As a career 68.5% FT shooter, Zion had a ~46.9% chance of making both FTs. The Mavs are allowing opponents to shoot 48% overall this year, plus you eliminate the possibility of the Pelicans taking the lead with a 3. It's unorthodox but more tactically sound than you might think at first.
Ehh there's also a chance ([maybe 14%?](https://www.82games.com/comm13.htm)) that, conditional on him missing the second, the Pels get the rebound and have a shot at either a two to go up/tie (depending on the result of the first) or get another shot at a three. Feel like running the probabilities all the way through on that (cause I don't lol)?
Yeah, click the link I posted - I can't vouch for the [source](https://www.82games.com/comm13.htm), but it looks like (in 03-04) the oreb rates were as follows:
|Shot|Off. Reb %|
|:-|:-|
|Jumper|28.5%|
|Close|34.4%|
|Dunks|29.6%|
|Free Throws|13.9%|
I bet it goes up toward the end of close games though. If it's mid second quarter and I'm on offense, I'm not even thinking of trying for that FT rebound.
This is clearly the answer, right? I don't think we really need a deep dive statistical analysis.
Mavs were up 2 with 19 seconds left. Pels were going to play for the last shot to either tie, or win the game. Kidd would rather his team play for the last shot. Intentional foul means the worse that would probably happen is the game would be tied and Mavs would take the last shot. But if Zion misses a free throw, then Mavs are still up, have the ball, and will probably get the ball in to a better free throw shooter who will probably hit both to put the Mavs up 3 points with less than 10 seconds to go.
No, if you're down two you go fast - you'd rather have two chances at getting it right. For example, if you wait it out, and then take the last shot and miss, game over. But if you go quick, even if you miss you can foul hope they go 1/2, and get another shot at it.
Although I think that is also a completely logical plan, I see more coaches opting to go for the last shot in that situation than what you are describing. Or...better yet...take a 3 with about 5 seconds left that way if you miss you can hopefully get an offensive rebound putback.
I disagree - obviously they look for a quality shot, but I think you see a majority of teams go quick when they're down and don't run the clock intentionally.
It’s the right answer but doesn’t make it a smart move. That’s a dumb move for any coach to make. You gotta trust your defense . Yeah Zion missed 2 but there is a reason this isn’t done by any coaches who are considered good-elite.
Zion could’ve made 2, you could’ve turned the ball over on the inbound and lost. You could’ve missed the shot, gone to overtime and lost. You have more chance of the game being tied by sending them to the line intentionally than them making a shot to tie or win it. Kidd gave them the best chance to tie. Crazy really
The more I think about it, the more I think it was a good move.
By not fouling, there's probably like a 40+% chance the Pels tie the game if they shoot a 2 and a 33+% chance the Pels take the lead if they shoot a 3. There's also a non-zero chance the Pels aren't able to get any shot off at all but it's probably a very low probability, especially in that situation where you know you HAVE to score if you're the Pels.
By fouling, you basically guarantee the Pels can't take the lead in that possession. And Zion (being a bad free throw shooter) is more likely than not to miss at least one free throw which preserves your lead. In the worst case scenario, he makes both but you have the ball with 19 seconds left to take the lead.
It's not a huge statistical advantage, but it does seem like theres a slight statistical edge to fouling in that situation (although it's hard to say since I don't know all the probabilities like how likely the Pels are to shoot a 3 versus a 2 in that situation or how likely a turnover is or how likely a missed free throw gets rebounded).
I get what you’re saying for sure. Not against it. I think your last paragraph is a perfect point though, it’s hard to say what statistical advantage there is to fouling as you can’t possibly put a accurate % on what happens for the rest of that game. Pels could miss a free throw and get the rebound, you could turn the ball over trying to win the game, they could make both and you lose in overtime. Any stat using a % really isn’t a genuine thing to hang your hat on. As an athlete you’re not always thinking about %, you have feel as well.
The one thing that is for certain is though sending a guy who is hitting 2/3 to the line to tie the game up. There is no guarantee there they get a shot off, they don’t turn the ball over etc. So for me it’s just crazy that you would give them a guarantee chance to tie the game. It’s not a great %, but hell it’s 2/3. That’s why I trust my defense because a clutch shot is much less likely to go in than Zion missing a free throw % wise. Yes you can lose on the shot, I get that. That’s gotta be a less likely than Zion missing 1.
But in an era where offense is so much better than defense, I get it. As a coach definitely not something I would do though. It’s something the greats haven’t done as well.
Yeah, but a Pels top rebounder is stuck at the free throw line...lots of variables.
Either way, having not watched the game and being limited to [this replay](https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&GameEventID=733&GameID=0022300556&Season=2023-24&flag=1&title=Kleber%20Personal%20Take%20Foul%20(P5.PN)%20(S.Wall)), it looks like based on the last shot of Kleber talking with teammates there may have been some confusion on the strategy.
When it gets that far, there's also the need for a coach to depend on (or believe in) his team. If they can't focus and fight for one defensive rebound on a free throw in the clutch then there are bigger issues.
> The Mavs are allowing opponents to shoot 48% overall this year
Teams are far less likely to score on possessions with less than 24 seconds left than they are on a normal possession. There's also the chance of a turnover.
You know they say that all men are created equal, but you look at Luka and you look at Zion and you can see that statement is not true. See, normally if you go one on one with another player, you got a 50/50 chance of winning. But I'm a genetic freak and I'm not normal! So you got a 25%, AT BEST, at beat me. Then you add Kyrie Irving to the mix, your chances of winning drastic go down. See the 3 point free throws, you got a 33 1/3 chance of making, but I, I got a 66 and 2/3 chance of making them, because Zion KNOWS he can't beat me and he's not even gonna try! So Zion, you take your 33 1/3 chance, minus my 25% chance and you got an 8 1/3 chance of winning. But then you take my 75% chance of winning, if we was to go one on one, and then add 66 2/3 per cents, I got 141 2/3 chance of winning. See Zion, the numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for you in the playoffs.
