3 FTs proposal

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The idea is to negate most of the value of the late fouling strategy by penalizing a team for quickly fouling (before twenty seconds runs off the clock) and undermining the goal of trading two points for three. Right now the team awarded the free throws is put at a disadvantage by not having the opportunity to score as many points as their opponent on each possession.

I disagree that the team in the lead is at a disadvantage here. You must figure in the probabilities of making the free throws as opposed to making a 3-point FG.

For example, suppose a team shoots 75% at the line. Then the expected value of 2 FT's would be 2 X .75 = 1.5.

If their opponent is making 33% of the 3-point FG's, then the expected value of their tries would be 3 X .33 = 1 (approximately).

This example might be a little high for HS, a little low for NCAA. But you see the point.

The fact that FT's are much easier to make than 3-point FG's means that trading a chance for 2 against a chance for 3 is often to the advantage of the team in the lead.

The probabilities in my examples are just that: examples. The team in the lead needs to make their FT's to stay ahead, and if they shoot only 25% at the end of the game they can lose. The team that's behind needs to make their 3 pointers, and if they shoot 60% they can win. But I think that overall the probabilities are well balanced as the rule stands.

Take away this argument, and what is the rationale for the rule change? To shorten games? But why shorten an exciting part of the game?

[Adam]

Nevada, how many fouls have you ever seen that fit this description in one game? I've never really seen more than 2 or 3 before it's either worked or they give up. Not much of an extra delay, really.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Nevada, how many fouls have you ever seen that fit this description in one game? I've never really seen more than 2 or 3 before it's either worked or they give up. Not much of an extra delay, really.

My thoughts exactly. This strategy is ingrained in the game--you gotta knock down your free throws late in a close game to win. If it ain't broke....

[Rich]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

My thoughts exactly. This strategy is ingrained in the game--you gotta knock down your free throws late in a close game to win. If it ain't broke....

Put me in the came of not exactly seeing a problem that needs a solution.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Put me in the came of not exactly seeing a problem that needs a solution.

I've seen games(mostly at lower levels) where Coach K wannabe's will hack away to the biteer end, down 15 with 30 seconds to go.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by fullor30

I've seen games(mostly at lower levels) where Coach K wannabe's will hack away to the biteer end, down 15 with 30 seconds to go.

Exception, not the rule.

The "ball instead of FTs" doesn't work either; it just incentivizes the defense to take bigger and bigger risks in hopes of a steal, with no downside. And eventually the officials tired of playing 2 seconds at a time will let something go that should be called, et cetera.

The problem with the steep penalty (3 FTs at 13+, or a time runoff) is that when the penalty is steep, some officials may factor that into their judgment of what to call. I'm talking about the same logic that led to the 5-yard face mask penalty. For the grasp and release, 15 yards seemed too punitive, so it would get passed on sometimes. Then for the grasp, slight twist, release, well that's close to the same so don't call that either. The 5-yard option gives officials a way to correct it without being punitive.

The real solution is a shot clock. But for budgetary reasons, that won't be mandated by Fed for quite some time. Until then, late game fouling is a necessary evil.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

The "ball instead of FTs" doesn't work either; it just incentivizes the defense to take bigger and bigger risks in hopes of a steal, with no downside. And eventually the officials tired of playing 2 seconds at a time will let something go that should be called, et cetera.

What's wrong with taking bigger risks to steal the ball? If you make a play on the ball without excessive contact, it's a legitimate foul. Nothing wrong with that. The downside is that if the contact is excessive, the rules cover that already with an intentional or a flagrant. As to your "2 seconds at a time will let something go that should be called" comment - uh uh - that's not what happens with good officials.

I think the NF should try this and see how it works out. In fact, I think I'll suggest it for a rule change for our kids rec league next season.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

Exception, not the rule.

The "ball instead of FTs" doesn't work either; it just incentivizes the defense to take bigger and bigger risks in hopes of a steal, with no downside. And eventually the officials tired of playing 2 seconds at a time will let something go that should be called, et cetera.

The problem with the steep penalty (3 FTs at 13+, or a time runoff) is that when the penalty is steep, some officials may factor that into their judgment of what to call. I'm talking about the same logic that led to the 5-yard face mask penalty. For the grasp and release, 15 yards seemed too punitive, so it would get passed on sometimes. Then for the grasp, slight twist, release, well that's close to the same so don't call that either. The 5-yard option gives officials a way to correct it without being punitive.

The real solution is a shot clock. But for budgetary reasons, that won't be mandated by Fed for quite some time. Until then, late game fouling is a necessary evil.

First of all, I don't know that this is necessarily a problem looking for a solution, but it is always a worthwhile discussion to have.

Secondly, yes, you could foul every two seconds, but eventually you will probably foul the player that the offensive team would like to send to the line. If the fouls become hard fouls with excessive force or without attempt to play the ball, the official can still call an intentional foul (though, I will agree that officials do hesitate to make this call because of the massive difference in penalty compared to a regular foul -- which could be the difference between 1+1 and 2+THE BALL).

I do not think that calling a foul that happens to be the 13th or 14th for a team resulting in a 3-free-throw penalty would be significantly different than calling the 10th or 11th foul resulting in 2 vs. the 7th for a 1+1 -- a 67% FTer will have an expected value of 1.0 for the 1+1 vs. a 1.34 for 2 FTs. Yes, the 13th foul has an expected value of 2.0 in this situation, but not enough to prevent a call, in my opinion.

This difference is still only about half of the difference of a 1+1 (1.0 for a 67% shooter) vs. an intentional foul which would have 2 shots (1.34 for a 67% shooter) plus another 1.2 for the extra possession yielding 1.0 vs. 2.54. This math is one reason why referees are very reluctant to call all-but-the-most-obvious intentional fouls near the end of a game.

As for the answer being the shot clock, doesn't this still happen in college? Don't they have a shot clock, already?

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I disagree that the team in the lead is at a disadvantage here. You must figure in the probabilities of making the free throws as opposed to making a 3-point FG.

For example, suppose a team shoots 75% at the line. Then the expected value of 2 FT's would be 2 X .75 = 1.5.

If their opponent is making 33% of the 3-point FG's, then the expected value of their tries would be 3 X .33 = 1 (approximately).

This example might be a little high for HS, a little low for NCAA. But you see the point.

While your numbers hold for a 2-shot FT, 1-and-1s are a different story. You have a .75 on the first shot (75% of 1 shot). But, the second shot is actually only .56 (75% of 75%). This expected value of 1.31 is significantly less than 1.5. If the numbers are actually 67% and 30% (probably closer number at the HS level), the expected numbers are: 1.11 vs. .9. (This explains why a decent number of comebacks utilizing this strategy work as it is an 1.11:.90 as opposed to 1.31:1.0 or 1.5:1.0.

At some point, perhaps a strategy of fouling and making threes should be lessened in value somewhat by making foul 13 and up 3 FTs in lieu of 2 FTs.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mbyron

For example, suppose a team shoots 75% at the line. Then the expected value of 2 FT's would be 2 X .75 = 1.5. If their opponent is making 33% of the 3-point FG's, then the expected value of their tries would be 3 X .33 = 1 (approximately).

I didn't know that there was going to be math on the Forum today. Can I read this post tomorrow, please?