Fouling While Ahead

Interesting observation by Robert Weintraub in Slate today: Memphis, up by 3 with seconds to go in regulation, should have committed a foul to send Kansas to the line to shoot two. We all know what happened instead:



Why isn't this a standard strategy? Maybe because it's kind of counterintuitive and has only limited applicability? At the end of a game, it's always the losing team that starts fouling to stop the clock (a strategy prompted by an egregious basic structural failing in the game of basketball that makes this idiotic tactic the only sensible one under the circumstances). The thought of the winning team fouling in the closing seconds seems absurd. Moreover, it usually just doesn't make sense: if you're up by less than 3, then by fouling, you give the other team the chance to tie the game or take the lead; if you're up by more than 3, then it's at least a two-possession game and you win no matter what.

But if you're up by exactly 3, then the logic of fouling in the final seconds becomes unassailable: you send the other team to the line to shoot (at most) two shots, meaning that even if they make both free throws, you're still up by 1, and you have the ball back. In the more likely scenario where, if the other team makes the first shot, it will then intentionally miss the second one, they still have to get the rebound and get another shot up to tie (or win), which is difficult with so little time left. Most importantly, though, by fouling when up by 3, you take away the other team's ability to tie the game with a back-breaking 3-pointer that sends it into overtime and tramples your soul in the process (see above).

Though maybe a better strategy is just to make your own damn free throws!

Update: Bill Simmons agrees (see his point #2).