I was so ticket off we didn't foul last night , what say you? I realize coaches vary on the subject but curious as to why?
I remember D'Antoni would never do this either. It used to drive me nuts, but if you look around the league, most coaches do not do it. After a game that went to overtime because the opposing team tied the game on a 3 as regulation ended, when he was still Knicks coach, MDA said that they had the numbers and the percentages wound up being about the same as to which strategy was more effective. I don't know that I believe it, but so many coaches feel this way, I accept it.
I think part of it is mental - instead of giving the opposing team that little mental edge "we know you'll come through if we let you, so we won't let you take the shot" you are saying to them "okay, try and score on us. go for it." It's a little mental thing, I think.
Also, as mentioned in the other thread - you give the guy two FTs. He hits the first. If he tries to intentionally miss the second, you are in a scenario where you have to secure a loose rebound right under their basket and they can tie or kick it out for an open three to WIN.
Or if there are like ten seconds left and they make both and foul you right away, all the sudden there is a lot of pressure to hit both free throws on your guys.
Fouling extends the game and a lot of different things can go wrong. You let a guy shoot a well-defended three and they most likely have a 33% chance of hitting it.
I coach, and while my kids are still very young I have put some thought into this. There are a few depends, but I am in the dont foul school of thought.
I posted this at the end of the game thread:
here is the choice... guard the 3, or guard against the putback on a missed FT. Thats really the choice. You foul you put the guy at the line. If he hits the first and misses the 2nd you are at risk of an easy lay in, tip in or kick out to tie or win the game. So many things can go wrong there. Also by fouling you are literally handing the other team a point and a chance to tie with a loose ball that is around your basket. The Knicks are a good defensive team and defend the 3 very well. I would prefer to defend that as well. Fouling to prevent the 3 is not foolproof.
To add to this thought process as a coach I see this:
If you guard the 3 it takes a player making a great shot to tie. (I can live with that)
If you foul it takes a funny bounce to possibly tie or lose the game. (ouch, especially when I put the team in a position to take advantage of such a bounce)
There is also a message to the players... fouling is over management. Sometimes that might be needed, but you are telling your team that you dont trust them to defend, that you would rather foul, hand the other team a point, and hope like hell they dont get a bounce off the rim that results in a game tying putback, or worse a kickout to a guard as everyone is scrambling for the ball and a loss. we are a good defensive team especially against the 3. KP and Lance the other night need to execute better and not foul... plain and simple. There is no outcoaching bad execution. It just doesnt work that way.
I agree with Fisher (and most coaches) on that play.
crzymdups wrote:I remember D'Antoni would never do this either. It used to drive me nuts, but if you look around the league, most coaches do not do it. After a game that went to overtime because the opposing team tied the game on a 3 as regulation ended, when he was still Knicks coach, MDA said that they had the numbers and the percentages wound up being about the same as to which strategy was more effective. I don't know that I believe it, but so many coaches feel this way, I accept it. I think part of it is mental - instead of giving the opposing team that little mental edge "we know you'll come through if we let you, so we won't let you take the shot" you are saying to them "okay, try and score on us. go for it." It's a little mental thing, I think.
Also, as mentioned in the other thread - you give the guy two FTs. He hits the first. If he tries to intentionally miss the second, you are in a scenario where you have to secure a loose rebound right under their basket and they can tie or kick it out for an open three to WIN.
Or if there are like ten seconds left and they make both and foul you right away, all the sudden there is a lot of pressure to hit both free throws on your guys.
Fouling extends the game and a lot of different things can go wrong. You let a guy shoot a well-defended three and they most likely have a 33% chance of hitting it.
good post... different verbiage same points.
Don't remember the specific game, but I recall that Rivers had his guys foul before a 3 pt shot could be taken on multiple occasions during the final minute(s) of a game. The other team was fouling Rivers' guys, too. Pretty sure that the Clippers made their free throws and won the game.
Seems like we have enough good foul shooters to get away with this kind of trade-off strategy.
Don't see it used much though...so you figure there is a reason that it isn't.
