Its silly to foul...its basically a decision between trusting your defense or your foul shooting. At the same time it really depends which of their players has the ball. You also are putting trust that if their player does miss on the 2nd shot, that your rebounding is good enough to prevent an offense rebound for the other team. I say play it out, generally a team will not wait for a buzzer beater if they are down three, so even if they make the trey to tie it you still get the ball back and can draw up a play (assuming you have a timeout left). If you don't have one left you are screwed, because you have to push the ball all the way up.
You absolutely foul. I thought 82games did a study on this and it wasn't even close. Anyone on here who said, "The only way you can lose is by fouling" is missing the point. YOU CAN LOSE IN OVERTIME! Just because you didn't lose in regulation doesn't mean your strategy worked. By winning in regulation at a higher rate and thus not going to overtime (where you lose half the time), you overcome the slightly increased risk of losing in regulation. To lose in regulation by fouling, this scenario has to happen all in the minuscule time remaining. Made FT: 75% Missed FT: could be done on purpose Offensive rebound: 10%? anyone have a stat for this? Pass to open teammate: Opportunity for a foul to occur, or a turnover Made 3: 35% Multiply that out and you've got a 2.5% chance of losing or they could make a 2 for a 3.5% chance of overtime, or a 1.75% chance of losing. If they take a 3 to tie, and lose half the time in overtime, you lose 17.5% of the time. vs 5.25%... I know these numbers are approximate and rough, but even if you adjusted percentages a little, it isn't going to be enough to make the not fouling strategy effective. The fact that you can't convince nate of this with numbers scares me a lot *edit* I looked up the off reb % for missed FTs and it's 14%. That'd make the final ration 2:1 rather than 3:1, but it's still an obvious choice.
Another point that is funny when it comes to "not fouling" and playing defense for the 3 is that the coaches tell the players to let them take the quick 2 if they go for it. Why not just foul?
Absolutely. But this risk aversion is easy to explain: I haven't put much effort into a rigorous analysis of whether this preference of mine is reasonable. It's just a gut feeling. I don't trust that gut feeling enough to take such an enormous risk on giving up a lead in hand.
The thing about fouling is that it gives the other team of bringing it within a 1 point margin. Then before you inbound they can pack it in and double your good shooters, while leaving a Shaq type to catch the ball so they can foul him. Its a huge risk to me, I always say play it out defensively. The offense won't shoot a contested shot unless they've got a Kobe, so they aren't going to get anything unless you give it to them or it's late in the shot clock (the latter option being your goal). The only time I would foul would be if Robert Horry was on the other team.
You don't have to put a "Shaq type" on the floor for that situation. The only time you'd reverse your policy is if the other team had a thoroughly mediocre player?
Do you not watch basketball? Robert Horry is one of the greatest clutch shooters of all time. Tim Duncan calls him "big shot Bob". In fact he ended Portland's season with a clutch three (right in front of their bench with Mo Cheeks screaming at him) just a couple years back after Scottie Pippen missed some clutch free throws. So maybe the Blazers should have implemented the foul strategy since Horry was in the game.
I do watch basketball. I'd be more inclined to believe someone who judges Horry on the basis of 3-4 shots in his career doesn't watch basketball.
Well then your inclination would be wrong. A clutch shot doesn't have to be a game winner, to not acknowledge Horry speaks volumes about you.
It says I'm not fooled by a handful of shots into thinking Horry is more valuable than his overall production and defense wold indicate. Ironically, he was a much better player in his youth and prime, before he got his "clutch" label. You can feel free to believe Horry had some magical clutch powers that turned him into a superstar when the game was on the line. Believing in late-game witchcraft is clearly the logical stance.
Really? You don't think some guys are "clutch" while others just choke? Yeah, KG "anything is possible" if you've got Ray Allen and Paul Pierce making all the big shots. I agree Horry's game is very mediocre but when the game is on the line, he doesn't miss very often. You can only be in the right place at the right time so much before it becomes a trend.
