Bill Simmons on Ray: "Greatest Shot I've Ever Seen"

[Gurleyman]

Eh. It worked in that case because the game was being called ridiculously tightly and Duke's guys fouled out early, while Emeka was still there.

Usually that's not going to be the case, and by sitting your guy you're imposing the punishment on yourself -- reduced minutes for player X -- that you're hoping to avoid. I guarantee that the "sit with two fouls in the first half" strategy ends up with a player playing fewer minutes than if they just play straight through.

JC's strategy is like wearing an eye patch out of fear that something's going to poke your eye out (weird example, but I think it's fitting).

There's also the issue of how you play in the minutes you get. If you are in foul trouble, you tend to play a little more passively - maybe don't take it strong for fear of a charge. Or not go for an offensive rebound or a steal that you might have a chance at.

You can't say that we blew it by sitting Caron, because he played balls out in the second half, which he might not have done if he started the second half with three fouls. We led 77-74 with four minutes left, and Maryland's experience with Dixon and Baxter won out.

I think some players you can trust - a Sheffer or a Rashad Anderson who won't be mixing it up in the paint much. Emeka or Caron can easily get a foul even playing tentatively just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[UConn990411]

Usually that's not going to be the case, and by sitting your guy you're imposing the punishment on yourself -- reduced minutes for player X -- that you're hoping to avoid. I guarantee that the "sit with two fouls in the first half" strategy ends up with a player playing fewer minutes than if they just play straight through.

I'm not a big proponent of the JC strategy, but I don't agree with what you said. At least not completely.

The point of the 2-fouls-and-you-sit rule isn't necessarily that player X will play more minutes - it's that his minutes will be more productive. The idea is that a player will be more productive playing the last 20 minute with 2 fouls than he would be playing the last 25 minutes with 3.

Again, I don't love the rule (at least not as a set-in-stone policy), but it does make some sense.

 

[8893]

Overrated move, IMO. He did the same thing to Caron and blew a winnable game to the eventual NC.

Nothing is 100% in that situation, but imo it's a far greater gamble to do what K did--especially in a game that is clear to everyone is being called ridiculously tightly.

There are four choices: (1) Calhoun's 2-and-sit rule; (2) some-other-number-and-sit rule; (3) play until you foul out; (4) play it by "feel."

Even without any empirical evidence, I'd rule out 2 and 3 as demonstrably less successful over time. Personally, I don't like 4 because I wouldn't trust that instinct in those moments, and I think it would add too much stress and distraction to an already-intense situation if you are constantly reassessing whether to pull or play the player. I like the simplicity of Calhoun's approach, and I like the advantages it gives you in terms of keeping your power dry for the end of the battle, when you need it most.

In all of history, I'm not sure there's a better argument for the logic of his rule than the sight of Emeka going against Nick Horvath in the final and deciding minutes of that game.

Also agree with Gurley's point about how you use your time. I don't think you can simply extrapolate Caron's numbers and assume he would have caused a different result if he had been playing with the pressure of two fouls. I also agree that I might consider a variation from the rule for a player with Doron's head or Rashad's game.

 

[Matrim55]

I actually came up with the following list of big shots from the Finals after bouncing around this topic on NBA boards last month. I'm perhaps leaving something out from the 40s or 50s.

Game 7 Daggers (there haven't been many big Game 7 moments): LeBron vs Spurs, Don Nelson high of the rim vs Lakers, Ron Artest vs Celtics.

Game 6 Series Winners - Jordan vs Utah, Kerr vs Utah, Paxson vs Suns

Game 6 Series Savers - Ray vs Spurs, Kareem vs Celtics (1974)

Game 5 Series Winner - Vinnie Johnson vs Blazers

Game 5 Series Swinger - Horry vs Pistons

Game 4 Series Swingers - Magic vs Celtics, Sam Jones vs Lakers (1969), Fisher vs Orlando

Miraculous shots that forced OT but didn't change outcome of game: Gar Heard vs Celts (1976), Jerry West vs Knicks (1970)

Best Shots from earlier playoff rounds (partial list - certainly missing some good older stuff): Sampson vs Lakers, Fisher with 0.4 left vs Spurs, Horry vs Kings, Elie vs Suns, Stockton vs Rockets, Billups 35 footer, Jordan vs Cavs, Larry Johnson 4-point play, Bird to DJ, Reggie over Jordan (or his two threes at MSG).

If you only talk finals and whittle it down a little, I'd say it probably is a battle between Jordan, Ray, Kareem and Magic for the biggest shot ever made. And Ray might win that vote - even fighting an uphill battle against the iconic names on that list (Kareem's team lost anyway, Magic was only Game 4). The stakes were at a maximum, and the shot had a high degree of difficulty. Only negative is that the Heat still had to win in OT and take Game 7 for it to be meaningful. Jordan ended it (well, almost - Stockton had a good look he had to miss first).

Someday, we'll have a true buzzer beater to win a Game 6 or 7 that'll trump it.

This is fantastic. Only one I can think of off the top of my head is LeBron's buzzer beater vs. the Magic, though obviously that didn't have an effect on the outcome of the series.

I also think Ray's evisceration of Vujacic could go there somewhere, as well as a couple of those shots he hit against the Bulls in 09.