Zach KramApr 27, 2026, 07:00 AM ETCloseZach Kram is a national NBA writer for ESPN.com, specializing in short- and long-term trends across the league’s analytics landscape. He previously worked at The Ringer covering the NBA and MLB. You can follow Zach on X via @zachkram.Multiple Authors
play0:20Jrue Holiday fouls Devin Vassell with Trail Blazers up 3Late in Game 2 of the Trail Blazers’ matchup vs. the Spurs, Jrue Holiday commits a foul on Devin Vassell with Portland up by three points.
Portland Trail Blazers vs. San Antonio Spurs: Game Highlights (1:46)Portland Trail Blazers vs. San Antonio Spurs: Game Highlights (1:46)
Jrue Holiday fouls Devin Vassell with Trail Blazers up 3Late in Game 2 of the Trail Blazers’ matchup vs. the Spurs, Jrue Holiday commits a foul on Devin Vassell with Portland up by three points.
Late in Game 2 of the Trail Blazers’ matchup vs. the Spurs, Jrue Holiday commits a foul on Devin Vassell with Portland up by three points.
On center stage in San Antonio, Game 2 between the host Spurs and visiting Portland Trail Blazers was approaching its apex.
Battling to avoid an 0-2 hole in the series last Tuesday night, the Blazers rallied behind guard Scoot Henderson, who scored 31 points in the most important game of his young career. The Spurs, meanwhile, had to weather the loss of Victor Wembanyama to a concussion. Both teams held — and blew — double-digit leads in the back-and-forth affair.
All of that rising action built toward a climax, as San Antonio inbounded the ball down by three points with 11.4 seconds left. The Spurs designed a potential game-tying play, inbounded the ball to leading 3-point shooter Devin Vassell … and heard a whistle, as Trail Blazers guard Jrue Holiday committed a take foul.
What had once been breathless clutch time, with just one stoppage amid nearly three straight minutes of furious action, thus ground down into a free throw duel. The Trail Blazers maintained their lead and evened the series with a 106-103 win — but a potential classic ended not with a bang but a whimper.
Jrue Holiday fouls Devin Vassell with Trail Blazers up 3
Ironically, that approach must have seemed familiar to the Spurs, too. In another spotlight event this season, the NBA Cup semifinal in Las Vegas, the Spurs fouled Oklahoma City three consecutive times in the same situation. Both games offered concrete examples of the “foul up three” strategy, which is growing simultaneously in popularity and controversy in the NBA.
For years, coaches have considered how to defend when leading by three points late in a game: They could guard the 3-point line, or they could commit an intentional foul, ceding two free throws in exchange for cutting off the chance for a game-tying triple.
They’ve increasingly chosen the second option. In 2010, a Synergy Sports analysis found that teams took only 11.5% of their foul up three opportunities. But film study shows that over the last two seasons, teams have chosen to intentionally foul 34.2% of the time with a three-point lead in the final 10 seconds.
Those extra fouls add more strategic decisions for coaches — and more complaints from critics who decry every game that ends with more free throws in lieu of 3s. The 2026 postseason is only a week old and has already added another to the pile; more playoff games this spring are bound to yield yet more outrage.
Some coaches are firm believers. At Splitter’s behest, the Trail Blazers led the league in fouls up three this season. Splitter said he prefers to foul because he was “raised in European basketball, where I would say 98% of the coaches over there foul up three.” He thinks teams should start fouling with 17 seconds left — the most aggressive timing cited by any coach surveyed for this article.
But even that’s not enough for the former Spurs center. Splitter is such a fervent advocate that after this year’s All-Star Game, when Team World allowed a game-tying 3-pointer to Anthony Edwards, he joked to reporters, “I was mad they didn’t foul up three.”
Other coaches, however, are less convinced that fouling meaningfully improves their chance of securing a win.
Several coaches said they prefer not to foul until there are five to six seconds left on the clock. Detroit Pistons coach JB Bickerstaff almost always prefers to play straight-up defense instead of fouling. And Philadelphia 76ers coach Nick Nurse said the difference in win probability between the two options is “very minuscule. When you look at the facts of it, it’s a lot less than I think the grapevine says that it is.”
