NBA late game strategy question.

[Stillriledup]

Ok, so the Heat are visiting the Bobcats. One team is the Heat, the world champs, and the other team is the Cats.

There is 20 something seconds left in the game, its tie score and Miami has the ball holding for a last shot. If Miami makes it they win, if they miss, the game goes to OT.

If you're the cats, should you foul Miami and just let them take a 1 or 2 pt lead and they try and win the game on a 3 pt shot of your own at the buzzer?

Or, should you play it as they played it. (miami missed shot and the game went to OT)

[Robert Fischer]

what percentage would Miami be successful with a last shot needing 1 point?

60%? how does that sound ?

[Stillriledup]

what percentage would Miami be successful with a last shot needing 1 point?

60%? how does that sound ?

The way i'm thinking is that if the game goes to OT, the Cats are dead and won't have 9 lives, the back class champion will crush a huge underdog most of the time....so, i think that if you foul and put some pressure on the guy shooting the FTs, you can maybe make him miss one. Even if he makes 2, you have the ball in your hands to win it...the best case scenario for the Cats the way they did play it is to hope to win in OT....which they werent ever going to do.

[thaskalos]

I say let them beat you from the field...and not from the line.

[Robert Fischer]

The way i'm thinking is that if the game goes to OT, the Cats are dead and won't have 9 lives, the back class champion will crush a huge underdog most of the time....so, i think that if you foul and put some pressure on the guy shooting the FTs, you can maybe make him miss one. Even if he makes 2, you have the ball in your hands to win it...the best case scenario for the Cats the way they did play it is to hope to win in OT....which they werent ever going to do.

so what are the variables?

game ends in tie ... maybe 30% chance of the Bobcats beating the heat in OT ? (too low?)

not fouling results in either something like 60% of losing in regulation (made bucket or last second foul)
or a regulation tie score w/ something like 70% chance of losing...

if those are good ballpark estimates, and I'm not missing something, then what is that ? Maybe 40% chance of advancing to OT and then 30% chance of winning in OT ... so .4*.3 = 12% chance of winning ?

If you foul (and likely go down 2) are your chances better than 12% ?

[Stillriledup]

so what are the variables?

game ends in tie ... maybe 30% chance of the Bobcats beating the heat in OT ? (too low?)

not fouling results in either something like 60% of losing in regulation (made bucket or last second foul)
or a regulation tie score w/ something like 70% chance of losing...

if those are good ballpark estimates, and I'm not missing something, then what is that ? Maybe 40% chance of advancing to OT and then 30% chance of winning in OT ... so .4*.3 = 12% chance of winning ?

If you foul (and likely go down 2) are your chances better than 12% ?

I would imagine that your best 3 pt shooter has at least a 12% chance to nail that 3 at the buzzer and win the game.

Here's another way to look at it....if your life depended on Miami winning the game....you would love to not only have a shot to win in regulation, but to get 5 more minutes for the far superior team to exert itself if the winning in regulation thing didnt work out.....the last thing you would want is to see the Cats with the ball in their hands and your guys only up 1 or 2 pts with the clock running down.

[cj]

I would say if you foul, you greatly decrease your chances of winning the game. It is a no brainer.

[Valuist]

I think you have to foul. The longer the game is extended, the more likely the more talented team (Miami) will win. Miami is only 16th in the league in FT %. Foul them and they may miss one and you will get another possession.

[cj]

I think you have to foul. The longer the game is extended, the more likely the more talented team (Miami) will win. Miami is only 16th in the league in FT %. Foul them and they may miss one and you will get another possession.

In a tie game, foul? Seriously? You guys must be on drugs. There are so many ways to lose, and only a few ways to win, if you foul. It is not easy to score in late game situations. Giving the other team free throws is nuts.

[Stillriledup]

In a tie game, foul? Seriously? You guys must be on drugs. There are so many ways to lose, and only a few ways to win, if you foul. It is not easy to score in late game situations. Giving the other team free throws is nuts.

Charlotte was not winning in OT, they were essentially dead if the game went to overtime. A tie for them was like losing. Why wait like a sitting duck and the only 2 outcomes are 1) Miami winning in regulation or 2) Miami most likely winning in OT.

What's the benefit for them to sit back and let Lebron take the last shot with 1 second left in a tie game?

[Valuist]

In a tie game, foul? Seriously? You guys must be on drugs. There are so many ways to lose, and only a few ways to win, if you foul. It is not easy to score in late game situations. Giving the other team free throws is nuts.

So you'd rather take your chances tied in a 5 minute OT against the two time defending champions? Have you seen Charlotte play? They aren't good. The Heat are no lock to hit both free throws, and you get another guaranteed possession. I know coaches don't want to admit to their team they aren't as talented as the opponent, but they have to be realistic.

Brutal beat for those who bet the Bobcats. They were getting 6 1/2, and played Miami evenly for 48 minutes. Then in the 5 minute OT, the Heat outscore them by 8.

[cj]

So you'd rather take your chances tied in a 5 minute OT against the two time defending champions? Have you seen Charlotte play? They aren't good. The Heat are no lock to hit both free throws, and you get another guaranteed possession. I know coaches don't want to admit to their team they aren't as talented as the opponent, but they have to be realistic.

Brutal beat for those who bet the Bobcats. They were getting 6 1/2, and played Miami evenly for 48 minutes. Then in the 5 minute OT, the Heat outscore them by 8.

The odds of winning in overtime, no matter how "overmatched" a team is (hard to really say that if a game is tied after 48 min), are always going to be better than giving the team free points and trying to hit a game winner, particularly against one of the best defensive teams in the league. By the way, Charlotte is pretty good on defense too.

You guys are overlooking so many things. Sure, Miami might miss one or both, but they also might get the rebound if they do miss. There is no guarantee Charlotte gets a shot off. They will have to inbound the ball. They will have to get a shot off. The will have to make it. Do they take the shot at the very last second, with no chance for a put back? That doesn't seem smart. And if they do leave time and make it, that gives Miami another shot.

I would put the odds of winning the game by giving up free throws at about 10%, and the odds of winning in overtime at no worse than 30%. I think I'm being generous to the "foul" argument on both sides.

[lansdale]

Charlotte was out of good strategic options, once LBJ got the rebound. the game was basically over. Their best remaining chance was to turn the Heat over - pretty remote.

If they foul (assuming Bobcats were over the limit), LBJ goes to the line and gets .75 pts. (crunch-time average FT%). Bobcats get the ball with 20 seconds, and go back to Sessions, their best clutch shooter (.43), but undoubtedly lower vs. Heat defense. Let's say .35 pts..

If they don't foul (as they didn't) LBJ runs clock and takes shot at his crunch-time average (.45), undoubtedly higher vs. Bobcat D. Let's say .5 pts..

Even though the Heat still have the edge given the latter option, it's obviously smaller.

