|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
azrael187
Sixth Man
Joined: 03 Nov 2014
Posts: 42
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:23 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).
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. |
The math changes vastly depending on whether they are purposefully bleeding the clock or not. It takes about 10-12 seconds at minimum to get a decent look for a 50% shot. They don't plan for a buzzer beater because if the other team figures out the offensive action then they're shooting a contested shot and it's not 50% but much lower, 25% maybe. If the defending team really figures out the offensive action they may not get a shot off at all.
I was going to write a decision tree using some assumed percentages and time left to show what the best course of action, but it's late and it's much more complicated than I thought it was. Didn't feel like writing a whole simulation right now. If you want to prove it with math and logic go ahead and show them percentages of winning based off of strategies and show your work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mantlehog
Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 314
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 13th Man wrote: | | 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 (bleep) 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. |
Most of scenarios came down to the last second not because he held the ball and waited, but because there was only seconds on the clock to begin with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
13th Man
Star Player
Joined: 10 Sep 2014
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| azrael187 wrote: |
The math changes vastly depending on whether they are purposefully bleeding the clock or not. It takes about 10-12 seconds at minimum to get a decent look for a 50% shot. They don't plan for a buzzer beater because if the other team figures out the offensive action then they're shooting a contested shot and it's not 50% but much lower, 25% maybe. If the defending team really figures out the offensive action they may not get a shot off at all.
I was going to write a decision tree using some assumed percentages and time left to show what the best course of action, but it's late and it's much more complicated than I thought it was. Didn't feel like writing a whole simulation right now. If you want to prove it with math and logic go ahead and show them percentages of winning based off of strategies and show your work. |
I don't think we need to go that deep. Let me put it this way, even if teams had a full shot clock, they would likely not start initiating their final play until the 10 second mark anyways (assuming they are going for a buzzer beater). It would come down to a set play, not read and react offense where they pass the ball around and look for an opening while risking a turnover as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
13th Man
Star Player
Joined: 10 Sep 2014
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mantlehog wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | 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 (bleep) 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. |
Most of scenarios came down to the last second not because he held the ball and waited, but because there was only seconds on the clock to begin with. |
I don't keep tallys but I've watched about 30 years of basketball and have observed that teams that are down by 1 will go for the last second shot 99% of the time even if they had a full shot clock. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mhan00
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32067
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 13th Man wrote: | | 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 (bleep) 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. |
And even Jordan missed more buzzer beaters than he made. So has Kobe. A buzzer beater when you're down is not a good shot, especially when you're going for a tie. The best situation is to have the time to work for a good shot. If it comes early, great. If it doesn't materialize until later, it's fine too. The key point is that you need the time to work for that shot and not settle for a quick prayer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
azrael187
Sixth Man
Joined: 03 Nov 2014
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 13th Man wrote: | | azrael187 wrote: |
The math changes vastly depending on whether they are purposefully bleeding the clock or not. It takes about 10-12 seconds at minimum to get a decent look for a 50% shot. They don't plan for a buzzer beater because if the other team figures out the offensive action then they're shooting a contested shot and it's not 50% but much lower, 25% maybe. If the defending team really figures out the offensive action they may not get a shot off at all.
I was going to write a decision tree using some assumed percentages and time left to show what the best course of action, but it's late and it's much more complicated than I thought it was. Didn't feel like writing a whole simulation right now. If you want to prove it with math and logic go ahead and show them percentages of winning based off of strategies and show your work. |
I don't think we need to go that deep. Let me put it this way, even if teams had a full shot clock, they would likely not start initiating their final play until the 10 second mark anyways (assuming they are going for a buzzer beater). It would come down to a set play, not read and react offense where they pass the ball around and look for an opening while risking a turnover as well. |
I concur with this statement if it was tied; down 1 maybe depending on roster. With a full possession difference though a higher variance strategy will succeed more often, more shots gives more variance in late game situations. One shot means you live and die with whoever is shooting.
