To Foul, or not to Foul
The Clippers won a game, Eric Gordon scored 41 points, Kevin Durant scored 46, Al Thornton scored 34, Cheik Samb played 23 minutes... so there was no shortage of story angles after Friday's contest. But one thing we haven't discussed, which frankly is tailor-made for a blog, is MDsr's decision to foul with a three point lead and 6 seconds left to play.
The first thing I want to point out is that one can never know if such a decision was the 'right' one or the 'wrong' one because frankly one cannot play the game both ways and see both outcomes. All you can do is play the percentages, and of course you won't even get agreement on what the percentages are.
When Hart gave the foul, Milph pointed out that MDsr has an entire decision matrix dedicated to these end of game situations. Based on the point differential, the time remaining, the time outs remaining for the other team, and probably 100 other factors the coach knows whether he wants to give a foul, defend the three, etc. etc.
(Aside - that's why he was so pissed off when Thornton gave so much cushion to Durant a couple possessions before. Up six, 75 seconds remaining, it's still a two possession game as long as you don't give up the 3. Related aside - for anyone who thinks MDsr is stupid, and didn't tell Al that, or even that he didn't tell Daniel Ewing to force Raja Bell off the three point line in 2006, you're crazy. MDsr is far from perfect, but he is thorough and he is prepared - to a fault. But players make mistakes sometimes.)
So in this situation, particularly the fact that the Thunder were out of timeouts and therefore would have to advance the ball the length of the floor in the event they made the free throws and then gave a quick foul to get the ball back, it met the coach's criteria for fouling. The very fact that Hart was in the game to give the foul, and that the Clippers left Collison open to receive the pass tells you that he had a very specific vision in the huddle.
I hear people say all the time, 'Foul them with a three point lead; don't give them the chance to tie the game on a three pointer." But you know what's interesting? Almost no one does that. Ask yourself - why is that? Are coaches stupid? No.
This is the first time I've seen the Clippers give a foul foul with a three point lead. Now, the Clippers are behind most of the time late in games, but I've watched almost every game that MDsr has coached with the Clippers, so that's a lot of games. If this is the first time I've seen them give that foul, then his decision tree must be highly specific for when to do so. But if I were the coach, I wouldn't give it even then.
The problem with fouling in that situation is exactly what happened in the game - the offensive rebound after the missed free throw. What are the odds that the trailing team is going to make a three, when you know they need a three, and they're working with a short clock? It would be great to have hard data on that, but figure the league averages about 36% overall. Now cut that in half because you're all over them behind the three point line. Now cut it in half again because they have 6 seconds to shoot. Truthfully, my gut tells me it should be more than cut in half, but even so, you're now below a 10% chance that they will make that three.
On the other hand, let's say you foul. Depending on the free shooter, 75% they make the first (Collison was nice enough to miss). Now, they decide to miss the second intentionally. League wide, between 25% and 30% of rebounds are offensive rebounds. Now, you're going to say, "But on that free throw, the team with the lead is going to have inside position." True, but isn't the defensive team supposed to have inside position in most situations? Offensive rebounds happen when the guy with inside position makes a mistake and fails to box out, or when you just get a bad bounce. So I'll use the low estimate for the league wide average - 25%. Well guess what? Now that they have the offensive rebound, they're in a much better position to score, and they only need a 2 to tie the game. Let's give them a 45% chance of getting a put back. 75% they make the first, 25% they get the offensive rebound on the miss, 40% they get a put back.... equals a 7.5% chance they tie the game that way. 7.5% chance versus a 9% chance they tie with the three - a ha says you - so it's better to foul! Not so fast, says I.
- By fouling, you've extended the game, and so many other things can happen.
- Make the first, miss the second, rebound, kick, three - boom, you lost by one.
- Miss the first, miss the second, rebound, kick, three - almost happened Friday, but Durant missed.
- Try to give the foul, but the other team sniffs it out and goes straight into the shooting motion - behind the arc - three free throws - Or maybe the shot goes in.
- Or the old fashioned way - they make both free throws, foul on the inbounds, now there are 4 seconds, you miss one or both free throws, and they Tyus Edney your ass.
