Just thinking back to the Celtics - and one thing that has to be going through their minds is how the cute Hack-a-Mitch strategy backfired and ultimately is a big strategic blunder that cost them wins in game 1 and game 2. All I can say is thank you Boston!
I think the fascinating thing is that the Hack a Mitch strategy technically works under the lens of a single play.
The Celtics and Knicks were #1 and #2 for points per possession in the league this season (who knew!):
Celtics 1.21
Knicks 1.18
So the logic is that if you foul Mitch, and he's a 50% FT shooter, as long as you deny the offensive rebound, the points for that possession will be limited to 1.0 point.
Where it gets interesting is Mitch's free throw percentage numbers. Mitch actually had quite a career mark for the regular season, shooting 68%+ in a limited # of games.
2024-2025 Season: .684
Career Season: .522
Mitch's FT% has taken a dip so far in the playoffs, but it's also outperforming his career #.
2025 Playoffs: .452
Career Playoffs: .391
Hack-a-Mitch results in a possession worth .904 points for the Knicks. That's better for opponents than the Knicks normal (1.18)... and certainly better than if the Knicks were to hit a 3pt shot. (3.0). So if you can make the Knicks less effective from a points per possession standpoint, that sounds good on paper... plus if you could nudge the Knicks to take him out of the game, it also makes the Celtics offense better by removing one of the top defensive forces in the league.
But there are obvious downsides to fouling away from the ball:
* stops the clock
* takes away from offensive flow (The C's tended to hack a Mitch when their offense was flowing; the frequent stoppages interrupted the free flowing game)
* team level: adds to their foul count and eventually puts them in the penalty (for ANY player toward the tail end of the game)
* player level: puts a little foul pressure if any of their main guys takes a foul. A cheapie hack a Mitch foul + a few normal flow of the fouls sets up personal foul trouble, impact the intensity of their defense for the remainder of the game, particularly late.
Reducing the # of fouls to give in the last 2 minutes is HUGE. We had a foul to give and disrupted what could have been a game winning drive or shot... forcing the intercepted pass on the final possession. Or in game 2, if they had a foul to give, Brunson wouldn't have been shooting his game winning free throws.
I think the takeaway is that opponents should employ this strategy at their own peril. Giving opponents free points is a bit of a dangerous way to play. Maybe if you're up 3 with 30 seconds left in the game, you could afford to do this - basically targeting Robinson as the guy to foul in a normal "free throw" trade (a lot like how OKC lost game 1 vs Denver!). I can see how Thibs really dislikes these types of intentional fouls - he prefers putting faith in his defense in getting a stop and a rebound when at all possible and going for 0 points for that possession.