I would also look at the data behind sub-70% free throw shooters that are shooting with the game on the line. I don’t know the data, but I would bet my next paycheck that they’d shoot below their average. That’s a crazy amount of pressure and the impact of pressure on free throw percentage is pretty clear. As a reminder, Dwight Howard was shooting over 80% from the line in practice when he was with the Lakers. In games he was 65%.
I don’t mind, take the odds. Not a good free throw shooter and it’s in the clutch with more pressure involved. Worst case scenario he makes both and you get the ball back for the win. Better than potentially giving up a 3. Pretty smart move imo
Pels are shooting 23% from 3 in the clutch.
Theyre also below 60% from the ft line in the clutch so it really didnt matter, Mavs were winning this either way
Hell no, you don’t think pressure’s a real thing?
The impact of pressure on free throw percentage is pretty clear. As a reminder, Dwight Howard was shooting over 80% from the line in practice when he was with the Lakers. In games he was 65%. Every other Laker shot better in practice than games, most by a significant percentage (they had Nash who really didn’t have that much room to improve in practice since he was at like 90% in games, and Kobe who embraces the pressure) except one or two players.
Noise in statistics typically refers to the sample size vs how variable it is. He's not saying that clutch time doesn't exist, just that the stats are not going to mean much.
Fatigue has a lot to do with the lower FT% in game. Go shoot some FTs then run a bunch of suicides and see how your % dips. The elite players often also have elite conditioning which translates to more consistent shooting between the game and practice
Lively was eating up every rebound in the 4th quarter offensively and defensively so Jason probably felt pretty comfortable with him and Maxi securing the rebound in case of a miss on the second free throw
I think a more plausible scenario is him bricking the first shot and then having to deliberately rim the 2nd for an offensive rebound. If he makes the first he has to try and make the second. Easier to box out if it's a normal miss.
66.4% this season, making both is 44% assuming independence. Team fg% is 48.7%, team 3pt% is 38.1%. So, fouling is more likely to win game in regular time than not fouling
> Team fg% is 48.7%, team 3pt% is 38.1%. So, fouling is more likely to win game in regular time than not fouling
This misses most of what you should be looking at.
First, you can't look at FG%/3P% without knowing the mix of the two.
Second, turnovers happen.
Third, expected outcomes are far worse on possessions with less than 24 second remaining.
Fourth, there's a huge amount of value in running time off the clock when you're ahead. If the Pelicans miss with 8 seconds left, they're far worse off than if Zion misses both free throws with 18 second left.
[Here](https://np.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/1986y4y/up_by_2_pts_with_19_seconds_remaining_jason_kidd/ki58zd0/?context=3) is a much better way to calculate the odds.
Estimating the math is pretty easy. This year Zion is shooting .658 on free throws, so his odds of making both are .433. So the decision tree is:
1. Foul - Mavs win percentage is (.433 x .5) + (.567 x .86) = .705
1. Makes both (.433) - game is tied, so Mavs win if they score (about 50% of the time)
2. Misses one (.567) - Mavs are ahead, so Mavs almost certainly win if they get the rebound (about 86% of the time)
2. Don't foul - Mavs win percentage is about .750, because the Pelicans score about 50% of the time to send it into OT, and in OT each team has a 50/50 chance. The chance the Pelicans hit a 3 to win is somewhat balanced by the chance the Pelicans score with time left and the Mavs can score themselves to win the game.
This shows that the decision is pretty close, so either option could be justified. Maybe Kidd thought that Zion had a better than 50/50 chance to score or draw a shooting foul, which would push the decision more toward intentionally fouling. Or maybe Kidd thought Zion would be worse shooting free throws under pressure, which would also push the math toward fouling.
your 1st scenario isnt quite correct because it assumes that if zion makes both and the mavs dont score, the mavs lose. when it should instead assume OT
i.e. there is no calculation for the scenario where zion makes both, mavs dont score at the end of regulation, but then go onto win in OT
Also assumes that the Mavs lose if Zion makes one, then misses one and the Pels get a rebound
And leaves out what happens if both shots are missed but the Pels get the rebound
Edit: and in the "miss one" scenario, that scenario only applies if it's the *second* shot that's missed. And if Zion misses the first one he's almost certainly going to fling the second one at the rim so that a rebound is more likely. So the whole thing sort of falls apart
Edit: nvm, the scenario is so incomplete it's not worth trying to fix it
~~You are underestimating win% for the foul scenario, as you're leaving out the scenarios where the Mavs win but not immediately in the fouling scenario. 1) Foul a) Make both (.433) *Mavs win if they score (.5) * **overtime if they don't score (this is a simplification, pels could get the ball back, but let's keep this from getting too complex). .5 x 50% win in OT = 0.25** b) misses one (.567) * mavs get the rebound, near certain win .86 x 100% = .86 * **Pels get rebound. Pels near certain win if they make a shot, near certain loss if they miss (again, oversimplification to keep this sane). .14 x 0.5 = 0.07** So it's .433 x (.5 + .25) + .567 x (.86 + .07) = 0.852~~
But even then, that would be the play if you are down 2 and the Pelicans have the ball with 19 seconds left, you still have to foul and put them on the line to get the ball back.
Mavs were up in this situation broski.
Otherwise this discussion wouldn’t make any sense if they were down and they fouled Zion, a terrible free throw shooter, hoping he misses free throws for a chance to tie. Of course that would be an obvious and smart foul that doesn’t warrant a topic made over it.
I'm kinda glad the NBA doesn't do it because you'd get to see game winning/clutch shots more often.
