|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
C M B
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 19866
Location: Prarie & Manchester, high above the western sideline
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | We were down by 2 with the final possession. Wouldn't make sense to go for a quick score and give them a shot at the game winner.
Anyway, good game. BS didn't go with the conventional foul in this situation but probably wouldn't have made a difference. |
You wouldn't wait until the buzzer....what if you missed, you'd want time to go for a rebound, or to foul again if necessary. |
Why some people don't get this is beyond me.....you extend the game as much as possible when you're down. Period. |
I disagree.
I'm willing to bet that the conventional strategy being down by 2 with the last possession is to take the shot at the buzzer rather than giving the other team another chance if you make the shot. I think math would agree with this logic. |
Then you'd lose the bet. Conventional wisdom says that you give yourself as many chances to tie or win the game when you're down. You go with a quick shot in case of a miss for either a rebound or a foul. Math is not needed to tell me that this would be the logical move. |
Conventional wisdom according to who?
|
Conventional wisdom who knows anything about the game of basketball. |
Ok, well I'd be interested in the opinions of others in the know. I normally do not close a case based on one person's opinion no matter how wise he thinks he is.
My "conventional wisdom" suggests that the shot be taken at the wire, supported by mathematical logic. |
Your conventional wisdom is neither conventional nor wisdom. 100 times out of 100 you foul ASAP. You've been learnt.
_________________
http://chickhearn.ytmnd.com/ 
| Sister Golden Hair wrote: | LAMAR ODOM is an anagram for ... DOOM ALARM
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lostology
Starting Rotation
Joined: 16 Jul 2014
Posts: 285
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:40 pm Post subject: Re: Not supprised at all. BS wants to keep Lakers tanking! |
|
|
| jjsr2 wrote: | | mantlehog wrote: |
It's shocking and sad how clueless Scott is. |
|
Maybe Scott is a genius and discovered a new strategy that years and years of basketball and coaches have not discovered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
13th Man
Star Player
Joined: 10 Sep 2014
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I stand by my statement that being down by 2 that the last shot should be taken close to the buzzer and not leaving the other team ample time for the game winning shot if you happen to tie or even take the lead with a 3 pointer.
I cannot prove it right now but I will keep a close eye from hereon out on what other coaches do as I'm sure this situation is not too uncommon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mantlehog
Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 314
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 13th Man wrote: | | mantlehog wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | We were down by 2 with the final possession. Wouldn't make sense to go for a quick score and give them a shot at the game winner.
Anyway, good game. BS didn't go with the conventional foul in this situation but probably wouldn't have made a difference. |
You wouldn't wait until the buzzer....what if you missed, you'd want time to go for a rebound, or to foul again if necessary. |
Why some people don't get this is beyond me.....you extend the game as much as possible when you're down. Period. |
I disagree.
I'm willing to bet that the conventional strategy being down by 2 with the last possession is to take the shot at the buzzer rather than giving the other team another chance if you make the shot. I think math would agree with this logic. |
Then you'd lose the bet. Conventional wisdom says that you give yourself as many chances to tie or win the game when you're down. You go with a quick shot in case of a miss for either a rebound or a foul. Math is not needed to tell me that this would be the logical move. |
Conventional wisdom according to who?
|
Conventional wisdom who knows anything about the game of basketball. |
Ok, well I'd be interested in the opinions of others in the know. I normally do not close a case based on one person's opinion no matter how wise he thinks he is.
My "conventional wisdom" suggests that the shot be taken at the wire, supported by mathematical logic. |
I coach middle school boys basketball and we have been in that situation countless times. We ALWAYS foul to extend the game. The middle school and high school coaches attend coaching clinics given by Mike K. Every summer and this is the gold standard for late game strategy. In fact, there is no other strategy. You ALWAYS extend the game when you are losing!! |
I am not convinced that you are differentiating properly between being down by 2 points, 3 points or down by more as there is a huge difference between each scenario.
The fact that you make a blanket statement of saying always extend the game when you are losing leads me to believe that you lump this same strategy whether you are losing by 1, 2, or X points. I'm sorry but I cannot agree to this logic. |
It's a blanket statement because it's a fact. When you are losing, regardless of deficit, you always want as much time as possible to tie the game or take the lead. It's about maximizing your opportunities when you are behind with only 25 seconds to go. If there had been 40 seconds left, then you don't foul and play defense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
13th Man
Star Player
Joined: 10 Sep 2014
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| C M B wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | We were down by 2 with the final possession. Wouldn't make sense to go for a quick score and give them a shot at the game winner.
