The Playoffs have begun!

[cmckenna]

Why did my 2 replies on this thread get deleted?? BBallCoach says anything he wants but MY replies get deleted ???? Go figure...

[Forksref]

When I was coaching, if we were up by 3 with less than 10 sec to go, I'd have my kids foul. Therefore, there was no miracle shot. In order to tie the game the opponent would have to : (1) make 1 FT, (2) miss the 2nd, (3)get the rebound which now is harder to do since they can't move until the rim is hit and only 2 Offensive players are allowed in the lane, (4)put in a shot. Compare that with the "Hail Mary" shots that we see go in more frequently. Actually, there aren't that many miracle shots. Most times they get a good "look" at the basket.

Consequently, we never had a game get tied by employing this strategy. And, with less than 10 seconds left, we never have to get the ball over the timeline once we inbound it or rebound it. I've seen major colleges lose games by not using this strategy. And some of them have been in the NCAA's where the school loses lots of money by not moving on to the next round.

I always wondered why more coaches don't do this.

[Hawks Coach]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BBallCoach

Great games have great players, coaches and fans.

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Whether you like it or not, you left out an important part of the equation, the officials. If the officials don't also do a great job, you WILL NOT have a great game. That doesn't mean we have to be noticed, remembered, or acknowledged. Although SOME coaches have to have this recognition, MOST officials do not.

BTW, thanks to PGCougar for posting a REAL coach's point of view.

Good on you, Tony. You and PGCougar arre dead-on right. You can't have a great game if the officials aren't also great. The game will lack flow and will be remembered by all as an ugly game if the officiating is poor.

I can't think of a single great game we have played in which the officiating was poor. We have had some memorable close gaems that were also pretty ugly in many respects. Even close games, when poorly officiated, are not the ones you remember as great games. they may be great wins because you overcome the ugly game and succeed, but the game itself is not one to remember for all time.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally posted by Forksref
When I was coaching, if we were up by 3 with less than 10 sec to go, I'd have my kids foul. Therefore, there was no miracle shot. In order to tie the game the opponent would have to : (1) make 1 FT, (2) miss the 2nd, (3)get the rebound which now is harder to do since they can't move until the rim is hit and only 2 Offensive players are allowed in the lane, (4)put in a shot. Compare that with the "Hail Mary" shots that we see go in more frequently. Actually, there aren't that many miracle shots. Most times they get a good "look" at the basket.

I always wondered why more coaches don't do this.

I'm with you, but my cutoff was less than 10 seconds. I saw an ACC team lose in regulation last season doing this with 14 seconds left. (UVa and Ga Tech, I think.)

I'd have to be at :05 or less to do this, and even then, I was worried that'd be the one time someone actually called an "intentional" foul intentional, and we'd end up losing on a pair of made FTs and a two-pointer after they got the ball back.

One time when we tried it, we only had five team fouls with :08 left. So I wanted to give two of them, figuring by the second one it'd be the final seconds. We got #6 with :05 left. Then, one of my players was late committing #7 and got it in the act of shooting a three with :01 left, the shot darn near went in (in-and-out), and the girl hit all three to force OT. Luckily we pulled it out in OT.

Oh, and I completely disagree (and could back it up with stats) that it is harder for the offense to rebound missed FTs now. It is far easier, because the defense can't box out, and the players below the blocks are at a poor angle to rebound a shot from the FT line.

[Rich]

Originally posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

I'm with you, but my cutoff was less than 10 seconds. I saw an ACC team lose in regulation last season doing this with 14 seconds left. (UVa and Ga Tech, I think.)

I'd have to be at :05 or less to do this, and even then, I was worried that'd be the one time someone actually called an "intentional" foul intentional, and we'd end up losing on a pair of made FTs and a two-pointer after they got the ball back.

One time when we tried it, we only had five team fouls with :08 left. So I wanted to give two of them, figuring by the second one it'd be the final seconds. We got #6 with :05 left. Then, one of my players was late committing #7 and got it in the act of shooting a three with :01 left, the shot darn near went in (in-and-out), and the girl hit all three to force OT. Luckily we pulled it out in OT.

Oh, and I completely disagree (and could back it up with stats) that it is harder for the offense to rebound missed FTs now. It is far easier, because the defense can't box out, and the players below the blocks are at a poor angle to rebound a shot from the FT line.

I agree entirely. Offensive rebounds are much easier. Moving the players back to sports 2, 3, and 4 like the NCAAW would return the advantage that used to exist when players could leave on the release.

[Hawks Coach]

I lost a game last year on a foul at the end, a make, a miss and a put back - with the FTs coming with two seconds to go. We called TO before the last free throw and discussed nothing but blocking out, and what to do with ball in hand, possession arow our way, and two seconds on the clock. With two players on shooter, she still got through and sunk the game winner, time running out just as ball went through the net. So I am one that likes to play them out and let things fall as they may.

If you have nailed threes on me all day, I might change my opinion.