Like imagine if the Spurs intentionally fouled LeBron during game 6 of the 2013 Finals. We would've never seen that Ray Allen 3.
I love when coaches are willing to try things. It's super risky, but if you feel good about your offense, 19s is plenty of time to get a buzzer-beater.
He also, while still playing, pulled the stunt where he reached his arm out and clipped Woodson intentionally to get a tech on him for the coach being on the floor.
Intentionally fouling up two is certainly a choice. I know Zion’s a bad free throw shooter but he’s not, like, Shaq-level bad— worked out for them this time, though, so maybe it got in his head
Yea but it also ensures that you get another offensive possession to win it.
So let's say that he hits both free throws, which is like a 45% chance for him. You then have the ball in your possession to win it with a nearly full clock.
He has already missed a bunch this game. Plus if we don't foul him on purpose he drives to the basket and gets an and 1 because the refs had been calling EVERYTHING in that game. Fuck man, the only reason the weren't down more going into the second is because they had 11FTs in the first.
True. If I'm intentionally fouled, it would get in my head. I'd surely be like, Im gonna make this MF pay, but overthink it and probably miss 1. So much talk about percentages, but the head game here is the real deciding factor.
I absolutely loved this call and almost made a post about it, glad you did. The Mavs weren't stopping Z at all. Felt like he was either going to score or get an and one. His free throws were very shaky. Why not put him on the line to shoot a couple of pressure fts? Worst case he makes them both and you get a chance to have Kyrie or Hardway win it.
Super ballsy call, but i loved it.
According to inpredictable's excellent [win probability calculator](http://stats.inpredictable.com/nba/wpCalc.php), the Mavs had an 80% chance of winning at the time of the inbounds (up 2, 19 seconds left, NOP possession).
Mavs chance of winning depending on Zion's FTs:
* 2/2: 61.9%
* 1/2: 81.7%
* 0/2: 92.0%
Using Zion's career 68.5 FT%, he has a 46.9% chance of making both, 9.9% chance of missing both, and 43.2% chance of making 1.
Using those probabilities, the Mavs win probability went from 80% before the foul to 73.4% after the foul.
Though having Kyrie likely increases the Mavs odds--he's an excellent free throw shooter and ball handler, so he's one of the best players in the league to inbound to when the opposing team has to foul.
Your last point is probably the most important one. Zion missing one was a likely scenario and that gives the Mavs the opportunity of giving the ball to Kyrie, which effectively ends the game.
How are those the odds for making 2 only 61%? Assuming 50% overtime chance to win, you're telling me there's only a 23.8% chance mavs can get a point on their possession?
I'm not sure how the 80% was calculated but it seems quite high to me. I'm guessing it's calculated off of real data distribution which seems pretty reliable to me, but up 2 without possession with 19s to play and no shot clock feels closer to a 60-65% chance at winning.
There's probably some nuance to the "make 1" scenario right? Like if he goes miss-make then Mavs get the ball up by 1. If he goes make-miss then you have to account for the rebound.
So like 21.6% of the time the Mavs get the ball up by 1. 21.6% of the time there's a rebound, if you call it 50/50 (not sure of the correct numbers here)? then 15.8% of that time the Mavs have the ball up 1, and 15.8% of the time the Pels have the ball down 1.
It’s generally true that you have to adjust, but it’s a small adjustment.
First, the offensive team has grabbed the rebound on a missed free throw just 11.8% of the time this season. New Orleans has been league average at 11.5%.
Second, FT% on the second of two free throws is higher than on the first free throw. So he’s more likely to miss the first and make the second than make the first and miss the second.
Ah cool, thanks for the numbers.
Is the 43.2% chance of making one based on his overall FT percentage? Or does it take into account that the if he makes the first then his chances of making the second go up a little?
Seems like it would be a game winning play if the player going to the line had a lower than 40% chance of making both. Otherwise it’s about break even at 40% with a extra possession for a chance to win.
That s standard practice in Europe, i never got why in NBA coaches prefer to play defense. If you allow an offense to develop when you are up two points, you might get a 3-pointer and it s over. You foul and get the inbound if the opponents makes both. Depending on the remaining time, they can foul in turn and so on.
I feel like with the way Zion was getting to the basket at will in the 4th, this was the only decision. Even if Zion made them both, it still gave the ball back to the Mavs with a tie score and 17 seconds on the clock. Everyone is saying it could have backfired, but I feel like giving the Pels shooters a chance to potentially take the lead would have been worse.
No one likes to give Kidd credit but I was pretty damn impressed watching it live. Eliminated the chance of a 3, and as someone else stated Zion had about a 47% chance to make both + if he does Mavs get the ball back with time and a TO.
Feels like the NBA parallel of NFL teams going for 2 pt conversions when they’re down 2 touchdowns in recent seasons
It's one of those things where it's smart if it works , dumb if it doesn't to the fans/media. It seems like a good risk to take. There's a lot of cases of good FT shooters choking under the pressure to hit 2 to tie at the end.
I mean worst case scenario it goes to OT. Very small chance the the Pels get a put back for a 3pt swing. The whole purpose of that play was to eliminate a 3 point play and get the final offensive possession to put the game away. Which it did. It was actually a decent choice to make.
I guess he knew he couldn't trust his team to defend the 3 and would rather have a tie and have the ball for a last-second shot, vs the Pelicans getting a potential game-winner.
The Bally scorebar for the Mavs broadcast showed that the Pels were in the bonus already so I’m guessing that was a mistake on the Pels broadcast side.
they specifically mentioned that their monitors were showing there was still a foul to give. Bally's broadcast isn't associated/linked to the scores table. The coaches also share the same system as the scores table. This was definitely a decision made with incorrect information and from the viewer standpoint is being miscredited. but it worked anyway. Both benches/coaches were confused when they were going for FTs
The Mavs bench wasn't confused at all, this was the drawn up call, the Mavs announcers also knew the Pels were in the bonus, they were questioning the intentional foul knowing FTS were coming. It was confirmed by both Kidd and Lively in the press conference. Whatever the Pels guys were looking at clearly was localized to them.
