Oklahoma City Thunder center Chet Holmgren hit two free throws with 9.4 seconds left in Game 4 against the Dallas Mavericks on Monday night. Their performance was outstanding and brought the Thunder closer to the end of the series.
The Mavericks ran out of timeouts. They had to rush the field to get back into the game. At that point, fans should be wondering if they are about to witness an iconic playoff moment. Can Luka Doncic shake off a rough night and improve his team? Will Kyrie Irving add awesome moments to his postseason highlights? Will Shai Gilgeous-Alexander strip someone down in the backcourt to end a big night for him? Will Holmgren get to the 3-point line and shoot on that night in Dallas?
Instead, Gilgeous-Alexander intentionally fouled P.J. Washington as the Mavericks moved the ball to create a good look. The Thunder led by three points. This is the right move. With so little time remaining, giving up two points at most when leading by three makes sense. The Dallas forward hit two free throws with 3.2 seconds left, Gilgeous-Alexander hit two free throws on the other end, and that was it. Thunder wins.
Quite anticlimactic, isn’t it?
(Tim Heitman/Getty Images)
NBA casual viewers often criticize games that take too long to end. The complaints are valid, and the league has partially addressed them. Prior to the 2017-18 season, the NBA changed its rules to limit teams to two timeouts in the final three minutes of a game instead of the previous three timeouts in the final two minutes.
Well, there’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 most boring and time-consuming parts of basketball, and the nature of the rules has led to more free throws being shot, not fewer. Worst of all, it robs the audience of a potentially iconic moment.
Then let’s change the rules. Here are two suggestions.
1. If your opponent gets a bonus and you win by 3 points or more, and you foul your opponent outside the three-point line, your opponent will get 3 free throw opportunities.
2. In the same situation, the current “foul” rule is extended, and the team that is behind/fouled automatically gets free throws and possession of the ball. This is my first choice.
It may seem counterintuitive to use the threat of more free throws later in the game to take fewer free throws, but the free throw is the most efficient shot in the game. In the first proposal, teams would give their opponents a chance to tie the game at the free throw line. In the second case, it can set up a scenario where the opponent can win via a free throw followed by a 3-pointer (or a free throw and a 2-point tie to tie the game). No team will pursue these options with purpose.
There are potential vulnerabilities, which I’ll discuss later. Current rules encourage players and coaches to consider three situations that violate the spirit of the game.
1. Prioritize fouling over non-fouling defense. This makes for an interesting philosophical debate, but any deviation from settling the game while the clock is running is suboptimal.
2. If the trailing team thinks its opponent is trying to foul, its players may try to stand up and take unnatural shots, while the leading team tries to deploy a strategy. This is just another way to try to lure referees into fouling with unnatural shot attempts, and the league is actively trying to curb this behavior.
3. If a player makes the first of two free throws while trailing by three in the final seconds, he is encouraged to try to miss the next free throw to maximize the possibility of an offensive rebound, thereby maximizing the likelihood of an offensive rebound. Generating another field goal attempt. Why do we have a system that promotes intentional fumbles? (On Monday, Washington missed the first free throw. Instead of trying to miss the second free throw to create an offensive rebound and a possible game-tying 3-pointer, he made the free throw.)
There are counters here, and I’m not saying any of the above suggestions are the perfect solution. Most notably, with the shot clock off, the team had 47 minutes and 36 seconds to avoid falling behind by three points. Speaking of free throws, the Mavericks missed 11 of their 23 free throw attempts on Monday. The Thunder’s foul on Washington was not the main reason why Dallas lost.
Also, how is the leadership team? The team intentionally fouls more often than the trailing team to prolong the competitive portion of the game. Well, the second part of that sentence is the key part, isn’t it? Given the specificity of the scenario, I have no problem with rules that apply to one team but not another.
Finally, such a rule may encourage another type of cheating: players on the trailing team creating unnatural contact to gain the advantage provided by another rule designed to help the team keep the ball. However, this simply exchanges one form of deception for another. This is not a net gain from referee deception.
Any such rule change would naturally have other unintended consequences. I’m all for finding them out and trying to make the best rules possible. What I do know is this: Every basketball fan has some buzzer-beater or last-second shot that they’ll never forget. If anyone has a similar list of “best ways to stay ahead with fouls”, I haven’t seen them yet. I actually don’t want to either.
(Top photo of Luka Doncic after fouling out late in game: Tim Heitman/Getty Images)
