On Monday night, Oklahoma City Thunder center Chet Holmgren knocked down two free throws with 9.4 seconds left in Game 4 against the Dallas Mavericks. They were huge productions, bringing the Thunder closer to a series evening.
The Mavericks had no timeouts left. They had to run onto the court to get back into the game. At that point, fans may have wondered if they would witness an iconic playoff moment. Can Luka Doncic shake off a difficult night and lift his team? Can Kyrie Irving add to his incredible highlight reel of great playoff moments? Can Shai Gilgeous-Alexander strip someone in the backcourt to give him a big night? Will Holmgren rush to the 3-point arc on the switch and send a shot into the night for Dallas?
Instead, Gilgeous-Alexander intentionally fouled PJ Washington as the Mavericks moved the ball around to get a good look. The Thunder were ahead by three points. It was the right move. With so little time remaining and a three-point lead, it made sense to give up a maximum of two points. The Dallas forward split a pair of free throws with 3.2 seconds left, Gilgeous-Alexander hit both free throws at the other end, and that was it. Thunder victory.
Pretty unexpected, right?
(Tim Heitman/Getty Images)
Regular NBA viewers often criticize games for taking too long. These complaints are legitimate, and the league has partially addressed them. Prior to the 2017-18 season, the NBA changed the rule to limit teams to two timeouts in the final three minutes of a game, rather than limiting teams to three timeouts in the final two minutes as before.
Well, here’s another problem. In the situation the Thunder faced Monday night, teams are not encouraged to defend without fouling. Free throws are one of the least exciting and most time-consuming parts of basketball, and the nature of the rules results in more free throws being made. Worst of all, viewers are being robbed of a potentially iconic moment.
So let’s change the rules. Here are two suggestions:
1. If the opponent is in the bonus and wins by 3 or more points and fouls the opponent beyond the 3-point arc, the opponent gets 3 free throws.
2. In the same scenario, the current “allow a foul” rule would be expanded so that the team that is behind/fouled automatically gets a free throw and possession. This is my preferred option.
It may seem counterintuitive to use more free throw threats to reduce the number of free throws late in the game, but free throws are the most efficient shot in the game. In the first offer, a team gives its opponent a chance to tie the game at the free throw line. In the second, you can set up a scenario where your opponent makes a free throw and then makes a 3 (or makes a free throw and makes a 2) to win. No team would intentionally pursue this option.
There is a potential loophole, which I’ll explain in a moment. The current rules encourage players and coaches to consider three scenarios that would go against the spirit of the game:
1. Prioritize fouling over playing defense without fouling. This raises an interesting philosophical debate, but moving away from solving the game while the clock is running is not optimal.
2. If the team that is behind determines that the opposing team is about to foul, its players may attempt unnatural shots while the team that is ahead is developing its strategy. It’s just another way to lure referees into foul calls with unnatural shot attempts, something the league is actively trying to discourage.
3. If a player trailing by three points in the final minute makes the first of two free throws, he or she is encouraged to miss the next free throw in a way that maximizes the chance of an offensive rebound producing another field goal. trial. Why do we have a system that encourages missing shots on purpose? (On Monday, Washington missed his first free throw. Instead of trying to miss his second free throw to generate an offensive rebound and a potential game-tying 3-point attempt, he made it.)
There are counter-arguments here, and I’m not claiming that any of the suggestions above will be a perfect solution. Most notably, the team had 47 minutes and 36 seconds to avoid falling behind by three points with the shot clock off. Speaking of free throws, the Mavericks missed 11 of 23 attempts on Monday. The Thunder’s fouling of Washington wasn’t the main reason Dallas lost.
Also, what about the team you lead? That team is intentionally fouled more often than the team behind it to extend the competitive portion of the game. Well, the second part of that sentence is the important part, right? Given the specificity of the scenario, there is no problem with rules applying to one team but not the other.
Finally, such rules may encourage another type of grifting. This means that a player on the trailing team makes unnatural contact in order to gain the advantage provided by another rule designed to help the team with the ball. But that’s just changing one type of grip for another. There is no net benefit to referee fraud.
Such rule changes may naturally lead to other unintended consequences. I’m dedicated to finding them and trying to make the best rules possible. What I Know: Every basketball fan has a few buzzer shots or last-second shots they’ll never forget. If anyone has a similar list of “how to best utilize taking fouls to maintain a lead,” I haven’t met them yet. I don’t really want to do that either.
(Top photo of Luka Doncic after committing a foul late in the game: Tim Heitman / Getty Images)