Worth mentioning that LBJ could have gone to Chalmers, a 100% crunch time FT shooter, but knew that the Bobcats wouldn't be stupid enough to foul Heat player given this scenario.

In general, anyone who follows the NBA knows that much stronger teams always have a large edge in these situations just because they're that much better. Game theory and strategy only really become useful in games between closely matched opponents.

Below I've linked an NBA clutch stat chart for last season - the plus/minus columns indicate how strong the Heat are in these situations. It is sortable so might be interesting to play around with the stats.

Cheers,

lansdale


http://82games.com/1213/CSORT3.HTM

[Valuist]

The odds of winning in overtime, no matter how "overmatched" a team is (hard to really say that if a game is tied after 48 min), are always going to be better than giving the team free points and trying to hit a game winner, particularly against one of the best defensive teams in the league. By the way, Charlotte is pretty good on defense too.

You guys are overlooking so many things. Sure, Miami might miss one or both, but they also might get the rebound if they do miss. There is no guarantee Charlotte gets a shot off. They will have to inbound the ball. They will have to get a shot off. The will have to make it. Do they take the shot at the very last second, with no chance for a put back? That doesn't seem smart. And if they do leave time and make it, that gives Miami another shot.

I would put the odds of winning the game by giving up free throws at about 10%, and the odds of winning in overtime at no worse than 30%. I think I'm being generous to the "foul" argument on both sides.

I play a lot of totals, and Charlotte is changing. This team started out the year solid defensively. They allowed fewer than 100 points in 21 of their first 24 games. After December 17, they've played 17 games and allowed over 100 in 11 of them. For whatever reason, they are no longer defending good, although season to date stats may indicate otherwise.

Yes, Miami COULD get a defensive rebound following a miss, but that's still a low probability. I wish we could go back and see in game wagering because I would have to believe the Bobcats money line would've reflected a better win probability had they fouled.

[Stillriledup]

Charlotte was out of good strategic options, once LBJ got the rebound. the game was basically over. Their best remaining chance was to turn the Heat over - pretty remote.

If they foul (assuming Bobcats were over the limit), LBJ goes to the line and gets .75 pts. (crunch-time average FT%). Bobcats get the ball with 20 seconds, and go back to Sessions, their best clutch shooter (.43), but undoubtedly lower vs. Heat defense. Let's say .35 pts..

If they don't foul (as they didn't) LBJ runs clock and takes shot at his crunch-time average (.45), undoubtedly higher vs. Bobcat D. Let's say .5 pts..

Even though the Heat still have the edge given the latter option, it's obviously smaller.

Worth mentioning that LBJ could have gone to Chalmers, a 100% crunch time FT shooter, but knew that the Bobcats wouldn't be stupid enough to foul Heat player given this scenario.

In general, anyone who follows the NBA knows that much stronger teams always have a large edge in these situations just because they're that much better. Game theory and strategy only really become useful in games between closely matched opponents.

Below I've linked an NBA clutch stat chart for last season - the plus/minus columns indicate how strong the Heat are in these situations. It is sortable so might be interesting to play around with the stats.

Cheers,

lansdale


http://82games.com/1213/CSORT3.HTM


Good post Lans.

Also, another factor is that the Cats had a large lead in this game at one point and sort of had the lead most of the way...so, to get to OT was a huge moral victory for the Champs and a very deflating situation for a weak Cats team. I think if the Heat had a huge lead and the Cats made a valiant attempt at a comeback and hit a 3pt shot at the buzzer to SEND the game to OT, it would have been a different "Feel" to their OT chances.

[Valuist]

Good post Lans.

Also, another factor is that the Cats had a large lead in this game at one point and sort of had the lead most of the way...so, to get to OT was a huge moral victory for the Champs and a very deflating situation for a weak Cats team. I think if the Heat had a huge lead and the Cats made a valiant attempt at a comeback and hit a 3pt shot at the buzzer to SEND the game to OT, it would have been a different "Feel" to their OT chances.

I agree with this. One other point: the Bobcats would be without starting PG and leading scorer Kemba Walker in the OT, as he was hurt in the 3rd quarter.

[cj]

Unless the Bobcats would be down to 4 players, there is really no scenario where giving points to a team while trailing in the NBA to get another possession is the best percentage play.

[Valuist]

Unless the Bobcats would be down to 4 players, there is really no scenario where giving points to a team while trailing in the NBA to get another possession is the best percentage play.

They weren't trailing. The score was tied.

[cj]

They weren't trailing. The score was tied.

Yeah, that was a typo. Obviously if trailing they have to foul. The point is the same, it is a bad percentage play no matter how you guys try to spin it.

I'm not saying it couldn't work, it would now and then, but not as often as a stop, go to OT, and win.

Anytime you find yourself agreeing with SRU, you should strongly reconsider your opinion.

[Stillriledup]

Yeah, that was a typo. Obviously if trailing they have to foul. The point is the same, it is a bad percentage play no matter how you guys try to spin it.

I'm not saying it couldn't work, it would now and then, but not as often as a stop, go to OT, and win.

Anytime you find yourself agreeing with SRU, you should strongly reconsider your opinion.

Agreeing with SRU has gotten you the money recently...unless, er, you hate money? :D

[cj]

Agreeing with SRU has gotten you the money recently...unless, er, you hate money? :D

Hasn't gotten me any money.

[Stillriledup]

Another post concerning the Heat.

I didnt see the ending of that game tonight, but supposedly the Warriors were ahead by 2 and lebron sunk a 3pt shot at the buzzer to win.

This was a game where if GS got the game to OT, they have the edge, its west coast, late at night, they were the one who made the comeback and they would have been the favorite to win the game had it gone OT.

So, do you foul and not let Lebron toss in a 3pt bucket? If you foul, the best they can do is make 2 FTs and tie the game. And, you have a shot to win, you get the ball back with a few seconds left and you either win, or the game goes to OT.

Did GS make a mistake by not fouling?

[cj]

Did GS make a mistake by not fouling?

No, of course not, but the mistake was in letting Lebron shoot. He should have been doubled, no doubt about it, make someone else beat you. Even if he beats the double team he only gets a two point shot, not a three. His body language was so obvious, everyone but Iggy could see was going to shoot a three apparently.

[Valuist]

I heard this morning that before that shot last night, Lebron was 0 for 7 in end of the game/last second 3 point attempts (regular season), for his career. So the Warriors went with the percentages. Just a wrong result. Sometimes that happens.

[lansdale]

No, of course not, but the mistake was in letting Lebron shoot. He should have been doubled, no doubt about it, make someone else beat you. Even if he beats the double team he only gets a two point shot, not a three. His body language was so obvious, everyone but Iggy could see was going to shoot a three apparently.

Agree re fouling, but I can't blame GSW for playing it this way. Logically, you expect that LBJ is going to take it to the hole as the higher-percentage play. And especially with Bogut out, Iguodala clearly is afraid of being beat off the dribble.

