On Monday night, Oklahoma City Thunder center Chet Holmgren made two free throws with 9.4 seconds left in Game 4 against the Dallas Mavericks. They were a huge success, pushing the Thunder closer to an evening series.
The Mavericks had no timeouts left. They had to rush onto the court to get back into the game. At that point, fans probably thought they were about to witness an iconic playoff moment. Will Luka Doncic shake off a rough night and lift his team's spirits? Will Kyrie Irving add to his formidable highlight reel of great playoff moments? Will Shai Gilgeous-Alexander strip someone in the backcourt and cap off a great night for him? Will Holmgren rush off the switch to the 3-point arc and make a shot on Dallas' night?
Instead, Gilgeous-Alexander intentionally fouled P.J. Washington when the Mavericks were moving the ball to make a good run. The Thunder were leading by three points. It was the right thing to do. He led by three points and allowed as many as two points, which made sense with little time left. The Dallas forward made two free throws with 3.2 seconds left, and Gilgeous-Alexander made two free throws at the other end to end the game. Thunder wins.
It's quite an unexpected event, isn't it?
(Tim Heitman/Getty Images)
Casual NBA viewers often criticize games for taking too long to finish. Those complaints were legitimate, and the league partially addressed them. Before 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.
Now, here'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 least fun and most time-consuming parts of basketball, and the nature of the rules means that the number of free throws is increasing, not decreasing. Worst of all, it deprives viewers of a potentially iconic moment.
So let's change the rules. I have two suggestions here.
1. If your opponent is on the bonus, you are up by 3 points or more, and you foul your opponent beyond the 3-point arc, your opponent gets 3 free throws.
2. In the same scenario, the current “take a foul” rule will be expanded so that the trailing/fouled team automatically wins free throws and possession. This is my preferred option.
It may seem counterintuitive to use the threat of increasing the number of free throws to reduce the number of free throws late in the game, but free throws are the most efficient shots in the game. Under the first proposal, teams would give their opponents a chance to tie the game at the free-throw line. The second allows you to set up a scenario where a made free throw followed by his 3 makes the opponent win (or a made free throw and a tie at 2). No team intentionally pursues those options.
There is a potential loophole, but we'll get to that later. Current rules require players and coaches to consider three possible scenarios for him that violate the spirit of the game.
1. Prioritize fouls over non-fouling defense. This makes for an interesting philosophical discussion, but anything that takes you away from deciding the game while the clock is running is suboptimal.
2. If the trailing team thinks their opponent is about to commit a foul, their players may stand up to take an awkward shot while the leading team tries to develop a strategy. This is another way to lure referees into calling fouls with unnatural shot attempts, and the league is actively trying to curb this behavior.
3. If a player takes the first of two free throws while trailing by three points in the final seconds, he misses the next free throw and an offensive rebound creates another field goal. are encouraged to maximize their potential. Attempt. Why do we have a system that intentionally encourages missed shots? (On Monday, Washington missed its first free throw. Instead of trying to remove it, he succeeded.)
There are counterarguments here, but I don't claim that any of the above suggestions are perfect solutions. Most notably, when the shot clock is off, teams have 47 minutes and 36 seconds to avoid his three-point lead. Speaking of free throws, the Mavericks missed 11 of 23 attempts on Monday. The Thunder fouling Washington wasn't the main reason Dallas lost.
Furthermore, what will happen to the team in first place? That team is intentionally fouled more than the following team in order to extend the competitive time of the game. Well, the second half of this sentence is the important part. Given the specificity of the scenario, there is no problem with rules that apply to one team but not the other.
Finally, such rules can encourage other types of fraud. This means that players from the following team create unnatural contact in order to gain an advantage given by yet another rule aimed at giving their team possession of the ball. However, it only exchanges one form of grafting for another. It is not a net gain from the referee's deception.
Naturally, such rule changes may have other unintended consequences. I'm all for sniffing them out and trying to make the best rules possible. What I Know: Every basketball fan has a few buzzer-beating or last-minute shots they'll never forget. If anyone has a similar list of “Best Uses of Take Fouls to Maintain a Lead,” I have yet to meet them. I really don't want to either.
(Top photo of Luka Doncic after his foul late in the game: Tim Heitman/Getty Images)
