Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 132
  1. #81
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by Fish80 View Post
    I didn't do the math, but isn't half of a half remarkably similar to a quarter?

    Let's break the game down into eighths. 5 minutes each. 8 fouls per eighth puts a team in quadruple bonus. Four free throws per foul. Reset the team foul counter at the end of each eighth. Give each player 8 fouls. Don't call it basketball. Call it crazy eight balls.
    And if no clear winner emerges from all of this, a two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion is crowned.

    - Chillin

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Virginia

    NBA has tried a few approaches for late game fouls and TOs

    I came across this article from 2008 http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html
    Last edited by JBDuke; 05-23-2017 at 06:07 PM. Reason: removed copyrighted material

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedevil114 View Post
    Duke beat Maryland in the gone in 60 second game because Drew Nicholas could not hit his free throws. I am sure that game creeped into Maryland's minds when they were up against us in the Final Four and let it slip away. What a game. I saw that game live at Cole Field House.
    For those who appreciate such things, note that Elam rules would not prevent this strategy from working. Hack-a-Shaq is still viable, just a bigger gamble (assuming Shaq isn't actually one of the options).

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Virginia

    How I would modify the Elam Ending

    It would be a radical change, but probably would change the game less than when they added the three-point shot.

    Pickup games almost everywhere are played to some set number.

    I would modify the Elam Ending by putting the ending in place at the end of regulation. Then, play the game to "winning score plus two" and give the winning team the ball first at halfcourt. Keep the 24-, 30-second clock. If the game is tied, start it with a jump ball.

    There would still be a big incentive to have the lead at the end of regulation. Having a big lead would be even better so taking 20 seconds off the clock before starting your offense would be less appealing. It would also provide an incentive for the losing team to keep the game as close as possible. It might lessen the debate of whether the winning team should foul when they are on defense with a three point lead. Plus, the game would never be over until it was over.

    The bucket that seals the game would be more like a "walk-off" hit in baseball rather than a buzzer beater. "Walk-offs" are also exciting and there would be one every game.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Fish80 View Post
    I didn't do the math, but isn't half of a half remarkably similar to a quarter?

    Let's break the game down into eighths. 5 minutes each. 8 fouls per eighth puts a team in quadruple bonus. Four free throws per foul. Reset the team foul counter at the end of each eighth. Give each player 8 fouls. Don't call it basketball. Call it crazy eight balls.
    the idea is to not have another end-of-clock scenario, which changes the flow of play a good deal.

    frankly i like that the game divides nicely into two halves better than the nba/HS 4Qs. I appreciate that they're trying to maintain that uniqueness while also changing other things. I DO like 1-1...and am not a huge fan of the change overall, but i'd be more upset if they ditched halves.


    "If you don't address the things you're not doing well when you're winning the winning will eventually stop."

    -David Cutcliffe

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by DukeandMdFan View Post
    It would be a radical change, but probably would change the game less than when they added the three-point shot.

    Pickup games almost everywhere are played to some set number.

    I would modify the Elam Ending by putting the ending in place at the end of regulation. Then, play the game to "winning score plus two" and give the winning team the ball first at halfcourt. Keep the 24-, 30-second clock. If the game is tied, start it with a jump ball.

    There would still be a big incentive to have the lead at the end of regulation. Having a big lead would be even better so taking 20 seconds off the clock before starting your offense would be less appealing. It would also provide an incentive for the losing team to keep the game as close as possible. It might lessen the debate of whether the winning team should foul when they are on defense with a three point lead. Plus, the game would never be over until it was over.

    The bucket that seals the game would be more like a "walk-off" hit in baseball rather than a buzzer beater. "Walk-offs" are also exciting and there would be one every game.
    This wouldn't work. the whole point of the proposal is to take away the foul to stop the clock scenario. Your proposal would be the worst of both worlds, where you still have to play the last 2 minutes with fould fest like we have now, and then add another possession to it.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Elam's Main Point: 'Fouling' Almost Never Works

    Elam has three main points:
    1. Foul-fests in futile attempts to overcome a lead are awful experiences for the fans.
    2. Intentional fouling rarely results in a changed outcome. So, the pain is pointless.
    3. The Elam Ending would solve the problem -- by making the goal the number of points scored and get rid of the game clock (but not the shot clock).

    OK. Lots of people on this thread hate #3. I am skeptical but would like to see it tried somewhere.

    My main interest in this post (#10,003 on DBR, but who's counting?) is point #2. Here's the excerpt from the Zach Lowe ESPN story:

    Elam has tracked thousands of NBA, college, and international games over the last four years and found basketball's classic comeback tactic -- intentional fouling -- almost never results in successful comebacks. Elam found at least one deliberate crunch-time foul from trailing teams in 397 of 877 nationally televised NBA games from 2014 through the middle of this season, according to a PowerPoint presentation he has sent across the basketball world. The trailing team won zero of those games, according to Elam's data.