From LBJ's POV, he's one of the greatest players in the history of the game going against one of the worst defenses in the NBA. If he takes it to the hole, he has almost a guaranteed two, and thus a tie, with no Bogut there, and possibly a three-point-play and likely win. If they decide to double him, he can possibly split defenders, since this is such a lame defensive team, and still get to the hole, or kick to Chalmers in the corner who is money as a 3-point shooter and from the line, and thus a tie or a win.

Instead, he decided to ignore Spoelstra, who was yelling for a timeout to set up a play, shoot a very tough and undefendable step-back J, from about 25 ft., and end the game. As Mark Jackson said, 'Greatness'.

Here it is:


http://youtu.be/rxtBSSCwmrg

[Stillriledup]

Jackson saying "greatness" is all well and good, but he's paid to win games, not to admire great players and let great players beat him.

This is just a simple math problem....with a 2 pt lead and under 10 seconds left in the game, you should play your cards with the idea that the worst thing you want to have happen to you is to get the game to OT, if you found a way to get beat in regulation, your strategy was probably bad.

I don't know, if i had Curry on my team, i'd prefer the ball be in his hands with 6 seconds left and not Lebron's hands to win the game, even if i had to give Lebron two FTs to get that ball back.

Remember, these would have been 2 high pressure FTs and it would have been "shocking" to foul lebron on purpose, the entire crowd would have been standing, Lebron would have been "thinking about it" and it would have been tough to sink both of those FTs, no sure thing by any stretch.

Worst case scenario however is you get the game to OT and considering that Miami blew a huge lead in this game, all the edge goes to GS in that OT.

I foul, i dont let an all time great player shoot a 3 pt shot to beat me, i just don't want to lose that way.

[Robert Fischer]

What percentage did LeBron have of making that 3?

rough guess = maybe 40% ?


What percentage did Miami have of winning in overtime?

rough guess = maybe 50% ?


Are you making a case that LeBron had a greater chance of hitting a 3 pointer to win, than the Heat had of winning an overtime period ??

[cj]

Jackson saying "greatness" is all well and good, but he's paid to win games, not to admire great players and let great players beat him.

This is just a simple math problem....with a 2 pt lead and under 10 seconds left in the game, you should play your cards with the idea that the worst thing you want to have happen to you is to get the game to OT, if you found a way to get beat in regulation, your strategy was probably bad.

I don't know, if i had Curry on my team, i'd prefer the ball be in his hands with 6 seconds left and not Lebron's hands to win the game, even if i had to give Lebron two FTs to get that ball back.

Remember, these would have been 2 high pressure FTs and it would have been "shocking" to foul lebron on purpose, the entire crowd would have been standing, Lebron would have been "thinking about it" and it would have been tough to sink both of those FTs, no sure thing by any stretch.

Worst case scenario however is you get the game to OT and considering that Miami blew a huge lead in this game, all the edge goes to GS in that OT.

I foul, i dont let an all time great player shoot a 3 pt shot to beat me, i just don't want to lose that way.

You always leave things out, like that there is nothing certain even if he misses a FT. There is also the very real chance that Lebron chucks up a 3 as you foul and he gets 3 free throws. It is never as simple as you pretend it is.

[Stillriledup]

What percentage did LeBron have of making that 3?

rough guess = maybe 40% ?


What percentage did Miami have of winning in overtime?

rough guess = maybe 50% ?


Are you making a case that LeBron had a greater chance of hitting a 3 pointer to win, than the Heat had of winning an overtime period ??

But you have to factor in that not only might he miss 1 of the 2 FTs, but you have Curry with 6 seconds left in the game to win the game himself. So, you have 3 shots to essentially win:

1) Lebron misses one FT

2) lebron makes both FTs and Curry hits the game winner

3) you win in OT.

[cj]

But you have to factor in that not only might he miss 1 of the 2 FTs, but you have Curry with 6 seconds left in the game to win the game himself. So, you have 3 shots to essentially win:

1) Lebron misses one FT

2) lebron makes both FTs and Curry hits the game winner

3) you win in OT.

Ways you can lose:

1) Lebron misses one FT or both, but you don't get the rebound and they score.

2) Lebron makes both, ties the game, but you turn it over on the inbound pass or get a 5 second call and they score.

3) You turn it over after the inbound pass

4) There is time left after you miss, and Miami gets the board and scores. You only need 0.3 in the NBA.

5) You lose in OT

6) Lebron shoots as he is getting fouled and gets three FTs, makes them all, or 1 or 2 and then 1) above happens.

The above things are not rare occurrences.

[Stillriledup]

Ways you can lose:

1) Lebron misses one FT or both, but you don't get the rebound and they score.

2) Lebron makes both, ties the game, but you turn it over on the inbound pass or get a 5 second call and they score.

3) You turn it over after the inbound pass

4) There is time left after you miss, and Miami gets the board and scores. You only need 0.3 in the NBA.

5) You lose in OT

6) Lebron shoots as he is getting fouled and gets three FTs, makes them all, or 1 or 2 and then 1) above happens.

The above things are not rare occurrences.

Adding to #1, even if they get the rebound on missed FTs and score, you still might have time left....and you have Curry, the best 3pt shooter in the game.

Youre right, you can NOT get the rebound on the missed FT and lose....but, if you lose in that fashion, i think you'll feel better about yourself than the way it happened. Also, if you turn over the inbound pass, which could happen, i think you would also "kick yourself" for not making a basic play. If you screw up the inbound pass, they still have to score, and if they dont, you get to OT.

There are a lot of ways you can win if you foul Lebron and send him to the line....there's only one way you can win if you let him shoot...and that is to hope he misses.

[lansdale]

I don't think SRU realizes how bizarre his strategy scenario is. In the decades I've been following this game, I can't remember *any* instance where, a team that was leading fouled in the final seconds of the game to give their opponents an opportunity to tie it up and send the game into OT. Am I missing something?

[cj]

There are a lot of ways you can win if you foul Lebron and send him to the line....there's only one way you can win if you let him shoot...and that is to hope he misses.

Yes, but that "hope he misses" is the best percentage...he just happened to make this one. Not like he has some great history of hitting buzzer beaters.

[Stillriledup]

I don't think SRU realizes how bizarre his strategy scenario is. In the decades I've been following this game, I can't remember *any* instance where, a team that was leading fouled in the final seconds of the game to give their opponents an opportunity to tie it up and send the game into OT. Am I missing something?

Coaches are stupid, they usually choose the path that they can be the least criticized for rather than doing what the math says to do.

If Lebron has a 30% chance to beat you on the last shot, that means you have a 70% chance to win....if you foul him, you have at least a 50% chance to win in OT anyway.....and, adding that not only do you get the chance he misses 1 FT, but you have Curry, an incredible shooter , and he only needs a 2 pt shot to win if the game is tied, you have at least a 70% chance to win the game if you foul Lebron, a lot of things have to happen for Miami to win that game if GS fouls, but if they dont foul, they only have to have one thing happen.