Don't know if this will effect your math, but for the 2013-2014 season, I looked up Durant, Curry and Nowitski (would have added Kobe, but injured). They have a shooting percentage with the shot clock off of 38.2%, 37.5% and 22.7%; these are some of the best shooters on the planet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
13th Man
Star Player
Joined: 10 Sep 2014
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| azrael187 wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | | azrael187 wrote: |
The math changes vastly depending on whether they are purposefully bleeding the clock or not. It takes about 10-12 seconds at minimum to get a decent look for a 50% shot. They don't plan for a buzzer beater because if the other team figures out the offensive action then they're shooting a contested shot and it's not 50% but much lower, 25% maybe. If the defending team really figures out the offensive action they may not get a shot off at all.
I was going to write a decision tree using some assumed percentages and time left to show what the best course of action, but it's late and it's much more complicated than I thought it was. Didn't feel like writing a whole simulation right now. If you want to prove it with math and logic go ahead and show them percentages of winning based off of strategies and show your work. |
I don't think we need to go that deep. Let me put it this way, even if teams had a full shot clock, they would likely not start initiating their final play until the 10 second mark anyways (assuming they are going for a buzzer beater). It would come down to a set play, not read and react offense where they pass the ball around and look for an opening while risking a turnover as well. |
I concur with this statement if it was tied; down 1 maybe depending on roster. With a full possession difference though a higher variance strategy will succeed more often, more shots gives more variance in late game situations. One shot means you live and die with whoever is shooting.
Don't know if this will effect your math, but for the 2013-2014 season, I looked up Durant, Curry and Nowitski (would have added Kobe, but injured). They have a shooting percentage with the shot clock off of 38.2%, 37.5% and 22.7%; these are some of the best shooters on the planet. |
I don't believe in the higher variance strategy when down by 2 points, for 4 points and above yes, perhaps 3 as well (go for a quick 2 rather than a last second 3).
Being down 3 is where you can make a case for either scenarios. Being down 1 or 2, I've never seen teams go for a quick score over taking the last shot.
Taking the final shot of the game definitely lowers your shooting percentage because the other team is honed in on you especially if you are the star player and they know the ball will likely go to you. Their defense will be tighter as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phillycheese
Starting Rotation
Joined: 13 Jul 2014
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sammysung wrote: | | This game on Ed Davis missing FT. |
NO. Ed played great. 20 points as leading scorer and blocked shots. This was a team loss simple as that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
The reason you foul quickly is so you have time to run a full play instead of an obvious quick play with no options. And you have the chance for an offensive rebound. Let the other team have to take a quick shot to win.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charisma
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Aug 2014
Posts: 703
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Phillycheese wrote: | | sammysung wrote: | | This game on Ed Davis missing FT. |
NO. Ed played great. 20 points as leading scorer and blocked shots. This was a team loss simple as that. |
+1
ED played a great game. I wish Kobe had taken that shot himself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Treble Clef
Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 23912
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:26 am 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. |
That's what I thought too. The reason for not just taking the foul right away is because you might want to try to get a steal or maybe have the ball end up in the hands of a bad free throw shooter. Just waiting for no reason didnt make a lot of sense but as others have said, Kobe would have just dribbled some clock off in his possession anyway. It was a one possession game so you just have to make sure you get a good shot (which they did) and have a chance for an offensive rebound and putback (which they did, there was a few seconds left). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phillycheese
Starting Rotation
Joined: 13 Jul 2014
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kray28_ wrote: | | tonman wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | | tonman wrote: | | trashcan wrote: | | you guys hear what byron said in his post game interview? he wanted jeremy lin to foul with about 10 seconds left cause 'it didnt matter.' either he's dumb as hell, the tank is real, or he really wanted a kobe buzzer beater |
it really doesn't. if you have a kickball violation, they reset the clock to 14 seconds. 10 seconds is an eternity in the NBA. how many plays take 10 seconds to run? |
With the time we lost, we could have fouled again and had an extra possession. |
okay I'm done. logic has left the building. |
If the Lakers were tied, they could take the clock down the buzzer, if they were down, they should have shot with time left on the clock....just in case it was a miss and they have time to rebound or foul. |
If you're down by one or two, you don't rush a shot to save the clock. You work for the best shot, either you make it to tie or win or you miss and game over. There is no point in saving the clock. If you're down by three, then you may want to get a quick two and foul, or you wait and go for a three. If it was a two possession game, then you get a quick shot off to save clock. At least that is what my logic would dictate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tyusedney1
Starting Rotation
Joined: 20 Jul 2014
Posts: 408
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| well, we fouled early and lost. the proof is in the pudding. should have done what BS said |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blueice
Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Posts: 347
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kray28_ wrote: | | Shaqtin wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | | sammysung wrote: | | BS will blame Lin, that is for sure. |
There was no difference between the game clock and the shot clock, Lakers were down 1. Common sense shouldn't need coaching. |
Coach just confirmed foul 10 sec mark....just please stop hating. |
So shooting the last shot with 0.6 secs left on the clock was good deal for the Lakers?