    That undersells the effectiveness of the strategy, of course. Elam's sample doesn't include most NBA games. There were a lot of instances in which fouling teams came from behind to tie games, but lost later.

    Still: The process was ugly, and it rarely upended outcomes. It didn't seem worth it to Elam. "Comebacks are just so startlingly rare," Elam said. "And the method teams used to get there was so artificial and unsightly." He would devise a better way.
    "...in 397 of 877 nationally televised NBA games from 2014 through the middle of this season ... [t]he trailing team won zero of those games, according to Elam's data.
    The "foul-fest strategy" worked ZERO times out of 397. Is that really true? Then, maybe we should shoot the losing coach who tries this strategy if it is painful to watch and doesn't change the outcome. I wonder if Elam's data are correct, and what the comparable data are for college hoops.
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    My main interest in this post (#10,003 on DBR, but who's counting?) is point #2. Here's the excerpt from the Zach Lowe ESPN story:


    "...in 397 of 877 nationally televised NBA games from 2014 through the middle of this season ... [t]he trailing team won zero of those games, according to Elam's data.
    The "foul-fest strategy" worked ZERO times out of 397. Is that really true? Then, maybe we should shoot the losing coach who tries this strategy if it is painful to watch and doesn't change the outcome. I wonder if Elam's data are correct, and what the comparable data are for college hoops.
    I highly doubt it's true. Kansas-Memphis in 2008 and Duke-UNC in 2012 come to mind as examples of where the intentionally foul strategy worked. If I can think of 2 famous games off the top of my head, I'm sure there are tons (probably hundreds) of others in the same timespan.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Mary's Place
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Elam has three main points:
    1. Foul-fests in futile attempts to overcome a lead are awful experiences for the fans.
    2. Intentional fouling rarely results in a changed outcome. So, the pain is pointless.
    3. The Elam Ending would solve the problem -- by making the goal the number of points scored and get rid of the game clock (but not the shot clock).

    OK. Lots of people on this thread hate #3. I am skeptical but would like to see it tried somewhere.
    This is a good split. I hate #3, and I challenge #1 in that several rules changes have been implemented to lessen the effectiveness of fouling as a strategy over the years. Therefore it is shorter and less frequent. This is a good thing; Problem Solved.

    For #2, we have some dubious stats of games with "at least one deliberate crunch-time foul". How many times are you allowed to foul before we use the dreaded term "foul fest"? There are "intentional" fouls throughout any given game. Perhaps a team is pressing late in the game, and a guy gets loose and goes one-on-one, and the defender fouls to prevent the layup - that seems like a basketball play to me, not a so-called "deliberate crunch-time foul". I will theorize that a team can foul 2-4 times at the end of a game without wrecking it. Maybe six fouls or more is too much. The stats need to be adjusted accordingly. Like other posters, I call BS on some cooked-up numbers. Perhaps the rate of fouls per minute is a better metric to measure.

    I will also posit that many games that we might agree are "foul fests" in the last two minutes were also unwatchable slam-dancing rock fights between teams with inept offenses during the first 38 minutes. (I'm looking at you, Coach John Chaney, no matter how much I miss you and love you. That goes for you too, Huggy Bear. Tom Izzo, Frank Martin - you guys are on the list too, but I won't miss you, and I won't ever love you neither).

    Therefore #3 is an attempt to fix a problem that doesn't exist or is at best overblown. Some have compared the #3 solution to pickup, where games are played to 11, 15, 21 or whatever the local rules are. I don't think these people have played very much, or haven't thought it all the way through. Case in point: there is a lunchtime pickup run in my neighborhood that I play sometimes if I have a day off, a doctor's appt, or I'm "working from home" (nudge nudge wink wink). Once in a while, on Fridays, holiday time, etc. there might be more than 20 guys in the gym. If you lose that first game, you know you're not getting back on the court no matter what happens. If you want to see a "foul fest", just wait until the game gets to "next basket wins" on those days. The phrase we often hear is "no autopsy, no foul."

    I stand by my original assessment:
    1. Make your free throws.
    2. Get out of my yard.
    "Quality is not an option!"

  10. #90
    Thinking about it some more, I think you;d have to just have the whole game played that way for this to work.

    Because with this rule change people are just going to treat the last 2 minutes before the 36 minutes mark like they do now the last 2 minutes of the game. They will do whatever they can to gain an advantage for that first to 7+lead scenario.

  11. #91
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Elam has three main points:
    1. Foul-fests in futile attempts to overcome a lead are awful experiences for the fans.
    2. Intentional fouling rarely results in a changed outcome. So, the pain is pointless.
    3. The Elam Ending would solve the problem -- by making the goal the number of points scored and get rid of the game clock (but not the shot clock).