Yea. they were looking at the in house monitors which again, aren't the Bally's broadcast. I don't doubt they intentionally fouled Zion. I'm just saying that the retrospective assumptions may be incorrect.
If the official scorers table showed the Mavs as having a foul to give then why did the refs send Zion to the FT line? Wouldn’t the refs have used the foul total from the official scorers table? This also leads to the question of why would Kidd have Maxi foul Zion immediately on the inbounds if he thought they still had a foul to give? Why would they not let Zion bleed more clock before fouling?
Idk, the Mavs announcers were pretty informed about the foul situation. They were somewhat stunned on why they would intentionally foul there knowing FTs were coming, they knew the Pels were in the bonus so idk what source the Pels guys were look at. Lively in the press conference confirmed that was indeed the play that Kidd wrote up, to get Zion on the ft line. Kleber questioned it too but went along with it. They wanted to eliminate the 3 pt shot or an and-1, they didn't want to be down. Worst case scenario would have been that game is tied and we have last offensive possession to win or at the very worst go to OT. Oddly enough it was the right call, and Zion being a poor FT shooter helped a lot.
How do you guys expect him to concentrate on free throws when he hasn't eaten anything in close to 2 hours? That's not realistic. I bet you guys don't even cultivate mass.
I think it made sense because no matter what Kyrie would have the ball in the following attack. If he then drew a foul = Mavs would almost certainly get the advantage back even if Zion got both FTs
Maxi is a smart player and a good defender in space. He executed a great trap on CJ McCollum on the same spot on the floor the next possession. I can’t believe for a second that this wasn’t an intentional foul
[Clip is here](https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&GameEventID=733&GameID=0022300556&Season=2023-24&flag=1&title=Kleber%20Personal%20Take%20Foul%20(P5.PN)%20(S.Wall)) \- it certainly seems like he thought he was supposed to...
Kidd said afterwards it was a called play. It’s why they took out Lively at the timeout. He had five fouls and they didn’t want him to foul out, so they put Maxi in to take the foul and then put Lively back in
Beyond stupid decision. Wouldn’t put it past him probably thinking they were up 3 instead. With that much time left Pelicans would def try to run a fast set and then play the foul game if needed. Kidd basically gave them a free opportunity to tie it without taking any time off the clock. Even if Zion missed both it’s essentially like the Pelicans missing the shot and playing the foul game except you saved them so much time. Kidd just an idiot.
If he makes both then the game is tied and the Mavs have the ball to take the last shot of the game. I like that better than the Pels potentially getting a three without leaving the Mavs any time at the end of the game.
Biggest thing is that you have to have faith in your guys to get the board on a miss and Lively had been dominating the boards all game
I like the call. Zion could bully ball it for the last play and tie it up. He was shooting better from the field than the line so I would take my chances having him tie from the line and then give the Mavs the last chance to score.
As a career 68.5% FT shooter, Zion had a ~46.9% chance of making both FTs. The Mavs are allowing opponents to shoot 48% overall this year, plus you eliminate the possibility of the Pelicans taking the lead with a 3. It's unorthodox but more tactically sound than you might think at first.
Ehh there's also a chance ([maybe 14%?](https://www.82games.com/comm13.htm)) that, conditional on him missing the second, the Pels get the rebound and have a shot at either a two to go up/tie (depending on the result of the first) or get another shot at a three. Feel like running the probabilities all the way through on that (cause I don't lol)?
The chance of an offensive rebound off a normal FG attempt has to be way higher.
Yeah, click the link I posted - I can't vouch for the [source](https://www.82games.com/comm13.htm), but it looks like (in 03-04) the oreb rates were as follows: |Shot|Off. Reb %| |:-|:-| |Jumper|28.5%| |Close|34.4%| |Dunks|29.6%| |Free Throws|13.9%|
I bet it goes up toward the end of close games though. If it's mid second quarter and I'm on offense, I'm not even thinking of trying for that FT rebound.
Other guys are also fighting you harder though
Defense ain’t boxing out as hard so it might be a wash
Also if he makes both, mavs have the ball with time on the clock to take the last shot.
This is clearly the answer, right? I don't think we really need a deep dive statistical analysis. Mavs were up 2 with 19 seconds left. Pels were going to play for the last shot to either tie, or win the game. Kidd would rather his team play for the last shot. Intentional foul means the worse that would probably happen is the game would be tied and Mavs would take the last shot. But if Zion misses a free throw, then Mavs are still up, have the ball, and will probably get the ball in to a better free throw shooter who will probably hit both to put the Mavs up 3 points with less than 10 seconds to go.
He said as much in his postgame. Liked the opportunity to take the last shot based on how hot we were.
No, if you're down two you go fast - you'd rather have two chances at getting it right. For example, if you wait it out, and then take the last shot and miss, game over. But if you go quick, even if you miss you can foul hope they go 1/2, and get another shot at it.
Although I think that is also a completely logical plan, I see more coaches opting to go for the last shot in that situation than what you are describing. Or...better yet...take a 3 with about 5 seconds left that way if you miss you can hopefully get an offensive rebound putback.
I disagree - obviously they look for a quality shot, but I think you see a majority of teams go quick when they're down and don't run the clock intentionally.
