NBA G League is experimenting this season with single foul shot

[rondofan1255]

G League to experiment with single foul shot

The NBA G League is experimenting this season with a new rule under which all trips to the free throw line will include only a single foul shot that will be worth one, two or three points depending on the nature of the foul leading to the attempt, officials told ESPN.

It marks the latest move -- in both the G League and the NBA -- to improve game flow and reduce the length of games. Officials estimate that moving to a "one foul shot for all the points" model will shave between six and eight minutes off of each G League game, says Brad Walker, head of basketball operations for the league.

The average G League game clocked in at about two hours and five minutes last season, Walker says. This move could take that average below the two-hour barrier, a clean broadcast window that has been in the minds of league officials for years.

The G League will revert back to traditional free throw rules for the last two minutes of regulation and overtime, officials say. Shooting fouls on made baskets -- "And-Ones"-- will proceed the same way, with the shooter attempting one free throw worth one point.

The NBA's competition committee has discussed the concept in recent meetings, and league officials brought it up at to NBA head coaches at their annual preseason gathering in Chicago earlier this month, officials say.

The G League has sniffed around the concept for years, but in the past, it did not appear to have enough momentum for passage. Some within the league raised concerns about the decrease in on-court rest time for players, though coaches could mitigate that with more frequent substitutions.

The G League has already reduced timeout lengths -- a move that shaved about four minutes off game times, Walker says -- and did not hear any pushback about the impact on in-game rest, Walker says.

"We don't know how big of a deal it will be at the G League level until we try it," Walker says.

Officials also worried about deviating from historical statistical standards, according to reporting in 2014 from ESPN's Kevin Arnovitz. The league then brandished evidence showing players shoot more accurately on the second and third attempts of any trip to the line, a finding that has held across other independent studies; logic follows that moving to a one-shot rule would result in an overall decrease in league-wide free throw accuracy. The raw number of attempts would obviously drop sharply.

"We might hear some blowback on that," Walker says, "but I think [the change] is going to be great for game flow."

Others wondered how the one-shot rule might change the way trailing teams approach late-game fouling -- and whether it would increase or decrease the likelihood of dramatic comebacks. Trailing teams hack on purpose to stop the clock. The one-shot rule bumps up the likelihood of those fouls resulting in zero points -- a boon for comebacks. But it also eliminates the 1-of-2 splits that provide trailing teams some hope. Overall, the rule probably adds more variance to game outcomes.

Walker says the G League worried the lure of those empty trips might push trailing teams to start intentionally fouling earlier. That led to the decision to revert to traditional free throw rules in the last two minutes, he says.

"We don't want to incentivize fouling," Walker says. The G League contemplated moving back to traditional free throw rules even earlier -- with five minutes remaining, or even for the entire fourth quarter, Walker says.

The NBA has taken several measures over the last half-decade to improve game flow, including: reducing total combined timeouts from 18 to 14 in 2017; mandating teams return to the floor after timeouts in a timely fashion; punishing so-called "Hack-a-Shaq" fouls and intentional fouls committed away from the play more harshly across larger chunks of games; and others.

The G League has taken additional steps, including trying to limit so-called "transition take fouls" -- basically wrap-ups of ball-handlers that stop fast breaks but do not qualify as clear-path fouls -- by awarding the fouled team one free throw and possession. The G League has also used a coach's challenge in recent seasons, and the NBA will implement one for the first time this season -- a change that could add replay breaks into crunch-time.

The G League will evaluate the one-shot free throw rule at the end of the season and decide whether to go forward with it in 2020-21 and potentially beyond, officials say.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27707068/g-league-experiment-single-foul-shot

[slamtheking]

not digging that at all.  if anything, I'd have them move the other way towards got to make the first to get a second --> miss that rule from the old college game.

[Donoghus]

Personally, I'm totally down with the G League doing all this experimentation.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right?  It may very well flop but I appreciated the boldness to try new things.

[saltlover]

Personally, I'm totally down with the G League doing all this experimentation.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right?  It may very well flop but I appreciated the boldness to try new things.

I mostly agree, except I want Tacko to have as much in-game practice with free throws as possible!

[PhoSita]

Makes sense for the viewing experience. 

I don't like the effect it would have on late game situations.  There's something nice about the pressure of a player having to make 2 or 3 shots in a row sometimes.  I guess you could argue having it all come down to a single shot is more dramatic.

[Donoghus]

Makes sense for the viewing experience. 

I don't like the effect it would have on late game situations.  There's something nice about the pressure of a player having to make 2 or 3 shots in a row sometimes.  I guess you could argue having it all come down to a single shot is more dramatic.

They're going to revert back to old rules in the last two minutes of regulation & overtime.

[KG Living Legend]

 Why wouldn't you hack players when driving to the hoop though?

 Easy layup, Hack them. 1 point. Come down drain a three pointer. Doesn't make sense to me.

[gouki88]

 Why wouldn't you hack players when driving to the hoop though?

 Easy layup, Hack them. 1 point. Come down drain a three pointer. Doesn't make sense to me.

Yeah, I feel like there need to be a whole bunch of considerations for this to work well. As slamtheking said, I like the college rule of the 1+1

[MichiganAdam]

 Why wouldn't you hack players when driving to the hoop though?

 Easy layup, Hack them. 1 point. Come down drain a three pointer. Doesn't make sense to me.

Unless I misunderstood, the 1 shot would be worth 2 points.(3 on a 3point foul, 1 point on an and one.)  Just turns a foul into a all or nothing 2 point swing rather than a good chance of 1 point or 2 with a small chance of 0.  My only concern is the lower shooting percentage historically on the first of 2 or 3 shots driving points down slightly.  Could harden more than others so I guess that is good.

