GregEgg4President | Wizards

533 | 6 hours ago

Legitimately interesting

AmusingAnecdote | Warriors

79 | 4 hours ago

Yeah, especially because it seems like they are employing the correct strategy if they’re that close. Like if it were much better in one direction or the other there would be circumstances in which it were better to do one thing or the other, but if the win probabilities are this close that means that teams probably are correctly determining whether or not to foul based on opposing personnel and whatnot. Fouling up 3 probably makes more sense against a team of shooters than a team that mostly gets to the rim, etc. If it were more clear cut (and coaches were not picking optimally) then there should be a bigger difference.

So this is interesting!

DiscreteBee | Raptors

34 | 3 hours ago

Is that what it means? Or does it mean that being up 3 with less than 24 seconds remaining is such a significant advantage that it overpowers the strategic impact of fouling vs not fouling?

AmusingAnecdote | Warriors

1 | 31 minutes ago

I mean, it could!

The score advantage (and perhaps the presence of the ability to choose between the two strategies) is why the absolute winning percentage is so high, but when there is a difference in two strategies, there should be some difference between the two outcomes. But if the decisionmaking is optimal then those two numbers should converge towards a higher equilibrium and equilibrium implies either there is no difference or that strategy is being applied optimally. I suppose either could be true, but I lean towards the latter since we should expect a difference.

SEAinLA | Supersonics

408 | 6 hours ago

The only difference fouling up three makes is turning the end of an otherwise exciting game into an unwatchable slog.

OsuLost31to0 | Cavaliers

43 | 5 hours ago

We need the Elam ending now but that will never be implemented because the league loves commercial breaks too much

LeBronstantinople | Heat

9 | 4 hours ago

What is the Elam ending?

onebandonesound | Knicks

29 | 4 hours ago

Target score ending based on a set amount above the winning teams score at a set point in the game.

For example, let’s say the Lakers and Celtics are playing each other and the Lakers are leading 85-75 at the end of the 3rd quarter. A 20 point Elam ending means they turn off the game clock and that the game will only end when one of the teams reaches 105 points.

Schwaflcopter

22 | 4 hours ago

Replaces the game clock with a target score at the end of the game the winner needs to hit. They’ve done it in the all-star game before.

Sufficient_Try8961

2 | 33 minutes ago

I think this is the biggest change the league should make to improve the watching experience. Sure tanking, flopping, soft whistles suck, but the end of a close game should be the most exciting thing in the sport. Instead it turns into “do I even care enough about the outcome to spend 29 of thenext 30 minutes watching free throws and time outs?”

OilOfOlaz | Celtics

1 | 5 minutes ago

I don’t think you do, just do the same EL does, intentional foul gived the oponent 1 ft. and posession.

Trento322 | Jazz

0 | 4 hours ago

It will happen someday

scarywolverine | Pistons

30 | 4 hours ago

The fact that this hasn’t been legislated out yet is nuts to me. Not only is it boring as hell but it’s a complete loohope and manipulation of the rules. Fouls were added to discourage bad behavior not encourage it. If your stsytem is designed so breaking the rules is beneficial you need to change the rules

jackaholicus | Mavericks

11 | 3 hours ago

I’m against banning this because banning fouling while up but not while down is unfair.

scarywolverine | Pistons

10 | 3 hours ago

They should ban that too. Destroys the end of games

ekun

6 | 3 hours ago

I always thought that under 2 minutes, it should be 1 free throw like a technical foul and then you keep possession.

But then the issue is it gives refs too much control to keep teams in or to sway the game and it also promotes foul baiting even moreso than already exists.

I’m not really sure what a good solution can be.

But maybe ban commercial breaks at least.

asar5932 | Knicks

1 | 43 minutes ago

I’ve always thought that teams in the bonus on a non-shooting foul should have the option of either shooting foul shots or progressing the ball and inbounding. This would solve for “hack-a-Shaq” and eliminate late game fouling.

vNocturnus | Kings

2 | 3 hours ago

They shouldn’t ban it, but just make some rule changes to make it less valuable. Similar to a transition take foul, they could make an intentional foul while leading by 3+ and the shot clock turned off result in 1 FT and retain possession side out.

