To Foul or Not to Foul: Down Two, 27 Seconds Left

by

With 27 seconds left in the fourth quarter, Portland inbounded the ball, nursing a lead that had narrowed to two after a layup by Tim Duncan. With just over 3 seconds separating the game clock and the shot clock, the Spurs chose to apply on-the-ball pressure and hopefully force the turnover or, at the very least, a low percentage shot. Although the turnover never came, the Spurs did force Jerryd Bayless into a long jumper. The Spurs were in excellent position to secure the rebound but George Hill had trouble corralling it, and the loose ball bounced the direction of Andre Miller. Miller was quickly fouled and made both free throws, putting the game out of reach.

After the game I asked Gregg Popovich why he had played the Blazers straight up, instead of fouling and adding possessions to the game.

“3.2 second difference, which is plenty of time to tie a game,” said Popovich. “You don’t foul with a two point deficit, go down four.”

Although Coach Pop treated his decision as commonly accepted wisdom, there are many coaches who, when in that situation, foul immediately. They slow the game down to a grinding halt and force the opposing team to hit a number of free throws in order to maintain their two possession lead. They also give themselves an opportunity to hit a three-pointer with enough time for another planned foul left on the clock. If they make the three, the lead is cut down to one possession even if the opposing team makes all its free throws.

I am confident that Gregg Popovich and his staff have a better sense of which strategy works a greater percentage of the time, and how those historical figures relate to the particular players who were on the floor at that moment. The Spurs have some good on-the-ball defenders, and the Blazers have some good free throw shooters. There are legitimate reasons to play for the turnover or miss.

What makes me skeptical is Pop’s claim that the team would have had 3.2 seconds to score. That was the difference between the shot clock and the game clock. But even if Hill had managed to secure the rebound, the ball would have traveled through the air, bounced off rim and then made it’s way into Hill’s arms. At least another full second would have passed before the Spurs had possession and could call a timeout. So even if the Spurs get the rebound, which is a bit of a gamble against a team that had already secured 10 offensive boards that night, there won’t likely be a full 3 seconds on the clock.

There are no good options when you’re down two without the ball with under 30 seconds left. Both strategies are relying on a hearty helping of luck. And I don’t necessarily disagree with Pop’s decision. What I don’t like is that he described the situation as if there is not a discussion to be had.

  • doggydogworld

    Pop’s logic is bogus. First, you don’t automatically go down 4 if you foul. The odds of going down 4 are slightly higher if you foul than if you don’t, but you trade that for 20+ seconds of game time. This gives you a chance to make a 2 or a 3 and deny another inbounds pass.

    But the real flaw is as you pointed out — 3.2 seconds is an illusion. The Spurs actually got lucky because Bayless shot too soon. A vet would shoot a long jumper just before the buzzer. Even if he misses it takes three seconds for the ball to bounce off the rim and be controlled. The buzzer probably sounds before timeout it called. At best the Spurs end up with a 0.4 situation.

  • Sauce

    I did not like Pop’s decision to not foul. I understand playing D for 5-10 seconds trying to force a TO, but milking it all the way to a couple of seconds and then ASSUMING a rebound is a guaranteed is not the way basketball always works.

    I don’t question Pop, but I did not like that call.

  • TheRed&Black

    Of course there can be a discussion, but let’s face it. In that interview Pop was PISSED! No matter what you asked him, you weren’t going to get a good answer. I think pop did the right thing, and if we had gotten the rebound, things would most likely be different.

  • http://www.48minutesofhell.com Graydon Gordian

    TheRed&Black,

    I’ve interviewed Pop when he is pissed and, honestly, he didn’t seem that pissed. Sure, he was unhappy, but he was patient and thorough when answering my question. When Pop is pissed, he gives one word answers.

    What I am not saying is that, just because it didn’t work this time, Pop’s decision was wrong. The right decision can still be unsuccessful sometimes. And Pop seemed very convinced he made the right decision. All I’m saying is, I’m not so positive.

  • ThatBigGuy

    2 questions:

    When has the fouling strategy ever worked?