Get over yourself. I like Lin a lot...he played a very nice game. But he made a mistake. Own up for your boy. |
This is insane. The only person that could go against BS without getting demoted is Kobe. Where's the discipline if a coach tolerates a player going against his instruction?
Lin said he asked 3 times, and BS said no. That's some clear message there. He already got benched by the coach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blueice
Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Posts: 347
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lakers95 wrote: |  I can't get over how inept Byron sounds now. In what world do you milk the clock when you're LOSING, especially with less than a shot clock left? And WHY WOULD HE ADMIT THAT!? |
So he shouldn't admit it and let it all become Lin's very own decision?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blueice
Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Posts: 347
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Honeybadger81 wrote: | | SweetP wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | mantlehog wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | mhan00 wrote: | | mantlehog wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | | 13th Man 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. |
But what if you hit it? You want to give the other team valuable seconds to go for the game winner? I think the percentage of scoring on a regular possession is greater than hoping for a rebound which is 50/50 AND a follow up basket. |
If you hit it....great! Now you buckle down and play some D. |
Exactly. You don't worry about what might happen once you have tied the game. You have to tie up the game first. |
This. How is this not obvious? |
I'm not sure why I'm even wasting my time on this. How is this even an argument? |
I'm still in this thread because I am so stunned some are arguing this point. |
I need a drink. |
 Be gentle. We have some posters who watch because a certain someone caught their fancy, some aren't very knowledgeable about basketball. |
you are no better than 13th man, although he is wrong in this point... |
I'll second that. I frowned at his last words even though he's right about the conventional strategy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr. Jez
Starting Rotation
Joined: 13 Jul 2014
Posts: 309
Location: Melbourne [Australia]
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blueice wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | | Shaqtin wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | | sammysung wrote: | | BS will blame Lin, that is for sure. |
There was no difference between the game clock and the shot clock, Lakers were down 1. Common sense shouldn't need coaching. |
Coach just confirmed foul 10 sec mark....just please stop hating. |
So shooting the last shot with 0.6 secs left on the clock was good deal for the Lakers?
Get over yourself. I like Lin a lot...he played a very nice game. But he made a mistake. Own up for your boy. |
This is insane. The only person that could go against BS without getting demoted is Kobe. Where's the discipline if a coach tolerates a player going against his instruction?
Lin said he asked 3 times, and BS said no. That's some clear message there. He already got benched by the coach. |
Exactly, Lin is a role player, he is not a franchise player who has a green light to do anything they want. You put yourself in Lin's shoes, you've been getting your minutes cut for making mistakes and bad decisions. On that play in question, do you listen to the coach who has instructed to not foul or go with your instinct and foul Conley at the risk of getting benched for not following direct orders from the coach?
Rock and a hard place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dannyboyster
Rookie
Joined: 03 Jan 2015
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 13th Man wrote: | Just went back to watch.
- Kobe hits a 3 and we're down by 1 with 25 seconds to go.
- Byron tells Lin to foul at the 10 second mark.
*** Now whether the Lakers have 11.7 seconds or 20 seconds left they are going to use up the entire clock for the last shot being down by 2. What part of this do you guys not understand?
Not necessarily. An alternative scenario would be this:
- Lin fouls conley as soon as Conley receives the ball, i.e. 23.5 seconds left in the clock
- Conley goes to the FT line and splits his FTs. (which he did) Lakers down by 2.
- Lakers go for a quick drive or 2pt shot and successfully score within 5 seconds of inbounding the ball. 18 seconds left. The game is tied.
