A snippet from the Sloan conference by Morey I've seen this a lot of times, and I've always wondered if there was some deep logic that I simply fail to see due to my lack of BBall knowledge. But with Morey saying it, now I know they're just being stupid. How could teams not practice against such plays correctly? http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/14485/video-the-simple-game-of-basketball
If you just give up easy 2, you have to make 2 ft, even if good ft shooter gets the ball (let's say 80% shooter), they are going to miss 1 or more ft 36% of time. In comparison, the shooting % in that kind of situation is below 30%. So you defend and switch on every P&R but you don't give up easy 2. If there are only 4-5 seconds, that's another story, you foul if you can.
Even if you have all five guys on the perimeter, the offensive team can still set picks, getting off a good shot.
As my old coach once told me "If they can beat us by nailing 3s, then they deserve to win." I never listened to that coach again. For god's sake, if you're up by three you know that they're not gonna settle for two so you double team thier best 3 point shooter and leave their worst one open(usually a center) and they wont make the three
I don't think it's being stupid so much as it's acting on instinct. For 47.5 minutes of the game, you're trying to stop the guy from getting the highest percentage shots. Because most players out there are reacting without thinking (the game is too fast sometimes to think everything through), they keep doing what they're used to.
I think it should be based off how much tiime is left in the game because if you are up 3 with 10 seconds and you don't defend the 2 a team can score within a couple seconds. They foul, you go to the line, possibly miss one and then all the sudden you are up 2 with about 8 seconds left, which is plenty of time to run a play, score and tie or win. If there are like 3 seconds or less I feel like you should let the 2 happen. Or just make it easy on yourself and foul and send them to the line before they have any opportunity to score.
Golden rule: when up by three and defending the last possession of the game you FOUL. I understand the OP's point and the spirit of the thread, but I'd much rather just foul and take my chances with the opponent shooting FT's than I do watching them run some designed play that could result in a decent three point attempt to tie the game. Don't even give them that chance.
I agree. And why I wouldn't be so surprised about it in a college game. But in the NBA, these people are suppose to be pros. And there should be enough coaching/discipline to overcome that. At least IMO. Btw, do some of you never bother to read the OP? I guess my title could be better worded because there are other situations where this would apply(down 4+ with time running down), but I'd think you'd at least read Morey's words before making assumptions about enough time and blah blah blah. To reiterate, here's what Morey said He's not talking about a particular amount of time left. But rather a situation where the team trailing MUST SHOOT A THREE. Yes, I realize that in some situations a team can opt for a quick two. But this is obviously not the situation given. The situation given is that the team NEEDS A THREE. This is not a discussion about the merits of whether one should foul or whatever. It's about understanding that letting the opponent make that uncontested driving layup will win you the game. Yet still not do it.
This would be my own preference too. Although it seems for one reason or another, NBA coaches stay away from such things(perhaps accountability issues?). Although to be fair, I realized that Morey's case doesn't just apply to being up by three. So this is my fault for restricting the scenario. I think his supposition also would include possibly being up 6 with 10 seconds to go, where a 2 would maintain two possession basketball. So you KNOW the opponent must shoot a 3. In either case, I've always found that teams tend to not defend the 3 point line as well as one'd expect given such late game situations.
But even if they get a quick two and the opposing team only makes less than two free throws, they still have to make ANOTHER basket. Let's say they have a 45% chance of making another basket. For all of the things to play out for them to not lose (tie or win), the percentage would be like .36*.45 = .162 . You should bet on .162 than giving them a look at a 3 pointer.
Unlike football so much of basketball is reactionary. Players aren't accustomed to pre-determining their actions. If you don't have a good group of tuned-in players then like dogs that see a squirrel, they will react naturally. You almost have to blame the coach at that point. They need to reiterate the situation otherwise the players will go off instinct. Coaches assume the players understand, wrong assumption. You have to make a concerted effort to breakthrough.
