Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zebraman
If you foul in that situation, you stop the clock and give "free" points to the offensive team. They can make the first free throw and follow-up a miss on the second one.
Coaches know the statistical probabilities of winning in that situation while playing "straight-up" defense rather than fouling. Both Romar and Calhoun prefer the philosophy in that sitch of just playing straight-up defense. It works most of the time and nobody questions the philosophy. When the other team makes a long three to tie it up, all the "backseat coaches" question the philosophy. If Washington fouls and ends up going to O.T. because of a made FT and a follow-up basket (or losing after a made FT and then a pass out for a 3-pointer), there would be even more backseat coaches.
It's always funny to me to be with a group of refs to watch a basketball game. They spend most of the time questioning the coaching decisions. Then they get upset when the coaches question the reffing decisions. 
Z |
Zebra,
I doubt they know the statistical probabilities of this 2nd route because most are scared to even try it. How many times have you seen anybody try it? And, got beat? On the other hand, how many times have you seen the one like last night? The probability of their best 3 points shooter making a trey against passive opposition has to be greater than fouling someone of YOUR choice, WHEN you want, a successful f.throw, hitting iron on the 2nd, rebounding and then converting the basket. Not to mention that because you chose the time remaining to foul, you probably still get time to respond.
Of course, I'm sure these big time coaches don't need any help any more than these big dawg officials need help from me. I'd just like to see one have the balls to try it between this weekend and the next.