Anyway, good game. BS didn't go with the conventional foul in this situation but probably wouldn't have made a difference. |
You wouldn't wait until the buzzer....what if you missed, you'd want time to go for a rebound, or to foul again if necessary. |
Why some people don't get this is beyond me.....you extend the game as much as possible when you're down. Period. |
I disagree.
I'm willing to bet that the conventional strategy being down by 2 with the last possession is to take the shot at the buzzer rather than giving the other team another chance if you make the shot. I think math would agree with this logic. |
Then you'd lose the bet. Conventional wisdom says that you give yourself as many chances to tie or win the game when you're down. You go with a quick shot in case of a miss for either a rebound or a foul. Math is not needed to tell me that this would be the logical move. |
Conventional wisdom according to who?
|
Conventional wisdom who knows anything about the game of basketball. |
Ok, well I'd be interested in the opinions of others in the know. I normally do not close a case based on one person's opinion no matter how wise he thinks he is.
My "conventional wisdom" suggests that the shot be taken at the wire, supported by mathematical logic. |
Your conventional wisdom is neither conventional nor wisdom. 100 times out of 100 you foul ASAP. You've been learnt. |
You're not even following the logic properly and I'm not sure if others are either. We are not debating whether you foul quick or late.
We are discussing what would you do if you had the ball with last possession being down by 2 points.
Do you go for a quick basket or do you wind the clock down to take the last shot close to the buzzer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
golden armor
Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 845
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:44 pm Post subject: Re: Not supprised at all. BS wants to keep Lakers tanking! |
|
|
| Lostology wrote: | | jjsr2 wrote: | | mantlehog wrote: |
It's shocking and sad how clueless Scott is. |
|
Maybe Scott is a genius and discovered a new strategy that years and years of basketball and coaches have not discovered. |
Good point. Maybe he is like the Sacto owner who wants to play 4 v. 5 on defense with a guy cherry picking. Maybe every coach in all levels of basketball have been wrong and BS and the Sacto owner are right. It is possible I suppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Misaeng
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Seriously, why are we arguing about fouling earlier or later? The question should be why aren't we pressing and trapping with 25 seconds left and down by 1? If we're going to foul anyway shouldn't we make the effort and take the gamble? What's the worst thing that can happen? We foul and they make 2? They break the trap and make 2? Either way we are going to have to foul so why not take the gamble and pressure the ball handler and trap him? Either way we are giving up potential 2 points in free throws so why not? Stop the argument about taking the last shot or not because it doesn't matter. We simply didn't give ourselves a chance to win this game. So freaking pissed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Honeybadger81
Star Player
Joined: 25 Oct 2014
Posts: 1253
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 13th Man wrote: | | C M B wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | We were down by 2 with the final possession. Wouldn't make sense to go for a quick score and give them a shot at the game winner.
Anyway, good game. BS didn't go with the conventional foul in this situation but probably wouldn't have made a difference. |
You wouldn't wait until the buzzer....what if you missed, you'd want time to go for a rebound, or to foul again if necessary. |
Why some people don't get this is beyond me.....you extend the game as much as possible when you're down. Period. |
I disagree.
I'm willing to bet that the conventional strategy being down by 2 with the last possession is to take the shot at the buzzer rather than giving the other team another chance if you make the shot. I think math would agree with this logic. |
Then you'd lose the bet. Conventional wisdom says that you give yourself as many chances to tie or win the game when you're down. You go with a quick shot in case of a miss for either a rebound or a foul. Math is not needed to tell me that this would be the logical move. |
Conventional wisdom according to who?
|
Conventional wisdom who knows anything about the game of basketball. |
Ok, well I'd be interested in the opinions of others in the know. I normally do not close a case based on one person's opinion no matter how wise he thinks he is.
My "conventional wisdom" suggests that the shot be taken at the wire, supported by mathematical logic. |
Your conventional wisdom is neither conventional nor wisdom. 100 times out of 100 you foul ASAP. You've been learnt. |
You're not even following the logic properly and I'm not sure if others are either. We are not debating whether you foul quick or late.
We are discussing what would you do if you had the ball with last possession being down by 2 points.