I wouldn’t be against the league trying to find some way to legislate the last-minute intentional foul game out of both sides of the equation (while leading or while behind). It makes for horribly drawn out and sometimes borderline unwatchable endings. But it’s a lot easier to remove just one half of it, the leading team fouling, without dramatically changing potential outcomes - clearly, since the difference is 0.3% between the strategies.

jackaholicus | Mavericks

2 | 2 hours ago

there shouldn’t be different rules for a team depending on if they’re winning or losing though

justmefishes | NBA

1 | 2 hours ago

This depends on having the refs make judgment calls about what’s “intentional” or not, which isn’t feasible. If this becomes the rule, teams will just intentionally foul in a way where they have plausible deniability. It’s the same reason the flopping rules are unenforceable.

They absolutely can and should change the rules so that they don’t incentivize intentional fouling, but this can’t be done in a way that requires refs to be judging the intentionality of a foul. There are other, cleaner and more objective ways to do it though.

devotedhero | Wizards

1 | 3 hours ago

It makes the NBA more money with commercial breaks

The answer to every “why don’t they X” question is always money unfortunately

Ferovore | Clippers

1 | 2 hours ago

Feel like most of the NBA’s bullshit like this would be fixed if they implemented FIBA’s intentional fouling rules. There are so many fouls every single game that would be free throws and ball back in FIBA. Even hugging a dude on a fast break layup attempt. You’re not even trying to play basketball anymore, just the rules, so FT’s and ball back.

CMYGQZ | Grizzlies

21 | 5 hours ago

that’s mainly because the team trailing for some reason never shoots rightaway. I watched way many games, in fact like almost 100% of them, where the team trails by 3 calls a timeout, and knowing that the opponents will foul (a lot of times the back-and-fourth fouls already happened once), still for some reason draws up a play that requires buildup, and I’m just screaming at my TV as they get fouled wondering why those coaches don’t draw up a catch-and-shoot play.

Laggo | TOR

1 | an hour ago

They will virtually never call that even if you know the foul is coming. They don’t call fouls at the end of the game like that.

KUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUZ | Lakers

3 | 3 hours ago

simply ban it. I legitimately cannot see the utility of it in any way

you end it by making intentional fouls while up 3 free throws and the ball.

BillyBean11111 | San Francisco Warriors

1 | 2 hours ago

It’s why it should be legislated out. It’s not a distinct advantage anyway so err in favor of watchable television.

Briggity_Brak | Tampa Bay Raptors

1 | an hour ago

Also gives you a chance to lose IN REGULATION

NewChemistry5210 | Lakers

285 | 6 hours ago

Actually a great post, and I didn’t expect such a small difference!

I never really considered how good players have become at hitting the rim and catching their own miss.

EchoHevy5555

91 | 5 hours ago

42% is almost good enough to where I think there could be a strong argument to be made that Mitchell Robinson should start intentionally missing free throws. He should just be throwing up rainbow FTs to give him enough time to attempt the rebound. I shoot FTs about as well as Mrob (I suck at ball) and even I can consistently hit the rim

TheVanillaGorilla4 | Trail Blazers

42 | 5 hours ago

Shooter has to wait until it hits the rim tho

Krillin113 | 76ers

-11 | 4 hours ago

As if the nba will call that shit

AroundNdowN | Pistons

38 | 4 hours ago

That’s one of the 4 rules they actually seem to enforce

sidecarfalcon69 | Warriors

0 | 4 hours ago

I won’t claim to watch a ton of full basketball games but when’s the last time 3 in the key got called

mot_ | NBA

1 | 3 hours ago

It’s called, but not enough. I easily have seen at least 10 of those in Portland games this year, mostly defensive

BCP27 | MIN

0 | an hour ago

I’ve never seen them miss that call rbh

NewChemistry5210 | Lakers

10 | 5 hours ago

To be fair, I think that it’s a lot more difficult, because you don’t just have to aim for the rim and make it bounce back into your direction. Shooters can’t leave the line before the ball touches the rim.

A lot of the more recent successful attempts (Luka a few seasons ago and Austin this year) also were lucky that multiple opponents missed the ball. There is still an element of luck involved. Especially in pressure situations.

But it’s definitely an interesting idea, that I could see getting really popular.

ggproductivity | Warriors

1 | an hour ago

It’s definitely something that should be practiced for end of game situations, but I think it won’t ever be used as a strategic alternative to the final free throw because it takes the same skills as a free throw. Anyone with the touch to semi-reliably get the ball back will also be a good free throw shooter.

CitizenCue | Warriors

3 | 3 hours ago

Given the rate of rebounding on intentional misses, should bad free throw shooters be attempting to miss their second shot on every trip to the line?

helpilostmynarwhal

6 | 3 hours ago

If they are bad shooters, can they reasonably be expected to be good missers though?

