KenPom Strategy articles

[hhcmatt]

I know we've had a lot of discussions on 2 for 1s in the past so some of these articles might interest you.

In fact, I'll even hide the conclusions if you want to be surprised.

 

How much are Two for Ones worth?

 

A coach implementing this strategy will win one extra game out of 100 - and that’s out of 100 games where a two-for-one opportunity exists! However, in the college game, the two-for-one at the end of the half doesn’t present a huge advantage. It’s an advantage, sure, and I’d bet coaches worry about things that give them even smaller edges. But after going through this analysis, I’m going to move the two-for-one down on my list of strategic outrages.

 

Deciding whether to foul when tied

 

It's a combination of how much you were favored to win by and the FT% of the person being fouled.  The bigger underdog you are, the more to your advantage to foul and avoid overtime. The worse a FT shooter is increases your odds of taking posession less than 2 points down after the foul

 

 

Deciding whether to foul up 3

 

The fact is, chances of losing are close to remote in either case, but execution errors, an inflated offensive rebounding percentage, poor three-point shooting, and the chance of an extra possession are enough to counteract what might otherwise be the advantage of forcing a team to shoot free throws. In cases where the opponent has multiple good three-point shooters and you have confidence in rebounding a missed free throw, fouling may be the better option. But it appears the default decision should be to not foul.

[AuroranHusker]

Miles is fairly adamant about the 2-for-1s at the half.  In various media outlets, I've heard him mention that 2 poor shots are better than only 1 attempt.