Do you go for a quick basket or do you wind the clock down to take the last shot close to the buzzer? |
you are arguing for the sake of arguing... you are wrong, bro... give it a rest... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lostology
Starting Rotation
Joined: 16 Jul 2014
Posts: 285
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | option_nerd wrote: | | jormungand wrote: | Interesting how some posters immediately assumed the worst about Lin regarding that non-foul, and others reserved judgement until BS or Lin had a chance to explain.
Anyways, this may belong in the X's and O's thread, but I have a question about pick 'n rolls. When you get picked off by a big, how're you supposed to defend that?
Everytime Lin got picked off, if he goes under, the big runs to the rim, essentially creating a moving pick. If he follows, the pg steps around their big and shoots. It worked on Lin over and over, to the point where the Memphis broadcasters mentioned their pg's were having their way with Lin. |
i know, right? because of this, most think Lin can't defend. how can you defend the PNR if executed perfectly like the Grizzlies? it is like running into wall to wall. |
P&R defense is a team effort. |
The only one I see playing good PnR defense is Davis. Davis is away from the guy he is defending and trying to stop the guard from driving to the basket. He does this to let the Lin/Price have time to recover. But if you watch the other Laker bigs they are too close to their man or pretend they are hedging but they just lazily stick out their arm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TDRock
Retired Number
Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 49189
Location: LA to the Bay
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 13th Man wrote: | | C M B wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | We were down by 2 with the final possession. Wouldn't make sense to go for a quick score and give them a shot at the game winner.
Anyway, good game. BS didn't go with the conventional foul in this situation but probably wouldn't have made a difference. |
You wouldn't wait until the buzzer....what if you missed, you'd want time to go for a rebound, or to foul again if necessary. |
Why some people don't get this is beyond me.....you extend the game as much as possible when you're down. Period. |
I disagree.
I'm willing to bet that the conventional strategy being down by 2 with the last possession is to take the shot at the buzzer rather than giving the other team another chance if you make the shot. I think math would agree with this logic. |
Then you'd lose the bet. Conventional wisdom says that you give yourself as many chances to tie or win the game when you're down. You go with a quick shot in case of a miss for either a rebound or a foul. Math is not needed to tell me that this would be the logical move. |
Conventional wisdom according to who?
|
Conventional wisdom who knows anything about the game of basketball. |
Ok, well I'd be interested in the opinions of others in the know. I normally do not close a case based on one person's opinion no matter how wise he thinks he is.
My "conventional wisdom" suggests that the shot be taken at the wire, supported by mathematical logic. |
Your conventional wisdom is neither conventional nor wisdom. 100 times out of 100 you foul ASAP. You've been learnt. |
You're not even following the logic properly and I'm not sure if others are either. We are not debating whether you foul quick or late.
We are discussing what would you do if you had the ball with last possession being down by 2 points.
Do you go for a quick basket or do you wind the clock down to take the last shot close to the buzzer? |
Well in this case the issue was "to foul or not to foul" and people keep saying why they would have fouled early. Of you disagree, disagree but don't try to make it into something else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mantlehog
Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 314
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| golden armor wrote: | | mantlehog wrote: | | Renmei wrote: | "He later added: "I’m also looking at my timeouts, how many I have left. Can I save a few of those timeouts? With 20 seconds you foul, we go down, we score – or we miss – then we’ve got to go down again, call another timeout to get another play down. So I try to weigh all those things. I was down to my last two timeouts."
In other words, if the Lakers had fouled Conley earlier in the possession, Scott thought they might get caught up in a situation where they would have to foul on multiple possessions, drying up his cache of timeouts and putting the Lakers at a disadvantage."