    How many times have the Spurs locked down and their D made the game changing play to end a game?

    Answers: Never and many times. Pop obviously went with what he knows has worked in the past.

    If we win by getting the steal and scoring a 3 at the buzzer, this space is full of glowing praise. We didn’t and it’s not. Come on guys, the brain trust that is our coaching staff considered the options and went with the best option. There are way too many “ifs” in this sort of situation the day after to properly even discuss it. I’ll match your ifs with a set of my own and we’ll argue until next Thursday. Besides, it’s ultimately left up to the players to force a turn-over (or corral a rebound) and they failed. Also, the players were on board with Pop’s call otherwise someone would have fouled a guy.

  • http://www.48minutesofhell.com Graydon Gordian

    ThatBigGuy,

    You are right, fouling earlier in the clock has never worked, because Pop never does it. We are 0/0 with that strategy, which proves absolutely nothing.

    Also, in regards to, “the players were on board with Pop’s call…”- I’m not saying any of the players should ever go rogue and think they know better than Pop. Whether they like it or not, they need to work within the system. Because they did not disobey Pop does not mean they agreed with him.

    It’s disingenuous to say its just a matter of “ifs” so there is no point in discussing it. It is, however, a matter of probability, which is why I said, “I am confident that Gregg Popovich and his staff have a better sense of which strategy works a greater percentage of the time, and how those historical figures relate to the particular players who were on the floor at that moment.”

    And in regards to “if we win… this space is full of glowing praise” - Win or lose, I still think the question is interesting. And, even if we had managed to win at the very end, we still would have played like shit against an inferior opponent.

  • NoMoreSmallBall

    Next time you interview Pop please ask him why he feels the need to play small ball all the time… Especially against a team missing their 2 centers. How many times do we have to watch a Guard/Small Forward covering a PF/Center? Or not get a rebound when needed? Give it up Pop… Play the old style!!! No More Small Ball!

  • B.D.

    I’m not sure why you’re obsessing over this. Pop weighed his options and made his decision. He thinks it was the right thing to do, even though the Spurs lost.

    Did you really expect Pop would give you a long and thoughtful answer about all the considerations that went into his decision-making? Perhaps he thought you were annoying.

  • FirePop

    Hey guys, I think it’s time to look at reality. Pop has lost his players, they are not responding to him anymore. Also, Tim can’t jump anymore, and needs help on the boards. I guess that’s why Pop is starting Blair. Blair is a Barkley type rebounder, but our team needs tall, YOUNG players who can rebound. Enough with the OLD taller veterans, they don’t have the energy we need. Pop is a great GM, but can’t coach this team anymore. We need a young coach, who fires up his team. I think Pop is satisfied with his championship rings, as you can tell he just doesn’t have the fire inside anymore. Remember the Robinson-Duncan-Purdue triple towers, that is basically what the LA Lakers have, HEIGHT. We should trade Ginobilli or Jefferson for a younger, tall energetic player. Nomoresmallball is on the right track..

  • Nick (Italy)

    Graydon,
    I think we are focusing on a detail, but we should talk about the main issue: we lost badly to a good team (not a contender) which was playing without 5 of their rotation players, including 2 of their best 3.
    We were basically at full strenght.
    This is a major panic signal in my head, since it is a notable regression even from the level at which we played earlier in the year.
    A wannabe contender should win easily against such weaker competitors, while we lost quite badly.
    This should be the issue at the center of the discussion.
    Best,
    Nick

  • http://www.48minutesofhell.com Graydon Gordian

    Nick,

    If you want to talk about how we lost to a team we should have beaten, go for it, the comments section is yours.

    Personally, I want to focus on the details. I am interested in the minutiae of basketball. If people want to piss and moan about how we aren’t living up to our potential, go for it. I just find that to be boring. Boring to write and boring to read. Win or lose, I think the details are always fascinating.