CitizenCue | Warriors

3 | 3 hours ago

Hard to say, but maybe worth an experiment.

justmefishes | NBA

5 | 3 hours ago

Let’s say you’re a 50% FT shooter. Then the expected points for your team if you try to hit the FT is 0.5. Let’s say that if you intentionally miss, then your team gets the offensive rebound 40% of the time, and their expected points per possession following the offensive rebound is X.

For this strategy to make sense, it would have to be the case that 0.4 * X > 0.5, or X > 1.2 points per possession. On average, NBA teams score 1.16 points per possession this season, and only two teams (Denver and Boston) score more than 1.2 points per possession.

So, broadly speaking, this strategy would only make sense if the expected PPP off an offensive rebound from a bad FT shooter who intentionally misses is appreciably higher than a team’s average PPP across all kinds of possessions. I suspect this wouldn’t be the case, since (1) teams’ average PPP factors in fast breaks, and obviously you can’t fast break off of an offensive rebound, (2) because there’s so much competition for the rebound, it’s unlikely there’s going to be an easy layup right afterwards, and (3) by definition, one of your four guys on the court is an awful FT shooter, which means your offense is probably better without him on the court unless he can make up for it in other ways.

Looking at it from the other direction, let’s assume a team will score the league average 1.16 PPP following an offensive rebound from the intentional miss, and let’s still suppose the offensive rebound rate off of the intentional miss is a very high 40%. Then, the free throw shooter should intentionally miss if their FT% is less than (40% oreb) * (1.16 PPP) = 46.4%. So it might actually be a good strategy if a player is an especially horrible FT shooter, at least assuming that the expected OREB% off an intentional miss remains so high.

Mitchell Robinson shoots 41% FTs this season, and the Knicks average 1.198 PPP. So again assuming the Knicks will score 1.198 PPP off of an intentional miss from Robinson, they should have him intentionally miss as long as the team can manage to offensive rebound the intentional misses at a rate of (41% FT) / (1.198 PPP) = 34.2%.

Overall, it seems like it might actually be a viable strategy for particularly bad (< 50%) FT shooters.

CitizenCue | Warriors

1 | 2 hours ago

Thanks for doing the work! Intuitively it seemed like it might be about at the break-even point.

I wonder how it would play out in real life though. The rebounds off intentional misses are under circumstances where the defense usually knows an intentional miss is happening. If Robinson secretly signaled his teammates that he was going to intentionally miss, it might increase their chances. But of course pretty soon teams would catch on and be prepared every time.

justmefishes | NBA

2 | an hour ago

I think the advantage of the intentional miss isn’t so much knowing for sure the miss is coming– in relevant late game situations both teams know it’s coming, and with FT shooters like Robinson both teams may as well assume he’s going to miss– but rather increasing the unpredictability of the miss by intentionally trying to create an awkward bounce that makes it more random who winds up with the ball.

JollyNincompoop | Raptors

2 | 3 hours ago

I imagine the people who miss FTs just right for thwir team ti get it are people who are generally good FT shooters. This strat wouldnt work for Gobert, who is terrible at shooting FTs, because it requires him to hit the rim just right and he already struggles to hit the rim at all. It might work for Luka, but he’s gotten better at his FTs too.

CitizenCue | Warriors

1 | 3 hours ago

I’d think Gobert would be a prime candidate since he’s often the tallest guy in the paint so following his shot would result in rebounds a lot of the time.

JollyNincompoop | Raptors

1 | an hour ago

He’s the tallest guy in the paint and also the farthest guy from the basket. He also can’t miss his free throws in predictable or opportune ways, he just misses them all over the place, which is not what you want if you intend to purposely miss the free throw.

CitizenCue | Warriors

1 | 24 minutes ago

An intentional miss is a very different shot than a regular free throw. Any ballplayer can tell as soon as a ball leaves his hands where the ball is going - he has more information than everyone else. It’s a lot easier to get your own rebound if you’re doing it on purpose.

innisfree50 | Warriors

1 | 14 minutes ago

i wonder what the stats say before the past 5 seasons, when players sucked at missing

lebron_games

1 | 10 minutes ago

There’s also the rampant lane violations that are allowed to happen at the end of games. Combined with the fact that the team shooting the free throw doesn’t need to get back and can just commit everyone to going for it make the probability of getting the offensive rebound much higher

Foi_ | Knicks

64 | 6 hours ago

my fear of fouling up 3 is the possibility of losing in regulation. like AG game 1 vs okc last year. most of the time when you play normal d the worst thing that could happen is OT.