It does seem rather uncommon for whatever reason. I remember how the Ponies had two great opportunities to tie the game in the closing seconds against us earlier this year due to Adelman's reluctance to use this strategy. Conversely, we lost to Phoenix in a game where Alvin Gentry employed this strategy on the last possession in OT (remember Brooks' almost offensive rebound off the intentional miss). But yeah, it does seem relatively uncommon in the NBA. For college ball, I would absolutely foul any chance I could get. Given where the three point line is it really doesn't matter how well you defend the three point line -- all you need to do is pull-up from anywhere from 22-25 feet. That's not an overly difficult shot. At least in the pro's the three point line is nearly 24-feet back which makes any dribble pull-up in this situation all the more difficult. Overall, I get what you're saying. It does seem rather strange that in your up by 6 scenario, most teams would tenaciously defend against the drive rather than just essentially 'allowing' an uncontested two-pointer that's there if the opponent wants it. It makes sense: allow the two, inbound the ball immediately and shoot two FT's. If you fumble the inbounds pass or do something unholy like turn it over in that situation, you're still up by 4 instead of 3 points (had you allowed a three-pointer on the previous possession).
I think coaches don't do it because they don't trust their players to foul before the player can get a shot off. Or they don't trust the referees to not make a ridiculous continuation call.
of all my pet peeves watching basketball, giving up 3's when you absolutely shouldn't is way up on the list. and not just last second 3's, but in the last minute or so. when teams are up 2 or 3 or down 1, you just can't allow an open 3. in the first case, you allow yourself to actually be trailing in a game you were winning with just a little time left. now every bit of pressure is on you. when up 3, you could force a team to score twice and have to stop you to lose your lead instead of giving up just 1 open 3. and when down one, you absolutely have to keep yourself in a one possession game. i know up 2 or 3 or down 1 accounts for a lot of situations, but there's just no excuse to collapse on every drive in those situations. when you're up 3 and there are only 10 or so seconds left (but too much time to foul), it is really unforgivable to leave 3 point shooters open. the other team has to hit two 2 shots and hope you miss free throws just to possibly tie the game, and do it in a very short amount of time. even lebron james only has something like a 68% FG percentage right at the basket, and he leads the league. unless you are just getting free dunks, hitting 2's isn't as easy as it seems. and the real problem is that teams often collapse on drives that are going nowhere. drives where the defender is still even with the offensive player and the offensive player is going to have to make some sort of runner. just let it go! they are begging you to double team and give up the game tying 3. and while i've always assumed it was just instinct like Steve_Francis_rules is saying, i agree with meh that that is something i would expect from college players, not pros. pros have so much repetition that they can usually overcome instinct, so not being able to do it in that situation just seems weird. i definitely think that's the case. ideally, i think everyone would like to commit the foul when there are only a few seconds left. but you have to be really sure that the guy on offense isn't more crafty than your guys. with the NBA's generous continuation rules, he could just be waiting for the intentional foul, knowing all he has to do is not dribble again and he could end up with 3 free throws (or maybe even a 4 point play) if he sort of looked like he was shooting. i remember seeing chris paul bait someone into a 3 point foul when his team was up in a game by picking up his dribble and shooting from 35 feet right when the other guy got close to him. so, in the end, you have to make sure the offensive guy has his back to the basket or is in some position where shooting is almost impossible or you risk giving up the 3 points you were trying so hard to prevent.
I actually agree with those who would not defend the three very intensely when the opponent is down by three. I don't agree with those saying you should foul. What if they jack up the three as you foul them and can it? Potential FT from the foul could seal the win as opposed to making an uncontested three would just send the game to overtime. Considering decent shooters have 3pt averages between 35-40%, you have better than a coin toss's chance that they will miss it. Why risk fouling them, where if they hit that coin toss chance you risk losing the game? I rather take my chances with them going for the three on a coin toss game and going into OT if they get lucky.
Again, But even if they get a quick two and the opposing team only makes less than two free throws, they still have to make ANOTHER basket. Let's say they have a 45% chance of making another basket. For all of the things to play out for them to not lose (tie or win), the percentage would be like .36*.45 = .162 . You should bet on .162 than giving them a look at a 3 pointer. Fouling would be an even better idea since it lowers the percentage even more. Now it'll be like (assuming an 80% shooter), .64*.36*.45 = .104
iremember the rockets were up by 3 and yao fouled lebron on a drive to the basket for the basket and the foul. Its hard to cut your instincts on the court. I'm with baller, they should just foul. Orlando was so focused on kobe, they gave up a walk in 3 to fisher to tie the game.