How legit is this argument? |
It's one of the most illogical things I've ever heard a coach utter. The only thing that mattered when Kobe hit the three was to steal or foul as quickly as possible to regain ball possession. You were losing the game while letting valuable seconds tick away. Stunning. |
It is stunning how stupid this is. You want to lessen the number of possessions that your team can get because you might not have enough timeouts to advance the ball? Incredible. So he would have rather had 2 possessions making sure he can advance the ball, rather than 3 or 4 because he wouldn't be able to advance it with timeouts on the last 1 or 2? Amazing. |
It really is amazing. I have been silent on Scott, but he is truly an imbecile of a coach. This is as basic as it gets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lostology
Starting Rotation
Joined: 16 Jul 2014
Posts: 285
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Misaeng wrote: | | Seriously, why are we arguing about fouling earlier or later? The question should be why aren't we pressing and trapping with 25 seconds left and down by 1? If we're going to foul anyway shouldn't we make the effort and take the gamble? What's the worst thing that can happen? We foul and they make 2? They break the trap and make 2? Either way we are going to have to foul so why not take the gamble and pressure the ball handler and trap him? Either way we are giving up potential 2 points in free throws so why not? Stop the argument about taking the last shot or not because it doesn't matter. We simply didn't give ourselves a chance to win this game. So freaking pissed. |
I'm glad someone else sees this. In all my post with this argument I have mentioned you play trap pressure defense and create chaos to cause a turnover. If you cannot get the steal or cause a turnover you go for the foul right away. You keep doing this until you take the lead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charisma
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Aug 2014
Posts: 703
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:51 pm Post subject: Re: Not supprised at all. BS wants to keep Lakers tanking! |
|
|
| golden armor wrote: | | Lostology wrote: | | jjsr2 wrote: | | mantlehog wrote: |
It's shocking and sad how clueless Scott is. |
|
Maybe Scott is a genius and discovered a new strategy that years and years of basketball and coaches have not discovered. |
Good point. Maybe he is like the Sacto owner who wants to play 4 v. 5 on defense with a guy cherry picking. Maybe every coach in all levels of basketball have been wrong and BS and the Sacto owner are right. It is possible I suppose. |
BS always thinks outside the box. Like preferring long 2s to 3s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mantlehog
Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 314
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:55 pm Post subject: Re: Not supprised at all. BS wants to keep Lakers tanking! |
|
|
| Charisma wrote: | | golden armor wrote: | | Lostology wrote: | | jjsr2 wrote: | | mantlehog wrote: |
It's shocking and sad how clueless Scott is. |
|
Maybe Scott is a genius and discovered a new strategy that years and years of basketball and coaches have not discovered. |
Good point. Maybe he is like the Sacto owner who wants to play 4 v. 5 on defense with a guy cherry picking. Maybe every coach in all levels of basketball have been wrong and BS and the Sacto owner are right. It is possible I suppose. |
BS always thinks outside the box. Like preferring long 2s to 3s. |
It's stuff like this that leads to team mutinies. Players need to believe their coach is putting them in the best position to win the game. Does anyone honestly believe that Byron does this or that our players believe he does? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mantlehog
Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 314
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good news, bad news time...
Bad news...my iPad is almost out of charge.
Good news...my iPad is almost out of charge! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
13th Man
Star Player
Joined: 10 Sep 2014
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mantlehog wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | mantlehog wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | We were down by 2 with the final possession. Wouldn't make sense to go for a quick score and give them a shot at the game winner.
Anyway, good game. BS didn't go with the conventional foul in this situation but probably wouldn't have made a difference. |
You wouldn't wait until the buzzer....what if you missed, you'd want time to go for a rebound, or to foul again if necessary. |
Why some people don't get this is beyond me.....you extend the game as much as possible when you're down. Period. |
I disagree.
I'm willing to bet that the conventional strategy being down by 2 with the last possession is to take the shot at the buzzer rather than giving the other team another chance if you make the shot. I think math would agree with this logic. |
Then you'd lose the bet. Conventional wisdom says that you give yourself as many chances to tie or win the game when you're down. You go with a quick shot in case of a miss for either a rebound or a foul. Math is not needed to tell me that this would be the logical move. |
Conventional wisdom according to who?
|
Conventional wisdom who knows anything about the game of basketball. |
Ok, well I'd be interested in the opinions of others in the know. I normally do not close a case based on one person's opinion no matter how wise he thinks he is.
My "conventional wisdom" suggests that the shot be taken at the wire, supported by mathematical logic. |
I coach middle school boys basketball and we have been in that situation countless times. We ALWAYS foul to extend the game. The middle school and high school coaches attend coaching clinics given by Mike K. Every summer and this is the gold standard for late game strategy. In fact, there is no other strategy. You ALWAYS extend the game when you are losing!! |
I am not convinced that you are differentiating properly between being down by 2 points, 3 points or down by more as there is a huge difference between each scenario.
