You forget even if you make 2 ft, they still have enough time to make a 3. Although with less time likely the fg% will be lower. Also, if you allow a 3 and the opposition does make it, you still have the final possession and >50% to win. If you only makes one, you gave the opposition a chance to win by 3. All in all, a layup can happen in 2 seconds, and it's certainly much higher percentage than making 2 ft. So it's never wise not to contest when you have 10 seconds.
It is always funny when posters on here think they no more than a NBA coach. There is a reason why they are in the NBA making big bucks and we are posting from our computers. Not tightly contesting a three with little remaining time when they are down by three is the best statistical decision. Regardless of whether or not they make it, you are still 100% guaranteed NOT to lose. If you foul them and they make the three, you stand to lose the game at however much their percentage is for making FT's and usually the person shooting the game tying three is very good at making FT's. The ideal defense is not to steal the ball, block the shot, or take the charge. The ideal defense is to force them to take bad shots, shots that have a much lower percentage of going in. This is what makes Battier such a good defender; he denies you the free drive by staying in front of you and tries to herd you into areas where you are not comfortable with your jump shots. At the end of the day, consistently forcing people to take rushed or off balanced shots is usually more of a game changer than an occasional block or steal.
It is always funny when posters on here think they know more about what is the best statistical decision than Daryl Morey. Did you read the quote in the OP? Defending the three is what you should be doing. You can defend the three without fouling, players do it all game long.
If you read my post at all you would know that the article is describing a different situation. The situation I was responding to was when you are down by 3 at the end of the game, whether or not you contest the attempt. This has nothing to do with what DM is saying. Morey is basically saying that in a situation where the D is more inclined to shoot a three, don't fall for a fake attempt for a 2 and stay in front of your guy. Contesting means going for a block. Also, the scenarios are completely different. Reading comprehension fail much?
Contesting does not mean going for a block. Would you say that Shane Battier never contests jumpers? I sure as hell wouldn't. He puts a hand in the face. That is contesting.
I agree that it doesn't. That is why I said tightly contest, as in trying to block it or doing anything that could end in a foul.
No he's not. He's saying a scenario where they NEED a three. In other words, a scenario where an uncontested layup would be considered successful defense. Obviously, even a basketball idiot can figure out that when the opposition can go for the 2, you don't only guard the 3 point line. But that's not the situation. For example, how many times have you seen players drive to the basket with like 2-3 seconds, only to have the defender retreat to stop the drive, and then step back to put up a 3? If the defender gives up the uncontested dunk in such a situation, time would run out and they'd win. Such would be a situation where you GUARD THE THREE POINT LINE WITH YOUR LIFE. Because anyone stupid enough to drive in that situation would get a 2 and a buzzer right after.
The bottom line is you said that the best statistical decision is to be ok with giving up a three because at least you're guaranteed not to lose. That's the exact opposite of what Morey is saying, that you should only worry about defending the three-point line.
well....technically the 3 is harder to make...so if you guard the 2 well...then..i guess.....whatever...
Did you even read his article? Let me quote it for you: Morey says in no uncertain words, that you don't bite on the fake because you know they are taking a three. Biting on the fake is attempting to contest a shot. He is saying that you can defend the 3pt line and if they go for a 2, let them. That supports what I said, don't contest the three and stay in front. Force them to shoot the three, which is statistically much better than contesting them and possibly losing the game to a 4pt play. If they make the three they tie the game at worst. If they hit a 2, it is still a one point lead. If you get baited by the fake, they lean into you before shooting and drain the three and hit the additional free throw, you potentially just gave away the game. Please learn to read when you try to call out others.
Wow. Did you even read the bit from the article you just posted? Morey says "players, time and again, defend against the fake drive." So biting on the fake is absolutely not trying to contest a three point shot as you claim. It is biting on the fake drive and giving up an uncontested three point shot.
Brooks' game tying 3 tonight was a classic example of the defender biting the fake drive, giving the shooter space to shoot.
