How was not fouling the Spurs at the end of the game "a mistake"?

[Craig K. Manscill]

There was about a 5 second difference between the shot and the game clock. I think the Jazz were down 1 and the Spurs had the ball.

I heard on 1280 that because the Spurs are "experienced" you have to foul. I've heard other users say the same here.

This is pretty much just nitpicking on Corbin. Because with that "experience" also comes the ability to hit free throws. You then have to decide whether you think the chances of them making both free throws with their best free throw shooter (whoever gets the ball inbounded) is lower than them making a shot. I highly doubt this would be the case. It seems obvious to me, probability wise, that you do NOT foul, let them play out the clock, and get the rebound.

The Spurs made the shot, but that doesn't change the fact that probability was on the Jazz' side and on Corbin's call. Thanks for reading.

- Craig

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

I should mention that I'm not saying Corbin is a good coach. I don't think he is at all, I think he's completely boring, unoriginal, not a true leader, and therefore, not savvy enough to head coach a basketball team. You need to be unique, take risks, just like you do when you play basketball. He's just a poor man's Jerry Sloan (Jerry in his 70's). Thanks again for reading my email.

- Craig

 

[IBProfane]

It's just comes to down your philosophy at the end of a game. If you give up a 3 ball (what happened) the game is over. If they miss, get an offensive rebound, the game is likely over as there would be 3-4 seconds left (maximum) when you get the ball back, and that's if you can foul almost immidiately after the board. Many coaches figure you are better off fouling, hoping for a missed free throw(s) and giving yourself a good 20-25 seconds to get a good look to tie the game, rather than hoping the team misses, and trying to get a good look to win the game with under 5 seconds left.

 

[Jerry Lundegaard]

It's just comes to down your philosophy at the end of a game. If you give up a 3 ball (what happened) the game is over. If they miss, get an offensive rebound, the game is likely over as there would be 3-4 seconds left (maximum) when you get the ball back, and that's if you can foul almost immidiately after the board. Many coaches figure you are better off fouling, hoping for a missed free throw(s) and giving yourself a good 20-25 seconds to get a good look to tie the game, rather than hoping the team misses, and trying to get a good look to win the game with under 5 seconds left.

Ty panicked and did the exact opposite against Minny in wake of what happeend against the Spurs. He has no confidence right now.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Ty panicked and did the exact opposite against Minny in wake of what happeend against the Spurs. He has no confidence right now.

The Minny game was much closer to the shotclock. I think there was a 1 second difference. Not comparable.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

The fact of the matter is, you foul Tony Parker, and the probability of him making both free throws is 64% (0.8 x 0.8 for both free throws). Is that not higher than the Spurs field goal percentage? Five seconds is well enough time to get a game winning shot off, as we saw against Minnesota.

Yes, they can make a three, but that's why, if you decide not to foul, you emphasize to guard at the three point line.

I can see the other point of view, but the probabilities are so close that it's not a "mistake". It's just a "throw your kite to the wind" choice. Thanks for reading.

- Craig