That KP foul is on him...and he would tell you the same if asked. He has enough length to go up straight and alter a shot...just got caught up in the competitive moment. He did this (late foul on a 3)once before earlier in the year, too...no?
helloharv wrote:I was so ticket off we didn't foul last night , what say you? I realize coaches vary on the subject but curious as to why?
Got to love the auto-spell mistakes...
worth its own humorous magazine article, IMO.
i posted some articles in one of the other threads on this ("Fisher has finally gotten it thread). One guy said statistically insignificant (college hoops); another guy ran stats on NBA and said it's wiser to intentionally foul (4x better, i.e., foul before the shot) but he has a big "but" to that analysis
One thing which is not debatable is you don't want to foul in the act. Odds of hitting all three are much better than the other alternatives.
Foul aggressive foul no hesitation grab the guy on the pass.
crzymdups wrote:I remember D'Antoni would never do this either. It used to drive me nuts, but if you look around the league, most coaches do not do it. After a game that went to overtime because the opposing team tied the game on a 3 as regulation ended, when he was still Knicks coach, MDA said that they had the numbers and the percentages wound up being about the same as to which strategy was more effective. I don't know that I believe it, but so many coaches feel this way, I accept it. I think part of it is mental - instead of giving the opposing team that little mental edge "we know you'll come through if we let you, so we won't let you take the shot" you are saying to them "okay, try and score on us. go for it." It's a little mental thing, I think.
Also, as mentioned in the other thread - you give the guy two FTs. He hits the first. If he tries to intentionally miss the second, you are in a scenario where you have to secure a loose rebound right under their basket and they can tie or kick it out for an open three to WIN.
Or if there are like ten seconds left and they make both and foul you right away, all the sudden there is a lot of pressure to hit both free throws on your guys.
Fouling extends the game and a lot of different things can go wrong. You let a guy shoot a well-defended three and they most likely have a 33% chance of hitting it.
I agree about the mental part, and about fishmike's point of the message to the team. good point
on the part about hitting one FT and getting the rebound the article i posted says the odds are extremely low. We probably remember them more vividly because that situation sucks so much
BRIGGS wrote:Foul aggressive foul no hesitation grab the guy on the pass.
actually this is another good point. worse than fouling in the act of shooting is a ticky-tack one where the guy hits the three and gets an AND 1.
Chandler wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Foul aggressive foul no hesitation grab the guy on the pass.
actually this is another good point. worse than fouling in the act of shooting is a ticky-tack one where the guy hits the three and gets an AND 1.
thats another risk though... if you foul they are going to know you are coming at them and thats your ploy, so you have to ask player to foul, make sure they dont get off a desperation chuck, make sure where they are on the floor... much easier to ask your players to simply play good defense which KP did not.
I get both sides, but this is not a cut and dry decision. Either ploy can work and either can fail. Coaches avoid the foul because they can live with a player making a great or tough shot. Its hard to live losing on a loose ball that you put your team in a position for.
fishmike wrote:Chandler wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Foul aggressive foul no hesitation grab the guy on the pass.
actually this is another good point. worse than fouling in the act of shooting is a ticky-tack one where the guy hits the three and gets an AND 1.
thats another risk though... if you foul they are going to know you are coming at them and thats your ploy, so you have to ask player to foul, make sure they dont get off a desperation chuck, make sure where they are on the floor... much easier to ask your players to simply play good defense which KP did not.I get both sides, but this is not a cut and dry decision. Either ploy can work and either can fail. Coaches avoid the foul because they can live with a player making a great or tough shot. Its hard to live losing on a loose ball that you put your team in a position for.
i agree with you; not cut and dry. And i respect your view as a coach and the psychological aspects for team. I think the team needs a consistent approach. And i agree with Clyde that you need to practice it (whatever it is). And the one thing that your approach should avoid is fouling in the act of shooting -- which the Knicks need to address
As a coach you can tell your team you trust their approach to defending; or the flip side is you trust their rebounding and their own FT shooting and your playing the odds. Consistency is key
Don't foul. It seems like a good idea but NBA players are way too quick, and crafty. They'll put up a shot with no problem and if they do, you risk the four point play. I can definitely see this type of strategy biting yourself in the many more times than it wont. Not worth the risk.