The fact that you make a blanket statement of saying always extend the game when you are losing leads me to believe that you lump this same strategy whether you are losing by 1, 2, or X points. I'm sorry but I cannot agree to this logic. |
It's a blanket statement because it's a fact. When you are losing, regardless of deficit, you always want as much time as possible to tie the game or take the lead. It's about maximizing your opportunities when you are behind with only 25 seconds to go. If there had been 40 seconds left, then you don't foul and play defense. |
This doesn't make any sense I'm sorry. It DOES MATTER how many points you are down by as the situation changes drastically.
Here is what you said originally:
Conventional wisdom says that you give yourself as many chances to tie or win the game when you're down. You go with a quick shot in case of a miss for either a rebound or a foul. Math is not needed to tell me that this would be the logical move
Let me ask you this. If you were down by 1 point and had last possession, you would rather get off a quick shot and let the other team have a chance at winning? Let me break the basic math down to you.
If you wait until the buzzer you have a 50% chance of winning the game (let's say that it's 50/50, which it's probably a bit more realistically).
Now if you decide to shoot early as you suggested, If you miss the shot, you're still down by one and now have to foul just to be down by 2 or 3.
Even If you take a quick shot and make it, now you give the other team a 50% to beat you. Why would you want to lower your chances of winning to 25% from 50%?
If your logic was correct, teams that are down by 1 would be rushing to score back and forth in the final seconds, that's just silly and never happens in real life.
Down by 2 for that matter as well.
If you are down by 3 or 4 points or more then you'd want to extend the game as get as many chances as possible as you've suggested. Not down by 1 or 2.
There's a huge difference and supported by mathematical logic as I've stated all along.
Still waiting for a reputable coach to advise on what they'd do down by 2 points with last possession.
The fact that you think being down by 1, 2, 3 or 4 should employ the same strategy is mindboggling to me.
Last edited by 13th Man on Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:04 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sydneykb
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 295
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cmon guys. Stop hating or blaming certain players or Coach Scott for the loss. Heck even a great coach Popvich had brain fart moments in the NBA Finals. Just let it go and enjoy your life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
13th Man
Star Player
Joined: 10 Sep 2014
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TDRock wrote: |
Well in this case the issue was "to foul or not to foul" and people keep saying why they would have fouled early. Of you disagree, disagree but don't try to make it into something else. |
Not it wasn't. Go back to the original argument and you'll see.
Of course you foul. Jeremy knew that, Byron Scott knew that, it was just a matter of when. Nobody is dumb enough to let the clock wind down to end the game.
The only person that thought they weren't going to foul was Kobe so he took matters into his own hands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mantlehog
Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 314
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 13th Man wrote: | | mantlehog wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | mantlehog wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | We were down by 2 with the final possession. Wouldn't make sense to go for a quick score and give them a shot at the game winner.
Anyway, good game. BS didn't go with the conventional foul in this situation but probably wouldn't have made a difference. |
You wouldn't wait until the buzzer....what if you missed, you'd want time to go for a rebound, or to foul again if necessary. |
Why some people don't get this is beyond me.....you extend the game as much as possible when you're down. Period. |
I disagree.
I'm willing to bet that the conventional strategy being down by 2 with the last possession is to take the shot at the buzzer rather than giving the other team another chance if you make the shot. I think math would agree with this logic. |
Then you'd lose the bet. Conventional wisdom says that you give yourself as many chances to tie or win the game when you're down. You go with a quick shot in case of a miss for either a rebound or a foul. Math is not needed to tell me that this would be the logical move. |
Conventional wisdom according to who?
|
Conventional wisdom who knows anything about the game of basketball. |
Ok, well I'd be interested in the opinions of others in the know. I normally do not close a case based on one person's opinion no matter how wise he thinks he is.
My "conventional wisdom" suggests that the shot be taken at the wire, supported by mathematical logic. |
I coach middle school boys basketball and we have been in that situation countless times. We ALWAYS foul to extend the game. The middle school and high school coaches attend coaching clinics given by Mike K. Every summer and this is the gold standard for late game strategy. In fact, there is no other strategy. You ALWAYS extend the game when you are losing!! |
I am not convinced that you are differentiating properly between being down by 2 points, 3 points or down by more as there is a huge difference between each scenario.