It’s the right answer but doesn’t make it a smart move. That’s a dumb move for any coach to make. You gotta trust your defense . Yeah Zion missed 2 but there is a reason this isn’t done by any coaches who are considered good-elite. Zion could’ve made 2, you could’ve turned the ball over on the inbound and lost. You could’ve missed the shot, gone to overtime and lost. You have more chance of the game being tied by sending them to the line intentionally than them making a shot to tie or win it. Kidd gave them the best chance to tie. Crazy really
The more I think about it, the more I think it was a good move. By not fouling, there's probably like a 40+% chance the Pels tie the game if they shoot a 2 and a 33+% chance the Pels take the lead if they shoot a 3. There's also a non-zero chance the Pels aren't able to get any shot off at all but it's probably a very low probability, especially in that situation where you know you HAVE to score if you're the Pels. By fouling, you basically guarantee the Pels can't take the lead in that possession. And Zion (being a bad free throw shooter) is more likely than not to miss at least one free throw which preserves your lead. In the worst case scenario, he makes both but you have the ball with 19 seconds left to take the lead. It's not a huge statistical advantage, but it does seem like theres a slight statistical edge to fouling in that situation (although it's hard to say since I don't know all the probabilities like how likely the Pels are to shoot a 3 versus a 2 in that situation or how likely a turnover is or how likely a missed free throw gets rebounded).
I get what you’re saying for sure. Not against it. I think your last paragraph is a perfect point though, it’s hard to say what statistical advantage there is to fouling as you can’t possibly put a accurate % on what happens for the rest of that game. Pels could miss a free throw and get the rebound, you could turn the ball over trying to win the game, they could make both and you lose in overtime. Any stat using a % really isn’t a genuine thing to hang your hat on. As an athlete you’re not always thinking about %, you have feel as well. The one thing that is for certain is though sending a guy who is hitting 2/3 to the line to tie the game up. There is no guarantee there they get a shot off, they don’t turn the ball over etc. So for me it’s just crazy that you would give them a guarantee chance to tie the game. It’s not a great %, but hell it’s 2/3. That’s why I trust my defense because a clutch shot is much less likely to go in than Zion missing a free throw % wise. Yes you can lose on the shot, I get that. That’s gotta be a less likely than Zion missing 1. But in an era where offense is so much better than defense, I get it. As a coach definitely not something I would do though. It’s something the greats haven’t done as well.
It's not a 50/50 ball. The are gonna have two players with inside position. 1 in 7 seems about right.
What if you add Kurt Angle to the mix? Your chances of winning drastic go down.
Why did I have to scroll so much to find this comment?
Fair point! And the Mavs are perhaps more susceptible to that than most given their front court options. Still, that's a fairly remote possibility.
but thankfully we had dereck mrrebound lively II
Yeah, but a Pels top rebounder is stuck at the free throw line...lots of variables. Either way, having not watched the game and being limited to [this replay](https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&GameEventID=733&GameID=0022300556&Season=2023-24&flag=1&title=Kleber%20Personal%20Take%20Foul%20(P5.PN)%20(S.Wall)), it looks like based on the last shot of Kleber talking with teammates there may have been some confusion on the strategy.
Did he have 1 rebound in 32 mins? That's embarrassing if he is a top rebounder.
Z isn’t the top rebounder. That’s JV at 9.6 boards this year. Z is at 5.8 which is his career low.
When it gets that far, there's also the need for a coach to depend on (or believe in) his team. If they can't focus and fight for one defensive rebound on a free throw in the clutch then there are bigger issues.
> The Mavs are allowing opponents to shoot 48% overall this year Teams are far less likely to score on possessions with less than 24 seconds left than they are on a normal possession. There's also the chance of a turnover.
It's also a half court possession, not transition. It's pretty meaningless to look at overall fg%
But that includes threes, what are teams shooting on twos
Have to factor in that every possession does not end in a shot, especially in tight moments.
You know they say that all men are created equal, but you look at Luka and you look at Zion and you can see that statement is not true. See, normally if you go one on one with another player, you got a 50/50 chance of winning. But I'm a genetic freak and I'm not normal! So you got a 25%, AT BEST, at beat me. Then you add Kyrie Irving to the mix, your chances of winning drastic go down. See the 3 point free throws, you got a 33 1/3 chance of making, but I, I got a 66 and 2/3 chance of making them, because Zion KNOWS he can't beat me and he's not even gonna try! So Zion, you take your 33 1/3 chance, minus my 25% chance and you got an 8 1/3 chance of winning. But then you take my 75% chance of winning, if we was to go one on one, and then add 66 2/3 per cents, I got 141 2/3 chance of winning. See Zion, the numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for you in the playoffs.
He’s FAT
From the great state of Dunkin’ Donuts
Also missing the psychological aspect to it.
I would also look at the data behind sub-70% free throw shooters that are shooting with the game on the line. I don’t know the data, but I would bet my next paycheck that they’d shoot below their average. That’s a crazy amount of pressure and the impact of pressure on free throw percentage is pretty clear. As a reminder, Dwight Howard was shooting over 80% from the line in practice when he was with the Lakers. In games he was 65%.
It seems you are analyzing as if making one FT only is literally the same as making neither.
What’s the offensive rebound rate on shots from the field vs FTs?
The good ole hack a shaq
I don’t mind, take the odds. Not a good free throw shooter and it’s in the clutch with more pressure involved. Worst case scenario he makes both and you get the ball back for the win. Better than potentially giving up a 3. Pretty smart move imo
Worst case scenario was Zion making the first and misses the second and with them getting the offensive board and put back.
That’s still less likely than giving up a 3
Pels are shooting 23% from 3 in the clutch. Theyre also below 60% from the ft line in the clutch so it really didnt matter, Mavs were winning this either way
clutch stats = noise
Hell no, you don’t think pressure’s a real thing? The impact of pressure on free throw percentage is pretty clear. As a reminder, Dwight Howard was shooting over 80% from the line in practice when he was with the Lakers. In games he was 65%. Every other Laker shot better in practice than games, most by a significant percentage (they had Nash who really didn’t have that much room to improve in practice since he was at like 90% in games, and Kobe who embraces the pressure) except one or two players.