[mmmmm]

The mathematics say that hacking hard on a layup drive to send them to the FT line to score becomes less appealing with good FT shooters.

On average on a play where the player missed the layup due to the foul, both the current and proposed rules yield the same average points per play.  For a 75% FT shooter on average the play would result in 1.5 points under either rules.

But the chances for 2 points or 0 points jump way up under the new rules.

Doing that under normal rules, he has a (75%)*(75%) = 56.25% chance of scoring 2 points.

Under the new rules, he has one attempt to make 2points so his chances are 75% of scoring 2 points.

That is counter-balanced somewhat by an increased likelihood of scoring no points.  Under normal rules, the player has just a 6.25% chance of scoring no points.

Under the new rules, it would be a 25% chance of scoring no points.

Now, all that oversimplifies because it ignores that most players actually tend to hit their second FT at a higher rate than their first one.   That's going to drive players' personal FT% down slightly.

This is going to affect the calculus of how you defend shots.  Worse, since they are changing back to 'normal' rules at end of game, then you change the way you defend during that stretch?

Personally, I do not like this change.   I think there are probably other ways to speed up the game that don't change the way it is played on the floor.

[Redz]

Or just get rid of the free throws altogether.

Award a point and you get to keep possession on what would normally be a  2 or 3 shot foul.  For any one shot foul just award the point. 

This would completely eliminate the "hack a whatever" situation, even the cost of a penalty for each infraction - like it is in every other sport (except for maybe the rare penalty shot in soccer and hockey), and maybe encourage better tactical defense.

...never happen, but would speed things up.

[footey]

The mathematics say that hacking hard on a layup drive to send them to the FT line to score becomes less appealing with good FT shooters.

On average on a play where the player missed the layup due to the foul, both the current and proposed rules yield the same average points per play.  For a 75% FT shooter on average the play would result in 1.5 points under either rules.

But the chances for 2 points or 0 points jump way up under the new rules.

Doing that under normal rules, he has a (75%)*(75%) = 56.25% chance of scoring 2 points.

Under the new rules, he has one attempt to make 2points so his chances are 75% of scoring 2 points.

That is counter-balanced somewhat by an increased likelihood of scoring no points.  Under normal rules, the player has just a 6.25% chance of scoring no points.

Under the new rules, it would be a 25% chance of scoring no points.

Now, all that oversimplifies because it ignores that most players actually tend to hit their second FT at a higher rate than their first one.   That's going to drive players' personal FT% down slightly.

This is going to affect the calculus of how you defend shots.  Worse, since they are changing back to 'normal' rules at end of game, then you change the way you defend during that stretch?

Personally, I do not like this change.   I think there are probably other ways to speed up the game that don't change the way it is played on the floor.

Great analysis, mmmmm. TP.

[fairweatherfan]

If I'm not mistaken, players are more likely to miss the 1st FT than the 2nd, because they have a better rhythm and can adjust. So this might drive down expected points from FTs, especially from shaky shooters.

I'm still pretty interested to see how it works out for them, it's a change that could speed the game up a lot.

[mmmmm]

If I'm not mistaken, players are more likely to miss the 1st FT than the 2nd, because they have a better rhythm and can adjust. So this might drive down expected points from FTs, especially from shaky shooters.

I'm still pretty interested to see how it works out for them, it's a change that could speed the game up a lot.

I just think there are better ways to speed up the game without having to make such a fundamental change to the way the game is played on the floor.   And this will definitely change things a lot.  It not only changes the way defenders will defend but also how coaches will make substitutions.

Why not trim a few seconds from each intermission?   Or swap one more of the regular timeouts for a 20 second timeout?

Or just make the referees and players get organized for the FT shot quicker.   There seems to be a ton of time wasted with players and refs milling about before even the first shot is taken.   Enforce a short timer such that if a player isn't in position where he's supposed to be for the FT shot either the FT is automatically awarded or missed, depending on whether he is on defense or offense.   Fine refs for not getting the ball to the hands of the shooter.  And if the shooter takes too long to shoot, count it as a miss.

Make the participants do what they should normally be doing faster.  Don't make them do weird, different things.

And what, exactly is the obsession we have in recent years with making all sporting events shorter??   Me, I want my money's worth when I go to a game!

[Redz]

If I'm not mistaken, players are more likely to miss the 1st FT than the 2nd, because they have a better rhythm and can adjust. So this might drive down expected points from FTs, especially from shaky shooters.

I'm still pretty interested to see how it works out for them, it's a change that could speed the game up a lot.

I just think there are better ways to speed up the game without having to make such a fundamental change to the way the game is played on the floor.   And this will definitely change things a lot.  It not only changes the way defenders will defend but also how coaches will make substitutions.

Why not trim a few seconds from each intermission?   Or swap one more of the regular timeouts for a 20 second timeout?

Or just make the referees and players get organized for the FT shot quicker.   There seems to be a ton of time wasted with players and refs milling about before even the first shot is taken.   Enforce a short timer such that if a player isn't in position where he's supposed to be for the FT shot either the FT is automatically awarded or missed, depending on whether he is on defense or offense.   Fine refs for not getting the ball to the hands of the shooter.  And if the shooter takes too long to shoot, count it as a miss.

Make the participants do what they should normally be doing faster.  Don't make them do weird, different things.

And what, exactly is the obsession we have in recent years with making all sporting events shorter??   Me, I want my money's worth when I go to a game!

Maybe abolish the mandatory hand slap after each shot (whether made or missed).