hollingers praise of hack a shaq at end of quarter move

by booth52 on May 16, 2008 2:48 PM CDT

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Awards_080516&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos1

If New Orleans has the ball with 25 seconds or less left, Popovich simply fouls intentionally so he can get the ball back for the Spurs. This should be a Eureka! moment for other coaches, and I expect it will be the league's most widely copied tactic next year.

Hollinger has possibly thought this thing out more thoroughly than I have, but seems to definitively think it's a good tactic. What do you all think? Matt, you thought this stuff out any? If a given teams def vs. opponents likely 24 sec or less offense has a likely points per possession output of X (something like 0.5 per possesion perhaps) will getting a 60% or less free throw shooter free throws plus possesion back definitively a good play?

Not thinking too much research into it, but that seems legit:

case A: 1 possession for opponent at 0.5 *2 = 1points +/- per possession

0 possesions for you

average = 1point for opponent

case B: opponent possession = free 2 free throws at 0.6 = 1.2pp possession

your possession =- 0.5+/-ish x2 or 3 points = -1point

so the average of case B is almost nil, compared to about a point a possession for the other team.

Anyone see any faulty logic in this?

I concede my maths here could be off/too simplistic.

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

You’re pretty much right on. Hollinger’s stats show playoff teams averaging between 100 and 113 points per 100 possessions, so like 1 to 1.1 points per possession. That’s pretty close to the expected point production for intentionally fouling a poor FT shooter. So intentionally fouling someone at the end of a quarter effectively gives the fouling team an extra possession they would not have gotten had they let the other team run out the clock. That extra possession should work out to an extra point.

If a team is on a hot streak, averaging, say, 1.5+ points per possession, hacking a poor FT shooter would be a smart play even if the player could shoot 75% from the stripe.

Catch the Spurs Spirit! It's a Fast-breakin' Fiesta!

by tomasito on May 16, 2008 3:35 PM CDT reply actions

I have no problem with it. Simply put, if you don’t like it make your free throws and it won’t happen. As a multi-million dollar per year PROFESSIONAL athlete, if given an uncontested set shot within 15 feet, you ought to hit it fairly regular. In times that we’ve (and it’s been around forever, btw. I’m getting a little tired of the media inferring that San Antonio has stumbled upon a great Achilles Heel in the rulebook.) employed this tactic and the player has hit both, the tactic is quickly abandoned.

It’s just another example to me of the effectiveness of seeing the game of basketball as a chess match, and not a checkers game.

by SgtinManusArmy on May 16, 2008 4:13 PM CDT reply actions

Chess vs Checkers

People argue about chess strategy. They review old games and look at other options that the players had but did not take. They study and examine and parse and debate.

Yes. Absolutely, yes. Basketball is a Chess game.

And as such, people are going to argue about the strategies. They’ll review old games —ok, I’m not going to repeat myself. The point is that it’s a legal tactic. When something is not against the rules, it can be used. Whether it’s a good move or not may be debatable, but the fact that people were so adamant about the rules needing to be chaged didn’t convince anyone of anything except that the team that the complainers wanted to win was being put in jeopardy byt the tactic in question.

And yes, SiMA, if you make your free throws, then it won’t happen.

Everytime the Spurs pass the ball like that, an angel gets its wings. - Hipuks in G6 vs NOOCH

by J.R. Wilco on May 16, 2008 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions

“but the fact that people were so adamant about the rules needing to be chaged didn’t convince anyone of anything except that the team that the complainers wanted to win was being put in jeopardy byt the tactic in question”

Right on, jrw. I said it before, but I think it will be hilarious to see Robert Sarver sitting quietly when Stern asks about changing this rule at the summer owner’s meeting. Kindof like, oh, I don’t know, LAST YEAR over the ‘leaving the bench’ rule that he vowed to challenge before sitting mute when the issue was raised. Class act that Sarver fella.

by SgtinManusArmy on May 16, 2008 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions

Indeed. And actually, a pretty standard FT shooting average renders it useless. Hell, 65% shooters have been killing us lately, whenever we did Hack-a-Whoever.

