NBA- A Simple Strategy
Don't turn away if you're not a basketball fan: just read me out for 30 seconds. You've got to wait that long for the next blog exchange anyway, and I think this observation has ramifications for decision making in other areas of life.
Last night, the Houston Rockets held a 103-100 lead with 4.7 seconds left in the game and Sacramento inbounding the ball at mid-court. Defensively, the Rockets had two choices: play hard defense and try to prevent Sacramento from hitting a 3-point shot ...OR... commit a foul. The former choice is the psychologically safe one for Jeff Van Gundy, the Houston coach. If Sacramento ties the game with a 3-pointer, he can shrug and claim that it was a great shot. This is also the losing strategy. The right thing to do would have been to commit a foul immediately, rather than allow Sacramento to shoot a 3-pointer, which is a fairly routine shot in the NBA. To tie the game from the foul line, Sacramento would have had to 1.) make the first free throw; 2.) miss the second; 3.) rebound the miss and 4.) score on a put-back. As should be obvious to even the casual fan, never mind a professional basketball coach, the game-tying scenario from the free throw line is much more unlikely to occur than an opponent merely hitting a 3-point shot in the closing seconds.
So why didn't Van Gundy direct Rocket players to foul? Why do coaches at all levels routinely compromise their chances for winning by allowing opponents to attempt game-evening 3-point shots? I believe it has to do not with winning strategy, but accountability strategy. If an opponent makes a 3-pointer, a coach can blame his team's defense or write it off to a "lucky shot." If a coach pursues the winning strategy and the opponent actually completes the above-mentioned four steps to a tie game, then the responsibility for losing the game falls squarely upon the coach, who will be questioned by all for deciding to commit the foul.
I think this says something about human nature. It is generally safer to essentially make no decision than to make a good decision that could turn out badly. In education, for instance, teachers who arrive on time, teach routinely and go home when the final bell rings have virtually no problems. For the teacher who goes out of his or her way to make a "good" decision, like advising a club, coaching a team, taking a group on a field trip: watch out. You have gone out of your way and you are out on a limb. Anything negative that transpires or that is even alleged to transpire puts the teacher in the hot seat.
Is it the same in your field? Is it safer to keep your good ideas, sound strategies or extra contributions to a minimum?
Oh: Chris Webber of the Sacramento Kings hit a 3-pointer with 1.3 seconds left to tie the game and the Kings beat Van Gundy's Rockets in overtime. Van Gundy employed the safe, do-nothing strategy and lost, but few are questioning him. After all: "It was a lucky shot!"
Last night, the Houston Rockets held a 103-100 lead with 4.7 seconds left in the game and Sacramento inbounding the ball at mid-court. Defensively, the Rockets had two choices: play hard defense and try to prevent Sacramento from hitting a 3-point shot ...OR... commit a foul. The former choice is the psychologically safe one for Jeff Van Gundy, the Houston coach. If Sacramento ties the game with a 3-pointer, he can shrug and claim that it was a great shot. This is also the losing strategy. The right thing to do would have been to commit a foul immediately, rather than allow Sacramento to shoot a 3-pointer, which is a fairly routine shot in the NBA. To tie the game from the foul line, Sacramento would have had to 1.) make the first free throw; 2.) miss the second; 3.) rebound the miss and 4.) score on a put-back. As should be obvious to even the casual fan, never mind a professional basketball coach, the game-tying scenario from the free throw line is much more unlikely to occur than an opponent merely hitting a 3-point shot in the closing seconds.
So why didn't Van Gundy direct Rocket players to foul? Why do coaches at all levels routinely compromise their chances for winning by allowing opponents to attempt game-evening 3-point shots? I believe it has to do not with winning strategy, but accountability strategy. If an opponent makes a 3-pointer, a coach can blame his team's defense or write it off to a "lucky shot." If a coach pursues the winning strategy and the opponent actually completes the above-mentioned four steps to a tie game, then the responsibility for losing the game falls squarely upon the coach, who will be questioned by all for deciding to commit the foul.
I think this says something about human nature. It is generally safer to essentially make no decision than to make a good decision that could turn out badly. In education, for instance, teachers who arrive on time, teach routinely and go home when the final bell rings have virtually no problems. For the teacher who goes out of his or her way to make a "good" decision, like advising a club, coaching a team, taking a group on a field trip: watch out. You have gone out of your way and you are out on a limb. Anything negative that transpires or that is even alleged to transpire puts the teacher in the hot seat.
Is it the same in your field? Is it safer to keep your good ideas, sound strategies or extra contributions to a minimum?
Oh: Chris Webber of the Sacramento Kings hit a 3-pointer with 1.3 seconds left to tie the game and the Kings beat Van Gundy's Rockets in overtime. Van Gundy employed the safe, do-nothing strategy and lost, but few are questioning him. After all: "It was a lucky shot!"
posted by Man of Ages at 7:26 AM
6 comments