[Stillriledup]

Yes, but that "hope he misses" is the best percentage...he just happened to make this one. Not like he has some great history of hitting buzzer beaters.

Why play with fire though? Why not put the ball in the hands of Curry with the game *maybe* tied knowing that Miami blew a huge lead and you have a great chance to win in OT anyway. If i have Steph Curry with the game tied and a few seconds to go, and he misses a shot and i go to OT and lose, i can live with that, i know i had two legit shots to win the game, one with my own great shooter and OT as a backup plan if Curry misses.

[cj]

Why play with fire though? Why not put the ball in the hands of Curry with the game *maybe* tied knowing that Miami blew a huge lead and you have a great chance to win in OT anyway. If i have Steph Curry with the game tied and a few seconds to go, and he misses a shot and i go to OT and lose, i can live with that, i know i had two legit shots to win the game, one with my own great shooter and OT as a backup plan if Curry misses.

You are VASTLY overrating the chances that Curry would score. Even the best shooters in the NBA don't have great percentages taking shots at the end of the game. We remember the ones that stars make, but they all miss more than they make, usually many more.

[Stillriledup]

You are VASTLY overrating the chances that Curry would score. Even the best shooters in the NBA don't have great percentages taking shots at the end of the game. We remember the ones that stars make, but they all miss more than they make, usually many more.

I think the key is what is the difference between Lebron making the shot he took and the Warriors winning in OT. If we say that Lebron's chances of hitting the shot he took at 30% and the Warriors winning the game in OT at 50%, you have a difference of 20%.....isnt curry at least a 20% to hit ANY shot he takes?

[Stillriledup]

Another "Strategy" situation happened yesterday in NY with the Kings at Knicks. The Kings had a 3 pt lead and the ball with time running down....the difference between shot clock and game clock was about 2.5 seconds, so Sac had to shoot. Their pt guard shot the ball with 7 or 8 seconds left in game and hit a 2 pt shot.....the question is this....did he do the right thing by shooting at that point in the game. Was there a better option?

[cj]

I think the key is what is the difference between Lebron making the shot he took and the Warriors winning in OT. If we say that Lebron's chances of hitting the shot he took at 30% and the Warriors winning the game in OT at 50%, you have a difference of 20%.....isnt curry at least a 20% to hit ANY shot he takes?

Probably not, not in that situation. Check that stats in that situation. You're grasping man.

[cj]

Another "Strategy" situation happened yesterday in NY with the Kings at Knicks. The Kings had a 3 pt lead and the ball with time running down....the difference between shot clock and game clock was about 2.5 seconds, so Sac had to shoot. Their pt guard shot the ball with 7 or 8 seconds left in game and hit a 2 pt shot.....the question is this....did he do the right thing by shooting at that point in the game. Was there a better option?

Since he made it, probably. Hard to say without seeing it. But, the longer your wait, the more your percentages go down as the other team knows you have to shoot. Also, you risk taking a bad shot and not hitting the rim, stopping the clock.

[Stillriledup]

Probably not, not in that situation. Check that stats in that situation. You're grasping man.

In what situation? I'm not talking about a half court shot, Curry is one of the game's great shooters, they would have had time to get in position if they fouled Lebron immediately.

if you are adding "pressure" to Curry and say his percentages would go down with the game on the line, you have to also lower Lebron's percentage in the same pressure situation at the FT line with the game also on the line.

We have rarely seen players in the NBA on the foul line needing 2 FTs to essentially not lose, it rarely comes to that, the pressure is something that players don't have to deal with often.

[cj]

In what situation? I'm not talking about a half court shot, Curry is one of the game's great shooters, they would have had time to get in position if they fouled Lebron immediately.

if you are adding "pressure" to Curry and say his percentages would go down with the game on the line, you have to also lower Lebron's percentage in the same pressure situation at the FT line with the game also on the line.

We have rarely seen players in the NBA on the foul line needing 2 FTs to essentially not lose, it rarely comes to that, the pressure is something that players don't have to deal with often.

Taking the last shot of the game, and I'm not talking half court shots. You could have found the info in the time you wasted typing the above. Time to start keeping up my New Year's Resolution.

[Valuist]

Even with no D-Rose and no Deng, I think the Bulls still are going to get the 3rd seed. No, they have no realistic chance to beat the Pacers or Heat, but gotta give Thibidoux credit. His teams always play hard. And it doesn't seem to matter who they put out on the floor; his teams always in the top 5 defensively.

[Stillriledup]

Ok, so the Heat are visiting the Bobcats. One team is the Heat, the world champs, and the other team is the Cats.

There is 20 something seconds left in the game, its tie score and Miami has the ball holding for a last shot. If Miami makes it they win, if they miss, the game goes to OT.

If you're the cats, should you foul Miami and just let them take a 1 or 2 pt lead and they try and win the game on a 3 pt shot of your own at the buzzer?

Or, should you play it as they played it. (miami missed shot and the game went to OT)

This is why sometimes you foul, even up 2 and at worst have as shot to win and the worst case scenario, you go to another OT. Durant is quoted as saying that they couldnt go another OT in this epic game at Toronto the other night, so if Toronto fouls instead of letting KD shoot a 3 pt shot, the best case scenario for OKC is another OT, which they would have been a decided underdog, according to Durant, to come out with a W.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/gametracker/recap/NBA_20140321_OKC@TOR

[classhandicapper]

I recommend that you guys ask Haralabos Voulgaris questions like this on Twitter. If anyone knows, it's him. He often responds to stuff like this. @haralabob

I bet a lot of basketball, but I spend all my time looking for betting value on lines and futures and not trying to answer these in game questions.

The math on these can get really crazy because you don't actually know what the stats are given this specific player, against this specific defender and defense, under this kind of pressure etc... Same with rebounds off missed FTs etc...

[Valuist]

Coaches are stupid, they usually choose the path that they can be the least criticized for rather than doing what the math says to do.



Bingo. :ThmbUp:

[cj]

This is why sometimes you foul, even up 2 and at worst have as shot to win and the worst case scenario, you go to another OT. Durant is quoted as saying that they couldnt go another OT in this epic game at Toronto the other night, so if Toronto fouls instead of letting KD shoot a 3 pt shot, the best case scenario for OKC is another OT, which they would have been a decided underdog, according to Durant, to come out with a W.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/gametracker/recap/NBA_20140321_OKC@TOR

People say lots of things, doesn't make them true. I didn't realize Durant was an odds maker.

