On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:43:35 GMT, "Skeptic" <bcs002b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"JK" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:oqqc24dtjsu36mq9mrk035bjsu8th1tvis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 03:11:30 GMT, "Skeptic" <bcs002b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>> Drive hard and kick? Do you know what the Hawks would have done if
he
>>>> had done that?
>>>
>>>What a young and inexperienced team with a sub 0.500 record would have
>>>done?
>>>Good chance they'd have acted instinctively and collapsed leaving a
>>>shooter
>>>open.
>>
>> Oh come on. They may be young, but they're not stupid. Even your
>> average high school team would know better.
>
>Just to reiterate my point earlier... teams make instinctive bad
decisions
>on defense - even great defending teams like Boston (which Atlanta was
not).
>Recall game 7 of Boston Vs. Cleveland, down by 2 possessions, seconds
left,
>the last thing you want to do is give up an uncontested 3 point shot...
>Lebron drove, and either Pierce or Posey helped on defense (bad move)
>leaving Pavl...whatever his name is... wide open who then hit a three
point
>shot.
Different situation. They were down by TWO possessions with around 13
seconds left when the ball crossed half-court. They needed to score
twice anyway, so a 2 point shot was a legitimate threat. Boston
didn't just want to prevent a 3-pointer. They wanted to prevent ANY
score, since Cleveland had time to score, foul and get the ball back
with enough time to get a decent final shot.
In the C's situation, they crossed the half-court line with about 7
seconds remaining. They were out of timeouts, so there wasn't time to
score a 2-pointer, foul and have any decent shot to end the game. All
the Hawks would have had to do would have been to inbound the ball and
throw it to the rafters. So Rondo driving the lane wouldn't have
posed any real threat. The ONLY thing they had to worry about was
giving up an easy three.
Now if scoring on a layup would have helped the C's, like it helped
the Cavs last night, then sure, driving the lane would have been the
thing to do. But to drive the lane when both teams know you MUST have
a 3 makes no sense. Basically, you know you're going to be passing
the ball and you're HOPING the other team is stupid enough not to know
and since you're only going to have a single pass to the perimeter,
the chances that that guy is going to have a clean look is pretty
minimal. The chances of that play succeeding is extremely low. You're
better off keeping the ball on the perimeter and looking for a shooter
off the screen. If that fails, at least you have time to get the ball
off yourself.
The truth is if Rondo had made that shot, you wouldn't have even said
anything about it.
>That, JK, is why Rondo should have driven the ball instead of standing
>around that the top of the key only to heave up a desperation 3 pointer.
He didn't stand around at the top of the key. They were pressuring
him tight while he was looking for a teammate to get open, which they
all failed to do.
>Teams instinctively collapse the drive, even when they've been told not
to
>and, given time to think about it, know better.
Well, you might have gotten suckered on it, but speak for yourself. I
do know that if I were on the court, I would NOT have collapsed on
Rondo if he had driven the lane. Any half decent basketball player
would know to stay at home on the 3 shooters. It's that simple.
|
