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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Clippers just fouled up 3 with 12 seconds left. 10 game seconds later, the Clippers were only up 1 and Sacramento had the ball. Essentially, the Clippers chose to defend up 1 than to defend up 3. The Clippers won the game but by fouling up 3, they increased their chances of losing.
Except a 3pt shot or and-1 would have tied the game, drastically increasing the odds of overtime. By fouling smartly you removed the possibility a 3 point possession.
well, make the first free throw, intentionally miss the second and a put back is a possibility, it involves luck
Allowing the other team to hit their 3-pointer to tie the game does not mean the worst outcome for the team that was ahead by 3 is a tie. The team that was ahead and didn't foul could also still lose in regulation (unless the shot was at the buzzer.)
Incorrect. You said the team fouling, would then be in a "we must make these FT" situation. This is factually incorrect. Let me give an example. Team up 3 fouls with 12 seconds left. Team down 3 makes both FTs, and is now down one. Team up 1 gets fouled with 8 second left and misses both FTs. Team down 1 misses shot to win with 2 second left and time expires. The team up 3, that fouled, DIDN'T have to make any FTs and still won. How do you not understand this? And the scenario a came up with is highly unlikely to happen. The odds of the team down 3 making both FTs and the team with the lead missing both FTs is very low.
The question is: Are you more concerned about reducing the odds of losing in regulation or increase the odds of winning? Allowing a 3pt attempt INCREASES the odds of losing in OT at a great percentage than fouling increases the odds of losing in regulation. It's really that simple. Lets also remember that by not fouling on purpose, means you end up defending a 3pt shot, increasing the possibility of fouling a 3pt shooter and possibly giving up a 4pt play.