- Griz inbound the ball. Lakers foul as soon as the receiver receives the ball. 17seconds remaining. Receiver goes to the FT line.
- Griz player again splits his FTs. Griz up by 1.
- Lakers inbound and again go for the quick shot which goes in. This time 10 seconds remaining. Lakers up by 1.
- and so on and so forth.
What are the odds that Griz players split their FTs while the Lakers score 2 quick baskets in a row? Very slim. But is it possible (with Kobe, Young, and Lin in the game)? Yes.
- Kobe starts yelling to foul at the 18-19 second mark
- Lin keeps looking back and forth between Byron and the ball
- Kobe starts his pursuit at 14 seconds left and fouls Conley at 12.7 seconds.
- Conley hits 1 out of 2 and we're down by 3 with 11.7 seconds.
- *** Now whether the Lakers have 11.7 seconds or 20 seconds left they are going to use up the entire clock for the last shot being down by 2. What part of this do you guys not understand?
Did you think the extra time would give us another 2 full possessions??
This thing is being overblown. Same outcome either way. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
13th Man
Star Player
Joined: 10 Sep 2014
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blueice wrote: | | Honeybadger81 wrote: | | SweetP wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | mantlehog wrote: | | EchoZulu wrote: | | mhan00 wrote: | | mantlehog wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | | 13th Man 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. |
But what if you hit it? You want to give the other team valuable seconds to go for the game winner? I think the percentage of scoring on a regular possession is greater than hoping for a rebound which is 50/50 AND a follow up basket. |
If you hit it....great! Now you buckle down and play some D. |
Exactly. You don't worry about what might happen once you have tied the game. You have to tie up the game first. |
This. How is this not obvious? |
I'm not sure why I'm even wasting my time on this. How is this even an argument? |
I'm still in this thread because I am so stunned some are arguing this point. |
I need a drink. |
Be gentle. We have some posters who watch because a certain someone caught their fancy, some aren't very knowledgeable about basketball. |
you are no better than 13th man, although he is wrong in this point... |
I'll second that. I frowned at his last words even though he's right about the conventional strategy. |
You guys continue to believe in this "conventional wisdom" even though I've proven it in a nice and uncondescending way that it's false. I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong but in this case I'm not.
Show me other instances where coaches try to rush to score to extend the game when down by 2 with the last possession rather than try to take the last shot close to the buzzer? That's right, you can't. Conventional wisdom heavily relies on mathematical probability especially in crucial situations, this happens in all sports.
Down by 1 or 2, you take the shot close to the buzzer, THAT is conventional wisdom. All coaches know this, it's common sense.
Thinking that there's no difference between being down by down by 1, 2 or 10 and that the same strategy should be employed is just silly and illogical. That's like saying an NFL team should use the same redzone strategy being down 3, 6, 7, or 10 points.
Last edited by 13th Man on Sat Jan 03, 2015 8:34 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
philnyc
Starting Rotation
Joined: 12 Nov 2014
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| In general, I agree with the "conventional wisdom" pov...however, given that this Lakers team sucks on defense, I can see the benefit of running the clock down to try to tie (or win) with as little time on the clock as possible. Not sure I'd want to give the Grizzlies possession with 7+ seconds left with the score tied or even up by 1... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lostology
Starting Rotation
Joined: 16 Jul 2014
Posts: 285
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| All this arguing about when to foul is stupid and I will tell you why. Before Kobe made the 3-pointer, Lin was on the sideline getting ready to inbound. Lin got into Scott's ear asking something. At that time the Lakers were down by 4. The coach should have called a play that if Lakers make any basket(2 or 3) to do a full court press. If shot is missed, you trap the ballhandler once he passes mid-court. If you cannot get the steal or cause a turnover then you foul right away. So all the arguing about Scott letting the clock run or fouling right away should not have been a scenario. Kobe makes a 3 and Lakers down by 1. A lot of things happen on a full court press and things are chaotic. I've seen many steals and turnovers because the ballhandler starts to panic. Chris Paul and Curry during last year's playoffs turned the ball over in this situation. It happens all the time. I guarantee you if it was the Spurs or Mavs they would have done a full court press or trap once they made a three. In the final minutes in a close game it is the coach job to let all the players know what is going on. The fact that the players were confused and Lakers letting Conley dribble to mid-court with no pressure is a big fail. Nevermind Scott wanted it to run down to 10 seconds. A good coach would never let that scenario happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonman
Starting Rotation
Joined: 12 Jul 2014
Posts: 585
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| philnyc wrote: | | In general, I agree with the "conventional wisdom" pov...however, given that this Lakers team sucks on defense, I can see the benefit of running the clock down to try to tie (or win) with as little time on the clock as possible. Not sure I'd want to give the Grizzlies possession with 7+ seconds left with the score tied or even up by 1... |
blueice is correct. there's a difference when down 1 or 2 to that being down 3 to that being down 2 or more possessions.