[lansdale]

This is why sometimes you foul, even up 2 and at worst have as shot to win and the worst case scenario, you go to another OT. Durant is quoted as saying that they couldnt go another OT in this epic game at Toronto the other night, so if Toronto fouls instead of letting KD shoot a 3 pt shot, the best case scenario for OKC is another OT, which they would have been a decided underdog, according to Durant, to come out with a W.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/gametracker/recap/NBA_20140321_OKC@TOR

Wow. You really are fixated on the notion that worse teams can beat better teams in close games by fouling them in such a way as to guarantee overtime. It's just not true.

The example you cite of the Miami-Charlotte game has nothing in common with the Raptor-Thunder OT game. The Heat had the game in the bag as soon as LBJ pulled down the rebound, as I said before in this thread. LBJ has the knowledge that he can either make the last shot and win in regulation (which he did not), or easily beat a measurably weaker team in OT (which the Heat did).

In the R/T game, it's Toronto, the weaker team, that has the upper hand with only seconds on the clock. Even a great shooter like Durant is probably in the range of 30-35% to hit a contested three for a the game winner. Toronto's odds of winning thus 65-70%. Why send Durant to the line (assuming they could get to him in time) to send the game into OT, where your win probability is closer to random. And BTW, Durant's estimate is clearly wrong here - even if the undermanned Thunder are exhausted, their OT win probability is closer to 45% - certainly better than the 30% they're getting with his buzzer-beater.

[Stillriledup]

Wow. You really are fixated on the notion that worse teams can beat better teams in close games by fouling them in such a way as to guarantee overtime. It's just not true.

The example you cite of the Miami-Charlotte game has nothing in common with the Raptor-Thunder OT game. The Heat had the game in the bag as soon as LBJ pulled down the rebound, as I said before in this thread. LBJ has the knowledge that he can either make the last shot and win in regulation (which he did not), or easily beat a measurably weaker team in OT (which the Heat did).

In the R/T game, it's Toronto, the weaker team, that has the upper hand with only seconds on the clock. Even a great shooter like Durant is probably in the range of 30-35% to hit a contested three for a the game winner. Toronto's odds of winning thus 65-70%. Why send Durant to the line (assuming they could get to him in time) to send the game into OT, where your win probability is closer to random. And BTW, Durant's estimate is clearly wrong here - even if the undermanned Thunder are exhausted, their OT win probability is closer to 45% - certainly better than the 30% they're getting with his buzzer-beater.

Im going on what Durant said, i have no reason to think he would lie, he essentially said his boys were "done" which means another OT wasnt likely to go his team's way.

Also, i think your math is a bit off, let me fix it for you.

If you foul early and send Durant to the line, you have not only the hope he misses a FT (which he already missed a FT in the final minute of the game) but you still have X amount of seconds to make your OWN game winning shot, which would only have to be a 2 pt bucket, not a 3.

If Durant makes that shot 3 out of 10 (and i'm being conservative, he's Kevin Durant one of the greatest shooters in the history of the NBA) than the Raptors have a 70% chance to win if they let him shoot.

If they foul, and he misses a FT or both, than they have a 1 or 2 pt lead with 5 to 10 seconds left in the game....so, they inbound and play the FT game, with a decided advantage.

If KD makes both FTs to tie the game, Toronto still has at least a 30% chance to win in regulation with the worst case scenario them going to OT.

If Toronto has a 60% chance to win in ot or a 70% chance to win if they let KD shoot the 3, wouldnt you trade in that extra 10% for 1) a chance KD misses one of 2 FTs 2) your own chance to win in regution, which would be at least 20% and probably higher.

[cj]

If fouling in a tie game was the best strategy, more teams would do it. Coaches are trying to win games, not avoid bad publicity. Of course they don't want bad pub, but if the numbers backed up it would win more, they would do it. The numbers don't back it up. You also leave out the part where a guy like Durant or Lebron has a chance to actually make shot when fouled and get and and-1.

I'm all for fouling when up three, but not two. And, again, there is the very good chance in the Durant situation he would put the shot up and get three free throws, not two. These guys aren't dumb. They know when someone is trying to foul them. It is easier to do in the NBA when the ball isn't move to midcourt after a timeout.

Teams are not very good at fouling when up three. I don't know why, I guess it just isn't something that gets practiced a lot. I still maintain that cost the Spurs a championship. But, I only say that because Miami was out of TOs and had to bring the ball all the way up, easy to foul in that spot. It just isn't that easy in the half court.

[Stillriledup]

If fouling in a tie game was the best strategy, more teams would do it. Coaches are trying to win games, not avoid bad publicity. Of course they don't want bad pub, but if the numbers backed up it would win more, they would do it. The numbers don't back it up. You also leave out the part where a guy like Durant or Lebron has a chance to actually make shot when fouled and get and and-1.

I'm all for fouling when up three, but not two. And, again, there is the very good chance in the Durant situation he would put the shot up and get three free throws, not two. These guys aren't dumb. They know when someone is trying to foul them. It is easier to do in the NBA when the ball isn't move to midcourt after a timeout.

Teams are not very good at fouling when up three. I don't know why, I guess it just isn't something that gets practiced a lot. I still maintain that cost the Spurs a championship. But, I only say that because Miami was out of TOs and had to bring the ball all the way up, easy to foul in that spot. It just isn't that easy in the half court.

We all see the stupid decisions of coaches, and i get what you're saying that if the numbers say to do a certain thing, coaches will go with the "percentages". But, you know, there's a lot of old school thinking amongst the coaching fraternity and i've found that these guys will just stick with the conservative approach, they take the path of least resistance and are always wanting to do the thing that will get them the least criticized if it doesnt work out. While they're trying to win games, they're trying to not get fired and that's first and foremost...winning games comes 2nd to not getting fired, so they'll make decisions based on leaving themselves open to the least amount of criticism.

As far as "numbers" go on my example, its really hard to come up with an exact percentage, so you have to just do the best you can on the "numbers" and the rest is to go on "Feel".

If we say that Durant has a 30% chance to hit that shot, that means the Raptors have a 70% chance to win. If the game goes to OT, the Raptors chances of winning are less than 70% even if we don't use Durants "we're done" as a factor at all. So, even if we say that OT is a coinflip, the Raptors still have a 50% chance to win if the game goes to another OT.

Now, the difference between winning in regulation and winning in another OT is 20%...so, in order for the foul to make sense, you have to make that 20% up somewhere. Even if you say that KD making both FTs are 100% (for arguments sake, take the FTs out of the equasion) you have to imagine that Toronto has at least a 20% chance to win the game in regulation, they're going to score a 2 pt basket at least 1 out of every 5 attempts assuming they have 10 or 15 seconds left to work with.

Now, i used very conservative numbers...personally, i think KD making that shot is higher than 30% and i think that the Raptors winning in OT is higher than 50% (considering the situation with Westbrook leaving the game and KD's comments) and i also think that the Raptors would probably have had more than a 20% chance to win the game needing a 2 pt bucket after KD made (theoretically) both his FTs.