RansomGoddard | NBA

36 | 6 hours ago

like AG game 1 vs okc last year

FWIW, everyone pretty universally as least as far as I remember criticized them during the game thread for not only fouling way too early but fouling while Jokic was still on the bench. They could have and should have killed way more clock.

dwrek24 | Spurs

37 | 6 hours ago

I get the sentiment. I’ve never really found the juice to be worth the squeeze except specific niche situations.

But it doesn’t surprise me the difference may me miniscule, because I didnt see it as an overwhelming bad idea either.

I would just rather take my chances with straight up defense most times.

soapy_goatherd | UTA

23 | 5 hours ago

Playing defense also propitiates the basketball gods, which is important even if you end up losing

_thisisvincent | NBA

7 | 5 hours ago

wtf propitiates

Briggity_Brak | Tampa Bay Raptors

2 | an hour ago

I don’t think infetterence is even a word.

whatssenguntoagoblin | Alperen Sengun

8 | 4 hours ago

My philosophy is it’s team dependent. If you have good free throw shooters foul up 3, if you don’t then don’t foul up 3.

Same goes if your team has a good defense. If you do don’t foul up 3, if you have a bad defensive team then foul up 3.

dwrek24 | Spurs

5 | 3 hours ago

Those are some of the factors. I think time and score and timeout situation matters as well.

EarthWarping | NBA

25 | 5 hours ago

Over the past two seasons, according to an analysis of GeniusIQ data, teams trailing by two or three points in the final 10 seconds have successfully rebounded 16 of 38 missed free throws, or 42% (including violations that don’t hit the rim)

That is crazy.

Szobortz | Mavericks

23 | 6 hours ago

i just hate these mass data collection. a totality sample size. no split shown. no opponent strength considered. if you’re doing data analysis, be thorough. present a table.

and weren’t okc doing it with like a whole minute left?

whowasonCRACK2 | Lakers

12 | 5 hours ago

Also how would this differentiate between fouling as strategy and trying to play regular defense, but accidentally committing a foul?

Szobortz | Mavericks

3 | 5 hours ago

they used a bell curve of 3-17 seconds for this after already limiting it to 24 seconds. 17-24 fouls sample would guaranteed be fouling up 3 too lol.

mermanarchy

2 | an hour ago

Sample size is too tiny anyway. With this size, the gap would need to be like 5% for statistical significance. We also didn’t get the n for each type, just a blanket 524 gams.

f_et_al | United States

9 | 5 hours ago

Might be different if adjusted for O and D Rtgs of the two teams (and rebounding and FT shooting too).

If you have great perimeter defenders to deny a good look from 3, why roll the dice and risk another possession. Or if the other team has Steph or Dame or someone like that, maybe consider fouling.

Sko_Neezy

9 | 5 hours ago

I know this isn’t the point of the research but I’m curious…if teams can inch closer to getting 50% of rebounds from intentionally missed free throws, at what point does it become advantageous to intentionally miss a second free throw earlier in the game and turn a 1 point possession into a 3 or 4 point possession? For example, if you’re down 10 with 3 minutes left, hit the first, try to miss the second free throw…opponent might not expect it at all…might the odds increase enough?

sir_alvarex | OKC

4 | 4 hours ago

Im no math whiz, but ill take a stab at it for expected points per possession. If a 100% free throw shooter (expected points at line==2) misses the second shot to gain possession 50% of the time, then they need to score 2 points 50% of the time or a 3 33% of the time to break even. Those percentages are the expected points per possession for 1 point (equal to the point missed on the free throw).

The percentage you need to shoot goes down the worse the free throw shooter. So a 75% shooter who makes the first has an expected PPP of .75. Thats shooting just 38% from 2 or 25% from 3. So for the average shooter, your odds are fairly good that you’ll beat out the PPP.

If you can grab 50% of the rebounds, of course.

But the current numbers (46% are rebounded) are at a point where if a team really tried hard they probably come ahead of the expected points per possession for most of their free throw shooters. That 46% tho has a lot of variables in it that im sure arent taken into account.

JollyNincompoop | Raptors

3 | 3 hours ago

We also have to take into account that not all possessions end with a shot, some end in a turnover. So if a team turns the ball over on 10% of possessions, only 90% of possessions end in a shot and so shooting splits would have to be higher to deliver the same expected value.