A: down 1 or 2, you can win with the last shot. you have a slightly different option down 2 where you can go for the tie or the win. therefore, you want the last shot as the defense has to respect you at the 3 point arc as well as inside.
B: down 3 the defense has options as they would rather you not take a 3 and can also just foul you and put you on the line as long as the foul is on the ball handler. THIS is where you think of a quick 2 and foul. so why are you "extending the game"? you are hoping that they miss a free throw so that you're down 1 or 2. SEE A.
C: down more than 1 possession, you want to extend the game as much as possible such that you get the chance for A or B. you score a 2 or 3 and foul and hope they miss 1 or both free throws.
there is little benefit in scoring with 6 seconds on the clock as now you have to defend tied or up 1 and have to defend the entire half court (ball advanced on time out). we all saw how Jeremy Lin have taken the ball full court in 4 seconds and scored a layup. 6 seconds is an eternity where any team can run a normal play in this amount of time. folks have said you need to leave time for rebound. that is a possibility and Davis took his shot with 2 seconds enough time for a rebound or tip in.
so to summarize, of course the Lakers should have fouled earlier but since Conley only made 1 of 2 free throws, that lost time no longer mattered. the Lakers were down 2 and going for the last shot to win or tie. Kobe chose the open man for the tie (conventional wisdom indicates when you are at home, go for the tie, when on the road, go for the win). Davis actually gets fouled with 2 seconds which would have allowed time for a rebound or tip in.
this whole "controversy" regarding when to foul is meaningless regarding the outcome of the game. since the coach and Lin were in communications with each other and BS told Lin to wait, there is NOTHING you can complain about regarding the game. it doesn't matter if Kobe is yelling to foul. the coach is the coach. it doesn't matter if Lin wants to foul beforehand. the coach is the coach. if you want to argue X's and O's regarding to whether to foul early or not, that is fine, but the outcome of the game did not rest in fouling early once Conley missed a free throw.
Let's end this back and forth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
azrael187
Sixth Man
Joined: 03 Nov 2014
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 13th Man wrote: | You guys continue to believe in this "conventional wisdom" even though I've proven it in a nice and uncondescending way that it's false. I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong but in this case I'm not.
Show me other instances where coaches try to rush to score to extend the game when down by 2 with the last possession rather than try to take the last shot close to the buzzer? That's right, you can't. Conventional wisdom heavily relies on mathematical probability especially in crucial situations, this happens in all sports.
Down by 1 or 2, you take the shot close to the buzzer, THAT is conventional wisdom. All coaches know this, it's common sense.
Thinking that there's no difference between being down by down by 1, 2 or 10 and that the same strategy should be employed is just silly and illogical. That's like saying an NFL team should use the same redzone strategy being down 3, 6, 7, or 10 points. |
It's not a rush to score what people are arguing with one possession or less, you want to have the best look possible to score. You shouldn't want to pass up an open layup with 10 seconds on the clock because you want to bleed more time off of it because you're going to get a lower percentage shot later. I think you may be linking NFL and NBA strategies, where a field goal with time expiring is the best option for NFL. NBA is a different beast than the NFL, it is much more fluid and an offensive set will with time running out doesn't keep going until a miss or make. NBA has a buzzer and buzzer beaters are low percentage shots generally.
