Staff Blog
Morning Rounds, January 8th
Last night the Sixers were up three with under ten seconds
left on the game clock, a situation where damn near everyone who pays attention to basketball knows the right move to make.
Problem is, everyone vehemently disagrees as to exactly what that right move
is.
Half the people in the world know the obvious decision is to foul
quickly. If you put your opponent on the free throw line you prevent them
from having a chance at a fluky three pointer. Two points is fine, the logic
goes, but you can’t score three at the line – all that would need to happen for you to lose,
namely an intentionally missed freebie, an offensive rebound and a putback – is
just too hard to get. Foul quick and the game is over, why even
open yourself up to the chance of a lucky three? Even the worst of
shooter can hit one, while the best shooter in the world can’t score
that many points at the line.
This argument drives me crazy, partially because most of the
people I know who actually pay attention to basketball take it, but mostly because it’s wrong.
I’ll leave aside my moral problems with the late foul (or … I’ll get to them really quick: if
you can’t stop a team from making one three that you know they have to take for
five seconds you don’t deserve to win) and instead focus only on what could
happen on the floor.
The quick-foul strategy is predicated on the assumption that
nothing bad can happen in between the time you decide to foul and the time the
foul is committed. The thought is that if you
decide to put the opponent on the line, then the opponent is on the line. That’s
not true. A savvy player can get a shot up as they’re getting fouled and sent
to the line for three tries. A player with an NBA-quick release can get a shot
up anyway – they’re too good to mess around with. Still, beyond that there is a
the problem that the minute you decide to foul suddenly you’re putting your
players in a situation that they’ve never been in before. Basketball players
are trained to play basketball, telling them ‘foul’ is new. Lets say the defensive team is told to put the first player who touches the ball out of the inbounds on the line. Well, play that out: an opposing PG gets the ball near the top of the key
several feet away from his off-guard. Both defenders, who have now been told to
foul, attempt to foul the guy with the ball. If he’s quick, he see them coming and swing
them to the shooting guard who is now left uncovered for the three you’re
trying to prevent. Maybe it is even
easier than that: maybe the inbounds goes to a big man, the defense collapses,
and he’s got his choice of shooter who are now foolishly left open. It’s not
hard to keep coming up with these scenarios … if you take an basketball player
out of their comfort zone you don’t know what is going to happen. Maybe it’s effective, but its also new. The next coach to practice last second fouling is going to the first.
To make matters worse, even if you do successfully foul the
possibility of a missed-second FT and an tip-in remains open. A shooter trying
to miss can, and can generally give their team some sort of an idea where the
ball is headed (i.e. miss short, miss long). Fouling is supposed to cut down on
the possibility that something absurd happens. It seems to me that it would
only increase it.
One game isn’t going to prove anything either way, but for
the sake of making this discussion relevant last night the Sixers opted to not
foul and play D. They won, 110-105.
 |
“It’s a regional cover. Everybody’s dangerous.” – Donovan McNabb on the SI cover
Three lines on their world:
- Tonight Florida and Oklahoma square off for the BCS championship
- To the delight of all, the Celtics continue to suck
- In a shocker to no one, Pacman Jones is back in trouble, and back out of the league.
Three lines on ours:
- Brian Westbrook will not practice but is scheduled to play on Sunday
- The Sixers won both halves of the dreaded back-to-back
- and McNabb got off a couple of good one-liners
Phillies, Birds, Sixers, Flyers and what everybody is talking about after the jump
EAGLES
READ
Bob Ford predicts that Sunday is going to be won or lost on the ground. For once.
Rich Hofmann paints Brandon Jacobs as a very large, very excited man. He’ll put one on the ground this weekend, you watch.
Rich Hofmann wonders if winning has changed Eli Manning, or just the public perception of him.
SKIP
John Smallwood reports that Donovan McNabb spent his presser deflecting questions.
Mike Jensen talks with Brian Baldinger about the Giants’ running attack.
Looking at the Giants’ run game, Ray Parrillo says that Brandon Jacobs is both healthy and hyped up.
Oh dear god, it’s the Phillies’ playoff run again. Elizabeth Wellington writes about fans growing beards. Ugh
Marcus Hayes talks with Michael Strahan about Donovan McNabb and his turnaround.
Les Bowen says the real comparison between the 2007 Giants and the 08 Birds should be how well the teams responded to injury.
Ed Barkowitz on the tweaks the Birds are still making to their roster. How’d you like to get cut now?
Joe Juliano talks with Victor Abiamiri, who is hype to get back on the field.
Les Bowen’s notes focus on Abiamiri’s return, some minor roster moves, and more.
Joe Juliano’s notes look at Shawn Andrews‘ return to practice, and more.
Reuben Frank on just how remarkable McNabb’s turnaround has been.
PHILLIES
READ
Jim Salisbury reports on the nine minor leaguers the Phillies invited to camp.
SKIP
John Gonzalez, Phil Sheridan, and Bob Ford talk about themselves.
Dan Gross says Jimmy Rollins is a stand-up guy and tells a story of doing a favor for a highschooler trying to get Birds tickets.
Marcia Gelbart on the money the Phillies’ championship run brought into the city.
SIXERS
READ
SKIP
Phil Jasner says the Sixers are focused on getting up more threes.
Kate Fagan says the Sixers are focused on getting up more threes.
FLYERS
READ
Ed Klajman on Eric Tangradi, a philly boy making good in Canada.
SKIP
Sam Carchidi’s notes say the Flyers are staying level, looks at the All Star ballots, and more.
Ed Moran catches you up on the injuries.
TODAY and MORE
It’s the Orange Bowl, so we’ll be waiting on the inevitable Florida blowout win. A couple of planned posts this morning but an afternoon that should be relatively light.
As always, feel free
to email
with any questions, suggestions, comments or complaints. It’s not a bad day to get a plug in.
It’s always amusing how long it takes to make the “anti-fouling” argument. It’s such an absurd argument to make that it takes forever to get thru. It boils down to: a decent NBA shooter will make about 35% of his 3s, and might be even more likely to make it in the final seconds when he knows the defender will NOT try to block the shot and risk a shooting foul. So are you gonna tell me that all the scenarios you just drew up total a 35% chance of backfiring? Even if they make the 1st FT and miss the 2nd (odds of this are slim) AND get the put-back (even slimmer), it still only ties the game, which is the same thing as allowing a 3. Plus, defenders intentionally foul all the time when they’re losing at the ends of games, so it can’t be that foreign. And 35% also happens to be the odds that a 70% foul-shooter makes all 3 of his FTs if it comes to that.
This is all moot for last night anyway, since the Bucks got the ball with 11 seconds, which — even for fouling proponents like me — is way too much time to foul, since each team is still gonna get another possession. Gotta be closer to 5 seconds to be worth it.
(Note: don’t bring the “well it worked last night” argument. How many times in the Larry Brown/Mo Cheeks eras did we lose games giving up a tying 3 in the last few seconds b/c neither guy believes in fouling? Kansas-Memphis last year? Now find me an example of when a team fouled and lost because of it. I can think of 2 when a team fouled and the guy started to shoot: an Oklahoma St. game my sophomore yr of college and a random NBA game last year. In both cases, the guy missed one of his FTs anyway and his team still lost.)