Reply With Quote
If the shooter sees the foul coming he just throws it up and gets 3 FTs. It's better to try and defend the 3 IMO. Messina tried doing that earlier in the season and it totally backfired.
As he has in the past, most notably in the 2013 Finals, Pop stubbornly refused to foul when up 3 pts with almost no time left. Stupid. He's a great coach, but this is one of his stupid blind spots he needs to cure.
Sure, Kawhi missed free throws, but when you're up 3 pts with 4 seconds left, you have the game in the bag if you just foul the instant the ball gets inbounds. Barkley was even talking about it during the time out.
If the shooter sees the foul coming he just throws it up and gets 3 FTs. It's better to try and defend the 3 IMO. Messina tried doing that earlier in the season and it totally backfired.
Don't mind fouling when there's enough time left on the clock but too many things can go wrong trying to foul with only 3 seconds, including a 4 pt play opportunity, 3 free throws on the shot, failing to get rebound on missed free throw, etc. Many things that can result in not just going to overtime but a team actually losing the game.
lol Barkley said
It's just a regular season game...move on.
Great post. Too much risk and it's better to just try and play solid defense on a desperate heave. Those 3's drop because usually the D on the shot isn't always the staunchest. That's by design, the worst thing would be to give the refs anything to work with and call a foul over, so you keep a visible gap on the shooter and just hope you can keep them off balance enough.
Best strategy is to maintain the 6-10 point buffer you had going in the last half of play obviously but the Spurs just haven't reached that gear yet and historically have operated under a "foot off the gas" gameplan unfortunately.
We don't have the ft shooters to effectively implement this strategy in most occasions. If cavs didn't have anymore timeouts then it could've worked. If Lebron would've got the ball then the the foul strategy works better because we have guys that are better at fts. So the strategy would result in the lead going to 4 more often than going to 2. Fouling Irving would result in the lead going to 2 more often than it going to 4.
Let it go, already
For all of you who say it's too risky, like letting the team shot a three it's not risky??? Are you morons? How much pain and heartbraking the team should suffer before understand that trying to foul in that situation is the right move???
Not saying it hasn't happened but I've never seen a game winning 4 point play. The chances of that happening are much smaller than someone missing 1 out of 3 free throws (if they were fortunate enough to even get that call). And I think the chances of someone going 3 for 3 at the line are smaller than hitting the three point shot.
If fouling in that scenario was common practice among coaches, you would see it. Reason is players can usually determine if the defender has the intention of fouling them on purpose and therefore will throw the shot up with a chance it goes in. Not saying the odds of it going in would be great but now you left yourself open to not only a tie but losing the game altogether if your team can't foul correctly.
Anyway, that's just one piece. If a player goes to the line and knocks down 2/3 but misses the third, now you left yourself open to the opposing team getting the offensive rebound and kicking out for a shot or simply tipping in the miss for the win. Point is, by fouling you have now opened yourself up to many different scenarios in which you could actually end up losing the game whereas trying to contest the original shot to the best of your ability will result in, at the worst, overtime.
i think you could make a case that just leaving one of the bigs underneath the hoop wide open and giving them an uncontested layup would be a better strategy then fouling. Double Irving on the perimeter and leave the rim unprotected. I like this strategy If the Cavs are out of timeouts especially.
In one post, you say the players are smart enough to know when they are about to get fouled but now you think they're dumb enough to pass the ball to a wide open big for a layup?
Maybe the defense could all just go to the other half of the court and the other team would then try to shoot in the wrong basket. It's so crazy, it might work!
"3-D": Late-Game Defensive Strategy with a 3-Point Lead
from 82Games.com
In 32 instances of a team electing to foul and thus force the opponent to make one free throw, miss the 2nd, AND get the O rebound AND then make the shot.....it happened 3 times out of 32.
Vs 20% of the time a team makes the Hail Mary trey.
http://www.82games.com/lawhorn.htm
Good to know. Is there anything about how many time the foul led to the team shooting 3 free throws?
Great q.
I have as yet been unable to find that stat.
Just depends how much time is on the clock. If the play is to get the ball to Kyrie and you have two guys covering him then the inbounder has to find an alternative quickly.
11 seconds or less is a lot different then 3 seconds or less where players go directly into their shot when catching the ball. The NBA has gotten crazy about continuations already.
The foul sends the message that you are not confident in your own team's ability to execute and win.
That's how Pop roll and I can dig it. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But, the wins are less random and it builds confidence and makes the focus on the only thing he can really try to control: the Spurs ability to execute.
Danny Green's earlier foul on Kyrie which yielded 3 free throws and Kawhi's missed free throws were the biggest mistakes, not avoiding a foul on the final play of regulation.
If the goat made one ft this wouldn't be an issue
So could the Heat.
If one chooses to play D, the collosal fkup by the Spurs in '13 was failure to guard the arc, Xs10 when the Heat missed shots and both times the Spurs failed to garner the rebound. Why even bother to guard against the 2? Complete re ation.
That's what I said. They should have doubled teamed Irving. Even if you leave somebody else wide open for a 3, they would still have a lesser chance of making it than a guarded Irving that night. Nobody on that team makes 50% of their 3s. Even a wide open 3 gives you winner's odds. Just deny the hot hand.
Ehhhhh, you play the odds in that situation, it's all here say. You can foul but if it backfires you look like an idiot.
Yes it is pops fault Leonard missed 2 free throws when Spurs were up 3 no pressure just to make 1 out of two
The same luck on that 3 could send the FT bounce to the opponent. So they have 1 and now the ball, do you foul again or try to play defense? I'll take the solid defense, whatever got you there, over intentionally fouling a team you know is going to make one and intentionally miss the other.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