[lansdale]

Im going on what Durant said, i have no reason to think he would lie, he essentially said his boys were "done" which means another OT wasnt likely to go his team's way.

Also, i think your math is a bit off, let me fix it for you.

If you foul early and send Durant to the line, you have not only the hope he misses a FT (which he already missed a FT in the final minute of the game) but you still have X amount of seconds to make your OWN game winning shot, which would only have to be a 2 pt bucket, not a 3.

If Durant makes that shot 3 out of 10 (and i'm being conservative, he's Kevin Durant one of the greatest shooters in the history of the NBA) than the Raptors have a 70% chance to win if they let him shoot.

If they foul, and he misses a FT or both, than they have a 1 or 2 pt lead with 5 to 10 seconds left in the game....so, they inbound and play the FT game, with a decided advantage.

If KD makes both FTs to tie the game, Toronto still has at least a 30% chance to win in regulation with the worst case scenario them going to OT.


If Toronto has a 60% chance to win in ot or a 70% chance to win if they let KD shoot the 3, wouldnt you trade in that extra 10% for 1) a chance KD misses one of 2 FTs 2) your own chance to win in regution, which would be at least 20% and probably higher.


SRU,

If you can't see that, under your proposed scenario, Toronto is trading away a 70% win probability for a 50%, or at best, 55% win probability, there's nothing more I can say. As cj says, there's a reason your strategy is never used - it doesn't work.

Cheers,

lansdale

[cj]

We all see the stupid decisions of coaches, and i get what you're saying that if the numbers say to do a certain thing, coaches will go with the "percentages". But, you know, there's a lot of old school thinking amongst the coaching fraternity and i've found that these guys will just stick with the conservative approach, they take the path of least resistance and are always wanting to do the thing that will get them the least criticized if it doesnt work out. While they're trying to win games, they're trying to not get fired and that's first and foremost...winning games comes 2nd to not getting fired, so they'll make decisions based on leaving themselves open to the least amount of criticism.

As far as "numbers" go on my example, its really hard to come up with an exact percentage, so you have to just do the best you can on the "numbers" and the rest is to go on "Feel".

If we say that Durant has a 30% chance to hit that shot, that means the Raptors have a 70% chance to win. If the game goes to OT, the Raptors chances of winning are less than 70% even if we don't use Durants "we're done" as a factor at all. So, even if we say that OT is a coinflip, the Raptors still have a 50% chance to win if the game goes to another OT.

Now, the difference between winning in regulation and winning in another OT is 20%...so, in order for the foul to make sense, you have to make that 20% up somewhere. Even if you say that KD making both FTs are 100% (for arguments sake, take the FTs out of the equasion) you have to imagine that Toronto has at least a 20% chance to win the game in regulation, they're going to score a 2 pt basket at least 1 out of every 5 attempts assuming they have 10 or 15 seconds left to work with.

Now, i used very conservative numbers...personally, i think KD making that shot is higher than 30% and i think that the Raptors winning in OT is higher than 50% (considering the situation with Westbrook leaving the game and KD's comments) and i also think that the Raptors would probably have had more than a 20% chance to win the game needing a 2 pt bucket after KD made (theoretically) both his FTs.

I hear you, and it is fun to talk about. I doubt Durant is a 30% shooter in that situation from 3. He has probably hit more game tying or game winning shots than anyone in the last few years. Actually, I'm sure he has, and it probably isn't close. But still, his percentage isn't that great. We remember the makes and forget the misses.

This is old, but check out the %s:

http://82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm

[Stillriledup]

SRU,

If you can't see that, under your proposed scenario, Toronto is trading away a 70% win probability for a 50%, or at best, 55% win probability, there's nothing more I can say. As cj says, there's a reason your strategy is never used - it doesn't work.

Cheers,

lansdale

Read what i wrote more carefully.

Every situation is unique which is why coaches, on occasion, should employ this strategy and yet they never do it under any circumstances. There are times when not letting a 3pt shot beat you is the right move, yet, no coach ever does it and they never do it because they don't want to be criticized for doing it. KD is the greatest player in the game right now, why would you let HIM "beat you"?

The math does not suggest that they're trading away 70% for 50% because they have a shot to have KD miss a FT under pressure and even if he makes 2, they have a last second shot of their own, which has at least a 20% chance because they don't need a 3pt shot, any old shot will do.

[lansdale]

Read what i wrote more carefully.

Every situation is unique which is why coaches, on occasion, should employ this strategy and yet they never do it under any circumstances. There are times when not letting a 3pt shot beat you is the right move, yet, no coach ever does it and they never do it because they don't want to be criticized for doing it. KD is the greatest player in the game right now, why would you let HIM "beat you"?

The math does not suggest that they're trading away 70% for 50% because they have a shot to have KD miss a FT under pressure and even if he makes 2, they have a last second shot of their own, which has at least a 20% chance because they don't need a 3pt shot, any old shot will do.

SRU,

This is really pretty strange. Why is not letting a 3-point shot beat you the 'right move' if it's your highest win-probability option, as you agree - about 70%. Your probability of winning by KD not sinking two free throws drops to 19%, and your chance of making a Hail Mary shot with a couple of seconds on the clock is in the realm of 10-15%. This still makes absolutely no sense.

lansdale

[Stillriledup]

SRU,

This is really pretty strange. Why is not letting a 3-point shot beat you the 'right move' if it's your highest win-probability option, as you agree - about 70%. Your probability of winning by KD not sinking two free throws drops to 19%, and your chance of making a Hail Mary shot with a couple of seconds on the clock is in the realm of 10-15%. This still makes absolutely no sense.

lansdale

It all depends on when they foul. If there's 2 seconds left in the game, than its different from 10 or 15 seconds left in the game. If you have at least 10 seconds, their last second shot wouldnt be a "hail mary" it would be a somewhat normal possession with them trying to score ANY basket, a layup will do just fine.

Keep in mind that Toronto had a 2 Pt lead, i'm suggesting they foul immediately, that case, KD would only get 2 FTs and not 3. Im not suggesting they foul him in the act of shooting.

[lansdale]

It all depends on when they foul. If there's 2 seconds left in the game, than its different from 10 or 15 seconds left in the game. If you have at least 10 seconds, their last second shot wouldnt be a "hail mary" it would be a somewhat normal possession with them trying to score ANY basket, a layup will do just fine.

Keep in mind that Toronto had a 2 Pt lead, i'm suggesting they foul immediately, that case, KD would only get 2 FTs and not 3. Im not suggesting they foul him in the act of shooting.

I assumed you meant Toronto fouls immediately. None of this changes the probabilities I mentioned. Both the free throw and Raptor Hail Mary options are worse than KD taking a tough 3-pointer. Do you not get that?

[Stillriledup]

I assumed you meant Toronto fouls immediately. None of this changes the probabilities I mentioned. Both the free throw and Raptor Hail Mary options are worse than KD taking a tough 3-pointer. Do you not get that?