The fact that you make a blanket statement of saying always extend the game when you are losing leads me to believe that you lump this same strategy whether you are losing by 1, 2, or X points. I'm sorry but I cannot agree to this logic. |
It's a blanket statement because it's a fact. When you are losing, regardless of deficit, you always want as much time as possible to tie the game or take the lead. It's about maximizing your opportunities when you are behind with only 25 seconds to go. If there had been 40 seconds left, then you don't foul and play defense. |
This doesn't make any sense I'm sorry. It DOES MATTER how many points you are down by as the situation changes drastically.
Here is what you said originally:
Conventional wisdom says that you give yourself as many chances to tie or win the game when you're down. You go with a quick shot in case of a miss for either a rebound or a foul. Math is not needed to tell me that this would be the logical move
Let me ask you this. If you were down by 1 point and had last possession, you would rather get off a quick shot and let the other team have a chance at winning? Let me break the basic math down to you.
If you wait until the buzzer you have a 50% chance of winning the game (let's say that it's 50/50, which it's probably a bit more realistically).
If you miss the shot, you're still down by one and now have to foul just to be down by 2 or 3.
Even If you take a quick shot and make it, now you give the other team a 50% to beat you. Why would you want to lower your chances of winning to 25% from 50%?
If your logic was correct, teams that are down by 1 would be rushing to score back and forth in the final seconds, that's just silly and never happens in real life.
Down by 2 for that matter as well.
If you are down by 3 or 4 points or more then you'd want to extend the game as get as many chances as possible as you've suggested. Not down by 1 or 2.
There's a huge difference and supported by mathematical logic as I've stated all along.
Still waiting for a reputable coach to advise on what they'd do down by 2 points with last possession.
The fact that you think being down by 1, 2, 3 or 4 should employ the same strategy is mindboggling to me. |
First, I did not make the quoted statement above. Secondly, I am just as stunned that you don't get this either. There is a singular goal when you are losing...to tie the game or take the lead. Until you accomplish that goal, you want to continue to extend the game. As many have stated, holding the ball for a last second shot is an extremely low % opportunity and does not give you the best chance to win. You don't worry about all these "what if" scenarios until you have tied the game or taken the lead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lostology
Starting Rotation
Joined: 16 Jul 2014
Posts: 285
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:09 am Post subject: Re: Not supprised at all. BS wants to keep Lakers tanking! |
|
|
| mantlehog wrote: | | Charisma wrote: | | golden armor wrote: | | Lostology wrote: | | jjsr2 wrote: | | mantlehog wrote: |
It's shocking and sad how clueless Scott is. |
|
Maybe Scott is a genius and discovered a new strategy that years and years of basketball and coaches have not discovered. |
Good point. Maybe he is like the Sacto owner who wants to play 4 v. 5 on defense with a guy cherry picking. Maybe every coach in all levels of basketball have been wrong and BS and the Sacto owner are right. It is possible I suppose. |
BS always thinks outside the box. Like preferring long 2s to 3s. |
It's stuff like this that leads to team mutinies. Players need to believe their coach is putting them in the best position to win the game. Does anyone honestly believe that Byron does this or that our players believe he does? |
BS talks a good game but I look at facts. Pre-season he talked about the team focusing on defense and making it a priority. The Lakers are historically one of the worse defensive teams in NBA history. He talked about 3-pointers don't win championships. Well, look at the Spurs and Heat. Stats prove shooting 3s are better then long 2s. He talked about minimizing Kobe's minutes. Yet Kobe plays a crap load of minutes. Scott doesn't try to put the team in the best situation to win. He puts the best player on the team in a situation to win. He did it with Kyrie Irving in Cleveland, Jason Kidd with Nets, and Chris Paul with Hornets. Problem is Kobe is not 28. And doesn't Scott own a 26 game losing streak in Cleveland in the weak East? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
13th Man
Star Player
Joined: 10 Sep 2014
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mantlehog wrote: |
First, I did not make the quoted statement above. Secondly, I am just as stunned that you don't get this either. There is a singular goal when you are losing...to tie the game or take the lead. Until you accomplish that goal, you want to continue to extend the game. As many have stated, holding the ball for a last second shot is an extremely low % opportunity and does not give you the best chance to win. You don't worry about all these "what if" scenarios until you have tied the game or taken the lead. |
Sorry I quoted the wrong person who shared the same perspective as you.
I'm not trying to be a dick here but am trying make sense of what I believe is common sense just as you guys are.
