BuzzerBeater Forums

All right. So why the 3 consecutive PF in the first place ?

All right. So why the 3 consecutive PF in the first place ?

So that if you need to foul (which happens when you're down 4 or more points with less than 24 seconds on the clock, roughly speaking) your first foul will send them directly to the line, rather than having to waste valuable time off the clock to give 3 fouls first.

I need to get to watch more basket-ball then. Is that so really ? Giving away 3 PF in advanced planning in this situation ? I thought that with 70 seconds left, one more foul could have gain us double possession. It's only me I guess. Anyway, thank you for your answer.
Do leading teams ever enter the foul game ? I got back because I was allowed to shoot 3-pointers. Forcing me to double FTs could arguably have been a safer path for the other team.

I need to get to watch more basket-ball then. Is that so really ? Giving away 3 PF in advanced planning in this situation ? I thought that with 70 seconds left, one more foul could have gain us double possession. It's only me I guess. Anyway, thank you for your answer.
Do leading teams ever enter the foul game ? I got back because I was allowed to shoot 3-pointers. Forcing me to double FTs could arguably have been a safer path for the other team.

Тhere is the situation: when you foul, you're supposedly giving the opposition 2 easy points (you're sure hoping they will miss at least one, but it is way more likely to miss from play than from the line). Therefore, when you don't _have_ to foul, you don't -- you try to play defense as well as you could.

Moreover, you don't have to take full 24 seconds on a possession, and likewise you don't have to let the other team take 24 seconds before you foul them, so this point is kind of moot.

In the particular example you quoted: with 50 secs on the clock you let them play. If they score, you can still try to get a quick basket, then give a quick foul and hope that they miss -- 35 seconds is an eternity in the NBA.

If they miss -- great, you're down 3 with the ball and 30 or so seconds on the clock. The usual strategy there is to look for a quick 2-pointer, give a quick foul and hope that they miss. This way you can avoid the risk of having to shoot a three-pointer.

Of course, sometimes teams will go for the three-ball rather than a quick basket -- it all depends on what type of players you have, and what looks at the basket the opposition gives you. One thing is certain though: if you can't get stops and can't score baskets, you ain't going to win -- fouls or no fouls.

Thank you for trying to give me the full picture :)

By 50 seconds on the clock, we were 5 then 6 pts down and we fouled them quickly.
By 35 seconds on the clock, we were 3 pts down and didn't. Actually, I can understand why although it's highly debattable, please concede.
By 75 seconds with only 3 pts down, the foul thingy routine is triggered, we commit 3 PF putting us in position to give unwanted FTs in case we get even or else but we don't take full advantage of this by cutting down their possession to earn one extra theorically. I sense it was triggered to soon or not to full effect. It does not make sense to me but I admit I might be wrong.
If you say this is the usual "real life" tactics, I assume it is. It's fine.

Actually, I'm impressed that your coach thought in advance about the foul situation, and appears to have brought on a backup to commit the fouls needed to bring your team fouls to 4 - before the game situation demanded it - and then returned to the more stable tactic of actually trying to defend the basket rather than offer free throws, for as long as you were only one shot behind. I'd be very happy with the game tactics you've outlined, they look spot on to me.

The 'foul, shoot, foul, shoot' end-game tactic doesn't actually work very well, but when you're more than one shot behind and running out of time it's better than letting the opponent run down the clock. Assuming their FT percentage is better than their FG percentage (and remembering you can't TO while taking free throws), I'd always rather my guys play defence than commit fouls, unless the situation is really desperate.

Indeed, this is quite impressive. I really didn't think the GE was that sophisticated and wrongly deduced that something buggy had occured. This is not about the choice to foul or not but more about the drastic "preemptive action" taken.

Now, out of curiosity, I know that nobody has any direct inside view of the GE but still, do you think that in this situation the trailing team is instructed to full court press to force TO ? Since the coach is smart enough to plan ahead on a double bonus, he should at the same time adopt a more considered approach to defense.

Again, I didn't want to start a discussion about fouling or not fouling. Actually, this is interesting. I would not advocate fouling in most cases except when it earns you an extra ball possession. When you're trailing, ball possession time is critical. Leading teams main objective is not to score but to kill time. When they have possession, you're left with not so much options. With 70s to go, a 3 pt lead and ball in hands, a leading team is in position to get two full 24 seconds possession in order to kill time, it leaves the trailing team with little time to bounce back. If the trailing team purposely gives FT by 70s, it might face a larger points difference (it will certainly) but saves valuable time and most importantly gets the opportunity to boss how time should be split according to score evolution and in order to have the crucial last ball possession. It's no perfect plan, so many things can happen, in terms of reasoning, you try to stick to what is more probable. If you do not foul by 70s, the leading team will only shot at the clock, whether they score or not is almost irrelevant, the trailing team will be 3 pts or more down, with only 45 to 50 sec left in a 1vs1 possession context. So very probably, they will have to foul anyway. But because we are inside a minute, it will stay a 1vs1 possession whatever you do. If you foul by 70s, you prevent this, you gain one extra ball possession. If you do not, your only hope for not having to foul later is an early TO. Possible but not very likely.

Of course this is merely theorical. You're behind, you look bad already, anything is a desperate attempt to overcome things, you did badly in the first place.