Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

three to make two

Expand Messages
  • rpgroome
    I d like to know more about the NBA s 3 to make 2. What year did they start it and what year did they discontinue it? Did they also have two to make one if
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 8, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I'd like to know more about the NBA's 3 to make 2. What year did
      they start it and what year did they discontinue it? Did they also
      have two to make one if the player made the field goal? Did a player
      always get three to make two, or was it just when his team was in
      bonus? Were technicals just one shot? If it wasn't every time a
      player went to the line how common was it? Any help you could give
      me would be appreciated.
    • Michael Tamada
      ... From: rpgroome [mailto:rpgroome@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 8:39 PM ... I don t know when it started and ended ... I think it started in the
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 8, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        -----Original Message-----
        From: rpgroome [mailto:rpgroome@...]
        Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 8:39 PM

        >I'd like to know more about the NBA's 3 to make 2. What year did
        >they start it and what year did they discontinue it? Did they also
        >have two to make one if the player made the field goal? Did a player
        >always get three to make two, or was it just when his team was in
        >bonus? Were technicals just one shot? If it wasn't every time a
        >player went to the line how common was it? Any help you could give
        >me would be appreciated.

        I don't know when it started and ended ... I think it started in the
        1950s but I don't know. Ended in the late 1970s?

        Yes they had two to make one.

        Both 3-to-make-2 and 2-to-make-1 only came into effect when the
        foulling team was in the bonus.

        Technicals were just one shot.

        It was only a minority of FTAs that were made under 3-for-2
        or 2-for-1 conditions, because they would only occur when a
        team was in the bonus. Prior to that, shooting fouls were the
        ordinary 2 FTs, and basket-and-a-fouls were the ordinary 1 FT.

        Also ... I think my memory here is correct, even during the bonus,
        the fouled player didn't always get 3-for-2. He only got them if
        fouled while shooting, or if fouled while in the backcourt (this was
        during the time when backcourt fouls were still considered special,
        and were treated as a serious foul, i.e. just like shooting fouls).
        If the foul was an ordinary loose ball foul, or a foul of a non-shooting
        player, then that player got only 2 FTAs. (Or of course no FTs at all,
        if not in the bonus.)


        --MKT
      • Charlie Board
        ... Are you sure about this? My memory is that it was 3-to-make-2 and and ordinary 1-and-1 (as the college game still has). But I m in no way certain and I
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 9, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
          wrote:

          > Yes they had two to make one.

          Are you sure about this? My memory is that it was 3-to-make-2
          and and ordinary 1-and-1 (as the college game still has).
          But I'm in no way certain and I could easily be wrong.

          I still think the NBA should adopt the 1-and-1.
        • Michael Tamada
          ... From: Charlie Board [mailto:cboard@telesyn.com] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 6:16 AM ... 100% sure. I can still remember Bob Blackburn, the Sonics
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 9, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Charlie Board [mailto:cboard@...]
            Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 6:16 AM

            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
            wrote:

            >> Yes they had two to make one.
            >
            >Are you sure about this? My memory is that it was 3-to-make-2
            >and and ordinary 1-and-1 (as the college game still has).
            >But I'm in no way certain and I could easily be wrong.

            100% sure. I can still remember Bob Blackburn, the Sonics
            announcer, saying "Spencer Haywood shoots over the double-team.
            It's good! And he's going to the line with two to make one if
            he needs it."

            >I still think the NBA should adopt the 1-and-1.

            BobC and others (including me) have pointed out
            the evils of the 1-and-1. Teams should not be permitted to
            deliberately foul like that, it's a farce. Instead of
            basketball, we watch a game of tag on a 94 foot court.
            And because it's impossible to prove intent, the rules against
            intentional fouls are useless. The way to put a stop to the
            farce is to make teams stop doing it, by penalizing teams who
            foul too much.

            College fans say "make the players have to make the free throws".
            I say "make the players play real defense instead of using this
            ridiculous foulling tactic."


            --MKT






            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • athoffman
            ... I m positive that they never had a 1-and-1... I m pretty sure I recall a 2-to make-1 but it s been 25 years (and I had season tickets to the ABA for half
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 9, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Charlie Board wrote:

              > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
              > wrote:
              >
              > > Yes they had two to make one.
              >
              > Are you sure about this? My memory is that it was 3-to-make-2
              > and and ordinary 1-and-1 (as the college game still has).
              > But I'm in no way certain and I could easily be wrong.

