Knicks · Up by 3, to foul or not to foul? (page 3)
D'Antoni gave a curious answer when asked if defensive assistant Mike Woodson has same approach."I don’t think that really matters, to be honest with you,'' D'Antoni said. "Because guess who gets fired? But he is in agreement. I don’t know because I don’t think I’ve asked him.’’
Maybe you should ask him!!! He gives dumb statistics in regards to fouling / not fouling in the NBA as a whole. It's Paul Phucking Pierce you douche bag. He owns you - and always will until you let go of your effin ego.
mrKnickShot wrote:here's link:
MDA confirms his own stupidity here:
"With 10 seconds to go you have a helluva chance to win. You ask most players, they don’t want to foul. Because you don’t want to be that guy to have to go down (the other end) and make those two foul shots.''
as in, you don't want to be the guy that then gets fouled and has to go to the line up by 1. isn't that the implicit argument in fouling a guy like rondo? you put him on the line down 3 knowing he has to make both to keep the game alive. so the reason as to why you don't foul (because it puts pressure on the player shooting the subsequent free throws) is used as a reason to justify why you don't foul, even though the result (the pressure on the player to make the free throws) remains.
BigSm00th wrote:mrKnickShot wrote:here's link:MDA confirms his own stupidity here:
"With 10 seconds to go you have a helluva chance to win. You ask most players, they don’t want to foul. Because you don’t want to be that guy to have to go down (the other end) and make those two foul shots.''
as in, you don't want to be the guy that then gets fouled and has to go to the line up by 1. isn't that the implicit argument in fouling a guy like rondo? you put him on the line down 3 knowing he has to make both to keep the game alive. so the reason as to why you don't foul (because it puts pressure on the player shooting the subsequent free throws) is used as a reason to justify why you don't foul, even though the result (the pressure on the player to make the free throws) remains.
I don't see a problem with a coach being arrogant and whose team is playing good defense.
You got a 3 pt lead, why put it on the foul line.
At that moment whats the worst that can happen?
They tie it up!
Do you really go to the foul line WHEN YOU HAVE A LEAD?
Sometimes you lose and sometimes you get beat.
Nalod wrote:BigSm00th wrote:mrKnickShot wrote:here's link:MDA confirms his own stupidity here:
"With 10 seconds to go you have a helluva chance to win. You ask most players, they don’t want to foul. Because you don’t want to be that guy to have to go down (the other end) and make those two foul shots.''
as in, you don't want to be the guy that then gets fouled and has to go to the line up by 1. isn't that the implicit argument in fouling a guy like rondo? you put him on the line down 3 knowing he has to make both to keep the game alive. so the reason as to why you don't foul (because it puts pressure on the player shooting the subsequent free throws) is used as a reason to justify why you don't foul, even though the result (the pressure on the player to make the free throws) remains.
I don't see a problem with a coach being arrogant and whose team is playing good defense.
You got a 3 pt lead, why put it on the foul line.
At that moment whats the worst that can happen?
They tie it up!
Do you really go to the foul line WHEN YOU HAVE A LEAD?
Sometimes you lose and sometimes you get beat.
Again, there are rules and there are exceptions to those rules.
- who are you playing?
- who is their star(s)?
- what has he done to you in the past?
- how much did it hurt?
- Did it hurt enough to make you think of bending?
- (like you said) "play good D" - How was your D playing?
- were you switching and getting caught all game?
- could we have ended up with a smaller player on PP due to another bitch and switch?
Are all things/rules equal?
I think he goofed badly and it was not the game to goof.
martin wrote:I literally can't remember the last coach to call for a foul when up by 3.
To conclude, whenever a team is up 3 with just seconds remaining and on defense, you always ask if the team should foul and send the opponent to the free-throw line? Or do you defend and not let them get off a three? last night Phil Jackson elected to foul JR Smith up 3 with 5 seconds. Smith made the first and missed the second intentionally. Lakers rebounded, game over, arrive home safely. The strategy of fouling worked.
I have seen it happen many times. Even this year - its a question in coaches philosophy. I would love to see our coach act like Billy Beane for a change - especially on D.
martin wrote:I literally can't remember the last coach to call for a foul when up by 3.
I hear you there, by why not double Pierce or trap Allen if they get the ball? How come the Knicks never deny an opponents best option on the court in these situations? Always seems the better defensive teams: Heat, Bulls, Celts all do this, but our coaching staff never ever does this...