How many times have we seen guys like Michael Jordan make buzzer beaters to win the game when down by 1? He waits until the last 3 seconds to take these shots. By your logic he should rush the shot with 10 seconds to go just have a chance at extending the game? Doesn't make any sense to me, that's why I said the situation drastically changes depending on how many points you are down. You don't apply the exact same strategy being down 1, 2, 3 or 10 points especially 1 or 2.
Being down by 1 or 2, you take the last shot close to the buzzer. I don't think this should be too difficult to grasp. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
traxop
Starting Rotation
Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 266
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lostology wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | We were down by 2 with the final possession. Wouldn't make sense to go for a quick score and give them a shot at the game winner.
Anyway, good game. BS didn't go with the conventional foul in this situation but probably wouldn't have made a difference. |
You wouldn't wait until the buzzer....what if you missed, you'd want time to go for a rebound, or to foul again if necessary. |
Why some people don't get this is beyond me.....you extend the game as much as possible when you're down. Period. |
I disagree.
I'm willing to bet that the conventional strategy being down by 2 with the last possession is to take the shot at the buzzer rather than giving the other team another chance if you make the shot. I think math would agree with this logic. |
Then you'd lose the bet. Conventional wisdom says that you give yourself as many chances to tie or win the game when you're down. You go with a quick shot in case of a miss for either a rebound or a foul. Math is not needed to tell me that this would be the logical move. |
Prove it then. You can't just throw out "conventional wisdom" and conclude that you're right. Conventional wisdom according to who?
Math is used in all sports in crucial situations and most coaches go with the percentages.
Any basketball coaches here that would like to put in their 2 cents? I'd like to know thanks. |
In this exact situation every single coach fouls right away. I have watched, played, and coached thousands upon thousands of games and never have I seen a coach letting the clock run down. The purpose is to try to get as many possessions as possible to have chances of scoring while playing pressure trap defense to cause a turnover and fouling right away. Why would a team even want to take the last shot if you're down?
Here is a stat for Kobe. Kobe Bryant has now missed 13 straight game-tying/go-ahead FG in final 5 seconds of 4th quarter/OT.
His last make was March 2012. Now does Math tell you to run down the clock while you are down 1 so Kobe can take the last shot? You do not want to take last second game winners because they are a low probability shot. You want to run a play to get a good look. If you make it and ahead you play defense and let the other team take a game winner. Otherwise you keep playing the foul game until you can get a lead. |
Going to take the unpopular view and have to agree with 13th man on this. We all know what conventional wisdom dictates: foul early, take the quick shot, level the score, play defense, extend the game on misses. In my mind this conventional approach is as valid as the eye-test; everybody uses it but it's debatable as to it's effectiveness. It probably needs to go the way of the eye-test as well.
The conventional route effectively revolves around 2 premises: an early shot, if missed, may result in an offensive board and with enough time, we can reset the offensive again and the second: hoping the other team misses their FTs. Their missed FTs allows us to a chance to eat into their lead.
If we flip the perspective around, what we are effectively doing with the conventional route is trading our contested shots for their FT attempts. FTs are a much higher percentage shot. By extending the game, we are effectively allowing the team shooting the FTs to regress to the mean - where regressing in this case is in positive direction, towards their average.
The other premises is having enough time to execute another set if we were to get an offensive rebound on a missed early shot. Statistically, the defensive team gets the defensive rebound 75% of the time. More often than not, that player getting that offensive board gets fouled, so the odds of an offensive board resulting in setting up a 3-pointer-shot play is slim - if say, you are down 3 and looking to tie the game.
In our particular game, it even makes less sense to go the conventional route and try to extend the game. Hill, our best offensive rebounder was fouled out, and secondly, Conley, Prince, Lee, Gasol are all 80-90% FT shooters.
Extending the game by fouling on misses would have accomplished nothing except to extend the game, and let the Grizz pad their stats. It would have just been a slow death, or death by a thousand cuts.
Now if they had a Howard or a Shaq on their team, then I would have happily gone down the conventional route. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonman
Starting Rotation
Joined: 12 Jul 2014
Posts: 585
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mantlehog wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | mantlehog wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | mantlehog wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | We were down by 2 with the final possession. Wouldn't make sense to go for a quick score and give them a shot at the game winner.
