Subscribe!
CourtIntelligence powered by kenpom.com

Most recent entries

  • Weeks in Review III, 12/5-12/18
  • Introduction to the PASR recruiting model
  • On unbalanced conference schedules
  • Play-by-Play Theater: Quickest individual 3’s
  • Weeks in Review II, 11/22-12/4
  • The ACC/Big Ten Challenge bar chart
  • Week in Review I, 11/14-11/21
  • The slowest season(?)
  • What I did this summer
  • The first annual #ShootersClub
  • The good stuff


    At other venues...
  • ESPN.com ($)
  • Deadspin
  • Slate

  • Strategy
  • Whether to foul up 3 late
  • The value of 2-for-1’s

  • Philosophy
  • Brady Heslip’s non-slump
  • The magic of negative motivation
  • A treatise on plus-minus
  • The preseason AP poll is great
  • The magic of negative motivation
  • The lack of information in close-game performance
  • Why I don’t believe in clutchness*

  • Fun stuff
  • The missing 1-point games
  • Which two teams last lost longest ago?
  • How many first-round picks will Kentucky have?
  • Prepare for the Kobe invasion
  • Predicting John Henson's free throw percentage
  • Can Derrick Williams set the three-point accuracy record?
  • Play-by-play Theater: earliest disqualification
  • Monthly Archives

  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • July 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003

  • RSS feed

    Is six fouls a good idea?

    by Ken Pomeroy on Tuesday, December 17, 2013


    Sometime during the North Carolina-Kentucky game, Dick Vitale mentioned that he would be in favor of allowing a player to accumulate six fouls before being disqualified. It was probably around the time that five Kentucky players had at least two fouls in the first half. I’ve heard a few folks suggest this remedy as the increase in fouls called has taken its toll in the form of frequent foul trouble for players that can’t keep their hands off the opposition. In order to support such a change, I think that you must believe two things. First, that players are incapable of ever adjusting to the new rules interpretations and second, that increasing the five-foul limit will not have an effect on players’ behavior.

    The former is not easy to prove but there could be some truth to the latter. For a player, there are two deterrents to fouling: the penalty of giving the opponent free throws and the possibility of limiting one’s own participation. If you’ve spent any time perusing individual foul rates on the team pages, you’ve probably noticed that players that come off the bench tend to have higher foul rates. I suspect this has less to do with an inability to play good defense and more to do with bench players not worrying about fouling out, so they play more aggressive defense than a starter could get away with. They’ll get their 15 minutes per game whether they commit two quick fouls or not.

    One could make the case - though I haven’t heard it laid out this way - that by raising the limit to six, starters might become marginally more aggressive but because they’d stay on the floor during what is currently thought to be “foul trouble”, they would take minutes from bench players that would be even more aggressive. Thus, the number of fouls committed might actually decrease, or at least it wouldn’t be affected much.

    Fortunately, we have data to guide us on this issue. For three seasons, from 1990 through 1992 the Big East and the conference then known as the Trans America Athletic Conference took the NCAA up on its offer to experiment with the six-foul rule during conference games. Admittedly, that’s a long time ago, and the shorts were a lot shorter, but otherwise the game wasn’t that much different that it is today.

    One way it was different was in terms of recordkeeping. Ideally, one would compare conference games to non-conference games of the participating conferences, but that data doesn’t exist at all for the TAAC teams and only for a few Big East teams. However, the evidence is still fairly compelling that going to six fouls would mean more fouls in general. The simplest analysis is to compare the foul rates among those teams in the transition years. The following chart shows fouls committed per 40 minutes in the years bracketing the six-foul experiment.

         1989 1990 … 1992 1993
      BE 19.8 21.3   21.2 19.2
    TAAC 19.8 21.4   21.8 19.6
     D-I 20.1 19.8   20.0 19.6
    
    

    Keep in mind that these numbers include a bunch of games - the non-conference schedule and the NIT or NCAA tournaments - that were played with the traditional five-foul rules, but this is the most relevant set of numbers we can get without doing more time-consuming research. And it’s apparent that fouls increased when the limit was raised and fouls decreased when the limit was lowered.

    This alone is not an argument against raising the foul limit. One might assert that two additional fouls per team is an acceptable trade for allowing the starters to be on the floor longer. Determining exactly how much playing time we’re talking about is a problem that’s more difficult to solve. But those proposing the six-foul limit shouldn’t suggest that the only difference in the game would be more playing time for each team’s best players. There likely would be even more fouls, too.