get a stop. And yes, it would've made sportscenter cause it's that unorthodox.

---

Regardless of whether it was the right strategy or not, you are wrong about this…

"How do you think the players would've felt being on sportscenter as the team whose coach had to foul because he had zero confidence in them to get a stop."

A stop only gets you a tie. A foul gets you the ball and a chance to win. To me this would say that the coach has enough confidence in your ability to get a bucket when you need one that he will give the other team a pair of free throws just to get the ball into your hands. The idea that it is a lack of confidence, rather than an expression of confidence makes no sense.

---

Totally agree, this idea that a coach makes decisions based on player psychology and what they or the sports public will think of the coach's belief in his own team is bogus. The coach spends months building the confidence of the players in him and vice versa. If you don't already have that in February and you're worried about play-calling affecting confidence, you've lost already.
No one's saying it was a sure thing if you foul. But I will reiterate: four of the five Tech players shoot under 70% at the FT line. One guy shoots 25%! I would have liked to get those shooters to the line, then set up a play with us down 1 or 2 points, then die on our sword with a missed Cal shot instead of watching that ball fall through the hoop on our end.

---

If GT had a player in the game that shoots 25% from the line that changes the calculus substantially. And teams did used to use the "Hack-a-Shack" strategy in similar situations.

Go!Bears said:

---

GMP said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

Gotta foul now

---

I was afraid of that. I want the ball and to know what I need at the end

---

Are you guys arguing the Bears should have fouled with the score tied and 21 seconds left? Or am I missing something? Because if so, that is certainly a new one for me.

---

I am. On the road, with the way it was going, I figured that they were sure to score. Maybe they miss a free throw, but I liked our chances to score with 20 seconds to play with. If they make both, I'd have called for a three point attempt with 4 on the clock. Play to win, not a second overtime.

---

It is possible that you might be right in the overall conclusion, but the way you are getting to it is just not right.

They weren't "sure to score". They were 55% from the floor. They scored on half of their possessions in OT. Of course if they were "sure to score", you foul them. They weren't. They had about a one in two chance to score in perfect conditions.

Further, they either run their offense without running the clock and you might get a chance to score in return, or they run the clock all the way down which means their chance of scoring is going to drop because trying to put up a shot at the end of the clock is less efficient. Either way, there chance of scoring with no time on the clock is lower than their chance of scoring on a normal possession.

If the 25% FT shooter gets the ball, hack away. But with the other guys you just substantially increased their chances of scoring in exchange for a chance that we score on the other side. You like our chances of scoring on the other side apparently better than getting a stop, but it seems like that is because our defense sucks and our offense is capable. The thing is, though, it is harder to score in 20 seconds than with a full shot clock. We also face time to get the foul, so we might only have 15 seconds. And a missed free throw will require a rebound that also takes time.

Maybe you aren't, but from your language you seem to be significantly overestimating each team's chance to score based on feeling instead of analysis.

The actual analysis would be complicated, but I'd argue that you increase their odds of scoring from about 2 in 5 to about 2 in 3. I'd put our odds of scoring under duress at 1 in 3 or 1 in 4. I'll take 1 in 3, though I think that is high. Scenarios I see:

They miss, we score
They miss, we miss
They miss, we miss
They make, we score
They make, we miss
They make, we miss
They make, we score
They make, We miss
They make, we miss

I believe we lose 4 out of 9 times with those odds instead of 4 out of 10. (I acknowledge that there is the chance they make one, miss one, and we score and win, which probably is a little higher than we get a turnover on a defensive stop or have enough time to come back and score after they shoot, but getting way complicated.

I don't think your suggestion is as dumb as people have said, but I think it is a lot closer than you think (and that they think) and only potentially works with really poor FT shooting and really good offense.

Also, from following enough games on gamecast, I'm just really positive that the "chances of winning" on the game cast is going to go up every time for the team that was fouled, and that is based on a lot of stats that have accumulated over a long time.