I don't think anyone becomes better in key moments. That simply doesn't make sense. If they had another level, they should be playing at it all the time. People don't just magically become better shooters at certain moments because they really, really want to. Can players choke? That, at least, is logically possible, IMO. Nerves getting to a player, causing their performance to degrade. However, I find it pretty unlikely in the NBA. The NBA is a picked population of players who have spent their whole lives facing pressure situations. Unarguably, the pressure of performing when your entire future is on the line is greater than the pressure of winning any game in the NBA. Players who can't deal with the pressure of performing when everything is on the line don't make it through the extremely extensive winnowing process. Very few high school players survive to the big-time college sports level. And a tiny percentage of major college program players make it to the NBA. The ones who can't handle pressure and keep their skills at their top levels will be beaten out by players who can. I think Horry was a tremendous player in his prime, a mediocre player as a Laker and Spur, but he always had a good shot. It's not that shocking that a player who was on one championship-level team after another and shoots the ball well got 4-5 chances to nail big shots and made them. For any single player, the chances of that happening aren't good, but it's not unexpected that it would happen to someone.
LOL Are you kidding me? 1. Many of the shots Horry made were not even drawn up for him, beyond that they weren't improvised plays either. They were off of broken plays in a desperate situation. Now its a lot easier to make a shot if you know you're getting the ball, gives you a chance to visualize the scenario (do you play ball?) rather than just having the ball end up in your hands with 1 point something seconds left and having to chuck it. For that reason I give Horry even more credit. 2. This is not all logical, and don't act like NBA players can't step it up, please. Anytime the somebody went to the media and said something negative about Jordan he torched their team in the next meeting, stepped it up a level. Ask Nick Van Gundy and George Karl about that. I play a lot differently when I'm playing with my 10 year old cousin than when I'm playing in gyms on campus. That's why playoff basketball is more intense than the regular season. 3. There have been plenty of great players who couldn't get it done with everything on the line. Not everyone can win a ring, so think of all the greats who HAVEN'T and there's your proof.
He came into the league hitting big shots. IIRC, he hit a 3 at the buzzer to win the title his rookie year in Houston. I know the stats and am not saying he's some great player or even marginal all-star, but you've got to admit, he makes shot he has no business making when the game is on the line. Was it 13 straight years or something like that where he or Steve Kerr won championships?
Saying "Do you play ball?" doesn't add anything to you making random claims. There's nothing to substantiate that it's "easier to hit shots" on planned plays than on broken plays. Those broken plays usually created wide open, undefended shots for Horry. Set plays often end up with defended shots. Wide open shots are easier to hit. Was every Horry shot wide open? No, but there's absolutely nothing to support that the nature of his shots made them harder. Yes, that's a nice piece of Jordan mythology that you know. Impressive. Jordan happened to be the best player in the game and torched opponents at all times, not just in the clutch or just when someone said something negative. Sometimes, to send a message, he attempted to score more...but he did that by taking more shots, not by "stepping it up" and becoming a better player. The closest thing to this was that, in his later years, he purposely played below his level for most of the season in order to conserve energy and then played better in the playoffs. That wasn't "stepping it up"...that was purposely playing below his level and then returning to his full level, Not being on a good enough team to win the championship is not the same thing as being bad at handling pressure. Just because many fans and media like to simplify the issue to "Everyone who never won a championship was a pathetic choker" doesn't make it true. All of your "points" are regurgitated media narratives. Jordan "stepped it up" when insulted, if you don't win championships you "failed when everything was on the line."
i definitely agree some nba players cant handle pressure well. the strange this about " being clutch" is that nobody ever remembers the last second shots that get missed at the buzzer. for all the shots horry has made at the buzzer, i wonder how many he has missed? that might be a way to determine everybodys " clutch " rating on nba2k.
1 Go to 10:07 <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/m6V1-UraQAs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/m6V1-UraQAs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
that shot was in and out. Some people get nervous and turn into a shivering bitch. Exhibit A...Cliff Robinson until he got old and the weed calmed him Exhibit B...Doug Christie, that guy almost broke a backboard or two with some last second shot attempts. Horry had good form for a big guy and didn't seem to get nervous. He is indeed what I consider a clutch player. Not a hall of famer but very good. I would rather average 5 pts a game and hit Finals winning threes once in a while than have Barkley's career. Even though Barkley was awesome.
