Tom Izzo, you stupid, stupid, stupid sonofabitch!!!!!!

Stop being a stubborn old OG crust fuck and foul a motherfucker when you are up by three with under 15 seconds to go, you stupid sonofabitch!!!!!!!

I love you Tom, but for fucks sake. Drop the "I'm old skew, and this ain't what we used to do back in my day" bullshit!!!! Fouling right there is the only way to virtually guarantee that you get the ball back with the fucking lead. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUKC FUCKUFKUC FKCUFKCUFKUCFKCUKFUCKUFKCUFKCUF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



#BackOnTheBubbleAndHeadedToWiskyFUCK

Under 15 seconds. Ty you must be drunk. Under 5? Maybe though I'm a defend and make them force one up myself. However, I don't think anyone advocates fouling up three with more than 5 seconds left.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:Under 15 seconds. Ty you must be drunk. Under 5? Maybe though I'm a defend and make them force one up myself. However, I don't think anyone advocates fouling up three with more than 5 seconds left.

I've only had one beer. Not drunk. Full court pressure to run clock, foul them 25 feet from the rim. Prolly burn anywhere from 5-8 good seconds off the clock doing that. Let them shoot two, call time out, draw something up and hit your own MF'ing free throws. Rinse and repeat and win.

In that situation you either foul on purpose, or play D. We did both.... Obv, that was on Shilling (I think it was), but it shouldn't have ever gotten to that point.

If you foul there, you have to F up your following possession/free throws AND F up on D when they are desperate for a FG as time expires to lose. The way we did it almost guarantees a loss in regulation....

#notonthebubble

Izzo is a little too stubborn in adapting some coaching techniques/styles and has cost him a lot this year.

NigelUno wrote:#notonthebubble

#No?

The_Dude wrote:Izzo is a little too stubborn in adapting some coaching techniques/styles and has cost him a lot this year.

You mean like when he insisted on calling TO so he could run a set play at the end of the OSU game?

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:

You mean like when he insisted on calling TO so he could run a set play at the end of the OSU game?

No, like not fouling when up 3 in late game situations.  EVERYONE does it now...the studies are out there...its in your favor to foul.  

He also still hasn't changed how he coaches defense in this new era of basketball.

NigelUno wrote:#notonthebubble

#willbewithlossatwiskydick

No, like not fouling when up 3 in late game situations. EVERYONE does it now...the studies are out there...its in your favor to foul.

He also still hasn't changed how he coaches defense in this new era of basketball.

Maybe you've given up on Tom but most of of haven't

Snake Plissken wrote:Maybe you've given up on Tom but most of of haven't

No, I havent.  Just pointing out his flaws and they are costing MSU.  Tom is the first person to admit he's stubborn.

The_Dude wrote:

No, I havent.  Just pointing out his flaws and they are costing MSU.  Tom is the first person to admit he's stubborn.

Sometimes stubborn is good. Sometimes it makes roughly 700,000 people want to punch you in your throat, and deservedly so.

The_Dude wrote:


No, like not fouling when up 3 in late game situations.  EVERYONE does it now...the studies are out there...its in your favor to foul.  

He also still hasn't changed how he coaches defense in this new era of basketball.

The stats actually support not fouling but don't let ignorance stand in your way.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

The stats actually support not fouling but don't let ignorance stand in your way.

Prove it. Because that makes no sense in the little thinking about it I've done. But someone may have looked into it more.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

The stats actually support not fouling but don't let ignorance stand in your way.

You sure bout that brah?

[quote="Travis of the Cosmos"]
Prove it. Because that makes no sense in the little thinking about it I've done. But someone may have looked into it more.[/quote]

Can't argue with Harvard:

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/A-Harvard-study-examines-whether-you-should-foul?urn=ncaab,265182

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

Can't argue with Harvard:

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/A-Harvard-study-examines-whether-you-should-foul?urn=ncaab,265182

Fine.

Show me a study where a team fouls some motherfucker who cans the three and 1.

Should have fouled. Cost us two games this year.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

Can't argue with Harvard:

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/A-Harvard-study-examines-whether-you-should-foul?urn=ncaab,265182

Actually I can. I sort of hate the way that study is done. "How many times did it work versus how many time did it not" is just the first step, especially when it's as close as that (With relatively small sample sizes.) 

