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 great marks, which brought the Thunder closer to tying the series.
The Mavericks had no timeouts left. They had to run down the field to get back into the game. At that moment, fans should have been wondering if they were about to witness an iconic playoff moment. Will Luka Dončić shake off a difficult night and lift his team? Would Kyrie Irving add to his formidable list of playoff highlights? Would Shai Gilgeous-Alexander strip someone in the backcourt, capping a big night for him? Would Holmgren get to the 3-point arc on a switch and send a shot into Dallas' night?
Instead, when the Mavericks moved the ball to create a good look, Gilgeous-Alexander intentionally fouled PJ Washington. The Thunder led by three points. It was the right decision. Giving up a maximum of two points when they led by three made sense with so little time left. The Dallas forward split a pair of free throws with 3.2 seconds left, Gilgeous-Alexander hit both at the other end and that was it. Thunder Triumph.
Quite anticlimactic, right?
(Tim Heitman/Getty Images)
Casual NBA viewers often criticize game endings for taking too long. These complaints are justified and have been addressed in part by the league. Prior to the 2017-18 season, the NBA changed its rules to limit teams to two timeouts in the final three minutes of games instead of three timeouts in the final two minutes, as was previously the case.
Well, here's another problem: In the situation the Thunder faced on Monday night, teams are not encouraged to defend without fouling. Free throws are among the least interesting and most time-consuming parts of basketball, and the nature of the rule is leading to more of them, not less. Worst of all, it's robbing viewers of potentially iconic moments.
So, let's change the rules. Here are two proposals.
1. If your opponent is in the bonus and you are winning by three points or more and you foul them beyond the 3-point arc, your opponent gets three free throws.
2. In the same scenario, there is an extension of the current “take foul” rule, where the team trailing or receiving the foul gets a free throw and automatic possession. This is my preferred option.
It may seem counterintuitive to use the threat of more free throws to reduce the number of free throws at the end of a game, but the free throw is the most efficient shot in the game. In the first proposal, a team would give the opponent a chance to tie the game at the free throw line. In the second, you could create a scenario where the opponent could win with a made free throw followed by a 3 (or tie it with a made free throw and a 2). No team will purposely pursue those options.
There are potential loopholes, which I'll talk about in a moment. The current rules encourage players and coaches to consider three scenarios that challenge the spirit of the game.
1. Prioritize fouls over playing defense without committing fouls. It's an interesting philosophical debate, but anything that strays away from solving the game while the clock is ticking is not optimal.
2. If the trailing team believes that an opponent is attempting to commit a foul, its players may attempt to get up to take an unnatural shot while the leading team attempts to implement the strategy. That's just another way to try to goad the referees into calling a foul with unnatural shot attempts, an activity the league is actively trying to curb.
3. If, when trailing by three in the final seconds, a player makes the first of two free throws, he is encouraged to attempt to miss the next one in a manner that maximizes the chance of an offensive rebound leading to another field goal. attempt. Why do we have a system that encourages missing a shot on purpose? (On Monday, Washington missed the first free throw. Instead of trying to miss the second to generate an offensive rebound and a potential 3-point attempt to tie the game, he made it.)
There are counterattacks here, and I don't claim that any of the above proposals are a perfect solution. In particular, teams have 47 minutes and 36 seconds to avoid trailing by three points with the shot clock off. Speaking of free throws, the Mavericks missed 11 of their 23 attempts on Monday. The Thunder fouling Washington wasn't the main reason Dallas lost.
Also, what about the team he leads? That team often intentionally crowds together more than the team behind to extend the competitive portion of the game. Well, the second part of that sentence is the crucial part, right? I have no problem with a rule that applies to one team but not the other given the specificity of the scenario.
Finally, such a rule could encourage another type of cheating: a player on the trailing team creating unnatural contact to gain the advantage provided by another rule designed to help the team with the ball. However, that would simply be trading one form of scam for another. It's not a net gain in terms of disappointment for the referees.
Naturally, any such rule change would have other unintended consequences. I'm all for spotting them and trying to establish the best possible rule. What I do know: Every basketball fan has a few last-second shots they'll never forget. If anyone has a similar list of “best uses of a multitude of shots to maintain a lead,” I haven't met them yet. I really don't want to do it either.
(Top photo of Luka Dončić after a crowd at the end of the match: Tim Heitman / Getty Images)