We all collectively deduced that KD making that 3pt shot was 30%, right?

We also agree that if the game went to another OT, Toronto would have had a 50% chance to win, right?

So, the difference is 20%.

Personally, i'd rather have KD attempt two FTs and have the ball last. The worst that can happen for me is 5 more mins gets put on the clock and the game is tied.

[Robert Fischer]

:D You guys are still breaking down this late game strategy!

[lansdale]

We all collectively deduced that KD making that 3pt shot was 30%, right?

We also agree that if the game went to another OT, Toronto would have had a 50% chance to win, right?

So, the difference is 20%.

Personally, i'd rather have KD attempt two FTs and have the ball last. The worst that can happen for me is 5 more mins gets put on the clock and the game is tied.

Yes, his probability of making that shot is 30%, but his chance of missing is 70%, which is also Toronto's win probability. OT, let us agree, is 50% - *20% less* than that the 3-point attempt. Why would you opt for the lower-probability choice?

[Stillriledup]

Yes, his probability of making that shot is 30%, but his chance of missing is 70%, which is also Toronto's win probability. OT, let us agree, is 50% - *20% less* than that the 3-point attempt. Why would you opt for the lower-probability choice?

Because you get to trade in that extra 20 percent for 1) 2 FT attempts under pressure (and the guy already missed one a few seconds earlier) and 2) your own 2 pt shot attempt. NBA teams make more than 1 basket out of every 5 attempts, so Toronto scoring any basket is at least 20%.

Im also not factoring in that Toronto would have been higher than 50% to win the game if it went to another OT.

[Stillriledup]

:D You guys are still breaking down this late game strategy!

:D Yes, we're battling away!!

[lansdale]

Because you get to trade in that extra 20 percent for 1) 2 FT attempts under pressure (and the guy already missed one a few seconds earlier) and 2) your own 2 pt shot attempt. NBA teams make more than 1 basket out of every 5 attempts, so Toronto scoring any basket is at least 20%.

Im also not factoring in that Toronto would have been higher than 50% to win the game if it went to another OT.

I know you think what you're saying makes more sense the more you continue to repeat it, so I'm just going to have to drop out of this thread and set my course back toward planet Earth :-).

Cheers,

lansdale

[Stillriledup]

I know you think what you're saying makes more sense the more you continue to repeat it, so I'm just going to have to drop out of this thread and set my course back toward planet Earth :-).

Cheers,

lansdale

Yes, head back to Planet earth.

Safe Travels,

Hoo Roo!,

SRU. ;)

[Stillriledup]

This.

Is.

Why.

You.

FOUL.

Memphis up by FIVE points with 18 seconds remaining and they let Durant hit a 3 pt shot and FOUL HIM in the act and he makes it a 4 pt play. The only chance Memphis had to lose this game was to try and "Defend". Why not foul OKC immediately as they inbound the ball and play the foul game...with a 5 pt lead, there's no way you're going to get beat....even if you make 1 of 2 FTs on average (which is unlikely since you'd be in bounding the ball to your best FT shooter) and the other team always makes 2, they're still too far behind.

Absolutely terrible coaching by Memphis, lucky to get the win, you CANT permit anyone to shoot a 3 pt shot, especially the greatest player alive.

[cj]

Let him shoot it? Oh brother.

[Stillriledup]

Let him shoot it? Oh brother.

Oh brother?

Ok, so if you were coaching Memphis with a 5 pt lead would you tell your guys to just let KD shoot a 3 pt shot and we're going to hope he misses?

What would have been your strategy?

[cj]

Oh brother?

Ok, so if you were coaching Memphis with a 5 pt lead would you tell your guys to just let KD shoot a 3 pt shot and we're going to hope he misses?

What would have been your strategy?

Did you even see the play? They hardly just let him shoot. They were unlucky not to steal the ball. Even if the inbound was clean, he is going to shoot right away. When do you foul? You can't foul before the inbound pass.

[Stillriledup]

Did you even see the play? They hardly just let him shoot. They were unlucky not to steal the ball. Even if the inbound was clean, he is going to shoot right away. When do you foul? You can't foul before the inbound pass.

I was suggesting you foul as soon as the inbounds pass is made, whoever catches that pass you wrap them up in a bear hug.

It doesnt matter if they "Defended" he got off a shot and made it (as he usually does).

[Tee]

yE8k3FTBOoQ

[cj]

I was suggesting you foul as soon as the inbounds pass is made, whoever catches that pass you wrap them up in a bear hug.

It doesnt matter if they "Defended" he got off a shot and made it (as he usually does).

Um, nobody caught it. And the second he did get, that is the reason you don't foul. Great players know it is coming and shoot.

[Stillriledup]

OKC at Clippers on Sunday, last 32 seconds, take us through it.

Who did what right and who did what wrong?

Here's a question i have about the shot clock.

If you take the ball in your hand and throw it straight up in the air as high as you can with .01 on the shot clock, does the clock expire when the ball hits the rim, the backboard or the ground? Or, does the time get put back on the clock if the ball doesn't hit the rim?

[cj]

OKC at Clippers on Sunday, last 32 seconds, take us through it.

Who did what right and who did what wrong?

Here's a question i have about the shot clock.

If you take the ball in your hand and throw it straight up in the air as high as you can with .01 on the shot clock, does the clock expire when the ball hits the rim, the backboard or the ground? Or, does the time get put back on the clock if the ball doesn't hit the rim?

Clock reverts to the end of the 24 second clock. How can you watch games and not know that?

[Stillriledup]

Clock reverts to the end of the 24 second clock. How can you watch games and not know that?

If its called a SHOT clock that means you have 24 seconds to shoot. I never bothered to notice whether the 1 or 2 seconds that the ball is in the air (assuming the guy attempted the shot milliseconds before the clock ran out) is put back on the clock in all cases. I never noticed if time got added or not.

[cj]

If its called a SHOT clock that means you have 24 seconds to shoot. I never bothered to notice whether the 1 or 2 seconds that the ball is in the air (assuming the guy attempted the shot milliseconds before the clock ran out) is put back on the clock in all cases. I never noticed if time got added or not.

That much is obvious because you asked. You have said before you watch all the games. I found it hard to imagine you watch all the games and hadn't seen the time added on before. It happens every time here is a shot clock violation.

[Stillriledup]

That much is obvious because you asked. You have said before you watch all the games. I found it hard to imagine you watch all the games and hadn't seen the time added on before. It happens every time here is a shot clock violation.

Just never dawned on me to look for it. There has never been an instance where i cared enough to notice.

[Stillriledup]

You guys keep telling me that fouling is not the option, but Clippers up 7 or 8 and they let KD hit a 3 pt shot with 48 seconds left, if you foul and give him 2 pts and then run 24 seconds off the clock, even if you miss, you foul again and give them another 2, you're still up 3 with under 24 seconds left and it turns into a foul game, and Clippers have amazing FT shooters, no way they lose by playing the foul game.