ChuckBuck wrote:martin wrote:I literally can't remember the last coach to call for a foul when up by 3.I hear you there, by why not double Pierce or trap Allen if they get the ball? How come the Knicks never deny an opponents best option on the court in these situations? Always seems the better defensive teams: Heat, Bulls, Celts all do this, but our coaching staff never ever does this...
double someone... an then leave someone else wide open?
Last second shots are always scrambles.
martin wrote:ChuckBuck wrote:martin wrote:I literally can't remember the last coach to call for a foul when up by 3.I hear you there, by why not double Pierce or trap Allen if they get the ball? How come the Knicks never deny an opponents best option on the court in these situations? Always seems the better defensive teams: Heat, Bulls, Celts all do this, but our coaching staff never ever does this...
double someone... an then leave someone else wide open?
Last second shots are always scrambles.
But with a 3 pt lead...you take away Pierce and Allen, who else is going to shoot a 3? Worst case KG or Rondo take it in for a layup and we still have the ball and lead and have to just inbounds and hit free throws. Celtics are out of timeouts at this point...
You're up by three, you let them drill that trey. All you have to do is defend the perimeter with all of your balls! BUT YOU WANT TO TELL ME IT'S ON THE COACH TO TELL THESE GUYS THE OBVIOUS? THAT YOU'RE UP BY THREE, GUARD THE THREE!
And it's really a low percentage shot at that point, you make them drill that but you HASSLE THEM UP THE COURT SO THEY'RE NOT WALKING IN LIKE COMFORTABLE PILLOW CASES.
THAT'S ALL YOU HAD TO DO!
Im going to guess the weak side help was on Ray. with 6 seconds left, and Pierce gets doubled then Ray open? KG can it a three also.
Yeah, its Pierce and he nailed it so anyone else would have been "a better option". I don't want Ray taking that shot. These guys are also told "Don't foul the shooter".
Monday morning musings!
As for MDA, I can imagine he is pissed and now has to answer a bunch of hack trouble maker media beat reporters asking the obvious?
Knicks if they ever are going to be a playoff winner need these kind of games to build experience.
Nalod wrote:The ran screens to get pierce open. He was not "Left" open. They sprang him.Im going to guess the weak side help was on Ray. with 6 seconds left, and Pierce gets doubled then Ray open? KG can it a three also.
Yeah, its Pierce and he nailed it so anyone else would have been "a better option". I don't want Ray taking that shot. These guys are also told "Don't foul the shooter".
Monday morning musings!
As for MDA, I can imagine he is pissed and now has to answer a bunch of hack trouble maker media beat reporters asking the obvious?
Knicks if they ever are going to be a playoff winner need these kind of games to build experience.
Yep! We will be a better team as these young guys see what makes you win and how you get beat. I'm looking forward to some development and some form of stability-
BigSm00th wrote:mrKnickShot wrote:here's link:MDA confirms his own stupidity here:
"With 10 seconds to go you have a helluva chance to win. You ask most players, they don’t want to foul. Because you don’t want to be that guy to have to go down (the other end) and make those two foul shots.''
as in, you don't want to be the guy that then gets fouled and has to go to the line up by 1. isn't that the implicit argument in fouling a guy like rondo? you put him on the line down 3 knowing he has to make both to keep the game alive. so the reason as to why you don't foul (because it puts pressure on the player shooting the subsequent free throws) is used as a reason to justify why you don't foul, even though the result (the pressure on the player to make the free throws) remains.
you forgot to post what came exactly before the quote:
According to D'Antoni, he said the stat service the Knicks use confirms his belief and he said most coaches agree with him. D'Antoni said the service has tracked games since 1995 and teams who don't foul with 10 seconds left or less and up three, win roughly 93 percent of the games.Teams who do foul in the same circumstance win 90 percent of the games. D'Antoni said players also prefer to play straight-up defense and not worry about fouling intentionally to extend the game.
and just after:
"The philosophy is not to foul but you say that with an asterisk,'' D'Antoni said. "Down below 5 seconds and they’re in the 2-point (range) and you can get a good shot at somebody, you do it. But Paul Pierce has the ball and he’s like this (in shooting motion). You can’t foul him. Because he’ll go up. He’s smart enough."Now do you foul him with 10 seconds and you just do everything we just did. If you get it down to eight seconds, maybe. They make theirs (free throws). They foul you immediately. Seven seconds left. You miss one foul shot. They’re coming at you and you’re defending the two.'
