Why are NBA teams fouling up 3 — with 10+ seconds left?

I don't watch nearly as much NBA basketball as I used to, so this kind of snuck up on me: When did fouling while up three points with 10 or more seconds left become a thing? Somebody with more basketball knowledge will have to educate me on the logic — and even the analytics/probability — of this move.

I get the fouling strategy. Whether to foul or not when you are up three has been a basketball debate since the three-pointer became a part of the game. The logic is pretty simple: If you're up three points in the final seconds, you can prevent a tying three-point shot by fouling and giving your opponent two shots. Then you inbound the ball, get fouled, hit two free throws and run out the clock, or force your opponent into a desperation shot at the end. (The opposing team can try to defeat this strategy by intentionally missing the second shot, getting the rebound and scoring to either tie or take the lead — it happens, but rarely.)

But twice in this year's NBA playoffs, a team has fouled while up three points with more than 10 seconds left, giving the opponent what it needs most — time — to foil the fouling strategy.

The Thunder did it in Game 1 of the Western Conference semifinals against the Nuggets — fouling twice while up three points — with 12.2 seconds left and 10.1 seconds left. After the second foul, the Nuggets Aaron Gordon hit both free throws, the Thunder's Chet Holmgren missed two free throws with 9.1 seconds left and the Nuggets had plenty of time for Gordon to set up a three-pointer that won it.

Thunder coach Mark Daigneault claimed his team does that all the time and wins (I couldn't find an example in the previous three seasons — not with that much time on the clock, anyway), but that seemed like an anomaly. Then the Knicks and Tom Thibodeau did the same thing in Game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals on Wednesday night.

With the Knicks leading 124-121 after Karl Anthony Towns hit 1-of-2 free throws with 14.1 seconds left in the fourth quarter, the Knicks fouled Aaron Nesmith with 12.1 seconds left. Nesmith hit both free throws to cut it to 124-123. The Thunder fouled OG Anunoby with 9.1 seconds left. Anunoby made 1-of-2 free throws for a 125-123 lead and Tyrese Haliburton hit a 23-foot two-pointer that bounced high off the back of the rim and through the hoop as time expired. It would have won the game if Haliburton — in his rush to get behind the three-point line to shoot a game-winner — had his toe on the line.

The Thunder won 138-135 in overtime. There were so many facets to the Knicks collapse that maybe Thibs wasn't asked about the fouling strategy. Often in these "What am I missing?" situations, you know you're not missing anything, but this is one time I'd like to know what I'm missing.

If two successful NBA coaches are doing it, there must be some logic behind it. (And maybe it's a bit of memory bias on my part — triggered by two prime examples of the strategy failing but missing the instances where it has worked.) But the strategy for the leading team to start a free-throw game that early — giving the trailing team multiple chances to play the free-throw game in its favor — seems ludicrous and counter-productive.

It was interesting that with the tables turned and the Pacers leading by three with 15 seconds left, Rick Carlisle — one of the best coaches in the NBA — declined to use the fouling strategy at all. The Pacers defended the Knicks without fouling at all in the final 15 seconds, and let them miss two three-pointers in a mad scramble.

But that's a different debate. Some coaches prefer to foul while up three points, others will take their chances. It's the coaches who get caught in between — fouling with too much time left — who seem to be playing to lose, and getting what they deserve.