We also have to consider that a made free throw allows your defense time to get set whereas a failed rebound puts your team on its heels and further worsens your chances (even if they’re already slim).

Burnem34 | Trail Blazers

3 | an hour ago

The Steph Curry of missing perfectly off the rim will be the next player to revolutionize the meta

AnotherStatsGuy | Pelicans

8 | 5 hours ago

It’s all situational. This is the type of data that needs to be split into more categories. Fouling up 3 with 10 seconds vs 2 seconds isn’t exactly the same.

BigRedNutcase | Raptors

0 | 5 hours ago

And also how much time you burn before fouling matters too. This entire. Statement looks at too many disparate situations and really only tells you that teams up 3 near the end win 92% of the time regardless of strategy.

TdotGdot | Timberwolves

5 | 5 hours ago

0.3%, I’ll take it!

Actually though, being honest if I’m a coach since it’s so close I take the most risk adverse approach (which is not fouling), since I think you’ll get less shit if it goes wrong

Unless of course there is some game specific reason to do otherwise (maybe the other team is all bad FT shooters or something, or bad 3pt shooters, or our defense has been great, etc)

Foi_ | Knicks

2 | 5 hours ago

its only after the fact if the opponent makes a 3 that people wish they fouled. but when you foul and your lead becomes 1 with 10-15 seconds left thats what causes alot of anxiety where the team thats leading suddenly has to not mess up the inbound and make pressure free throws.

jambr380

5 | 5 hours ago

This is great data. People would tell me what a moron I was for hating the concept of fouling when up 3. As discussed, there are more variables than simply the score. Time being a major factor.

Hopefully coaches catch wind of this and follow suit. Once your team loses because employed this strategy, it makes you way more leery of doing it. Especially since it’s just absolutely awful to watch

Shepher27 | Timberwolves

2 | 5 hours ago

Kind of crazy that 1-in-12 teams lose when up three with the shot clock off basically either way

NeverSober1900 | Rockets

3 | 3 hours ago

If you only watch Rockets games you’d think it can’t possibly be that few

onwee | Clippers

2 | 5 hours ago

I mean, the decision to foul or not are made by teams of top professionals whose jobs are (or should be) to optimize the strengths and weaknesses of their roster: if you trust your defense, maybe you lean toward not fouling; if you trust your rebounding and foul shooting maybe you lean toward fouling. Not to mention the strengths/weaknesses the opposing team.

Being up with so little time left is already such an overwhelming advantage anyway, I’m not surprised that with the added tinkering around the margins it all comes out in a wash

whatssenguntoagoblin | Alperen Sengun

2 | 4 hours ago

It would be interested to see how the stats look at more granular time frame. Like is it worth it more to foul between 5-8 seconds vs 10-13 seconds?

nchscferraz

2 | 4 hours ago

“Whatever edge is gained from fouling is small” feels overstated. It seems more accurate to call it inconclusive, since the difference between 92% and 91.7% is so minimal that it’s hard to treat as meaningful.

Zeeron1 | Thunder

2 | 3 hours ago

It’s such an easy fix to prevent this, I dont understand how it’s still a thing lol

Boysoythesoyboy

1 | 5 hours ago

If you assume teams are more likely to foul when the opposing team has good 3 point shooters, and their team has better free throw shooters and worse rebounder, then the overall numbers will be misleading- maybe fouling significantly raises their chances in those cases.

Sensitive_Worry2499

1 | 5 hours ago

would be interesting to see the splits of win/OT/loss. My theory is that fouling up 3 decreases the chance you go to OT, but increases the chance you lose in regular time enough to make it not worthwhile overall

osama-bin-dada | Lakers

1 | 5 hours ago

We need a rule change to say intentionally fouling up 3 when the shot clock is off is automatically 3 free throws.

Watching 5 commercials and 10 free throws is so fucking boring.

torriattet

1 | 4 hours ago

“I conducted my own study” =/ I asked an AI chat bot.

Gage_Commish

1 | 2 hours ago

the math works out to teams up 3 losing about 8% of the time whether you foul or not. you’re just making the ending worse for everyone and the numbers barely move.

Bulky-Butterfly-130

1 | 43 minutes ago

It would be interesting to know how many of the 524 games fell into each bucket (foul v. normal defense). It could be statistically insignificant or some significance.

[Kram] I conducted my own study of fouling up three, using GeniusIQ to filter for all possessions from the past five seasons… Teams that chose to foul up three won 92.0% of their games, versus 91.7% for those that played normal defense.