Mar

7

 (NYP) New York Post: Knicks' D'Antoni defends decision not to foul Celtics

It looks like very specious reasoning of the kind we see in our field here but I don't know enough about basketball to call it out. Certainly when you don't foul someone, the opponent is more likely to have had a bad shot, so the statistics of 93% when you don't foul them are wrong. But there are other things wrong also. D'Antoni has lost so many of these games you'd think he'd rethink. It also must be demoralizing to stand so far away from your opponent that you don't foul them, and make you play worse defense. The not asking his defensive coordinator is a signal that he's too up in air with his TV programs.

Pitt T. Maner III writes:

The following paper shows a decision tree for the college game given a similar situation.

It addresses this question and concludes that, contrary to popular belief, intentionally fouling is preferable to playing tight defense.

Drawing on the Gonzaga/Michigan State game for inspiration…

The opportune time for the Knicks to have fouled might have been during the exchange between Garnett and P Pierce before the act of shooting could occur. Pierce hits about 80% of his free throws and 37% of his 3 pointers.

Pro 3-pt. line is further out but Paul Pierce against passive hands up and no jumping defenders would seem to be better than 1/10.
 


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search