The Sports Economist has a post about foul strategy, but not what you would normally think. No, he's asking about the strategy of the team that's leading.

He uses the MSU / Kentucky game as an example, which is why it caught my attention. First, the 12 seconds at the end of the first OT. Steven Lubett asks why MSU didn't foul to give them two free throws rather than let them to try for a three pointer. Fouling gives them two free throws, and then MSU gets the ball back.

Well, here's why. Make one free throw, then miss. You have a chance for rebound, and then you only need a two pointer to tie - or a three to win. Those are pretty big risks. Yes, MSU is a dominating team on the boards, but you don't take those chances.

His second example just didn't make any sense to me. State was up by 4, and Kentucky went in for a layup. He asks why they didn't foul in the back court. Here's why: It would have stopped the clock! 14 seconds left, and you foul in the back court - that's only a couple of seconds off. Make them bring it all the way down the floor. That's probably 5-6 seconds.

Want another reason? Off of a free throw, Kentucky can get set. Coming off an explosion down the court, they couldn't get set. That means the inbound play will be a lot easier.

The whole reason you foul is to save the clock. Then you hope to trade threes for free throws, and if they miss, then you make up ground that way too. When you have a lead, your objective is to let the clock run as much as possible. Fouling the team that's losing just doesn't seem like a wise strategy in most cases.