Fouling up 3

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
KingSpeed

KingSpeed

Veteran
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
63,287
Likes
22,463
Points
113
I’ve always been against it. You are leading and giving up points. If they make both FTs, they will foul you and suddenly the pressure is on you to make two when you were up 3! Tonight, the Pels were up 3 with 7 seconds left in regulation and they purposely fouled Sabonis. He made the first FT but he missed the 2nd and Monk grabbed the rebound and got fouled. He made both to tie the game. CJ missed a shot and it went to OT and won but it didn’t have to be so hard. When you are LEADING, you shouldn’t give your opponent free points. Just play good defense!! IMHO
 
It also depends on how much time is left.
 
Smart people wouldn't foul up 3. Don't know why the Russian disinformation bot got a hold of the idiotic take to foul up 3.
 
Seems like a weak smol brain move, especially when teams are doing it with like 10-20 secs left in the game. 3-8 secs left, no timeouts, maybe I get it, but if you’re just doing it, with tons of time left it makes no sense to have a free throw battle for 4-5 possessions.
 
What is easier to do, make a 3 (considering how much the league now protects the shooter's "space") or make a free throw, then intentionally miss the second free throw, get the rebound, and put it back in?

I agree with MM, it depends on who is on the floor.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
What is easier to do, make a 3 (considering how much the league now protects the shooter's "space") or make a free throw, then intentionally miss the second free throw, get the rebound, and put it back in?

I agree with MM, it depends on who is on the floor.
Click to expand...
Neither. Just play defense and get a stop. Game over.
 
KingSpeed said:
Neither. Just play defense and get a stop. Game over.
Click to expand...

Or grab a rebound off the missed FT and game over. I used to have a similar opinion as you, but now you can't even get close to the 3 pt shooter without them calling a foul. So now I am not sure.
 
New York just allowed Jayson Tatum, without timeouts for Boston, to dribble the ball all the way up the court shoot a 3-pointer, which he made, to tie the game with 2.9 seconds left.

New York lost in overtime.
 
Does this mean that almost all coaches in College and pro basketball are wrong? Obviously you cant foul too early, but they don't do that. I am sure someone has done the math on this though. Sure seems to be common practice among coaches who are paid to do it.
 
If you foul, you are giving the opponent two free points and turning the pressure back onto you to make two FTs or potentially lose the game in regulation.
 
All things being equal, you absolutely foul up 3 in the final 15 seconds. The pressure argument isn't a good one because the team down 3 also has pressure to make both FT's, and a percentage of the time, they'll miss one as well.

Neither strategy is fail-proof. One is more likely to work than the other though (fouling up 3); it's just math.
 
GoZers said:
Does this mean that almost all coaches in College and pro basketball are wrong? Obviously you cant foul too early, but they don't do that. I am sure someone has done the math on this though. Sure seems to be common practice among coaches who are paid to do it.
Click to expand...

I think in general, coaches don't love the idea of fouling. However, faced with the data, and the desire to win, they've realized it's the proper play.
 
Tince said:
All things being equal, you absolutely foul up 3 in the final 15 seconds. The pressure argument isn't a good one because the team down 3 also has pressure to make both FT's, and a percentage of the time, they'll miss one as well.

Neither strategy is fail-proof. One is more likely to work than the other though (fouling up 3); it's just math.
Click to expand...
But there’s no pressure on you if you play defense and get the 3 point win. Worst case is OT but since they have to shoot a 3, defending them is easier.
 
KingSpeed said:
But there’s no pressure on you if you play defense and get the 3 point win. Worst case is OT but since they have to shoot a 3, defending them is easier.
Click to expand...

and Harrison Barnes can't hit a three while being defended really well as the clock winds down. Imagine the Warriors being up three and allowing Barnes to shoot that. And yes, you'd have to imagine it because the Warriors would have fouled him
 
KingSpeed said:
But there’s no pressure on you if you play defense and get the 3 point win. Worst case is OT but since they have to shoot a 3, defending them is easier.
Click to expand...

That's wild logic. So giving up a 3 to go to OT is no pressure but possibly missing a FT and still maintaining the lead is pressure?

This reminds me of the old football coaches who used to punt on 4th and 1 on the 50. Sure you'll get less criticism, but the math says its stupid.
 
Tince said:
That's wild logic. So giving up a 3 to go to OT is no pressure but possibly missing a FT and still maintaining the lead is pressure?

This reminds me of the old football coaches who used to punt on 4th and 1 on the 50. Sure you'll get less criticism, but the math says its stupid.
Click to expand...
The difference is if you foul up 3, you risk giving them the WIN in regulation. If you guard the three point line well, chances are high you’ll get the stop.
 
Never liked it for the Blazers. It forces you to inbound up one or two. It gives the opponent rest and time to focus on a more doable goal: steal and layup/dunk. Because we are the Blazers, we will never get the benefit of late game calls against good teams. If the game counts and I’m the Blazers head coach? I would never do it. Warriors can, OKC can, Lakers can, Celtics can. Not us. No fucking way.
 
KingSpeed said:
The difference is if you foul up 3, you risk giving them the WIN in regulation. If you guard the three point line well, chances are high you’ll get the stop.
Click to expand...

Correct. But you shouldn't dismiss the strategy as being optimal because you could lose in regulation (vs OT). There is a greater chance of the game going to OT if you don't foul and most importantly, the probability of winning the game increases if you do foul up 3 (all things being equal).

So if the goal is to win the game vs being concerned if you might lose in regulation vs OT, then fouling is the best strategy.
 
Tince said:
Correct. But you shouldn't dismiss the strategy as being optimal because you could lose in regulation (vs OT). There is a greater chance of the game going to OT if you don't foul and most importantly, the probability of winning the game increases if you do foul up 3 (all things being equal).

So if the goal is to win the game vs being concerned if you might lose in regulation vs OT, then fouling is the best strategy.
Click to expand...
I just don’t like being up 3 turning into “we must make these FTs.”
 
KingSpeed said:
I just don’t like being up 3 turning into “we must make these FTs.”
Click to expand...
But there isn't a "we must make these FT" situation when you're up 3. If anything, the team down 3 is in the "we must make these FT's" scenario. Would the team up 3 making their FTs be ideal? Sure. Could you miss them all and still win? Yes.

It appears as if you're looking at the best case scenario for one strategy and comparing it to the worst case of the other. You should be looking at the probability of all the scenarios and where that nets out.
 
Tince said:
But there isn't a "we must make these FT" situation when you're up 3. If anything, the team down 3 is in the "we must make these FT's" scenario. Would the team up 3 making their FTs be ideal? Sure. Could you miss them all and still win? Yes.

It appears as if you're looking at the best case scenario for one strategy and comparing it to the worst case of the other. You should be looking at the probability of all the scenarios and where that nets out.
Click to expand...
Yes there is. If you foul them and they make both, you will be under the gun to make 2 or potentially losing in regulation. How do you not understand this?
 
KingSpeed said:
Yes there is. If you foul them and they make both, you will be under the gun to make 2 or potentially losing in regulation. How do you not understand this?
Click to expand...
But that forces them to do a lot with less time. There is a much greater chance they'll make a mistake and you'll be in a better situation. And even if everything goes wrong, the worst case scenario is that you have to play tough defense anyway. But this time they'll have less time to set something up.

You're far more likely to succeed in that situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top