  • LasEspuelas

    Like it has been said before, the 3+ seconds are an illusion. I have a question regarding this. If it gets down to 1 shot clock second and 4 game seconds what prevents the Portland player with control of the ball from throwing the ball very high. Hang time could be at least 2 seconds no? What happens if the ball does not touch the rim? Does the timer go back to the time where he shot the ball or does it end the game? What prevents the Portland player from retreating to near half-court and just shooting a very low percentage but very time consuming shot?

  • c/o

    Go Spurs Go!!

  • SpursfanSteve

    I’m inclined to agree with you, Graydon. I enjoy the focus on the detail i read here. and Unfortunately theres been a lot of boring pissing and moaning to read in the comments section. I understand everyone is frustrated. I am, too. But bitching about it isnt going to fix it. At least focusing on the details is a diversion from whats happening and a welcome focus on why/how. The only thing worse than whining is whining and then coming up with ridiculous impossible trades that happen to work in espn’s trade machine.

  • Chris K.

    It should never have come down to the choice that you describe Graydon, that’s a fact. The Spurs should have won rather comfortably, if they are who we think they are - and who they say they are.

    Nevertheless, you’re right, as far as I remember Pop always chooses to defend that situation in the way you describe. I’ll make the case for his decision.

    3 seconds or so is, in fact, plenty of time to get a good shot off to win or tie a game. The decision relies on the defense to get a stop and the offense to make a shot to win or tie. When it counts, our Spurs have more often than not made that stop and gotten that score.

    In addition, whether or not the percentages are in Pop’s favor on this decision, I think the intangible factors are with him. Fouling the offense when you’re only down two shows a lack of faith in your defense.

    Perhaps Pop wants the team to truly realize that there are no ways around playing defense - that when it counts, the team will have to get stops, there are no strategies that solve that problem. Playing the free-throw game minimizes the importance of defense, whereas putting the stress on the defense to get a stop gives the team a chance to demonstrate the skill (or expose the lack of it) that is necessary for a championship.

    The sting of a loss can only add to this lesson for the Spurs players: there’s no way around it, you have to get stops or you will lose.

  • Nick (Italy)

    Graydon,

    As latin used to say, “de gustibus non disputandum est”, i.e. “you don’t discuss tastes”, so obviously everyone is entitled to find a certain topic boring (or interesting).

    Personally, I was only pointing out that the loss to Portland (in my mind) represents a new development in our season that was worth discussing.

    I don’t think talking about a loss can only be pissing and whining. I think it can also be an interesting analysis of the causes (and the relevant possible solutions) for such loss. And I think that doing that is discussing basketball just the same way discussing details is.

    Anyway, this is your toy, so my fault for having been off topic.

    Best,

    Nick

  • doggydogworld

    LasEspuelas, if the ball does not hit the rim the game clock is reset to where it was when the shot clock buzzer sounded. Pop’s strategy basically comes down to hoping Portland shoots an airball, in which case the Spurs would have actually had the ball out of bounds with 3 seconds left.

  • http://www.48minutesofhell.com Graydon Gordian

    Nick,

    I wasn’t trying to dog on you in my previous comment. When I said go for it, I meant it. I consider you and all our commenters to intelligent people, so if y’all want to talk about something I haven’t brought up, by all means, talk amongst yourselves.

    But I already had a recap post where I talked about the rebounding, our inability to get to the FT line in the second, and a few other things that caught my attention. I was just wanted to move on.

  • Todd

    Lets look at this from Portland’s point of view. If you want to maximize your chances of winning, you must score. Taking time off of the clock is secondary. You work the ball around and get the best shot you can. If you try to work the shot clock down to 0.0, you are going to put yourself into a position where the defense KNOWS who is going to take the shot and sends 2-3 people to defend. I would guess that in most cases of teams in this situation, players take the best shot they can with 4-5 seconds left. Didn’t Timmy win a game very recently taking a shot (dunk) with about 5 seconds left? Was the shot clock down to 0.0? I don’t remember.

    If we get the rebound, that leaves us with 8-9 seconds left. Plenty of time for a play and shot.