              I'm positive that they never had a 1-and-1... I'm pretty sure I recall a
              2-to make-1 but it's been 25 years (and I had season tickets to the ABA
              for half of the 70's) so I couldn't swear to it... give me a little time
              to fish a book out and i'll see if i can give a definite answer

              Al
            • Mike G
              ... recall a ... What no one has mentioned is that a common (non-shooting) foul was one FT. No bonus, just a chance for one point. So a team with few fouls
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 9, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, athoffman <athoffman@i...>
                wrote:
                > I'm positive that they never had a 1-and-1... I'm pretty sure I
                recall a
                > 2-to make-1 ...

                What no one has mentioned is that a "common" (non-shooting) foul was
                one FT. No bonus, just a chance for one point.

                So a team with few fouls toward the end of the quarter would just
                grab the dribbler and send him to the line for one shot. This was a
                ridiculous waste of basketball time, and the rule was changed
                to "ball out of bounds", until the bonus. In other words, no
                advantage gained by a foul.

                Maybe I am also thinking of the ABA, in this regard. I remember
                players going in specifically to commit a couple of fouls.
              • Michael Tamada
                ... From: Mike G [mailto:msg_53@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 8:34 PM [...] ... This is true, although only in the early days of the NBA. When the
                Message 7 of 9 , Apr 9, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Mike G [mailto:msg_53@...]
                  Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 8:34 PM

                  [...]

                  >What no one has mentioned is that a "common" (non-shooting) foul was
                  >one FT. No bonus, just a chance for one point.
                  >
                  >So a team with few fouls toward the end of the quarter would just
                  >grab the dribbler and send him to the line for one shot. This was a

                  This is true, although only in the early days of the NBA. When the
                  foulling got ridiculous, the concept of the bonus was introduced (I
                  don't recall the "ball out of bounds" rule but you could be right
                  about that). But I believe that was back in the 1950s that these
                  rule changes were made.

                  But even decades later the terminology still reflected the old 1 FT
                  rule. During the bonus, an ordinary foul (non-shooting foul, such
                  as hitting the dribbler's arm) would of course result in 2 FTs --
                  just as it does today. But the announcers would call it "one plus
                  the penalty" -- 1 FT for the ordinary foul, plus the bonus FT
                  because the foulling team was in the penalty.

                  Calling it "one plus one" instead of simply "2 FTs" only makes
                  sense in the context of the old days when an ordinary foul meant
                  1 FT and a foul in the penalty meant "one plus the penalty FT".

                  >ridiculous waste of basketball time, and the rule was changed
                  >to "ball out of bounds", until the bonus. In other words, no
                  >advantage gained by a foul.


                  --MKT
                • John Hollinger
                  ... I detest the 1-and-1, because it means in many cases that you can actually IMPROVE your odds on defense by intentionally fouling. In other words, if the
                  Message 8 of 9 , Apr 10, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >
                    > I still think the NBA should adopt the 1-and-1.

                    I detest the 1-and-1, because it means in many cases that you can
                    actually IMPROVE your odds on defense by intentionally fouling. In
                    other words, if the average value of a possession is 1 point, and
                    teams rebound 90 percent of free throw misses, I just need to pick
                    out one guy on the other team who shoots under 60 percent and foul
                    him every time.
                  • Gary Collard
                    ... For me, it s not so much that as that the defense gains benefit and the offense is penalized by what is a poor defensive play - a defensive foul.
                    Message 9 of 9 , Apr 12, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Michael Tamada wrote:
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Charlie Board [mailto:cboard@...]
                      > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 6:16 AM
                      >
                      > >I still think the NBA should adopt the 1-and-1.
                      >
                      > BobC and others (including me) have pointed out
                      > the evils of the 1-and-1. Teams should not be permitted to
                      > deliberately foul like that, it's a farce.

                      For me, it's not so much that as that the defense gains benefit and the
                      offense is penalized by what is a poor defensive play - a defensive foul.
                      Asthetically, it also leads to some very ponderous basketball and is one
                      reason (the other being the vastly inferior quality of play) that I prefer
                      the NBA to the college game - I watched a game between Texas and Nebraska
                      last year where the last 2:58 of clock time of the game lasted 32 minutes
                      of real time. That is just unacceptable, if I wanted to watch golf or
                      soccer I would have turned it on.

                      College hoops would be well-served to do away with the one and one. 2
                      shots is ok, but even better I think is one and the ball. Make the team
                      win the game on the court, not in an outdated rulebook loophole.

                      --
                      Gary Collard
                      SABR-L Moderator
                      gmcollard@...

                      "I don't hate anyone, at least not for more than 48 minutes, barring
                      overtime." -- Charles Barkley
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.