Why NBA fans shouldn't be angry with the strategy of the teams to pollute at 3

I have a cognitive dissonance about the “foul-up three” project, which the Oklahoma City Thunder used on Monday at the end of game 4 of the Western Conference Final.

All I read on social media is that the NBA has to do something to punish this strategy because this is too great.

And all I think is that the league has to keep the coaches from using this strategy because they repeatedly screw it up and have an extremely favorable scenario of victory perception. I spend the last 20 seconds of every game and scream: “What are you doing?!” In my television.

Before we go forward, leave us behind. I am a bit surprised that we are now the moment when we decided that this is terrible because the foul-up three-trick was almost as long as the 3-point itself. The Houston Rockets in particular used it at the end of their game 7 “Kiss of Death” against the Phoenix Sun in 1995, after Mario Elie's shot set three with 7.1 seconds. (I will go more retro: My opponents in a high school game from 1989 tried to double three-my state had the 3-point line!)

In general, a team with a three-point lead in the last seconds of a game is in an incredibly favorable position. The opponent not only has to make a 3 to extend the game, but the opponent, but the opponent white It has to make a 3 to extend the game.

So the 3S, which they see in these situations, often like this when the Indiana Pacers at the end of game 2 against New York are not striking not three miscalcosions when the Knicks were still in possession with 14.1 seconds:

An opponent 3 does not lead to a loss; It leads to a worst case in which the game is bound and continued. And often the opponent 3 comes before the Summer even in these situations, which means that the team still has the possession with the tour to react. In the NBA, in which a team can drive the ball with a break, this can be particularly powerful if a team still has a break.

As a result, the foul-up three is not quite the life that some people seem to think. However, there is a certain situation in which it is worth: the old Stan van Gundy rule to pollute three when the clock is in six seconds.

Even then, it can be difficult to carry out. If the opponent intervenes from the front square after a break and can take a shot directly, there is a risk of a three-shot foul. Teams are probably better to defend in this situation.

Here is a scenario in which the Pacers is because of the risk that the player shoots immediately and was less lucky: Jaylen Brown's shot from game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals 2024. Watch Pascal Siakam striking not The pollution as Browns has a touch: the network finds:

Indiana could not score a goal with 5.7 seconds before the extension and finally swept off the Boston Celtics.

(Indiana, I will find that in the extension of game 1 against New York she no longer violated Jalen Brunson's extension in the extension of Jalen Brunson. An offensive rebound made a better look after Karl Anthony cities, but he also missed, even if he had done it, and retake, and retake, and retake, and retake Responct and retake, and retake retake.

So back to game 4 of Thunder-Timberwolves.

Minnesota's last property was hit into the Golden van Gundy rules scenario, in which the pollution of three makes the most sensible: no time overrun and to drive the ball ahead of the square, and only six seconds ahead. Alex Caruso from Oklahoma City could give the foul and be relatively certain that Anthony Edwards would not make up 60 feet and make it a three-shot scenario.

(While we are here: The other, three-three gap that nobody has exploited, with the kind permission of Ken Pomeroy, is to double three in the decreasing seconds and then continuously walking in the second free throw until the other team does it.

Oklahoma City's former strategy – the Naz Reid when Lu had brought him into the bottle with a 7.0 second lead in the corner. The reason why the two earlier playoff games are contained in which this strategy failed openly the early foul-up three leads more possessions and thus more deviations into a game in which the team three had an overwhelming advantage.

The success of the Thunder strategy depended on a clean inbound pass against an urgent opponent and then corresponded to the success of the opponent on the free sausage line in order to maintain the three-point lead and the foul again.

This applies in particular if teams are left with more than 10 seconds on the clock, such as thunder in game 1 against the Denver Nuggets and the Knicks in game 1 against Indiana. The Thunder strategy worked so well that they lost In regulation And around two. Great work, everyone. The Knicks would also have lost in the regulation if the foot of Tyrese -Haliburton had been half a size smaller. Instead, she lost in overtime.

The main problem was that Oklahoma City started to flew early on the clock at 12.2 seconds. Denver had three possessions in 10 seconds, where it usually had one and four free throws and then an Aaron Gordon 3 pointer with 2.8 seconds left.

The same applies to the Knicks, which Aaron Nesmith polluted with 12.2 seconds in regulation in game 1 and the defensive -Ace OG anunoby all over the regulation. When Anunoby missed a free throw at the other, the Pacers were only two less and still had 7.1 seconds, took the foul-up three on the last trip and took just enough time to touch the shot from Haliburton and touch the sky and fall through the net with the Summer.

It is a point that I have done over and over again, but I will do it again: the foul-up three, especially with more than six seconds on the clock, is the only realistic way the leading team can lose in regulation.

Let us return to the main point after all of this. There is an idea out there that something has to be “done” about the foul-up three because it ruins the end of the games. At the moment I would argue more on the contrary: that it is the end of the games more Exciting because coaches keep screwing it up and giving away games that they shouldn't lose.

In addition, the cases in which it is really advantageous are so specific – the team of three, less than six seconds left, the opponent is unable to get into a shooting movement – that I wonder how a rule to tackle it, even look and how often it would come into play.

That means … I wanted to see that Edwards falls a bull on the pitch and that a despair 3 for the tie Monday, like everyone else. In addition, occasional fans can probably appreciate this kind of games more than its almost perfect free -sausage flour, which resulted in a chaos backstream (10 boys went everything for the board and it strike on the floor Before someone got it) and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander finally hurled the ball from his back to a eager fan.

The foul-up three also pulls out the end of the games, which could be good in a way (sponsor dollar!), But is probably more of a negative in the overall picture, especially since the league seems to be quite concerned about putting games into a two and a half-hour window.

So if we Really I wanted the league competition committee to have legally set this, one way to say that if the crime is in the bonus, the winning team recorded in the last six seconds (or eight or ten, whatever the committee is adequately considered) is a shot and the ball outside. But the league must be very careful in view of the enormous potential for unintentional consequences.

In any case, I cannot emphasize enough that a) we have set an extremely specific situation and b) have accidentally did the trainers in this post -season create Excitement by merging three when you have to remove it. We only got the shots from Haliburton and Gordon because trainers screwed up the scenario.

Therefore, the story is not for me that the foul-up three must be addressed by the rules of committee. It must be treated in the coaches' meetings. Indiana does it right; Oklahoma City and New York, not so much, even if the thunder ultimately attaches to game 4.

(Top photo: Patrick Smith / Getty Images)