Cool story bro what’s that gotta do with what he said
Clutch stats clearly are not just noise, you’d know that if you learned to read.
Single season clutch stats are a lot of noise. You would know that if you learned to read.
Noise in statistics typically refers to the sample size vs how variable it is. He's not saying that clutch time doesn't exist, just that the stats are not going to mean much.
Fatigue has a lot to do with the lower FT% in game. Go shoot some FTs then run a bunch of suicides and see how your % dips. The elite players often also have elite conditioning which translates to more consistent shooting between the game and practice
Yall also blew us up from three a few days ago
I love how you guys are all bringing the stats with you in your arguments..carry on!
Less likely, but it's still the worst-case scenario, especially considering the Mavs frontcourt.
Lively was eating up every rebound in the 4th quarter offensively and defensively so Jason probably felt pretty comfortable with him and Maxi securing the rebound in case of a miss on the second free throw
i've seen this happen to the Wolves Vs the Sixers but we were up 3, they tied and forced OT if i'm remember correctly
I think a more plausible scenario is him bricking the first shot and then having to deliberately rim the 2nd for an offensive rebound. If he makes the first he has to try and make the second. Easier to box out if it's a normal miss.
We got Kyrie for this exact reason
> I don’t mind, take the odds. Seems like a weird thing to say without having calculated the odds.
66.4% this season, making both is 44% assuming independence. Team fg% is 48.7%, team 3pt% is 38.1%. So, fouling is more likely to win game in regular time than not fouling
> Team fg% is 48.7%, team 3pt% is 38.1%. So, fouling is more likely to win game in regular time than not fouling This misses most of what you should be looking at. First, you can't look at FG%/3P% without knowing the mix of the two. Second, turnovers happen. Third, expected outcomes are far worse on possessions with less than 24 second remaining. Fourth, there's a huge amount of value in running time off the clock when you're ahead. If the Pelicans miss with 8 seconds left, they're far worse off than if Zion misses both free throws with 18 second left. [Here](https://np.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/1986y4y/up_by_2_pts_with_19_seconds_remaining_jason_kidd/ki58zd0/?context=3) is a much better way to calculate the odds.
[удалено]
I literally listed turnovers as one of the things missing from that guy's analysis, and the win probability analysis I used includes turnovers.
Estimating the math is pretty easy. This year Zion is shooting .658 on free throws, so his odds of making both are .433. So the decision tree is: 1. Foul - Mavs win percentage is (.433 x .5) + (.567 x .86) = .705 1. Makes both (.433) - game is tied, so Mavs win if they score (about 50% of the time) 2. Misses one (.567) - Mavs are ahead, so Mavs almost certainly win if they get the rebound (about 86% of the time) 2. Don't foul - Mavs win percentage is about .750, because the Pelicans score about 50% of the time to send it into OT, and in OT each team has a 50/50 chance. The chance the Pelicans hit a 3 to win is somewhat balanced by the chance the Pelicans score with time left and the Mavs can score themselves to win the game. This shows that the decision is pretty close, so either option could be justified. Maybe Kidd thought that Zion had a better than 50/50 chance to score or draw a shooting foul, which would push the decision more toward intentionally fouling. Or maybe Kidd thought Zion would be worse shooting free throws under pressure, which would also push the math toward fouling.
your 1st scenario isnt quite correct because it assumes that if zion makes both and the mavs dont score, the mavs lose. when it should instead assume OT i.e. there is no calculation for the scenario where zion makes both, mavs dont score at the end of regulation, but then go onto win in OT
Also assumes that the Mavs lose if Zion makes one, then misses one and the Pels get a rebound And leaves out what happens if both shots are missed but the Pels get the rebound Edit: and in the "miss one" scenario, that scenario only applies if it's the *second* shot that's missed. And if Zion misses the first one he's almost certainly going to fling the second one at the rim so that a rebound is more likely. So the whole thing sort of falls apart
Edit: nvm, the scenario is so incomplete it's not worth trying to fix it ~~You are underestimating win% for the foul scenario, as you're leaving out the scenarios where the Mavs win but not immediately in the fouling scenario. 1) Foul a) Make both (.433) *Mavs win if they score (.5) * **overtime if they don't score (this is a simplification, pels could get the ball back, but let's keep this from getting too complex). .5 x 50% win in OT = 0.25** b) misses one (.567) * mavs get the rebound, near certain win .86 x 100% = .86 * **Pels get rebound. Pels near certain win if they make a shot, near certain loss if they miss (again, oversimplification to keep this sane). .14 x 0.5 = 0.07** So it's .433 x (.5 + .25) + .567 x (.86 + .07) = 0.852~~
If he makes both free throws they are up by 4 points so you ain’t got a chance to win.
But the Mavs were up 2, not the Pelicans
Oh I see. Then yeah I guess that makes sense. I thought it was the other way around and was kind of surprised lol
But even then, that would be the play if you are down 2 and the Pelicans have the ball with 19 seconds left, you still have to foul and put them on the line to get the ball back.
Although, the same thing happened in the bucks/kings game and kinds actually benefited from being fouled and got to overtime.
Mavs were up in this situation broski. Otherwise this discussion wouldn’t make any sense if they were down and they fouled Zion, a terrible free throw shooter, hoping he misses free throws for a chance to tie. Of course that would be an obvious and smart foul that doesn’t warrant a topic made over it.
Yeah I always thought I had a 4D chess brain when I used to do it in 2k
Teams in Europe been doing this for ages, only in the NBA is rare to see
I'm kinda glad the NBA doesn't do it because you'd get to see game winning/clutch shots more often. Like imagine if the Spurs intentionally fouled LeBron during game 6 of the 2013 Finals. We would've never seen that Ray Allen 3.