The "lets play defense" stuff doesn't work. How many times does Durant have to hit a clutch 3 pt shot with time running down and a defender in his face in order to NOT let him attempt a 3 pt shot?

What am i missing?

[cj]

You guys keep telling me that fouling is not the option, but Clippers up 7 or 8 and they let KD hit a 3 pt shot with 48 seconds left, if you foul and give him 2 pts and then run 24 seconds off the clock, even if you miss, you foul again and give them another 2, you're still up 3 with under 24 seconds left and it turns into a foul game, and Clippers have amazing FT shooters, no way they lose by playing the foul game.

The "lets play defense" stuff doesn't work. How many times does Durant have to hit a clutch 3 pt shot with time running down and a defender in his face in order to NOT let him attempt a 3 pt shot?

What am i missing?

They let him? LOL. You are funny man, I'll give you that. They wanted to foul, but they couldn't. It was a good play. You seen all the four point plays in the playoffs?

Also, the Thunder are pretty notorious for not playing the foul game. They play defense and go for the steal and often get it...just like they did tonight when everyone thought they "had to foul".

[Stillriledup]

They let him? LOL. You are funny man, I'll give you that. They wanted to foul, but they couldn't. It was a good play. You seen all the four point plays in the playoffs?

Also, the Thunder are pretty notorious for not playing the foul game. They play defense and go for the steal and often get it...just like they did tonight when everyone thought they "had to foul".

Oh please, you foul the instant the ball is inbounded.

[cj]

Oh please, you foul the instant the ball is inbounded.

What? They didn't, it happened tonight right before my eyes. Russ stole the ball without fouling, so clearly he didn't foul the instant the ball was inbounded.

[Stillriledup]

What? They didn't, it happened tonight right before my eyes. Russ stole the ball without fouling, so clearly he didn't foul the instant the ball was inbounded.

We are talking about different plays.

[cj]

Last game, everybody thought they had to foul too. They didn't. They got the ball back and had an open look for the win.

The same thing happened in a game against Memphis. Westbrook stole the ball and went down for a dunk to tie the game and send it to overtime. Didn't foul that game either.

See a trend here?

[cj]

We are talking about different plays.

You mentioned playing the foul game late. I pointed out OKC doesn't do that. They steal the ball if possible, and it usually is possible.

[Stillriledup]

You mentioned playing the foul game late. I pointed out OKC doesn't do that. They steal the ball if possible, and it usually is possible.

Im talking about the Clippers should have fouled OKC and they didnt and let KD hit a 3 with 48 seconds. Doc even said they were under instructions to foul and the players didnt for some reason.

[cj]

Im talking about the Clippers should have fouled OKC and they didnt and let KD hit a 3 with 48 seconds. Doc even said they were under instructions to foul and the players didnt for some reason.

I understand, but you went on to say they could force the foul game. I've shown you three examples already in the playoffs this year where the Thunder don't do that. They play D and go for the steal.

As for not fouling, like I've said many times in this thread, it isn't that easy to just foul. Players are really good at getting the shot off in that situation. You can only foul the player with the ball in the last two minutes, as surely any Clippers fan (hack-a-Jordan) knows.

[Stillriledup]

I understand, but you went on to say they could force the foul game. I've shown you three examples already in the playoffs this year where the Thunder don't do that. They play D and go for the steal.

As for not fouling, like I've said many times in this thread, it isn't that easy to just foul. Players are really good at getting the shot off in that situation. You can only foul the player with the ball in the last two minutes, as surely any Clippers fan (hack-a-Jordan) knows.

I'm not talking about the Thunder, i'm talking about the Clippers fouling the Thunder. If the Thunder don't foul the Clippers, better yet, they would have run 24 off the clock, which is what you want with a 7 pt lead with 48 seconds remaining.

As far as getting the shot off, NBA doesn't give FTs to "Desperation" heaves, CP3 does this all the time and never once has he gotten the call...now, if you wait until the offense is running their play, than its possible, but if you foul instantly as the ball is inbounded, you just grab the player who catches the ball and wrap him in a bear hug, nobody is getting off a shot under that circumstance.

They had a 7 pt lead with under a minute left, the only chance they had to lose is to give up at least one 3pt shot....as long as you dont give up a 3, you cant lose.

[cj]

I'm not talking about the Thunder, i'm talking about the Clippers fouling the Thunder. If the Thunder don't foul the Clippers, better yet, they would have run 24 off the clock, which is what you want with a 7 pt lead with 48 seconds remaining.



And again, you think the Thunder will just let them run off the 24 seconds? Pretty clearly that isn't going to happen. They will play high pressure defense. Maybe they foul, maybe they get a steal, but it isn't just going to be them standing around watching the shot clock tick down. This isn't NBA 2k14.

Funniest thing, Paul trying to act like he was shooting a 3 quarter court 3 pointer for an extra free throw and gets the ball stolen easily...wasn't even a debate. It typifies his game. If he'd just play basketball and stop acting he'd be a much better player...and he is obviously very good already.

[cj]

Just watched the play again on the replay, the Durant 3. Good luck with fouling there...he catches facing the basket and is in his shooting motion immediately.

[Stillriledup]

And again, you think the Thunder will just let them run off the 24 seconds? Pretty clearly that isn't going to happen. They will play high pressure defense. Maybe they foul, maybe they get a steal, but it isn't just going to be them standing around watching the shot clock tick down. This isn't NBA 2k14.

Funniest thing, Paul trying to act like he was shooting a 3 quarter court 3 pointer for an extra free throw and gets the ball stolen easily...wasn't even a debate. It typifies his game. If he'd just play basketball and stop acting he'd be a much better player...and he is obviously very good already.
This is the NBA, they would have either let them run off 24, or foul. Nothing else was going to happen. That's why all teams foul, because they know this is the NBA, not the D league.

[cj]

This is the NBA, they would have either let them run off 24, or foul. Nothing else was going to happen. That's why all teams foul, because they know this is the NBA, not the D league.

And yet the Thunder, in only twelve playoff games, have forced a turnover or a bad shot three times already without fouling in the exact situation of which you speak. Like I said, this isn't a video game, it is real life. All teams don't foul, obviously.

Funny you don't mention fouling on the 3. Baby Davis played awful defense on the inbound pass, there was no way to foul once he caught the ball. And, you can't foul before the pass.

[Stillriledup]

And yet the Thunder, in only twelve playoff games, have forced a turnover or a bad shot three times already without fouling in the exact situation of which you speak. Like I said, this isn't a video game, it is real life. All teams don't foul, obviously.

Funny you don't mention fouling on the 3. Baby Davis played awful defense on the inbound pass, there was no way to foul once he caught the ball. And, you can't foul before the pass.

No doubt they were awful, they played bad down the stretch.