martin wrote:BigSm00th wrote:mrKnickShot wrote:here's link:MDA confirms his own stupidity here:
"With 10 seconds to go you have a helluva chance to win. You ask most players, they don’t want to foul. Because you don’t want to be that guy to have to go down (the other end) and make those two foul shots.''
as in, you don't want to be the guy that then gets fouled and has to go to the line up by 1. isn't that the implicit argument in fouling a guy like rondo? you put him on the line down 3 knowing he has to make both to keep the game alive. so the reason as to why you don't foul (because it puts pressure on the player shooting the subsequent free throws) is used as a reason to justify why you don't foul, even though the result (the pressure on the player to make the free throws) remains.
you forgot to post what came exactly before the quote:
According to D'Antoni, he said the stat service the Knicks use confirms his belief and he said most coaches agree with him. D'Antoni said the service has tracked games since 1995 and teams who don't foul with 10 seconds left or less and up three, win roughly 93 percent of the games.Teams who do foul in the same circumstance win 90 percent of the games. D'Antoni said players also prefer to play straight-up defense and not worry about fouling intentionally to extend the game.
and just after:
"The philosophy is not to foul but you say that with an asterisk,'' D'Antoni said. "Down below 5 seconds and they’re in the 2-point (range) and you can get a good shot at somebody, you do it. But Paul Pierce has the ball and he’s like this (in shooting motion). You can’t foul him. Because he’ll go up. He’s smart enough."Now do you foul him with 10 seconds and you just do everything we just did. If you get it down to eight seconds, maybe. They make theirs (free throws). They foul you immediately. Seven seconds left. You miss one foul shot. They’re coming at you and you’re defending the two.'
Martin, if the software is marginally right 93 pct win vs 90, don't you think that there is credence to the argument of - Depends Who You Are Playing? You can't always follow the statistical model ... Thats why we have a coach - to make real time judgement calls and possibly overrule the Super Comp.
I don't think you let players like KD or PP beat you.
mrKnickShot wrote:martin wrote:BigSm00th wrote:mrKnickShot wrote:here's link:MDA confirms his own stupidity here:
"With 10 seconds to go you have a helluva chance to win. You ask most players, they don’t want to foul. Because you don’t want to be that guy to have to go down (the other end) and make those two foul shots.''
as in, you don't want to be the guy that then gets fouled and has to go to the line up by 1. isn't that the implicit argument in fouling a guy like rondo? you put him on the line down 3 knowing he has to make both to keep the game alive. so the reason as to why you don't foul (because it puts pressure on the player shooting the subsequent free throws) is used as a reason to justify why you don't foul, even though the result (the pressure on the player to make the free throws) remains.
you forgot to post what came exactly before the quote:
According to D'Antoni, he said the stat service the Knicks use confirms his belief and he said most coaches agree with him. D'Antoni said the service has tracked games since 1995 and teams who don't foul with 10 seconds left or less and up three, win roughly 93 percent of the games.Teams who do foul in the same circumstance win 90 percent of the games. D'Antoni said players also prefer to play straight-up defense and not worry about fouling intentionally to extend the game.
and just after:
"The philosophy is not to foul but you say that with an asterisk,'' D'Antoni said. "Down below 5 seconds and they’re in the 2-point (range) and you can get a good shot at somebody, you do it. But Paul Pierce has the ball and he’s like this (in shooting motion). You can’t foul him. Because he’ll go up. He’s smart enough."Now do you foul him with 10 seconds and you just do everything we just did. If you get it down to eight seconds, maybe. They make theirs (free throws). They foul you immediately. Seven seconds left. You miss one foul shot. They’re coming at you and you’re defending the two.'
Martin, if the software is marginally right 93 pct win vs 90, don't you think that there is credence to the argument of - Depends Who You Are Playing? You can't always follow the statistical model ... Thats why we have a coach - to make real time judgement calls and possibly overrule the Super Comp.
I don't think you let players like KD or PP beat you.
