Just stumbled my way upon this article from KenPom.
A very interesting read regarding a question I had never heard posed before. Tie ball game. Under 20 seconds left. You're on defense. Do you foul? Just an interesting question that I thought I would pose here since MJ Walker talk has gone off the rails.
For me, I honestly wouldn't mind the play, especially in a 1 and 1 scenario. Obviously, I'm not fouling JJ Redick or some other automatic shooter from the line, but take JRob for example. Can be iffy at the line. Say he's had an off night all around. Maybe has gone 4-8 from the line and he has the ball in his hands and he's on the road. Do you foul him? I think you can make the case that it's the right call.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Depends on the player and if it's regular season vs playoffs. I wouldn't foul a player that I think has strong mental fortitude. I would foul the hell outta a player like Gortat or Jordan(clippers), but not a player like Paul Pierce or Dirk. Like every sport, it depends on the game time situation, player. That's why when a team inbounds and thinks the other team is gonna "hackashaq" they make sure to inbound to shooters and players with ice cold blood.
Remember when the Giants 2012 Super Bowl upset against 18-0 Pats, they were so afraid of "what if" Brady gets the ball back and Ahmad Bradshaw almost downed the ball on the 1 yard line before falling backwards into the Endzone? Fear is strong
If this were a test I'd circle:
D.) Not enough information
Totally depends on who has the ball, who's fouling, how many fouls do they have, how many team fouls do I have, where is the game being played, who am I coaching against, is my defense having a good night, are my shooters hot for the possession after the free throws, are my guys hitting from the stripe (in case the other coach calls for a foul), and most importantly, WHAT SHOES ARE ON MY PLAYERS FEET?
No. You walk him and pitch to the rhino.
It depends : )
edit: If the question is, would I consider fouling to get the ball, absolutely. Especially if I'm the underdog.
Yes. This was more of the spirit of the question. The age old question would you rather be tied on defense or down 1 or 2 with the ball.
if the other team is clearly better, then OT is not my friend. that said, would I foul with just a few seconds left? no.
but would i foul with 15-20 seconds left with a chance to get a game winning shot? every time
No. Never, ever allow a free shot to the opposing team to take the lead. Play DEFENSE.
Would you rather be down two points with 25 seconds left or down two points with 2 seconds left?
Playing defense with it all tied up typically results in:
losing (either by a made shot or an accidental foul resulting in foul shots)
going to OT
A distant third is forcing a turnover with enough time remaining to score.
I completely understand how fouling is a legitimate strategy here unless you're playing a team like LOLUVa that has shown they need the full shot clock just to throw up a prayer at the end.
Like this look at it. The earlier you foul, the more chance you have.
Happened upon this gif while I was listening to this.
Clicky
You're welcome.
+1 ball stuck on the rim
Who's MJ Walker?
Worlds best shoe salesman
No, that's Al Bundy who once scored 4 touchdowns for Polk High.
Tie game, no. They are free throws for a reason, since 1980 the free throw percentage across the NBA has hovered between 72-77%, the FG percentage between 45-50%, and the three 3 PT % between 34-37% since the 1997-1998 move back to 22' +. Add in the fact that the refs tend to swallow the whistles and the shooting percentages drop even lower. So fouling a guy basically gives your team a 70% chance to be trailing with seconds to go instead of a greater than 50% chance to be heading to OT or getting the ball for a last second chance.
The big unknown in all of this is how much does the late game fatigue and pressure affect the free throw shooting percentage. My guess is not too much as the act of shooting the free throw is nearly muscle memory and repetition for players at the college or professional level. Plus a coach can sub in players more likely to make a free throw knowing he may not have to play another defensive possession.
https://www.besttickets.com/blog/nba-shooting/
And then there's the whole "oh, you fouled Shaq and now he's injured so let me sub in a 6'1" 92% free throw shooter as our center to take the shots."
In basketball I would say no you do not foul. There is no way you can guarantee that they would make their last shot, whereas even if a guy is cold shooting from the line he still has a better than average chance of hitting one.
In football I watch the end of the 98 Syracuse game and scream at the monitor so that somebody will commit pass interference and make them try that play again.