    One final thing. Pop continues to play different lineups. The reasons is simple. Team dynamics are changing rapidly as new players learn the system. A particular lineup in week 2 could look very different now. When/if the players began to taper on the knowledge of the system, I expect the crazy lineups to be reduced.

  • SpurredOn

    I would have fouled but I don’t think it’s a right or wrong decision. It’s philosophy that can be influenced by the moment. I do understand Pop speaking as though it was obvious what should be done; as a HC, you go with what you think is best and any reflection or self-analysis should be done in private with your assistants and not through the media. Looking back in public does no good.

    Being that this situation was one game of 82, perhaps Pop wanted to see if his team would handle it correctly: not panic, defend appropriately, secure the rebound and call time. It didn’t work due the inability to rebound the ball, which is one of the huge risks. But it was better than a teaching moment in practice.

    I would foul only because the team was down 2. Had it been a one point game I would let them play it out since a two point FG by Portland still allows my team to tie the game. I think down 2 you should foul to extend the game and increase the number of possessions, unless there was more than a six second difference in shot and game clock. So much goes into a split second order from the coach: how many seconds difference? How many timeouts do we have? How likely are they to execute a FG? What kind of FT shooting team are they? What’s the personnel on the floor? You make a decision and go with it. Perhaps next time the decision, completely independent of this game, will be different.

  • Ryan B.

    I have a hard time questioning Pop. Mainly in part because he’s won 4 titles, and I’ve been @ home WATCHING him win those titles. There’s a difference between thinking you know the path, and walking the path.

    Don’t Knock the Pop!!

  • Kaveh

    doggydogworld is absolutely right (see the relevant part of his post copied and pasted at the bottom). The average FT% is what, 75%? And the average FG% is like 50%? That means that a foul gives the opposition 1.5 (.75×1 + .75×1) points while no foul gives them 1 point (.50×2), but saves you 23 seconds of game time. This is ALWAYS a good trade off, if you’re going by the numbers. Of course the numbers get skewed if they get the ball into a player who shoots 90% FT%, but the pressure the FT shooter is under usually brings down that number.

    Basically, if you go the route Pop went in that situation then you are putting yourself in the position of NEEDING a mistake by the opposition. If it was a veteran player, he would have taken the shot with 1 second on the clock instead of 3-4 seconds, and time would have run out by the time a rebound was secured. Even if the ball goes STRAIGHT to a Spurs player, if the shot was taken with 1 second remaining, by the time the ball flies to the hoop, hits the rim and is rebounded, 3 seconds are gone.

    What you are DEPENDING on is a mistake by the opposition. YOu need him to either shoot too early or miss the rim entirely. If the player just shoots at the right time and hits the rim, the game is automatically over.

    And since the odds you are getting are not good at all (1.5 points vs 1 point), the decision should be obvious to all, and that’s to FOUL!

    ————-
    doggydogworld
    December 24th, 2009 at 12:23 pm Pop’s logic is bogus. First, you don’t automatically go down 4 if you foul. The odds of going down 4 are slightly higher if you foul than if you don’t, but you trade that for 20+ seconds of game time. This gives you a chance to make a 2 or a 3 and deny another inbounds pass.

  • Curtis

    Let me ask this question another way ….

    Certainly, if there is less than 24 seconds left when Portland gets the ball, you have to foul, or else all they have to do is keep possession and the game is over.

    Equally certainly, there is a point in the game where you would never intentionally foul to stop the clock when down by two. I think 48 seconds is probably a place where everyone would agree to defend.

    So there is going to be a time when the decision changes. What is that point for you? (Obviously, this could change based on all sorts of circumstances, particularly if we have a timeout to advance the ball. For sake of discussion, let’s say we have a timeout.)

    Pop is saying that 27.5 seconds is where he would still defend. I think for me, the number is probably closer to 32 seconds or so. I would prefer to have time to get the ball to Manu or Parker at the top of the key, set him a screen and see what happens. At the end of quarters, we start that play with about five seconds left.

    But, here’s the thing, someday soon, Pop will be enshrined in the hall. And I won’t.