So, math time. Before I posted the percentages for the best shooters in the league with the shot clock off. I will assume a buzzer beater has a 25% chance to go in, with a good look having 50% chance to go in. Offensive rebounding rate is somewhere between 20-29% in the league so I'll assume 25% offensive rebounding rate. After taking a good shot the assumption is the other team will have to take a buzzer beater. So the scenarios I have are:
Take best shot whenever
50% Make * 75% Miss opposing team = 37.5% Tie
50% Miss * 25% Offensive Board * 25% Buzzer Beater ~ 3% Tie
50% Miss * foul plus repeat above < 0.1% Tie
Eveything else ~ 60% Loss
Take Buzzer Beater
25% Make = 25% Tie
75% Miss = 75% Miss |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
13th Man
Star Player
Joined: 10 Sep 2014
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| azrael187 wrote: | | 13th Man wrote: | You guys continue to believe in this "conventional wisdom" even though I've proven it in a nice and uncondescending way that it's false. I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong but in this case I'm not.
Show me other instances where coaches try to rush to score to extend the game when down by 2 with the last possession rather than try to take the last shot close to the buzzer? That's right, you can't. Conventional wisdom heavily relies on mathematical probability especially in crucial situations, this happens in all sports.
Down by 1 or 2, you take the shot close to the buzzer, THAT is conventional wisdom. All coaches know this, it's common sense.
Thinking that there's no difference between being down by down by 1, 2 or 10 and that the same strategy should be employed is just silly and illogical. That's like saying an NFL team should use the same redzone strategy being down 3, 6, 7, or 10 points. |
It's not a rush to score what people are arguing with one possession or less, you want to have the best look possible to score. You shouldn't want to pass up an open layup with 10 seconds on the clock because you want to bleed more time off of it because you're going to get a lower percentage shot later. I think you may be linking NFL and NBA strategies, where a field goal with time expiring is the best option for NFL. NBA is a different beast than the NFL, it is much more fluid and an offensive set will with time running out doesn't keep going until a miss or make. NBA has a buzzer and buzzer beaters are low percentage shots generally.
So, math time. Before I posted the percentages for the best shooters in the league with the shot clock off. I will assume a buzzer beater has a 25% chance to go in, with a good look having 50% chance to go in. Offensive rebounding rate is somewhere between 20-29% in the league so I'll assume 25% offensive rebounding rate. After taking a good shot the assumption is the other team will have to take a buzzer beater. So the scenarios I have are:
Take best shot whenever
50% Make * 75% Miss opposing team = 37.5% Tie
50% Miss * 25% Offensive Board * 25% Buzzer Beater ~ 3% Tie
50% Miss * foul plus repeat above < 0.1% Tie
Eveything else ~ 60% Loss
Take Buzzer Beater
25% Make = 25% Tie
75% Miss = 75% Miss |
Sorry can't agree with that logic. No way taking the best shot whenever yields double the probability of scoring compared to a buzzer beater LOL. Also the play that Kobe ran was at the buzzer but doesn't fall into your "Buzzer Beater" logic. Kobe didn't play heroball instead passing it off to Davis which was the "best shot" at the time.
No team plays read and react offense unless they are out of timeouts. Coaches will almost always have a set play in mind after a timeout which then makes little difference in your scoring chance whether you run that play with 15 seconds left or with 5 seconds left. A good set play will have more than one scoring option as it did on this final play.
I used the NFL not as a direct but exaggerated example to prove a point that different strategies should be employed under different point differential scenarios.
Please show me just one example where a team does not run down the clock to the buzzer when trailing by 2 with the last possession coming out of a time out. This just doesn't happen. So does this mean that out of the thousands of historic instances, all coaches decide to go against conventional wisdom? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
13th Man
Star Player
Joined: 10 Sep 2014
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FTR, I do agree with Kobe and everyone else here that we should have fouled right away instead of letting it run down to 10 seconds or whatever. As previous posters have mentioned, had Conley hit both FTs, we would have been down by 3 and having the extra time would have been valuable if the team decided to go for a quick bucket and foul instead of a buzzer tying 3. Because Conley only converted on 1 out of the 2, the impact on this gaff by Byron Scott was less significant. |
|
| 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
|
|