I think if I were the coach a lot of it depends on the player who has the ball. For instance, if he is a 70% free throw shooter and a 38% three point shot, even if you do foul him on the shot (which is Tom's big concern, of course, what are the chances of that even happening is also a factor) then he has a 34% chance of making all three free throws, lower than his 3 point shooting %. If those are reversed, maybe I dont foul.

Of course, thats assuming the worst case scenario of fouling during the shot. Which shouldn't happen frequently at all

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Actually I can. I sort of hate the way that study is done. "How many times did it work versus how many time did it not" is just the first step, especially when it's as close as that (With relatively small sample sizes.) 

I think if I were the coach a lot of it depends on the player who has the ball. For instance, if he is a 70% free throw shooter and a 38% three point shot, even if you do foul him on the shot (which is Tom's big concern, of course, what are the chances of that even happening is also a factor) then he has a 34% chance of making all three free throws, lower than his 3 point shooting %. If those are reversed, maybe I dont foul.

Of course, thats assuming the worst case scenario of fouling during the shot. Which shouldn't happen frequently at all

I agree. Real world statistics should never be used.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

I agree. Real world statistics should never be used.

You mean like the part where I use real world statistics and advocate for using more real world statistics rather than stopping short and using too few real world statistics?

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

I agree. Real world statistics should never be used.

Unless we're talking about gun control.

Rocinante wrote:

Unless we're talking about gun control.

Well this thread is about to suck

Ass Dan wrote:

Well this thread is about to suck

Seriously. Fucking children.

tTy wrote:

Fine.

Show me a study where a team fouls some motherfucker who cans the three and 1.

LOL

I am on record as thinking Gavin Schilling fouls way too much. You foul a guy in that situation, you sit the rest of the season, IMnsHO.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
You mean like the part where I use real world statistics and advocate for using more real world statistics rather than stopping short and using too few real world statistics?

I think I'll go with Harvard over some random dude on the interwebs on this one.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

LOL

I am on record as thinking Gavin Schilling fouls way too much. You foul a guy in that situation, you sit the rest of the season, IMnsHO.

Sit?  Fuck that.  Burned to death in a cage doused in an accelerant.  This is serious shit, dammit.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

I think I'll go with Harvard over some random dude on the interwebs on this one.

You could also do the work yourself and not just assume that either me or Harvard is right. 

All I'm saying is that their "study" is sophmoric and something you would find from a high school statistics class. It isn't nearly deep enough and doesn't tell you shit. The Harvard label is useless because any idiot in a basic stats class could do that.

tTy wrote:

Seriously. Fucking children.

Ignore Roci and his ilk. You nailed. Children. And dumb ones at that.

Come on guys. That was a softball, I had to swing at it. So sensitive.

Rocinante wrote:Come on guys. That was a softball, I had to swing at it. So sensitive.

Go start your own hippy ass gun control thread and I promise I won't turn it into a basketball debate, Mkay fuckface?

tTy wrote:

Go start your own hippy ass gun control thread and I promise I won't turn it into a basketball debate, Mkay fuckface?

You're an angry little man. #handsupthatjokeisreallyold!

Rocinante wrote:

You're an angry little man. #handsupthatjokeisreallyold!

Nope, I just have a zero tolerance policy for political hijacking of my threads, since I consider that complete fucking JV shit. Respect it or get dealt with. Your choice.

I actually didn't, I made one joke and you're the one hijacking the thread. By the way. Izzo did the same thing last week and it worked so although the ending sucked, I don't fault him for doing what he always does.

tTy wrote:

Go start your own hippy ass gun control thread and I promise I won't turn it into a basketball debate, Mkay fuckface?

This is why tTy rules!

Rocinante wrote:I actually didn't, I made one joke and you're the one hijacking the thread. By the way. Izzo did the same thing last week and it worked so although the ending sucked, I don't fault him for doing what he always does.

Apology accepted!

I ain't scared of you.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

I think I'll go with Harvard over some random dude on the interwebs on this one.

Study is flawed. It's been out there for years that you foul.

Nice try.

So back on topic. Either way you do it, foul or not, you can lose up by three under ten seconds. So this goes back to one simple thing: Hit those free throws down the stretch. Denzel buries both those free throws instead of one of two, we aren't having this conversation. Our teams of the past put these kinds of games away at the stripe.