I think MDA just said what you did. BTW, the players are on the court, right? They have to step up.
martin wrote:mrKnickShot wrote:martin wrote:BigSm00th wrote:mrKnickShot wrote:here's link:MDA confirms his own stupidity here:
"With 10 seconds to go you have a helluva chance to win. You ask most players, they don’t want to foul. Because you don’t want to be that guy to have to go down (the other end) and make those two foul shots.''
as in, you don't want to be the guy that then gets fouled and has to go to the line up by 1. isn't that the implicit argument in fouling a guy like rondo? you put him on the line down 3 knowing he has to make both to keep the game alive. so the reason as to why you don't foul (because it puts pressure on the player shooting the subsequent free throws) is used as a reason to justify why you don't foul, even though the result (the pressure on the player to make the free throws) remains.
you forgot to post what came exactly before the quote:
According to D'Antoni, he said the stat service the Knicks use confirms his belief and he said most coaches agree with him. D'Antoni said the service has tracked games since 1995 and teams who don't foul with 10 seconds left or less and up three, win roughly 93 percent of the games.Teams who do foul in the same circumstance win 90 percent of the games. D'Antoni said players also prefer to play straight-up defense and not worry about fouling intentionally to extend the game.
and just after:
"The philosophy is not to foul but you say that with an asterisk,'' D'Antoni said. "Down below 5 seconds and they’re in the 2-point (range) and you can get a good shot at somebody, you do it. But Paul Pierce has the ball and he’s like this (in shooting motion). You can’t foul him. Because he’ll go up. He’s smart enough."Now do you foul him with 10 seconds and you just do everything we just did. If you get it down to eight seconds, maybe. They make theirs (free throws). They foul you immediately. Seven seconds left. You miss one foul shot. They’re coming at you and you’re defending the two.'
Martin, if the software is marginally right 93 pct win vs 90, don't you think that there is credence to the argument of - Depends Who You Are Playing? You can't always follow the statistical model ... Thats why we have a coach - to make real time judgement calls and possibly overrule the Super Comp.
I don't think you let players like KD or PP beat you.
I think MDA just said what you did. BTW, the players are on the court, right? They have to step up.
His asterisk is < 5 sec or inside the arc - not really what I am saying. I am saying that base it on the game/team/player/etc ...
Also, the players need to step up but they were told not to foul. on the switch, what should shump have done? Thats how you give up a 4 point play. He could not do anything.
martin wrote:Agreed. last i checked mike d'antoni wasn't playing lol. Pierece was well covered he just made a difficult shotmrKnickShot wrote:martin wrote:BigSm00th wrote:mrKnickShot wrote:here's link:MDA confirms his own stupidity here:
"With 10 seconds to go you have a helluva chance to win. You ask most players, they don’t want to foul. Because you don’t want to be that guy to have to go down (the other end) and make those two foul shots.''
as in, you don't want to be the guy that then gets fouled and has to go to the line up by 1. isn't that the implicit argument in fouling a guy like rondo? you put him on the line down 3 knowing he has to make both to keep the game alive. so the reason as to why you don't foul (because it puts pressure on the player shooting the subsequent free throws) is used as a reason to justify why you don't foul, even though the result (the pressure on the player to make the free throws) remains.
you forgot to post what came exactly before the quote:
According to D'Antoni, he said the stat service the Knicks use confirms his belief and he said most coaches agree with him. D'Antoni said the service has tracked games since 1995 and teams who don't foul with 10 seconds left or less and up three, win roughly 93 percent of the games.Teams who do foul in the same circumstance win 90 percent of the games. D'Antoni said players also prefer to play straight-up defense and not worry about fouling intentionally to extend the game.
and just after:
"The philosophy is not to foul but you say that with an asterisk,'' D'Antoni said. "Down below 5 seconds and they’re in the 2-point (range) and you can get a good shot at somebody, you do it. But Paul Pierce has the ball and he’s like this (in shooting motion). You can’t foul him. Because he’ll go up. He’s smart enough."Now do you foul him with 10 seconds and you just do everything we just did. If you get it down to eight seconds, maybe. They make theirs (free throws). They foul you immediately. Seven seconds left. You miss one foul shot. They’re coming at you and you’re defending the two.'
Martin, if the software is marginally right 93 pct win vs 90, don't you think that there is credence to the argument of - Depends Who You Are Playing? You can't always follow the statistical model ... Thats why we have a coach - to make real time judgement calls and possibly overrule the Super Comp.
I don't think you let players like KD or PP beat you.
I think MDA just said what you did. BTW, the players are on the court, right? They have to step up.