I want to question something. You hear all this talk at the end of the game like: "If Tim Duncan gets the ball, you best believe they are going to foul him and put him on the line" But like in the 2nd quater when they were fouling Bruce Bowan without the ball and he still got FT shots. Does he got to have the ball in his hands at the end of the game to put him on the line?
Ah, ok. In that case. Don Nelson is probably the smartest coach in the NBA. Use any strategy you can if it'll make the game be in your advantage. When a team has a par 65% FT shooter out there, send in some of your bench warmers to foul the crap out of him. The Mavs did it last night and they had a 9 point differential because of it.
Luck was on their side. (bad luck for POR, good luck for L.A.) In the NBA you have to play the stats.
Well if Bowen makes 50% of FT's, that's pretty much the equivalent of allowing SA to shoot 50% from the field. Let's say Bowen makes 1 of 2, on 2 straight possesions. That is 2 pts out of 2 possesions. That is equal to SA scoring a FG on 1 of those 2 possesions. Moreover, a team like Dallas thrives in transition. The worst way to clutter your transition game is by sending the other team to the line. It worked only because Popovich was too scared to put Bowen in the game. If Pop had done the smart thing and kept Bowen in, no one would be talking about how "great" of a move it was by Nellie. If looks "great" only because Popovich played into Nellie's hand by pulling Bowen out.
as kidrock8 said, in the last two minutes, if you are committing an intentional foul to send a guy to the line, it must be the guy with the ball. otherwise all off the ball fouls must be of the unintentional variety (as almost all are) or the other team gets a ft and the ball. as for hack-a-shaq and the bowen thing, in general they are very stupid strategies unless you just accidentally get someone completely befuddled at the line. most of the time, even if they only shoot 50% as kr8 said, it's like shooting 50% on fg's anyway and furthermore, if you keep fouling a guy he's likely to get in a rhythm from shooting so many ft's and is likely to start hitting them anyway (as shaq sometimes does) and then the whole plan is actually bad for you. plus you negate possible turnovers for the other team and essentially hand them a scoring opportunity every time down the court. the only guy i'd probably even think of trying it on is ben wallace b/c after seeing many of his ft's, it doesn't look like he'd ever accidentally get on a hot streak. and since i didn't get to see the game, didn't espn say when they started doing it they were down by 9, and when they stopped doing it they were still down by 9? so the strategy itself didn't work at all. it only worked by getting bowen out, which is stupid of pop to do b/c i don't think any team really wants to start fouling at the end of a close game on purpose. i don't remember hack-a-shaq ever being tried in anything other than desperation mode, i.e. down 9 with 3 minutes to go or down 16 in the 4th. never in a close 3 or 4 point game are you gonna hand the other team free scoring opportunities.
The strategy was not to make the Spurs score less points. It was to change the momentum, take the crowd away, take the Spurs' rhythm away. The Spurs was tearing it up at that point. The strategy worked. As for Shaq, when he's dominating inside, he shoots over 65%. His ft% wasn't that good. (He's been a lot better this year.) So you want him shooting fts rather than dunking. Hack-a-Shaq and Hack-a-Bruce are two different strategies with different intended outcome.
Bowen shot 5-10 for the game, 50%. The Spurs shot 48.6% from the field. From a statistical point of view, it looks like a wash to me. Then again, Duncan shot 14-20. If the fouled possessions were going to be attempts by Duncan, maybe they did come out ahead. But, I don't think it is about playing the numbers (especially when it is a wash). I think it is about tempo. Did it disrupt San Antonio's surge? Did it take away fast break opportunities for Dallas? I think it could go either way, really. In the end, though, I'd vote down the idea because I'd worry about foul trouble.
kidrock8 and francis 4 prez, you guys need to know this. Basketball is more than just numbers and stats, it has to do alot with rhythm, mind-game and momentum. That strategy was all about destroying other team rhythm, and it worked like a charm. Give Don Nelson what's due. He's a good coach. His strategies don't work all the time, but it worked there.
Also, hacking a player puts him in the spot light, whereby adding pressure on him. Some players are affected by pressure, some don't. So if you get hacked and keep missing fts, your confidence is shaken. I think that's why Pop pulled Bowen. It's Bowen, not Popovich, who was scared. It's a psychological, not a statistical, strategy. BTW, Bowen's ft% in the playoffs is about 40%. If you can limit your opponent to a 40% scoring average per possession, it's pretty good. The problem with hacking is, of course, foul trouble and over-the-limit penalty. So you can't do it all the time.
Seeing how the Mavs didn't make a run because of the hack-a-bowen strategy... The move only worked because Pop foolishly gave in to Nelson, by taking Bowen out. If Pop hadn't panicked, this thread wouldn't be existent.