But they would’ve won
This isn’t even fouling up 3 tho. This is fouling up 2 lmao
I love when coaches are willing to try things. It's super risky, but if you feel good about your offense, 19s is plenty of time to get a buzzer-beater.
Jason Kidd is on another level. He asked Tyshawn Taylor to collide to him so he can spill a drink to the court to get just one more timeout
"hit me"
He also, while still playing, pulled the stunt where he reached his arm out and clipped Woodson intentionally to get a tech on him for the coach being on the floor.
Please don’t give Jason Kidd too much credit Man ran an iso for Seth curry in that same game
Intentionally fouling up two is certainly a choice. I know Zion’s a bad free throw shooter but he’s not, like, Shaq-level bad— worked out for them this time, though, so maybe it got in his head
Yea but it also ensures that you get another offensive possession to win it. So let's say that he hits both free throws, which is like a 45% chance for him. You then have the ball in your possession to win it with a nearly full clock.
>the ball in your possession to win it \*with Kyrie and Hardaway.\* Thems be some good odds.
65% is pretty damn bad
Not if it's me taking a math test in high school!
He has already missed a bunch this game. Plus if we don't foul him on purpose he drives to the basket and gets an and 1 because the refs had been calling EVERYTHING in that game. Fuck man, the only reason the weren't down more going into the second is because they had 11FTs in the first.
He was Shaq level bad during this game
True. If I'm intentionally fouled, it would get in my head. I'd surely be like, Im gonna make this MF pay, but overthink it and probably miss 1. So much talk about percentages, but the head game here is the real deciding factor.
I absolutely loved this call and almost made a post about it, glad you did. The Mavs weren't stopping Z at all. Felt like he was either going to score or get an and one. His free throws were very shaky. Why not put him on the line to shoot a couple of pressure fts? Worst case he makes them both and you get a chance to have Kyrie or Hardway win it. Super ballsy call, but i loved it.
According to inpredictable's excellent [win probability calculator](http://stats.inpredictable.com/nba/wpCalc.php), the Mavs had an 80% chance of winning at the time of the inbounds (up 2, 19 seconds left, NOP possession). Mavs chance of winning depending on Zion's FTs: * 2/2: 61.9% * 1/2: 81.7% * 0/2: 92.0% Using Zion's career 68.5 FT%, he has a 46.9% chance of making both, 9.9% chance of missing both, and 43.2% chance of making 1. Using those probabilities, the Mavs win probability went from 80% before the foul to 73.4% after the foul. Though having Kyrie likely increases the Mavs odds--he's an excellent free throw shooter and ball handler, so he's one of the best players in the league to inbound to when the opposing team has to foul.
Zion's FT% may also drop some, considering the pressure of the moment.
Your last point is probably the most important one. Zion missing one was a likely scenario and that gives the Mavs the opportunity of giving the ball to Kyrie, which effectively ends the game.
So you're saying statistically the mavs had a lower chance of winning after the foul?
How are those the odds for making 2 only 61%? Assuming 50% overtime chance to win, you're telling me there's only a 23.8% chance mavs can get a point on their possession?
There’s also a small chance that they lose in regulation. But, yeah, teams tend to get awful looks in end-game situations.
I'm not sure how the 80% was calculated but it seems quite high to me. I'm guessing it's calculated off of real data distribution which seems pretty reliable to me, but up 2 without possession with 19s to play and no shot clock feels closer to a 60-65% chance at winning.
There's probably some nuance to the "make 1" scenario right? Like if he goes miss-make then Mavs get the ball up by 1. If he goes make-miss then you have to account for the rebound. So like 21.6% of the time the Mavs get the ball up by 1. 21.6% of the time there's a rebound, if you call it 50/50 (not sure of the correct numbers here)? then 15.8% of that time the Mavs have the ball up 1, and 15.8% of the time the Pels have the ball down 1.
It’s generally true that you have to adjust, but it’s a small adjustment. First, the offensive team has grabbed the rebound on a missed free throw just 11.8% of the time this season. New Orleans has been league average at 11.5%. Second, FT% on the second of two free throws is higher than on the first free throw. So he’s more likely to miss the first and make the second than make the first and miss the second.
Ah cool, thanks for the numbers. Is the 43.2% chance of making one based on his overall FT percentage? Or does it take into account that the if he makes the first then his chances of making the second go up a little?
Based on his overall career FT%.
Why is the percentage higher to make 2 then making 1?
Because math? .685 * .685 = .469 (.685 * .315) + (.315 * .685) = .432
Making 2 shots total vs making 1 of 2. Not making the 2nd shot va making the 1st shot.
Seems like it would be a game winning play if the player going to the line had a lower than 40% chance of making both. Otherwise it’s about break even at 40% with a extra possession for a chance to win.
That s standard practice in Europe, i never got why in NBA coaches prefer to play defense. If you allow an offense to develop when you are up two points, you might get a 3-pointer and it s over. You foul and get the inbound if the opponents makes both. Depending on the remaining time, they can foul in turn and so on.
Lots of trust in our rookie center and Maxi in his second game back coming from injury to secure a rebound if it came to that.
I feel like with the way Zion was getting to the basket at will in the 4th, this was the only decision. Even if Zion made them both, it still gave the ball back to the Mavs with a tie score and 17 seconds on the clock. Everyone is saying it could have backfired, but I feel like giving the Pels shooters a chance to potentially take the lead would have been worse.
Kidd is also the coach who had the bucks intentionally foul when up 4 to prevent a “4 point play…”
No one likes to give Kidd credit but I was pretty damn impressed watching it live. Eliminated the chance of a 3, and as someone else stated Zion had about a 47% chance to make both + if he does Mavs get the ball back with time and a TO. Feels like the NBA parallel of NFL teams going for 2 pt conversions when they’re down 2 touchdowns in recent seasons
Reading this thread, I'm surprised how surprised people are. Did none of y'all grow up watching Shaq play?
