Quote:
Originally posted by biz
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Nevadaref
|
So what's easier, making 2 FTs or a three point shot? Average FT% sixty something. Average 3pt % thirty something.
The addition of the 3pt shot greatly enhanced the strategy of fouling at the end of a game. The most that your team can give up is two points, but you will have a chance for 3 at the other end.
Prior to the three point shot a team could be assured of maintaining its lead if it made its FTs. Now the team could make ALL of its FTs and see the opponent erase its lead with a few treys.
The risk/reward ratio is clearly better today than in the past.
[/B]
|
You're right Nevada, the risk-reward is much better, but in my experience reffing, coaching, and playing if you hit you're FTs down the stretch it becomes tougher and tougher to hit that 3 because the defense is sometimes conceeding the 2 to defend the 3...
Of course I've never reffed, coached, or played against J.J. Redick
[/B][/QUOTE]
When I was coaching, we'd foul (going for the ball, of course) if we had a 3-pt lead and under 10 seconds left in the period. I won several games that way. I'd rather have them shoot a FT or two then have a lucky three tie us. In order to tie us in the FT situation, they have to: make 1, miss the second, get their own rebound, make a basket. This is not nearly as easy as throwing up a three. Also, with it being under 10 seconds, we don't have to get the ball across half-court if we get the rebound. And now, you have them outnumbered in the lane by 2-1. I've seen major colleges lose big-time NCAA games and lose big-time bucks by missing the next round because they let a team get a three to tie at the end of the period. Most coaches don't have the guts to foul.