Last Tuesday night the Gophers defeated Florida State in
an NIT semi-final game at fabled Madison Square Garden. One of the two
courtside TV analysts was Bobby Knight, referred to by Dick Vitale and
other hoops celebrities as "The General." Anyone who has watched Knight
over the years, and especially those who have read John Feinstein's "A
Season On The Brink," knows that The General is a horse's patootie. A
case in point illustrates the epithet.
The Gophers were clinging to a three point lead with
seven seconds remaining, and the Seminoles inbounded the ball on the
opposite baseline from their basket. Both teams were in the double
bonus. Knight opined as if it were gospel that the Gophers needed to
foul the Seminole player with the ball before a shot was attempted.
However, the Gophers elected not to foul, choosing instead to
play straight-up defense. Of course, as luck would have it, FSU guard
Devon Bookert drained a low percentage three pointer with 0.3 seconds to
go, thus forcing the game into overtime. The gloating Knight
immediately castigated head coach Richard Petino for not instructing his
players to foul when the Noles inbounded the ball. "The Minnesota
coaches really fell asleep on that one," scolded Knight. The TV viewers
were then treated to Knight repeating his point ad nauseam during the
interlude between the end of regulation and the beginning of OT.
Wouldn't you know, an almost identical situation
then presented itself at the end of the overtime period. Minnesota led
by three as the Noles inbounded the ball from the far base line with 6.1
seconds to go. Presumably for the benefit of those late-comers who
missed his commentary at the end of regulation, The General reminded us
once again that the Gopher coaches "fell asleep" by not fouling at the
end of regulation. Yet once again, the Gophs chose not to foul, only
this time FSU missed their last desperation field goal attempt. Final
score: Gophers 67, Seminoles 64.
The point of fouling the trailing team is to shorten
the number of seconds in which they have a chance to run a play before
time expires. Ideally, the leading team wants to limit that very last
play to a "catch-and-shoot," for which the chances of success are
minimal. No time to reverse the ball, no time for a dribble drive, no
time for screens or a pick 'n' roll, and no time for an offensive
put-back.
Notwithstanding The General's unhesitatingly harsh
vocal opinion regarding the wisdom of having the leading team
intentionally foul in end-game situations, the proper strategy is not as
cut and dried as Knight would lead us to believe. There are plenty of
head coaches who would have done exactly what Petino did, i.e., instruct
his team to play straight-up tenacious defense for the opponent's last
possession.
Here are some considerations which go into the decision of whether or not to have the leading team foul in end-game scenarios:
1.
Does my team have "fouls to give," i.e., is the opponent in the bonus?
If my leading team has fouls to give, then having them foul
intentionally makes a lot more sense. (Such was not the case in the
Gopher-Noles game.)
2. How much time is left? If it's less than four or
five seconds, the need to foul decreases, especially if the ball is in
the back court.
3. Where is the opponent inbounding the ball? If
the location of the inbounds pass is in the back court, it will take at
least a few ticks to get the ball into the front court.
4. Is our lead three points, or less than three? If the leading team is
up by three points, all the leading team has to do is defend the three;
two points won't beat you. Therefore, the wisdom of intentionally
fouling is at least questionable if the lead is three.
5. Are any of my players in foul trouble? This could
present a huge problem if the game goes into overtime. Therefore, the
leading team's coach, if he opts to foul, might consider inserting a
designated fouler (usually a deep reserve with quickness).
6. Whom to foul? This is where a scouting report
becomes important. Try to force the opponent to inbound the ball to a
poor free throw shooter. Double team the opponent's best free throw
shooter.
7. The Two Worst Things That Could Happen are (i)
fouling the opponent while he's in the act of shooting (especially if
his shot goes in), or (ii) being called for an intentional foul, even
though it is an intentional foul. The guy who commits the intentional foul has to make it look unintentional so
that he doesn't get whistled for an intentional foul, and he has to
commit the foul before the opponent goes into the act of shooting. To
mitigate the risk, fouling in the back court is more desirable.
8. Is my team good at "playing small"? The strategy
of intentionally fouling is easier to execute with a smaller (and
therefore quicker) lineup. The trade off is that your chance of
grabbing a defensive rebound is diminished with a small lineup. That is
a trade off which you, as the coach of the leading team, might not want
to accept.
9. Similar to point # 8, is my team good at
executing the intentional foul in end-game situations? By April, the
coaches have seen their teams in practice and in thirty or so games
since last autumn. Some teams are good at the execution, and some are
not, and no one knows better than the head coach where his team falls on
the spectrum. If my team simply is not good at pulling off the
end-game intentional foul, I would not instruct them to to it.
I don't have a problem with The General imparting
his wisdom to us laymen. After all, the man did win three NCAA
championships. But to castigate (repeatedly) a head coach for failing
to employ the end-game strategy deemed necessary by The General,
particularly when there are many smart coaches out there who would
consciously instruct his team in the same manner Petino instructed the
Gophs, was uncalled for. Give me the smooth Bill Raftery instead of The
General, please.
No comments:
Post a Comment