Yep. It’s another sports analogy. But, as it turns out, this one is pretty apt.

As I write this, both professional hockey and basketball are in the midst of determining their champions for the season, and soccer’s World Cup will begin soon. And as we have progressed through the basketball playoffs, an interesting debate has emerged around the idea of “flopping.” It’s a term used, mostly by those who dislike the practice, for drawing fouls, sometimes called “foul-baiting” or “engineering contact.” Those who are advocates refer to it as “smart basketball.”

What it seems to come down to is, is it smart, or is it a manipulation of the rules? Put more harshly, is it cheating?

As I am prone to do, I asked myself, how does flopping correlate to quality manufacturing? And it does. The approach to both basketball and quality manufacturing deals with system predictability, elimination of waste, process control and enforcement, and continuous improvement. I’ll let you decide for yourself the positive or negative of it all.

In both the NBA and quality manufacturing, success hinges on the ability to consistently generate reliable output while eliminating costly defects. So, drawing fouls seemingly correlates perfectly with manufacturing efficiency, where producers “manipulate” systems to guarantee a predictable, high-value result.

In quality manufacturing, producing a flawless physical product every time is difficult. However, highly efficient assembly lines are designed to minimize variables. They use precise calibrations to reduce waste and maximize profit. The modern NBA functions much the same way. When a team’s offense is struggling or shots are not falling, relying on pure shooting becomes a volatile, high-risk strategy.

Instead, elite scorers use rules to their advantage by initiating controlled contact with defenders. By altering their footwork, throwing sweeping motions into jump shots, or changing pace abruptly off the dribble, these players engineer situations that referees are obligated to whistle. Instead of risking a contested, low-percentage shot (which yields an inefficient outcome), they “manufacture” a trip to the free-throw line.

In lean manufacturing, processes are streamlined to ensure maximum output with the least amount of wasted time and materials. “Free-throw merchants”—players renowned for drawing fouls—operate with this exact efficiency. A trip to the free-throw line yields 1.5 to 2 expected points per possession, which is statistically superior to relying on unpredictable field goals.

By strategically creating scenarios that pull defensive fouls, players guarantee a standardized point reward, eliminating the “waste” of a missed shot. This directly equates to optimized operational metrics: both systems optimize every available resource (player movement or raw materials) to produce the most profitable and reliable end-result.

Manufacturing quality control relies heavily on adherence to specifications. If a product deviates from standard guidelines, the assembly line rejects it. Similarly, foul drawing is entirely about exploiting the rulebook. When an offensive player drives into the paint and absorbs a bump from a defender who is not in proper defensive positioning, the system processes a penalty.

This ensures consistent enforcement of the rules, putting defenders in a position where they either must allow an easy basket or commit a system-flagged foul. The offensive player relies on this systemic cause-and-effect to dictate the pace of the game, much like a manufacturer using exact part dimensions to pass strict quality-assurance tests.

When manufacturing techniques become too standardized, regulatory bodies sometimes step in to adjust the system. For instance, the NBA has previously updated rules to curb unnatural shooting motions and “non-basketball moves” designed primarily to “trick the whistle.”

Similarly, when industrial machines or automated workflows lead to exploited loopholes or lowered quality standards, companies are forced to alter their production protocols. In both worlds, the continuous evolution of rules—whether it be the NBA Competition Committee updating the rulebook or an ISO quality-control audit updating industrial standards—forces participants to continuously adapt their strategies.

Ultimately, drawing fouls in the NBA is not just an entertaining art form. It represents a highly calculated form of systemic optimization. By understanding game rules, eliminating the “waste” of poor shots, and ensuring a steady flow of high-value free throws, elite players mirror the exact principles of efficiency and reliability that define quality manufacturing.

It is worth noting that a number of players, former players, experts, and pundits have expressed that drawing fouls is an aspect of the game that is taught throughout the ranks, from youth basketball to the professional leagues. It also worth noting that the NBA’s MVP the last two years in a row has been Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (SGA)—one of the so-called “free-throw merchants.” This is a recent posting from the Facebook page, NBA UPDATES:

ELITE SCORER OR FOUL MERCHANT?

SGA just shot a rough 7-19 from the floor... but still controlled the game by going an absurd 16-17 from the free-throw line. 🤯

When more of your points come from the charity stripe than actual made baskets, we need to talk. Thunder fans call it high-IQ basketball. Spurs fans are calling it unwatchable whistle-baiting.📉

👀👇 Does SGA get the softest whistle in the NBA, or is this just elite foul-drawing? Drop your takes! 🍿🔥

Does the quality industry need to talk? As the post above suggests, Drop your take! (selandd@bnpmedia.com)

For some more insight, read, “Quality’s Dirty Secret” and “Beyond the Checklist: Mastering the FDA’s New QMSR Framework” and everything else we have to offer in this month’s Quality.

Enjoy and thanks for reading!