I should have posted these just in time after the game 4 win of the Lakers over the Orlando Magic. However, I think that it would be wise to have all those biases and playoff hulabaloos out of our minds (I personally sided with the Lakers).
Way back in game 4 at the AmWay Arena, we have a dire situation during the last ten seconds of regulation time (as we all know, the game went straight to overtime, on which the Lakers dominated and thus gained a 3-1 lead over the Magic).
The score was 84-87 with ten seconds left in the fourth quarter, and Orlando has a seemingly tight control of the game after they let the Lakers catch up with them after leading by 12-points after the first half. After a slam dunk by Lakers forward Pau Gasol, the Magic failed to convert points for them. Dwight Howard's free throws were both brick, and the scoreboard didn't have a change.
Phil Jackson let his players inbound the ball from the other side. Trevor Ariza made the inbounds pass to Bryant, and the Mamba returned it to him. Ariza then made a cross-court pass to Derek Fisher, who was guarded at that time by Magic point guard Jameer Nelson. Fisher drove the ball and stopped 25 feet away from the basket, while Nelson pedaled until the 22-mark. The Lakers' veteran point guard, easily pulled up a shot from beyond the 3-point arc, with Nelson giving him enough space. A split-second later, the Lakers team were so much relieved and pumped up, as Fisher's shot gave them another chance at victory … in overtime.
And the rest, as we know is history. Kobe Bryant again did his part in making 2 crucial jump shots in overtime, plus a pass to Fisher for another trey that sealed the win. This year's Finals Game 4 would indeed go down in history as one of the greatest comeback games in the Finals.
But let's go back to the situation.
During that time (10.8 seconds left before end of regulation), the Magic had one crucial decision to make. The Lakers have the possession, and to prevent them from making a shot, or possibly a 2-for-1 possession that could bring the game in their favor), is to foul them. The Magic only have one team foul for the rest of the fourth period (dubious here…); however, since it was the last two minutes of the game, another foul would mean a trip to the line, having the Lakers score only two points instead of three. The Magic could then waste time and, possibly, make the two free throws if ever the Lakers go intentional… and could proceed to celebrate because the series could have been tied.
Simple, right? Plain and simple NO for this one, and what we're going to do is to break down all those factors in the decision-making process of fouling or not, and then assess what Magic coach Stan Van Gundy could have done, and if his wrong decision to not foul the Lakers was a way bigger mistake than most of us think.
Let's go first to the SOP (standard operating procedure), the general to-do during this kind of game situation. Most experts, players, coaches, and analysts alike, that logically, it is generally better to foul an opponent in a three-point game. I think that some of the conditions here would make sense and would convince us that it would be better to foul:
-penalty or not, the other team would be assured of only two points from the line (except in the situation of an offensive board and/or a putback, where the opposing team would get three points and tie the game)
-fouling and having the opposing team earn two points from the line would be better than taking the risk of letting a sniper get one from beyond the arc
-if in case the two free throws were in, the opposing team has no other chance of gaining the lead but to foul and go for a three-pointer in their next possession, given that the two free throws awarded to the leading team will go in. With this, we go back to square one and either the cycle will repeat or the opposing team would brick their treys.
Thus, the odds in these kinds of situation favor fouling over letting a three-pointer risk nailing a shot from beyond the arc and tying the game. Now, let's apply these lessons in the situation that the Magic, the leading team, and the Lakers, the trailing team, during the last seconds of regulation time.
On the offensive end, the Lakers should have no problem in both ways. The players on the floor were all good from the line, the worst being Lamar Odom, who had been better in free throws since the playoffs started. Also, plays from beyond the 3-point arc would not be a huge problem for them. Those in the number 1,2, and 3 position, namely Fisher, Bryant, and Ariza, can nail threes in tight-game situation. But of course, the difference between these two was the fact that the former would only give Orlando back the ball with the one-point lead, while the latter, though risky, would tie the game with little time remaining.
On the other hand, the pressure of defending lies on the Magic's hands. They have to lock down the shooters, but at the same time, they have to be careful for fouls during 2-point attempts that would go in, for it would be the same as giving the trailing team not only two points, but a chance for one more at the line. For the Magic, it would be harder, because they would be guarding opponents who are really threatening from both beyond and inside the three-point line.