I wanted to test the facts of the situation, so I conducted my own study of fouling up three, using GeniusIQ to filter for all possessions from the past five seasons in which the defensive team was leading by three points in the final 24 seconds. By watching those plays and tracking their outcomes — looking specifically for an overt, visible effort to intentionally foul — I found, first, when teams are most likely to employ the strategy.
Then, by narrowing the scope to possessions between 3 and 17 seconds — when the vast majority of fouls occurred — I could compare the overall win probability when teams decide to foul with when they play straight-up defense.
The results from 524 games with this decision are remarkably similar. Teams that chose to foul up three won 92.0% of their games, versus 91.7% for those that played normal defense.
Different studies on this topic have yielded different results, depending on the parameters. (Most public studies are either from years ago or focus on NCAA basketball, which has different late-game rules.) Generally, team employees said their data suggests fouling works in limited circumstances.
But an Eastern Conference executive who has studied the math behind this strategy confirmed the general conclusion of my study: Whatever edge is gained from fouling is small. This isn’t a clear-cut analytical slam dunk like shooting more 3-pointers or NFL teams going for it on fourth down.
“You could coach your whole career employing either strategy and win pretty much the same number of those close-game situations,” the executive said.
One reason the impact is so muted is that leading by three points late in a game is already such an advantageous situation. “You already have a good chance to win the game anyway if you just play it out,” the executive said.
Offenses’ long-range accuracy plummets when they’re forced to take 3s against a defense that knows what’s coming. Over the past five seasons, teams are shooting just 18.9% on 3-pointers when trailing by three in the final 24 seconds. That figure is 21.1% if you count only attempts within 30 feet, removing long-range heaves from the equation.
Even the foul-happy Thunder have evolved their strategy along with their roster. Daigneault said he became more aggressive in calling for fouls up three after Oklahoma City signed Isaiah Hartenstein, because the 7-footer’s rebounding prowess helps foil opponents’ plans to grab an offensive rebound after an intentional free throw miss. Daigneault can also rely on Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, who is 89% at the foul line over the past four seasons, in a potential free throw duel.
A mixed-use strategy based on context can be successful, as even the threat of fouling up three can help a defense attempting to hold a late-game lead. Several coaches said they effectively shrink their playbook when they think the opposing coach might order a foul.
“It influences your playcalling,” Daigneault said. “For example, there’s three-point plays you can run where you throw it to the post or throw it to the elbow. But those plays just put a foul up three on a silver platter. It’s not difficult for the opponent to foul you in that situation.”
If fouling when up by three makes sense in theory, it’s worth exploring why it doesn’t boost win percentage more in practice. There are three main pitfalls that can trip up a team that seeks to foul up three.
The first is simple: Fouling safely, Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr said, is “easier said than done.”
Every coach who espouses the foul up three philosophy still has instances in which his team is unable to execute properly because the opponent draws up a savvy play that yields a quick 3. Redick said on the “Mind the Game” podcast, “I’m fouling up three every single time.” But in his first opportunity to do so as a head coach, on Christmas last season, the Lakers gave up a game-tying 3-pointer to Stephen Curry, who got open on the inbound pass.
Similarly, in Game 2 against the Spurs last week, Portland allowed a 3-point attempt on the possession after its intentional foul because San Antonio shot immediately off the pass.
“These guys are so smart,” former Chicago Bulls coach Billy Donovan said. “If you’re off the player a little bit and you go to grab the guy, they just rise up and shoot. The last thing you want to do is give up three free throws.”
The second problem is what happens after a team successfully executes a foul up three, which — if there’s little time left — all but forces its opponent to attempt an intentional free throw miss, rebound and putback.
“You’ve seen this year how many people have missed the free throw on purpose and got it back and gotten a great look,” Nurse said. “I think people are getting better at missing it. I think the rebounds are not so lopsided towards the defense anymore. They’ve become 50-50, almost like loose balls rather than rebounds.”
Nurse is right: Over the past two seasons, according to an analysis of GeniusIQ data, teams trailing by two or three points in the final 10 seconds have successfully rebounded 16 of 38 missed free throws, or 42% (including violations that don’t hit the rim). That’s four times higher than the 10.5% offensive rebounding rate on missed free throws in all situations.
Last month, the Denver Nuggets lost after fouling up three when Lakers guard Austin Reaves made the first free throw, rebounded his own miss on the second and sank a floater to send the game to overtime.