Why the Thunder fouling up 3 was both the right and wrong decision

The Oklahoma City Thunder got it both right and wrong.

People don't like nuance, but that's the reality of OKC's decision to foul the Nuggets while up three with about 10 seconds left on Monday night en route to a backbreaking Game 1 loss.

For some reasons, this analytically sound choice was perfect. But for a few others, it was lacking.

Here, we break it down for you.

MORE: How the Nuggets shocked the Thunder

Why did the Thunder foul up 3? The right reasons

As many basketball fans know, fouling with a three-point lead has become more in vogue in recent years and is viewed as an analytical decision.

The idea is that with a three-point lead and very little time left, it can be better to force the opposition to just shoot two bonus foul shots rather than even attempting a 3.

When it works, it means the trailing team never even gets a shot to tie the game.

Oklahoma City went for it. They had lost most of their lead, but this was a chance to keep the Nuggets behind rather than risk a team with a lot of talented offensive players creates an open 3 to force overtime.

At the surface, it was the right call.

MORE: Knicks' trades meant specifically to beat Celtics pay off

Why the Thunder shouldn't have fouled up 3 the way they did

There were just a few problems.

One, doing it with 10 seconds left is a long time. Many coaches seem to like waiting under 5-6 seconds before committing the foul.

There's just a lot of time for the ball to go back up and down the court a few times, especially with timeouts allowing for the ball to be advanced.

With five seconds left, a foul probably would've made it very tough on Denver. But with 10 seconds, and the Nuggets not even getting over halfcourt before the foul? Still plenty of time for heroics.

The other problem is that Nikola Jokic was on the bench, and the foul gave Denver the option of putting him back in.

The ensuing sequence may not have been impacted a ton by that, as the Nuggets could still get him back in after a later foul.

But in general, it wouldn't be the worst idea in the world to force Denver to play out a possible game-tying possession with no Jokic.

It's just one sample, so to deem the process totally right or totally wrong would be unfair.

But on this night, it didn't work.

MORE: Jalen Brunson's 4th-quarter stats are insane