After two missed free throws by Dwight Howard and a time out, Phil Jackson chose to inbound the ball from the other side, in front of their bench. Perhaps a few reasons in Jackson's mind during that time:
-he wants his guys to set up a running offense, which will be beneficial for them
-for a running offense, they could run away from a foul and be able to reach the 3-point line and make a quick shot
-if they had inbounded the ball at half court, they would give time for the Magic to set up its defense. However, a run-and-gun offense would give them less time to set up, and Bryant or Ariza could use their speed to get past their defenders and give a quick three (take note that the Magic have Alston, Pietrus, and Turkoglu on the floor, all of which lack the speed to defend Bryant and/or Ariza. In fact, following this strategy, Fisher would only act as a decoy to draw the defenders once he gets to the 3-point line. Alternatively, he could act as scorer once defenders swarm Bryant and Ariza).
This move of Jackson was pretty unusual (and risky, considering that they could have used a half-court inbound play which could save them some time). However, looking at his plans, risky may they be, it is a work of genius to come up with this, most especially when pressure will seep in with little time left and three points to get. If everything goes as planed, then swoosh, we have a silky-smooth three pointer that could tie the game and astound the Magic crowd.
But of course, the Magic are not statues that would stand motionlessly as the Lakers would execute this play. Of course, Stan Van Gundy has a strategy of his own. And probably, here are a few things that he has considered:
-there are still more or less 11 seconds left. It would be too early to go for a quick foul
-Why? He is thinking that if they foul the Lakers, they would make both FTs (on the floor are the best Laker FT guys), which would bring the ball back to them with a 1-point lead
-Of course, the Lakers would then force another trip to the line
-SVG was thinking that this would not be a good thing, because they have been cold from the free throw line. Dwight Howard bricked both his free throws that could have sealed the game. Hedo Turkoglu was way way bad either. (How about Jameer and Pietrus? Of course, the Lakers won't allow to give this one last possession to them.)
-Suppose that FTs miss, then the Lakers would get the ball, set up a play that would let them score a quick 2, and they win.
-But of course I would only be possible if there would be enough time to do all this.
-Thus the best strategy: give them a hard time bringing the ball down, and when the clock ticks to 7,6 or 5, then that is the time that they foul.
Following this line of thinking, everything was supposed to be DON'T FOUL… YET.
And it is because of this mindset that Orlando was able to let the Lakers, specifically Derek Fisher, get away with a three and the win.
However, this mistake was just part of a package of defensive mistakes for the Magic during the last stretch of the game. There were many factors during that last Laker possession in regulation time that contributed to that game-tying triple. Thanks to YouTube and the help of ESPN, I was able to notice a few (yet critical) defensive lapses.
The press. How could you press when the Lakers are going for a running offense? Shouldn't it be better to go down and set up the D so as to deny them a quick triple? SVG planned on either (a) denying the passing lane for the inbounds pass or (b) have L.A. use up some time getting the ball down, and when the time comes, get their hands ready to slap them a foul. However, if this was what SVG had in mind, it would be less likely to work. The Lakers frontcourt are one of the best passers in the league. They can come up with excellent long passes that deny a full court press of steals and turnovers.
Here's what happened: Turkoglu and Pietrus put their bodies on Bryant. Ariza passed it to the Mamba, and as soon as Kobe received the ball, he passed it to Ariza. But wait, there was a missing frontcourt piece. Where the heck is Derek Fisher? Right there, on the other side, one-on-one with Jameer Nelson. The result? A 3-on-3 on the other side of the court, the ones nearest to the basket. As soon as Ariza passed to D-Fish, we have a one-on-one situation behind the 3-point line.
And what about Howard and Lewis? They proceeded to defending the paint. Second disturbing question: why would you defend the paint, when the Lakers would go for treys? Let the Lakers score inside! For if they get a 2, Orlando gets the ball with a 1-point lead. Yes, I understand the FT-phobia of SVG, but it is not reason enough to leave a one-on-one situation from beyond the 3-point line (but to balance the situation, I think that the Magic miscalculated. They thought that the Fish would not be that good, considering that he missed his first 5 treys. Well, during that time, chance prevailed, and they were so wrong).
This would then bring us to the last critical mistake that should have been amended, for it was the easiest to do so. Jameer Nelson backpedaling and giving Fisher some space. Congratulations, JN, you just played great defense that you've let D-Fish have some space for a crucial three. Of all the mistakes that Magic made, this one was a mortal sin, and the Magic should have gotten the win had this been changed.
To sum everything up and give a clear stand on this foul-or-not-to-foul issue, all we can say is that generally, go for an immediate foul when your team has a three-point lead. The Magic thought otherwise and had a better idea; however, it just happened that they miscalculated. Logically, the Magic made the right move of letting the person who shot 0-5 from the arc to take his shot instead of letting the inside scorers get a 2 and then go for an immediate intentional foul, which could lead to more FT misses. In some ways, SVG made the right move.
Unfortunately, the Lake Show had luck… and a pretty good basketball IQ as their supporting cast.
No comments:
Post a Comment