    OK. Lots of people on this thread hate #3. I am skeptical but would like to see it tried somewhere.


    "...in 397 of 877 nationally televised NBA games from 2014 through the middle of this season ... [t]he trailing team won zero of those games, according to Elam's data.
    The "foul-fest strategy" worked ZERO times out of 397. Is that really true?
    I am also highly skeptical of data implying that fouling NEVER works. In fact, it took me about 5 minutes to Google "NBA game winner buzzer beaters" and find two NBA games from March 2017 (Phoenix-Boston and Oklahoma-Orlando) where a trailing team came back to win after their opponent missed a free throw in the last 30 seconds of the game.

    That being said, I suspect that most "foul-induced comebacks" occur when a team is only trailing by a couple points. Personally, I find it painful when the final minute of a nominally competitive game takes 10+ minutes of real time because a team repeatedly fouls in the hopes of increasing their chance of winning from 0.1% to 0.3%. The Elam Ending certainly removes the incentive to foul intentionally, so I am curios to see how it works out.

    Another option might be to have some form of automatic clock runoff for "excessive fouling". For example, you could run 15 or 20 seconds off the clock if a trailing team commits more than X defensive fouls in the final Y seconds of a game. Perhaps the clock runoff would only occur when the fouling team trails by a certain threshold (more than 3 points?). This would speed games along while allowing some (limited) fouling to enable a comeback (and you would avoid situations where there are 9 fouls in the final 1:01 of a game which never got closer than 5 points).

  12. #92
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by House P View Post
    I am also highly skeptical of data implying that fouling NEVER works. In fact, it took me about 5 minutes to Google "NBA game winner buzzer beaters" and find two NBA games from March 2017 (Phoenix-Boston and Oklahoma-Orlando) where a trailing team came back to win after their opponent missed a free throw in the last 30 seconds of the game.

    That being said, I suspect that most "foul-induced comebacks" occur when a team is only trailing by a couple points. Personally, I find it painful when the final minute of a nominally competitive game takes 10+ minutes of real time because a team repeatedly fouls in the hopes of increasing their chance of winning from 0.1% to 0.3%. The Elam Ending certainly removes the incentive to foul intentionally, so I am curios to see how it works out.

    Another option might be to have some form of automatic clock runoff for "excessive fouling". For example, you could run 15 or 20 seconds off the clock if a trailing team commits more than X defensive fouls in the final Y seconds of a game. Perhaps the clock runoff would only occur when the fouling team trails by a certain threshold (more than 3 points?). This would speed games along while allowing some (limited) fouling to enable a comeback (and you would avoid situations where there are 9 fouls in the final 1:01 of a game which never got closer than 5 points).
    This is the best idea I've heard: a clock run-off. The NFL instituted it when teams tried to commit penalties to stop the clock. Doesn't that essentially feel like the same thing that is happening in these late-game foulfests?

    - Chillin

  13. #93
    Do we run off the clock if the leading team fouls too? Up 3 with 10 seconds left foul on purpose - they can make 2 fts but you just caused the game clock to go to zero. - it doubles down on the incentive of the leading team to foul on purpose to avoid a 3pt shot - now they both avoid the 3pt attempt and literally end the game.

    Coach K's stall ball tactic would then involve deliberate fouls to maximize the time used in each opponent's possession. The free throws that we give up would be no more damaging than the layups we give up now to avoid stopping the clock with a foul...

  14. #94

  15. #95

    Update

    Joe Lunardi seems to like what it's done to the games for TBT. Obviously, I realize Lunardi is not universally held in the highest esteem...

    Is it time for a different way to end basketball games?
    http://www.espn.com/mens-college-bas...losing-minutes

    I personally think it should be considered more seriously as well and more than just a gimmick. I can't recall how many times "casual" basketball fans lament me for watching end of games with a team up and the other one fouling constantly. "Is this game over yet?!?" I don't mind the drawn out endings as much, but it might broaden the appeal of end of games to have a system that does not incentive fouling, and there is something "fun" about every game ending with a made basket. (Yes, traditionalists will hate it and you can't win with D at the end I realize).

  16. #96
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    Joe Lunardi seems to like what it's done to the games for TBT. Obviously, I realize Lunardi is not universally held in the highest esteem...

    Is it time for a different way to end basketball games?
    http://www.espn.com/mens-college-bas...losing-minutes

    I personally think it should be considered more seriously as well and more than just a gimmick. I can't recall how many times "casual" basketball fans lament me for watching end of games with a team up and the other one fouling constantly. "Is this game over yet?!?" I don't mind the drawn out endings as much, but it might broaden the appeal of end of games to have a system that does not incentive fouling, and there is something "fun" about every game ending with a made basket. (Yes, traditionalists will hate it and you can't win with D at the end I realize).
    I thought it was worth trying to see what flaws or complexities emerge from a different type of game ending. Sounds like it worked well and teams played tough, smart basketball to the end of the game. I hate all the BS as the end of both college and NBA games. I'd be for trying this approach. I like the analogy to playground hoops's "Get to 15; win by two." Taking hoops back to its origins? Yes!