If you're playing a team coached by Seth Greenberg, you absolutely foul. You know you're getting the ball back tie game because his teams can't hit a thing from the line.
This cuts too deep.
Trust me, I know. The one thing that frustrated me the absolute most was our consistent inability to hit FTs under SG. We lost so many games because of our consistent ability to piss away points on the line. And it really didn't matter who was on the line, the entire team struggled.
Malcom was great from the stripe. Shot like .85 or something if memory serves. The rest of the team, yeahhhh.
This is part of the reason why I'm paying very close attention to the Walker recruitment. He's an elite scorer, and if we're able to pick him up, we'll have brought in 2 with this class, when you also consider NAW. Our guys were good this past year at the line, going 73.7% on the season, our highest mark since ESPN started tracking in 2001, and those two could push that number even higher.
Pretty close ... Malcom was 84.5%
Team stat for his career
2007-09 68.1.4% (191st nationally)
2008-09 72.4% (62nd nationally)
2009-10 71.7% (83rd nationally)
2010-11 71.0% (112th nationally)
That's a lot of Jeff Allen, y'all.
all I think when I read the title of this thread.
This picture perfectly captures the calm before the storm
It's like when someone tried to hit Kane with a chair. Yeah, you hit him, but he's gonna chokeslam you to hell right after.
Just look at how calm the Thunder player's face is, casually checking over his shoulder for a screen or wing making a cut to the basket. You know about .5 seconds later when that pain impulse reached his brain there was a contortion of the face that left him looking like
Probably longer. He's Australian.
Yes. Especially if they shoot over .500. Chances are if they go to the line you'll get possession back with at least 15 seconds. I want the ball in my hands. I'd rather have the chance to tie/go ahead as time expires, then let them shoot as time expires with the game tied, because at least it's in my control.
Yes. You foul with 20 secs left if you have home court advantage. The fans will take care of the shooter at the line
I'm sure there are stats somewhere on the line for these situations. I'm curious to see them. What is the winning percentage of being tied and on defense vs. being down with the ball. Instead of the 20 seconds on the game clock as an arbitrary number, a better metric is when the shot clock is turned off so it's down to the potential last possession.
those metrics are in the article in the OP.
This brings up my biggest pet peeve about the sport. I have never been a fan of fouling a guy on purpose in the final minute or two of the game, even when behind, much less when tied. I understand the strategic importance of it, but it unnecessarily drags out the ending and totally destroys the flow of the game. I'd love to see those fouls where a guy just bear hugs the ball carrier called an intentional or flagrant foul to cut down on that tactic. I think it would make the endings of close games more entertaining if we eliminated those plays.
Back to the original question, though. I'd play extremely aggressive and physical defense in this situation, stopping just shy of fouling the guy on purpose. The referees are usually reluctant to blow the whistle in the final seconds, so you can get away with a little more and make the opponent really have to earn that bucket.
I see the whole situation as akin to the football debate of letting your opponent score when they're deep in your territory, only 4-6 points down with time running low. So many people say you should let them score so you have more time on the clock to retake the lead with a score of your own, but that runs counter to the primary purpose of defense, which is to prevent the other guys from scoring. I understand that there's a strategic purpose for it, and the larger goal is to score more than your opponent, but I've always felt that such tactics cheapen the win.
The purpose of defense is to win the game. The purpose of offense is to win the game. Sometimes you have to do what is counter intuitive for either side to accomplish said goal. What if, in football, your offense is completely gassed and has been turnover happy, but you still hold a slim lead and your defense has a chance for another 3 and out? Does it help you more to get the ball back deep in your own territory or let the opponent get short yardage to reset the downs and give your offense more rest? I dunno, I'm no coach.
I think it depends on the team in a lot of ways. I always think back to the ND-UK game in the elite 8 that year Kentucky was undefeated, ND had a machine of an offense with 2 NBA caliber guards and had just been giving it to UK all night. Their defense on the other hand was really poor. UK took it down to 8 seconds and then got fouled on a drive and made both free throws to go up 2. I guess hindsight is 20-20 but I think, with a team like ND that year whose offense is elite and defense struggles, I would foul to have the ball and time enough for a full possession. I'd rather have my team's elite skill decide the game, rather than it's poor one. JMO