And I share the opinion that waiting for rim in the low blocks makes it easier for the defense to get a shot at the ball. Release lets you get good position for the rebound.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Moving the players back to sports 2, 3, and 4 like the NCAAW ...

Sports 2, 3, and 4 would be what.... rugby, volleyball and swimming?!

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

I agree entirely. Offensive rebounds are much easier. Moving the players back to sports 2, 3, and 4 like the NCAAW would return the advantage that used to exist when players could leave on the release.

I see this claim over and over but I just don't see it in the games. WHile it's not a guarantee, the defense gets an overwhelming majority of the rebounds on FTs.

You say the defense has no time to box out. However, the offense also does not have time to get around the defense.

Again, I simply don't see what you're claiming in my games.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

I see this claim over and over but I just don't see it in the games. WHile it's not a guarantee, the defense gets an overwhelming majority of the rebounds on FTs.

You say the defense has no time to box out. However, the offense also does not have time to get around the defense.

Again, I simply don't see what you're claiming in my games.

If the offense gets more than about 5% of missed FT rebounds, it's too many. The number is more than it used to be. And where the ball ends up has more to do with the shot than with any rebounding technique. I'd like to see some hard stats, though.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

If the offense gets more than about 5% of missed FT rebounds, it's too many. The number is more than it used to be. And where the ball ends up has more to do with the shot than with any rebounding technique. I'd like to see some hard stats, though.

The stats I had heard before this most recent change was that about 82% went to the defense. The change to leave the top spaces empty was to increase that number...to what level, I don't know.

Standard rebounds are much more even probably no more skewed than 60/40...maybe 70/30. Why should the defense get over 95% on a FT miss? If that is to be the case, why don't we just award the ball to the defense automatically.

What is the reason for FT to begin with. On a shot, in addition to penalizing the foul, it is to replace the opportunity to score.

Consider some numbers. Team field goal percentages are often 30-40% and team free throw percentages are probably 60-75%. Using 70%, the odds of missing both is about 9%; making both, 49%; making 1 and missing one, 42%. Using 60%, the numbers go to 16%, 36%, and 48%.

Taking just the latter option, there will be a rebound to be had in only 40% of the FT pairs (16 + 36/2 since the single miss may be the first of the two). There will be an average of

Where am I going with all this? I don't really know but I'm having a good time thinking about it. I might even end up changing my stance.

So, the 70% FT team will average 1.2 points per trip to the line. If you essentially guarantee the defensive possesion after the FTs, that results in an average possession score of 1.2 points.

However, if you look at the value of the 40% FG results, they get 0.8 points per attempt. Assuming a 50% offensive rebounding rate, they'll end up with a score about 52% of the possessions worth 1.04 points.

Of course, these number change with every team and style of play. A team with a great center that is the focal point of the entire offense will have a much high FG percentage and will have more rebounds but will have a lower FT percentage.

I'm not sure what conclusion I want to draw, if any, from my analysis but after giving it some thought, there's no way I'm going to not post it.

Conclude what you will from it.

[Forksref]

As I said, the opponent needs 4 things to go right when you foul, as opposed to only one when you don't: making a three-pointer. (Actually, it's 5 things if you consider that they must hit the rim AND get the rebound.) If your players give up the offensive rebound AND the made shot, that's their fault, then you don't deserve to win. You have more control of rebounding than you do the shooting skill or luck of your opponent.

As for offensive rebounds on a FT, back when players could leave at the release, we gave the eventual state champion their only loss of the season by rebounding 3 of our missed FT's and scoring twice (4 pts). We won by three. We ran the 'loop' with our 2nd player on the lane while the first one took the D to the inside of the lane. Can't do that now when you only have 2 players on the lane. They don't even allow you to occupy the 4th spot anymore.

If 4 players can't get a rebound against 2 when they have inside position AND they have to wait for the ball to hit the rim, you need to evaluate your footwork and positioning.

I think the rule changes have almost completely taken away the strategy of the offensive FT rebound. When you could leave at the release, the defense had to maintain position (contact) a lot longer while waiting for the ball to hit the rim and come off.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Forksref
I think the rule changes have almost completely taken away the strategy of the offensive FT rebound. When you could leave at the release, the defense had to maintain position (contact) a lot longer while waiting for the ball to hit the rim and come off.

The rules did not change with respect to release or rim - just with respect to the numbers on the lane, which clearly now favor the defense. Also, you are correct that going on release allows the offense a bit of a chance for using a set of moves to get off the defender, and the offense can adjust to the defender as the game goes along.

What I think that going on rim does is add an element of luck, because there is no time for either team to set up properly for the rebound. Going on rim a matter of getting there quickest and getting lucky if the ball comes to you. The luck clearly favors the defense, and I would say that 80-90% is maybe the right number based on what I have seen - it is certainly not 95%. The rule would favor the defense even more if you stepped up one position on the lane and left the low blocks empty.