    Kindly,
    Sage
    'At the same time I am not eager for a new game metric involving length of game -- we would need a whole new set of shortcuts'
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  17. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Apologies if this has been proposed by someone upthread (I haven't read some posts), but there is a fairly simple solution if the trailing team starts the (un)intentional fouling very early. After a certain number of fouls in the last three minutes (or two, or four), take away the three-point shot value from the trailing team. After a couple more fouls (or so), take away the two-shot value and let the trailing team only score one point per made basket.

    I like it better than any other option, but then I would, wouldn't I?
    Man, if your Mom made you wear that color when you were a baby, and you're still wearing it, it's time to grow up!

  18. #98
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Before they shortened the shot clock, there was a mathematical formula somewhere on the web with which you could calculate when a basketball game was "over" (meaning that the trailing team's chances of winning approximated zero). Again, that was when the shot clock was 35 seconds, so it would have to be tweaked, and I'm pretty sure there has been at least one game that went counter to the prediction since then (didn't somebody come back from down 12 with something like a minute and a half left within the last few years?).

    Anyway, what I was getting at was what if a computer was constantly crunching the numbers of this tweaked formula and then as soon as the chances of a comeback win reached less than, say, 1 in 10,000, the buzzer just sounded and the victory was awarded to the leading team?

    Some games might only last 30 minutes of play. The longer a game lasted, the more competitive it would be. Nobody would have any idea when the game would end. "Good game last night between Kansas and Kentucky; went 39 minutes."

    OK, so maybe I was just trying to see if I could come up with a stupider idea than the Elam proposal and it looks like I did, lol.

  19. #99
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    Before they shortened the shot clock, there was a mathematical formula somewhere on the web with which you could calculate when a basketball game was "over" (meaning that the trailing team's chances of winning approximated zero). Again, that was when the shot clock was 35 seconds, so it would have to be tweaked, and I'm pretty sure there has been at least one game that went counter to the prediction since then (didn't somebody come back from down 12 with something like a minute and a half left within the last few years?).

    Anyway, what I was getting at was what if a computer was constantly crunching the numbers of this tweaked formula and then as soon as the chances of a comeback win reached less than, say, 1 in 10,000, the buzzer just sounded and the victory was awarded to the leading team?

    Some games might only last 30 minutes of play. The longer a game lasted, the more competitive it would be. Nobody would have any idea when the game would end. "Good game last night between Kansas and Kentucky; went 39 minutes."

    OK, so maybe I was just trying to see if I could come up with a stupider idea than the Elam proposal and it looks like I did, lol.
    I think it was Bill James Safe Lead (from my notes):

    Take the number of points team is ahead, and subtract three.
    Add a half-point if leading team has ball, or subtract a half-point if not
    Square the result - if that's greater than the seconds left in the game it's safe

    <grumble> 9f </grumble>

    -jk

  20. #100
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by -jk View Post
    I think it was Bill James Safe Lead (from my notes):

    Take the number of points team is ahead, and subtract three.
    Add a half-point if leading team has ball, or subtract a half-point if not
    Square the result - if that's greater than the seconds left in the game it's safe

    <grumble> 9f </grumble>

    -jk
    Yep. That was it. Made during the 35-second shot clock.

    And of course, a couple of exceptions:

    1) Texas A&M, down 12 with 44 seconds left in their game against Northern Iowa, ended up winning. The rule says they should have required 72.25 seconds.

    2) Nevada, down 25 points with 1:14 remaining, came back to win in double OT. The rule says they should have required 462.25 seconds (7.7 minutes), but they only required 74 seconds.


    The latter is probably the most unlikely/nearly impossible come-back in NCAA basketball history. I know that Oklahoma State was down 31 to LSU at LSU and came away with the victory, but I think the lead reached 31 with well more than 10 minutes remaining. I'm not exactly sure, but it wasn't anywhere near as ridiculous as the Nevada game.
    A plane takes off from Baltimore and touches down on Bourbon Street

Similar Threads

  1. My Proposal for the NBA
    By SoCalDukeFan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-18-2014, 06:55 AM
  2. WBB: nightmare ending
    By dukelifer in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-10-2013, 08:34 AM
  3. A New Proposal for The Olympics
    By NYC Duke Fan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 08-26-2008, 12:18 AM
  4. Proposal Stories!
    By ugadevil in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 02-25-2008, 03:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •