On paper it may seem easy to execute. On a high school level it can back fire. I saw tape of two teams in our conference several years ago where a team tried to foul but the player mistimed the foul, and fouled the player as they were heaving up a desparation three. The result three ft's which tied the game and sent it to over time.
The following article looks at stats on whether it is good or not, and comes up with alternative rule to eliminate the issue.
INSIDE COLLEGE HOOPS
Fair Is Foul, But Fouling's Unfair
By Chuck Klosterman onSomething disappointing and inevitable occurred at the conclusion of Saturday's Mid-American Conference title game. Akron trailed Ohio 64-61 with 6.2 seconds on the clock, 94 feet from the basket. Recognizing the situation, Ohio coach John Groce made what proved to be the right decision: The Bobcats intentionally fouled a Zip with 3.1 seconds remaining, forcing Alex Abreu to make the front end and then miss the second on purpose (which, to his chagrin, bounced in anyway). Ohio won by a point and advanced to the NCAA tournament, which it deserved. But this is a bad way for a basketball game to end. The very idea of a team with the lead intentionally fouling sometimes makes “winning sense,” but it’s vaguely unsporting and antithetical to how the game is played 99.9 percent of the time. It abuses a technicality.
Statistically, we still don’t know if fouling is better than letting an opponent attempt a desperation trey. Harvard’s John Ezekowitz analyzed the problem in 2010 and came to this lukewarm conclusion:
Of the 52 teams that committed a foul, six lost the game for a winning percentage of 88.46 percent. Of the 391 teams that did not foul, 33 lost the game for a winning percentage of 91.56 percent. … For the less statistically inclined, this means that there is no significant difference between the two strategies.
In other words, it’s two versions of an equally safe gamble. Considering the specific circumstance Ohio faced on Saturday, fouling probably did make more sense (since 6.2 seconds is just enough time to manufacture a difficult-but-makeable 30-footer). Florida State faced a similar scenario in Sunday’s ACC tournament final and elected not to foul (and almost got burned). Still, I would always prefer that the trailing team receive an opportunity to tie the game by hitting a shot from the floor. It’s superior in every way: It doesn’t force anyone to awkwardly miss a free throw on purpose, it’s more dramatic than a bunch of guys trying to convert an offensive rebound, it entails more skill than chance, and it seems closer to the core principles of the game (i.e., making shots on offense and not creating contact on defense). This being the case, I think the NCAA (and perhaps the NBA) should consider a rule change for next season:
If a team trailing on the scoreboard is fouled, they have the option to (a) accept the free throws (assuming they are in the bonus), or (b) decline the penalty and take the ball out of bounds at the point of the infraction, or at midcourt (whichever location they prefer).
There’s no way this rule could be abused, since no trailing team would ever decline a free throw opportunity unless they specifically needed three points in the closing seconds. (The only other scenario would be some kind of over-the-top “Hack-a-Shaq” situation, and I wouldn’t mind seeing the elimination of that strategy, either.) The defensive team still has a huge advantage: They’re ahead by three and can't lose unless they foul someone in the act of shooting. It seems like any rule that would increase the number of potential buzzer-beaters while decreasing the boredom of premeditated fouling could only be good. If there’s a downside to this proposal, I don’t see it.
Should You Foul to Prevent a 3-Point Attempt in Basketball?
Late-game situations in basketball often come down to strategy and quick decision-making. One crucial decision coaches and players must make in these moments is whether to foul intentionally to prevent the opposing team from attempting a game-tying or game-winning three-point shot. This strategy, known as "fouling to prevent a 3-point attempt," is a hotly debated topic in basketball circles. In this article, we will explore the nuances of this strategy, weigh its pros and cons, and answer frequently asked questions (FAQs) to help basketball enthusiasts and teams make informed decisions in critical moments.
The Situation: Late-Game Scenarios
To understand the fouling-to-prevent-a-3-point-attempt strategy, it's crucial to recognize the specific late-game scenarios in which it comes into play:
1. Team A Leads by 3 Points
When Team A holds a narrow 3-point lead over Team B in the closing moments of the game, Team B faces a dilemma. They must score quickly to tie the game or potentially win it with a 3-point shot. Conversely, Team A wants to prevent a game-tying 3-point attempt.
2. Time Remaining
The decision to foul hinges on the amount of time left on the game clock. If there's sufficient time for Team B to attempt a 3-pointer, they may opt for that strategy. If time is running out, Team B may need to take whatever shot opportunity presents itself.
Pros of Fouling to Prevent a 3-Point Attempt
1. Control the Situation
Fouling intentionally gives Team A control over the situation. They dictate when the clock stops, forcing Team B to execute inbound plays and manage time effectively.
2. Eliminate the Three-Point Threat
By fouling, Team A removes the possibility of a game-tying or game-winning 3-point shot. Team B must then rely on scoring through free throws, which are not guaranteed.
3. Pressure on Free Throws
Fouling puts pressure on Team B's free-throw shooters. They must make both free throws to narrow the gap or miss intentionally to secure a potential offensive rebound.
Cons of Fouling to Prevent a 3-Point Attempt
1. Risk of an And-One
When fouling, there's always a risk of the shooter making the basket despite the contact and converting an "and-one" opportunity. This could tie the game and give Team B a chance for a 4-point play.
2. Limited Control Over Rebounds
After the intentional foul, Team A may have limited control over rebounding, especially if Team B misses the second free throw intentionally and attempts to secure an offensive rebound.
3. Late-Game Execution
Fouling intentionally requires precise execution. A mistimed foul or a foul on a 3-point shooter could lead to a potential 4-point play or gift Team B a chance to tie or win the game from the free-throw line.
The Decision-Making Process
Deciding whether to foul to prevent a 3-point attempt should involve careful consideration of various factors:
1. Time Remaining
The amount of time left on the clock is a critical factor. If there's enough time for Team B to execute a successful inbound play and attempt a three-pointer, fouling may be a viable option.
2. Free-Throw Shooting
Evaluate Team B's free-throw shooting ability. If they have reliable free-throw shooters, fouling may be riskier as it increases the likelihood of Team B narrowing the gap from the free-throw line.
3. Foul Situation
Consider the foul situation. If Team A is already in the penalty, fouling will result in free throws for Team B regardless. In this case, the decision should be made strategically based on the factors mentioned earlier.
4. Team A's Defensive Strength
Assess Team A's defensive capabilities. If Team A is confident in their ability to defend a 3-point attempt and secure the rebound, they may choose not to foul and rely on their defense.
5. Coach's Strategy
The coach's philosophy and game plan play a significant role. Some coaches prefer to foul and control the situation, while others trust their defense to contest the shot effectively.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
When should you foul to prevent a 3-point attempt?
Fouling is typically considered when Team A leads by 3 points, and there's enough time on the clock for Team B to attempt a 3-pointer.
What if Team B has a strong 3-point shooter?
If Team B has a sharpshooter, fouling may be a more viable option to eliminate the threat of a game-tying shot.
Can Team B still win with a 3-point foul shot and a 3-point shot?
Yes, if Team B makes the 3-point foul shot (an "and-one") and then successfully hits a 3-pointer, they can win the game.
What if Team B misses both free throws intentionally?
If Team B misses both free throws intentionally, they may attempt to secure an offensive rebound. Team A must be prepared to box out and secure the rebound.
Can Team A foul a poor free-throw shooter intentionally?
Yes, fouling a poor free-throw shooter intentionally can be a strategic choice, especially if the player is known to struggle at the free-throw line.
The decision to foul intentionally to prevent a 3-point attempt in late-game situations is a strategic choice that requires careful consideration of various factors. While it can eliminate the threat of a game-tying shot, it also carries risks, such as potential and-one opportunities and limited control over rebounds. Coaches and teams must weigh the pros and cons and make informed decisions based on the specific circumstances of the game. Ultimately, the choice to foul or not to foul depends on the time remaining, free-throw shooting ability, defensive strength, and the coach's strategy.
No comments:
Post a Comment