I'm saying, if you play defense, at least 9 times out of 10 they miss a last second shot, the game is over, and you win. You foul, and there are myriad ways you could conceivably lose, none of them very likely, but at least one of them not significantly less likely than them making a three.
There's another factor here as well - and it's about the spirit of the game. I'm not above strategically venturing into grey areas if there's a clear advantage - if you can give a foul to prevent an easy basket, you do it every time. But if you're up three with six seconds to go, shouldn't you be able to play defense for six more seconds and win the game? And if you can't, do you deserve to? When Gregg Popovich went to the hack-a-Shaq in the first quarter in last year's playoffs, it was total BS, and there are factors involved that go beyond whether or not it was effective - it wasn't basketball, and the fans want to watch basketball. So if the percentages were cut and dried, then I would intentionally foul with 6 seconds left. But given that the percentages are neither cut nor dried, I say play basketball for 6 more seconds.
Of course, you could also foul a three point shooter when you have a four point lead as the Clippers did in Chicago, but I don't recommend that either.
So if it's me, I tell my team to defend the three - every time. What would you do? Discuss.
25 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Interesting topic
But I disagree with you on the Raja deal. I guess that makes me crazy. Clearly Ewing had not been told.
"Clearly Ewing had not been told."
Oh, Jax. Why do you taunt me? Do you really believe that is more likely that the coach failed to tell Ewing to defend the three point line with a three point lead than that a 23 year old rookie made a mistake? Now, I’ll accept the argument that Ewing never should have been in the game to begin with, or that perhaps he misunderstood his instructions.
In the end, I have to agree with you. You are crazy.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 25, 2009 1:32 AM PST up reply actions
i remember reading or hearing something about that game...
MDsr said what happened was cat mobley was guarding the inbound pass but for some reason the ref told cat to move 3 feet back so he couldn’t guard the inbounder. Cat should have slid down to protect the baseline 3 pass thereby forcing an inbound to the center of the court. Instead cat slid 3 feet back towards the middle of the court. Since the inbounder could then make a pass easily around him either to the center of the court or to the baseline, he wasn’t really able to defend it. it was like 5 on 4. DE got rubbed off on a screen and couldn’t recover in time.
BTW that game was filled with mistakes… If i remember right it was our vet sam’s 8 second violation that put us in that position.
by cantthinkofagoodname on Jan 25, 2009 3:13 AM PST up reply actions
^THIS
But it was Radmanovich.
Get me BD and 75 and I'm in
turns out my memory was a little off.
DE wasn’t rubbed off on a screen, Bell sorta shoved him and he should have fought through but didn’t close out in time.
by cantthinkofagoodname on Jan 25, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions
Yes...
Raja got separation with a bit of a push. Ewing must have been off balance, because it shouldn’t have gotten him so far out of position, but it did.
That separation was of course the key to whole play. That’s why fouling was not an option (despite what Charles Barkley says) at that point – by the time he could recover to foul, Bell was in his shooting motion.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 25, 2009 1:16 PM PST up reply actions
Um, no
Ewing was in the wrong place to start the sequence. He should have been on the baseline. But I’m crazy, so what do I know?
The point is that "DE" didn't need to be near Raja at all
He just needed to defend the line. But again, I’m crazy for my opinion that he wasn’t told to be on the line, even though he was in the wrong place
I guess that the point has been conceded
And the crazy comment retracted
Players are perfect.
Coaches are always wrong.
So its pretty easy to figure out where fault lies in every situation.
If you are Jax.
Get me BD and 75 and I'm in
Get a life - CS doesn't need to call people crazy for disagreeing with him
Dumb posts by people like John R is what that causes.
Kind of funny
Until I pointed out in a recent discussion that the issue was defending the three point line, as far as I know the only discussion on this board about the Raja issue was whether they should have put a cold Ewing in the game. Certainly that was what John R thought the complaints were about.
At least we are now focusing on the real issue.
A good topic...
I totally agree, its just better and more predictable pay defense a set amount of time. Plus, intentionally missing free throws are often flat shots, so they miss, so the chances it bounces pass the outstretched arms of the inside defenders is much greater.
Now if you can only give this post ot the 30 color commentators around the league, we wouldn’t have to listen to the “Why didn’t they foul” arguments after every game that goes into OT based on a 3.
