It's one of my favorite times of the year ... NCAA basketball tournament time. It means games all the time (especially since I follow the men's and women's tourneys, which means I don't sleep for an entire month) wild finishes, upsets ...
... and wondering if anyone has any idea of what to do at the end of games.
For example, today, I caught the end of the Big 10 women's final between Purdue and Nebraska. With roughly 30 seconds in the second overtime, Purdue was up 71-70 and taking the ball out of bounds, I believe after a Nebraska basket. They inbounded the ball ... and passed it around ... and dribbled ... and dribbled some more. Finally, with about 16 seconds left, someone from Nebraska finally fouled.
Remember, this was in a one-point game. Unless Purdue got an offensive rebound on a missed free throw or for some reason took and hit a three-pointer, Nebraska was going to get the ball back in a one-possession game, but by not fouling, they gave themselves less time for that possession, and eventually threw up a three under pressure with eight seconds left.
It landed about six feet short in the hands of a Purdue player.
Ballgame.
There are other things I see all the time that drive me to ... dare I say ... madness. (Given the time of year and the fact that I watch it the most, this refers primarily to college ball, but I'm sure some applies to the NBA.)
Pointless fouls -- There are times when, unless the foul is someone's fifth, where fouling has absolutely no consequence, and that's when a team has fewer than six fouls ... or "fouls to give."
If a team is leading and the opposition is trying to set up a last shot, teams with fouls to give will often give them to run a little time off the clock and force their opponents to run another play. If a team is losing, they give fouls to get to seven so the free throws can start.
What I don't understand is that so often, the team will give a vanilla, garden-variety foul. Why not run through the opposing player to steal the inbounds pass? Why not grab the ball and pull for all its worth? The best-case scenario is that the ref forgets what the whistle is for. The worst-case is that they give up a foul they were going to give up, anyway.
It's all reward, and no risk.
Letting one bad thing happen instead of four -- Remember this? I bet John Calipari does.
That, of course, is Mario Chalmers' three-pointer to send the 2008 Kansas-Memphis final into overtime, which Kansas won.
But it didn't have to happen, if Memphis had fouled before Chalmers could get the shot off.
By fouling with a three-point lead and, let's say, less than five seconds left, these are the things that happen for the leading team to lose that lead:
1. Making the first free throw.
2. Intentionally missing the second free throw while still hitting the rim, which can be harder than it seems. (I've seen them go in more than once.)
3. The shooting team getting the rebound from the outside position.
4. Scoring, usually in a scramble, as time is running out.
That's four things, instead of one shot going in. My semi-educated guess is that more coaches don't encourage fouls in this situation because if it doesn't work out, it means some uncomfortable questions in the post-game press conference. There's less second-guessing if a coach can say what Calipari said ...
"Ten seconds to go, we're thinking we're national champs, all of a sudden a kid makes a shot, and we're not."
Waiting too long to take the wrong shot -- This is actually in two parts, but they're both related.
The first is that teams don't follow the sage advice of my first basketball coach, who said that when looking for the last shot, take it with seven seconds left, so there's time for an offensive rebound. Instead, they dribble, dribble, dribble before chucking up a contested shot as time runs out.
And too often, that shot is a three-pointer.
If a team is down three points, obviously, it has to take a three at some point. If it's down two, there's a choice to make of going for the win or tie. But if they're down one or tied, they don't need a three, but take it all the time, anyway.
Why? I'm guessing it's because everyone wants the walk-off, SportsCenter, Austin Rivers highlight (although to be fair, Duke was down two, so they had the tie/win choice) that a short-jumper just won't provide.
The dumbest play in basketball --If you're watching a game with me, hide the sharp objects if this happens ...
... Team down by four, under 30 seconds ... has the ball ... announcer says, "They don't need to go for a three here" ... team shoots a layup.
Until the rules-makers add a four-point shot (which I think should be called the Antoine Walker Rule), a four-point lead is two possessions. And if teams trade two-point baskets for two free throws, it will stay two possessions until the end of the game.
Going for two requires the team with the lead to miss a free throw for it to work. Going for three and making it means that the likely worst-case scenario is having the last shot with a three-point deficit, and that's only if the opposing team makes both its free throws. Sure, a team can shoot itself out of the game by missing threes, but even if the team misses a three and the team with the lead makes both free throws, it's a six-point game, meaning it's still two possessions.
Yes, it's two harder possessions, since it requires two threes, but it's still two possessions. The risk-reward ratio is tilted in favor of going for three.
Also, and I admit I never thought of this before recently ... depending on the shooters, the three-pointer might be a higher-percentage play. Let's say the percentage for a generic decent three-point shooter is 33 percent and a generic decent free-throw shooter will shoot 70 percent. That 70 percent means missing 30 percent, so there is a greater chance of making a three than missing either of two free throws.
Granted, teams generally make more than 70 percent of their layups, but a 70 percent free-throw shooter still doesn't leave a lot of chance for missing a shot. Now, if a team can make sure Andre Drummond of UConn is shooting the freebies, by all means, go for two.
I guarantee each of these will come up, likely multiple times, over the next few weeks.
No comments:
Post a Comment