Allanfan20 wrote:Don't foul. It seems like a good idea but NBA players are way too quick, and crafty. They'll put up a shot with no problem and if they do, you risk the four point play. I can definitely see this type of strategy biting yourself in the many more times than it wont. Not worth the risk.
Agree. Easier said than done fouling a guy and ensuring he cannot get the shot off. You can foul on the pass - but that might serve just to be a game extender.
You shouldn't foul. Need to trust in your defense. If you foul, a lot of things can go wrong. If you play great defense and they hit a tough shot, you can live with that. You can't live with handing them free shots at the line (with the clock stopped) and having one of many things go wrong.
Chandler wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Foul aggressive foul no hesitation grab the guy on the pass.
actually this is another good point. worse than fouling in the act of shooting is a ticky-tack one where the guy hits the three and gets an AND 1.
Nope its a play--if you aggressively grab an offensive player on the catch no way can he make a movement that would constitute a shot. Anything under 10 seconds this should be automatic. Its time and again NBA players make shots with time on the clock--its like they become more focused. Id rather get into a FT game and run the clock out.
helloharv wrote:I was so ticket off we didn't foul last night , what say you? I realize coaches vary on the subject but curious as to why?
you do like mr. frazier says which is foul him before he shoots. then he has to make two shots, they're forced to foul, and then we take two shots. we are a top-rated free throw shooting team.
dk7th wrote:helloharv wrote:I was so ticket off we didn't foul last night , what say you? I realize coaches vary on the subject but curious as to why?
you do like mr. frazier says which is foul him before he shoots. then he has to make two shots, they're forced to foul, and then we take two shots. we are a top-rated free throw shooting team.
before we get to take those two shots we need to successfully inbound the ball. We also need to get the rebound when the 2nd shot misses. We also need to hit both FTs. All points of failure. Defending one shot is easier and safer.
If we're the top ranked free throw % team in the NBA, you play to your strengths. SO foul obviously, duh. No team should beat us at the free throw game if it comes to that.
Also, if the other team missed a free throw on purpose to try a tip in or tip out and you have 2 7 Footers back there rebounding, and don't end up with a defensive rebound, you deserve to lose. Simple and plain.
BRIGGS wrote:Chandler wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Foul aggressive foul no hesitation grab the guy on the pass.
actually this is another good point. worse than fouling in the act of shooting is a ticky-tack one where the guy hits the three and gets an AND 1.
Nope its a play--if you aggressively grab an offensive player on the catch no way can he make a movement that would constitute a shot. Anything under 10 seconds this should be automatic. Its time and again NBA players make shots with time on the clock--its like they become more focused. Id rather get into a FT game and run the clock out.
i agree with you that you need to foul and do so in a way so he doesn't get the shot off, and so that's it's not in the act (that's the most important). i respect the view that you play good D and make them hit the shot; that's not what i would do though.
Not sure i understand your point about time on the clock and focus: the statistics seem to indicate that as time winds down the shooting percentage plummets. one of the articles i posted said 20% fg% when something like 10 seconds or less. It might be a psychological phenomenon that we remember those hit shots more strongly and thus we think they occur more frequently than they actually do.
what I find a little interesting is that a lot of members on this forum seem to like advanced stats, e.g., take more threes, don't take midrange etc. TS% etc, but then don't seem to be stat-driven on this key issue of how to end a game. Not saying they're necessarily wrong but it is interesting that they don't seem to demand stats for this key piece of strategy
Lastly, for the record, i did google to see if i could find what the spurs, warriors etc. do and skunked out. I watch a lot of celtics games (and though i hate them as a team i do respect them because they're smart and win) and they definitely play the FT game at the end that you suggest.
Knixkik wrote:You shouldn't foul. Need to trust in your defense. If you foul, a lot of things can go wrong. If you play great defense and they hit a tough shot, you can live with that. You can't live with handing them free shots at the line (with the clock stopped) and having one of many things go wrong.
but you realize we're talking about two shot foul when they're three points behind. We're not advocating fouling in the act