I love LAC.
with the way the clips play defense some times
I would have fouled. Especially since on the very possession before the clips (Al) didn’t close out enough and they made the the three. Also I think that them getting the rebound would have been much less likely would we have been play anywhere near full strength. They only reason they probably got the ball is because we had rookies on the blocks who made mistakes. Had Camby or Zbo been down there we probably would have gotten the rebound. Also I would much rather have a player shooting a desperation leaning three like Durant had to do then giving them a good look which could have happened.
Exactly why it puzzled me
in that I could understand his strategy and matrix stuff (playing the percentages) if he’d had Kaman, Camby and ZBo ready to rebound the Collison FT but we had Cheeky Samb, Al and Novak, not exactly the most profilic rebounders the NBA has seen since Wilt Chamberlain!!!
Bingo!
just wondering.. but can you just throw it off the backboard ?
i wouldnt have fouled unless we were up by 5. that means they could make 1 freethrow, intentionally miss the 2nd, get the rebound and get a 3. but then somehow we can never even get the ball inbounds on these last plays so make it 8. but then they would run up court for the 3 pointer so make it 11.
I think it has to touch the rim....Not too sure
I love LAC.
It has to touch the rim
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 25, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
While i kind of agree with you
Portland lost to Orlando at home when Hedo chucked in a prayer.
Brandon Roy beat Houston the same way.
In both games the leading team was ahead by 2. Being up by 3 and fouling seems safer. the worst that would happen is overtime. I don’t see them making a free throw, missing, and then hitting a kickout 3. If you can’t defend that play, how will you defend the final shot without fouling?
Koponen - PG of the future. For Italy, that is. Book it.
Don't forget Baron at Portland also
Tied with a 3 in final seconds. Blazers have been involved in some doozies this season.
We can always come up with examples where one or the other strategy didn’t work. There is no perfect answer. But I know how I would play it. And all 30 NBA coaches tend to play it that way in the vast majority of situations, which is why the examples we have of where it doesn’t work tend to come from the times they DON’T give the foul. The data would be really interesting if they gave the foul about 50% of the time – you could go through and see which method works better over time. But there’s just not a lot of data on coaches giving fouls.
A lot of people assume that’s because coaches are stupid. (Certainly it happens here at Clips Nation – I think the BE guys like Nate better, with good reason.) But coaches aren’t stupid. There’s a reason they rarely foul in that situation.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 25, 2009 1:21 PM PST up reply actions
A flaw in the reasoning, I think --
Firstly, I’m surprised about the figure you cite for offensive rebounds. I would have guessed more like 20, myself.
But more to the point — a free-throw is a specific situation, and (unless you neglected to specify this), would have its own stats. And I’m very skeptical that the offensive rebound percentage on free-throws, especially ones at the end of games, is anything like 35. /
If I’m right, your cascade of stats is seriously skewed.
Some stats are guesses, some stats are not
League wide, it’s 25% to 30. Some teams do better, some teams do worse. But that’s the number. If team A misses 50 shots, team B gets 35 to 37 defensive boards, team A gets 13 to 15 offensive boards. I don’t have specific numbers for free throws… however, I would not use them even if I did. The vast majority of free throw rebounds aren’t contested. Frequently the shooting team doesn’t even have their best rebounders on the lane. By the way, I didn’t use 35, I used 25%, but I assume that was just a typo on your part.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 25, 2009 9:29 PM PST up reply actions
It's all situational, IMO.
We could go through percentages all day, but it’s really not going to get us anywhere. You have to look at the situation, and I felt that all the factors indicated that fouling was the best option. What I saw was a below average shooter catch the basketball inside the three point line with his back to the hoop. No matter how much you like defending the three, that circumstance with the Clips up three is begging for a foul.
However, I’m partial to defending the three, but it’s not because of any stats. It’s more to ClipperSteve’s final reason, being that basketball players should just play basketball. It’s no fun to see the game stopped and have all of these strategies overtake the game. I like seeing guys get chances to make that big time shot, and the other team having the opportunity to defend it. It makes for great basketball. In my mind, there’s nothing worse than watching a game wind down with a bevy of fouls.
"When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years." -Mark Twain
by WestsideBrandon on Jan 25, 2009 9:02 PM PST reply actions

by 