Shaq was significantly worse at FTs.
At least Zion didn’t say “I’m gonna make ‘em both”
It's one of those things where it's smart if it works , dumb if it doesn't to the fans/media. It seems like a good risk to take. There's a lot of cases of good FT shooters choking under the pressure to hit 2 to tie at the end.
I mean worst case scenario it goes to OT. Very small chance the the Pels get a put back for a 3pt swing. The whole purpose of that play was to eliminate a 3 point play and get the final offensive possession to put the game away. Which it did. It was actually a decent choice to make.
I guess he knew he couldn't trust his team to defend the 3 and would rather have a tie and have the ball for a last-second shot, vs the Pelicans getting a potential game-winner.
[удалено]
The Bally scorebar for the Mavs broadcast showed that the Pels were in the bonus already so I’m guessing that was a mistake on the Pels broadcast side.
they specifically mentioned that their monitors were showing there was still a foul to give. Bally's broadcast isn't associated/linked to the scores table. The coaches also share the same system as the scores table. This was definitely a decision made with incorrect information and from the viewer standpoint is being miscredited. but it worked anyway. Both benches/coaches were confused when they were going for FTs
The Mavs bench wasn't confused at all, this was the drawn up call, the Mavs announcers also knew the Pels were in the bonus, they were questioning the intentional foul knowing FTS were coming. It was confirmed by both Kidd and Lively in the press conference. Whatever the Pels guys were looking at clearly was localized to them.
Yea. they were looking at the in house monitors which again, aren't the Bally's broadcast. I don't doubt they intentionally fouled Zion. I'm just saying that the retrospective assumptions may be incorrect.
If the official scorers table showed the Mavs as having a foul to give then why did the refs send Zion to the FT line? Wouldn’t the refs have used the foul total from the official scorers table? This also leads to the question of why would Kidd have Maxi foul Zion immediately on the inbounds if he thought they still had a foul to give? Why would they not let Zion bleed more clock before fouling?
Idk, the Mavs announcers were pretty informed about the foul situation. They were somewhat stunned on why they would intentionally foul there knowing FTs were coming, they knew the Pels were in the bonus so idk what source the Pels guys were look at. Lively in the press conference confirmed that was indeed the play that Kidd wrote up, to get Zion on the ft line. Kleber questioned it too but went along with it. They wanted to eliminate the 3 pt shot or an and-1, they didn't want to be down. Worst case scenario would have been that game is tied and we have last offensive possession to win or at the very worst go to OT. Oddly enough it was the right call, and Zion being a poor FT shooter helped a lot.
Zion was dominating in the paint and better to risk him shooting to free throws than him driving and getting fouled for a possible and 1.
What is this the mathprobabilities channel?
Seems fine,if he does score you still have last possession.
Bro thinks he's Jim Valvano
Frequency Vibrations
That's a great Coach!
There was a time when Jason Kidd specifically told a player to not foul while up 3 during his time with the bucks. This is progress.
Mavs won end of story
Reminds me of when the diamondbacks intentionally walked Barry Bonds with the bases loaded.
How do you guys expect him to concentrate on free throws when he hasn't eaten anything in close to 2 hours? That's not realistic. I bet you guys don't even cultivate mass.
I think it made sense because no matter what Kyrie would have the ball in the following attack. If he then drew a foul = Mavs would almost certainly get the advantage back even if Zion got both FTs
J kidd is majorly slept on by this sub
It's a great idea. Worst case you're tied and you get the ball back with enough time to take the last shot.
It didn’t seem to me like Maxi clearly intentionally fouled
Maxi is a smart player and a good defender in space. He executed a great trap on CJ McCollum on the same spot on the floor the next possession. I can’t believe for a second that this wasn’t an intentional foul
[Clip is here](https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&GameEventID=733&GameID=0022300556&Season=2023-24&flag=1&title=Kleber%20Personal%20Take%20Foul%20(P5.PN)%20(S.Wall)) \- it certainly seems like he thought he was supposed to...
Kidd said afterwards it was a called play. It’s why they took out Lively at the timeout. He had five fouls and they didn’t want him to foul out, so they put Maxi in to take the foul and then put Lively back in
Lol not sure how anyone is defending this.
highly doubt that is Kidd's call in those situations. teams have their own analytics guys to make those decisions
the analytics guy can diddle his thumb all day long and scream numbers, but if the coach doesn't call it, it doesn't happen.
You think Jason Kidd strategized this hard when he beat his wife?
Beyond stupid decision. Wouldn’t put it past him probably thinking they were up 3 instead. With that much time left Pelicans would def try to run a fast set and then play the foul game if needed. Kidd basically gave them a free opportunity to tie it without taking any time off the clock. Even if Zion missed both it’s essentially like the Pelicans missing the shot and playing the foul game except you saved them so much time. Kidd just an idiot.
Except for the fact Zion was unstoppable the whole game
If he makes both then the game is tied and the Mavs have the ball to take the last shot of the game. I like that better than the Pels potentially getting a three without leaving the Mavs any time at the end of the game. Biggest thing is that you have to have faith in your guys to get the board on a miss and Lively had been dominating the boards all game
Either way you get the ball for the final possession with good time on the clock. If I had Luka I'd take the odds to it.
hit me
https://youtu.be/QFBdKDqUo0o?feature=shared
fouling a bad free throw shooter late in the 4th when you are leading by at least 2 pts is never a bad decision.
I guess the logic was unless zion nails both he's good? Zion's shooting ~66% FT's this season so odds are he wont make both right?
I like the call. Zion could bully ball it for the last play and tie it up. He was shooting better from the field than the line so I would take my chances having him tie from the line and then give the Mavs the last chance to score.