Anyway, good game. BS didn't go with the conventional foul in this situation but probably wouldn't have made a difference. |
You wouldn't wait until the buzzer....what if you missed, you'd want time to go for a rebound, or to foul again if necessary. |
Why some people don't get this is beyond me.....you extend the game as much as possible when you're down. Period. |
I disagree.
I'm willing to bet that the conventional strategy being down by 2 with the last possession is to take the shot at the buzzer rather than giving the other team another chance if you make the shot. I think math would agree with this logic. |
Then you'd lose the bet. Conventional wisdom says that you give yourself as many chances to tie or win the game when you're down. You go with a quick shot in case of a miss for either a rebound or a foul. Math is not needed to tell me that this would be the logical move. |
Conventional wisdom according to who?
|
Conventional wisdom who knows anything about the game of basketball. |
Ok, well I'd be interested in the opinions of others in the know. I normally do not close a case based on one person's opinion no matter how wise he thinks he is.
My "conventional wisdom" suggests that the shot be taken at the wire, supported by mathematical logic. |
I coach middle school boys basketball and we have been in that situation countless times. We ALWAYS foul to extend the game. The middle school and high school coaches attend coaching clinics given by Mike K. Every summer and this is the gold standard for late game strategy. In fact, there is no other strategy. You ALWAYS extend the game when you are losing!! |
I am not convinced that you are differentiating properly between being down by 2 points, 3 points or down by more as there is a huge difference between each scenario.
The fact that you make a blanket statement of saying always extend the game when you are losing leads me to believe that you lump this same strategy whether you are losing by 1, 2, or X points. I'm sorry but I cannot agree to this logic. |
It's a blanket statement because it's a fact. When you are losing, regardless of deficit, you always want as much time as possible to tie the game or take the lead. It's about maximizing your opportunities when you are behind with only 25 seconds to go. If there had been 40 seconds left, then you don't foul and play defense. |
This doesn't make any sense I'm sorry. It DOES MATTER how many points you are down by as the situation changes drastically.
Here is what you said originally:
Conventional wisdom says that you give yourself as many chances to tie or win the game when you're down. You go with a quick shot in case of a miss for either a rebound or a foul. Math is not needed to tell me that this would be the logical move
Let me ask you this. If you were down by 1 point and had last possession, you would rather get off a quick shot and let the other team have a chance at winning? Let me break the basic math down to you.
If you wait until the buzzer you have a 50% chance of winning the game (let's say that it's 50/50, which it's probably a bit more realistically).
If you miss the shot, you're still down by one and now have to foul just to be down by 2 or 3.
Even If you take a quick shot and make it, now you give the other team a 50% to beat you. Why would you want to lower your chances of winning to 25% from 50%?
If your logic was correct, teams that are down by 1 would be rushing to score back and forth in the final seconds, that's just silly and never happens in real life.
Down by 2 for that matter as well.
If you are down by 3 or 4 points or more then you'd want to extend the game as get as many chances as possible as you've suggested. Not down by 1 or 2.
There's a huge difference and supported by mathematical logic as I've stated all along.
Still waiting for a reputable coach to advise on what they'd do down by 2 points with last possession.
The fact that you think being down by 1, 2, 3 or 4 should employ the same strategy is mindboggling to me. |
First, I did not make the quoted statement above. Secondly, I am just as stunned that you don't get this either. There is a singular goal when you are losing...to tie the game or take the lead. Until you accomplish that goal, you want to continue to extend the game. As many have stated, holding the ball for a last second shot is an extremely low % opportunity and does not give you the best chance to win. You don't worry about all these "what if" scenarios until you have tied the game or taken the lead. |
Yes you do. The Lakers defense is the worse in the league. Would you rather put winning or losing or OT in the hands of our defense or our offense?
there are always what ifs otherwise anyone can be an nba coach ( including BS) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Meh. This game wasn't lost in the final 25 seconds.
It was lost in the 3rd. We just didn't find out about it until the end of the game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
13th Man
Star Player
Joined: 10 Sep 2014
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| My point is that there is no conventional strategy for simply being down. The strategy differs significantly if you are down by 1 point, 2 points, 3 points or more. It comes down to basic math and probability. The probability of winning is less the greater the deficit, therefore you need to take more chances by fouling and extending the game. You don't do that when you're only down 1 or 2, the best chance to win is to take the last shot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