It only works effectively in people like Shaq, Wallace or Tony.

by LatinD on May 16, 2008 7:00 PM CDT up reply actions

i, too, don’t really care about the unethical nature of the play; my concern was the effectiveness of it. i’m just surprised at how frikkin obvious it is once you look at it.

i think if you actually run some numbers you’d find this tactic much more effective among a greater range than you’d expect: obiviously the ideal conditions would be a matchup where:
-opponents with high points per possessions
-your team with a above average to high points per possessions
-target with low ft percentage.
(geez, that just screams suns w/ shaq vs any team doesn’t it?)

if you actually crunched the numbers i’d expect you’d find a wider range of positive value situations you could do this in. i wonder if one of pop’s brain trust made a formula/spreadsheet similarly to nfl coaches having those cheatsheets with what situations dictate going for the 2pt conversion is a benefit.

by booth52 on May 16, 2008 7:21 PM CDT reply actions

I have thought briefly about this, mainly when Doug Collins commented that the strategy didn’t work because Chandler (or Ely or whomever) made the free throws, totally ignoring the fact that the Spurs gained an extra possession they never would have gotten in the first place.

if you actually crunched the numbers i’d expect you’d find a wider range of positive value situations you could do this in.

I agree with you. In fact, I contend you should always do it in situations where the shot clock is off at the end of a quarter and with at least 8 seconds on the clock.

Expected value of opponent’s possession at end of quarter without fouling = ~ 1.2 points.

Expected value of your possession at end of quarter with at least 8 seconds >= 0.5 points (I believe this to be a conservative estimate.)

Therefore, from a probabilistic standpoint, it makes sense to foul unless the expected value of the free throws is greater than ~ 1.7. And since you can foul any one you want, there is always a sub 85% foul shooter in the game.

This simple logic ignores the following:

-The expected value of two free throws from a 50% shooter is actually higher than 1 point because of the possibility of an offensive rebound. However, given the opponent would have to: A) miss the second free throw and B) grab the rebound, this probably affects the expected value only marginally.

-This model assumes your possession ends the quarter. Your team might go too fast or turn the ball over, leaving a couple seconds on the clock. However, the expected value of the resulting opponent’s possession is so small that it’s probably negligible.

by sungo on May 17, 2008 12:37 AM CDT up reply actions

This is the kind of analysis I like

However, it all hinges on the accuracy of those estimates. Where did you get 1.2 and 0.5 from?

by LatinD on May 17, 2008 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions

end-of-quarter possessions

This is interesting and the math is defensible, but think about the possessions you have seen at the end of quarters-usually one guy dribbles the clock down, then forces a contested shot-or gets clobbered, but still gets 0 pts as the zebras swallow the whistle. I think the 1.2 pts is a high estimate. With decent defense you can quite often hold the opponent scoreless on a last-second possession. If you do foul a crappy FT shooter, you expect to give up about 1 pt on avg. On offense, your chances of scoring suffer because of the aforementioned swallowing of whistles and the inability to run a creative play in those situations. Plus, it’s kind of an all-or-nothing gamble (you might get 2 pts, or with luck, 3 pts, but if not, you probably get nothing) So while I agree the Haq-a strategy is very good at times, I think some folks are overrating it.

by Gino20 on May 17, 2008 10:02 PM CDT reply actions

True, one of the things that frusterates me the most in the NBA is when someone “holds for the last shot”. Every team does it, even the Spurs. You have the PG sit and dribble the ball until it’s like 5 seconds left, then they rush in and try to get a shot, or try to draw a foul. Everyone and thier dog know it’s coming, and so it fails like 90% of the time. Ginobili is creative(he waits and then jacks a 3) but it hardly ever goes in because he looks like he rushes it :( If only when there’s 17 seconds or even 10 seconds left, drive, kick, something other than “wait till 5 seconds, charge in….” Ugh.

by Nixiack on May 18, 2008 1:32 AM CDT reply actions