Where does Shabazz get off?

[BlueMAB]

Admit it--When Shabazz put that 30 footer out there, you said to yourself, "We should have been able to get a better look than that in five seconds". No complaints from me though.

Exactly. I don't know why people can't admit that.

 

[BlueMAB]

The idea of driving to the hoop to get a "no-call" because they do swallow the whistle, is ridiculous.

Bazz said the defense wasn't expecting it, right? There's a reason they weren't expecting it. Please don't ever coach basketball.

 

[BlueMAB]

Under the circumstances, "end of game" pressure situation with a well reported "bad wheel",
saying it was a "bad" shot is beyond amusing. Of course You know better.

The shot went in period...woulda, coulda, shouda, blah, blah, blah.

No decision is bad when the desired outcome is achieved. Luck/schmuck... it's all much to do about nothing.

Besides that: Bazz shooting and making from deep (under pressure) is NOTunprecedented.

He has made some very deep 3s. So I think to suggest that it was a "lucky shot" (luckier than running the length of the floor in in 5.5 seconds euncontested with a taped ankle) is arguable at best and should be qualified.

Obviously it is not arguable that he wascapable of making the shot.
Whether You call it luck or skill or a combination of the two... since he did.

Was it without risk? No.

And neither was any other option.

You may argue his choice and sound foolish doing so.

Fortunately the choice was his, and he made it.

Please don't be sopresumptuous as to think YOU, with 20/20 hindsight and DVR, know the "right" way to play.

Enjoy the moment...the how'd he do that feeling
which makes sport so euphoric and gut wrenching.

Just give the kid some props...if not for his decision making and talent, then for his onions.

At least he was willing to take the risk goat/hero...he didn't quit.

And BTW since you feel the need to be the critic of a guy's decision making .... considering you choice of words (above)...I have a small question for you.

If you "had WENT" to UCONN would you have been an ENGLISH major?

Just sayin

If you're going to criticize my grammar, start by checking yours. Learn how to use "..." properly, and buy a comma or two. If you're going to criticize my grammar, stop using cutoff sentences, and start using paragraphs.

I gave him props at least once for his onions, if not in this thread, then in the other one. I called the play amazing, I said I was glad it went in so we could discuss the decision.

I don't know how many times I have to say I didn't realize the extent of his injury. I did qualify my statement by saying (paraphrasing) "were he healthy, he should have went full court." If you're going to criticize my grammar, check your reading comprehension.

 

[tzznandrew]

I didn't say that, you're confused.

I said he should have gone 100% from the moment he caught the ball. That would have put him further up the court than he was when he shot it. (But I didn't realize he was suffering from PF.)

If he were able to run full speed, he could make it up the court in 5.4 seconds. The Nova guard did it in 5.5, and there's this guy who did it in 4.8.

Missouri's lack of D cost UConn their first National title.

 

[Catsailor]

If you're going to criticize my grammar, start by checking yours. Learn how to use "..." properly, and buy a comma or two. If you're going to criticize my grammar, stop using cutoff sentences, and start using paragraphs.

I gave him props at least once for his onions, if not in this thread, then in the other one. I called the play amazing, I said I was glad it went in so we could discuss the decision.

I don't know how many times I have to say I didn't realize the extent of his injury. I did qualify my statement by saying (paraphrasing) "were he healthy, he should have went full court." If you're going to criticize my grammar, check your reading comprehension.

Hey comprehend this: A guy that argues with success, is either a dumb guy or just likes to argue for the sake of argument.

The point was, and still is, that you are wrong. How can a shot that goes in be a bad shot? It's only bad when you miss, LOL.

There was not even a better solution, only a possible alternate solution which, if successful, would, at best, only be equal to, not better than, the choice Bazz made. While misspelled words, run on sentences, fragments are mandatory for most web posting I did buy some commas, on sale, so thanks for the advice hope you get the point now.

You are a bit touchy for a critic. I was just having fun pointing out that everyone has choices, whether of words or of play options. Your choice was to critique success, silly and sounding a bit self righteous. However you are entitled to your opinion.

BTW YOU should use GONE next time instead of WENT. It makes you sound smarter, an important consideration when your argument is ridiculous and hypothetical Not to mention when the player makes the shot, you didn't what him to take, to win the game

Perhaps you should include foot notes referencing your other contradicting opinions/disclaimers stated in other threads (which I did not read) where you say you said the opposite.

To say this was a bad shot/decision is a curious way to frame a discussion. Sounds confrontational to me like you know better than the player without sharing his perspective, on the court.

Every one makes mistakes. Every one makes ill thought, wrong-headed remarks... so lighten up. We all forgive you.

 

[BlueMAB]

Any coach worth a dam will teach his guard to go as fast as possible to the hoop and try and get a layup or foul. No coach teaches their players to pull up from 35 in that situation. But that's irrelevant since it went in I guess. It's not like a contested layup is a higher percentage shot than wide open 35 footer, right? Impossible.

So....my apologies to the board for assuming some people could have a reasonable discussion about whether a decision, while proven to be succesful, wasn't as sound as an alternative. I have been around this board long enough to know that isn't possible.

I'll refrain from discussing calculated risks, and playing the percentages in the future and stick to the typical "Gottlieb has us ranked at 30, so he hates UConn" and "Hubert Davis doesn't think we played will in an overtime win against a bad team, so he's a religious zealout, who also hates UConn". I guess that's a much more rational discussion to have around this place.

 

[sparky]

Sometimes you gotta call it like it is and most of the time you are going to piss a few folks off. He may be a good talent, but not coachable. If that's the case we are stuck and so is he. AD will be gone and perhaps he and boat need to be in a room together.

 

[Catsailor]

Any coach worth a dam will teach his guard to go as fast as possible to the hoop and try and get a layup or foul. No coach teaches their players to pull up from 35 in that situation. But that's irrelevant since it went in I guess. It's not like a contested layup is a higher percentage shot than wide open 35 footer, right? Impossible.

So....my apologies to the board for assuming some people could have a reasonable discussion about whether a decision, while proven to be succesful, wasn't as sound as an alternative. I have been around this board long enough to know that isn't possible.

I'll refrain from discussing calculated risks, and playing the percentages in the future and stick to the typical "Gottlieb has us ranked at 30, so he hates UConn" and "Hubert Davis doesn't think we played will in an overtime win against a bad team, so he's a religious zealout, who also hates UConn". I guess that's a much more rational discussion to have around this place.

You miss the point.

To phrase it as a question: Do you think that was the right shot selection? May foster the discussion you are looking for.
Stating opinion as you did... that it was a "bad shot" is something altogether different.

You stated your opinion. The reply was predicable. What else do you expect?
You get what you give. Is that discussion? Not really but you were never open to a differing opinion anyway.

Now you presume to know what all coaches would do. Man that's powerful stuff. I had no idea who I was dealing with. I wonder should I be wary of the person who speaks in absolutes.

Maybe YOU should take over for Blaney and crew or at least share your insight. May you are the answer to question of who should succeed JC you do seem to know a lot.

I know I'm not as knowledgeable as you are because I don't profess to know what "no coach would do" AND what "every coach worth a dam" would do.

However I do know that some players have made ridiculously difficult shots/plays over the 45+ years of UCONN and others that I have watched and their choices seemed to this observer dictated by circumstance and self confidence rather than drawn up on a chalk board.

I have also heard on more than one occasion JC state (in his own words) certain players had the green light to make shooting decision. So I guess, from your perspective, JC, for one, isn't worth a dam.

Please forgive my naivety to presume that one size does NOT fit all...that not all circumstances dictate the same game plan and that the best of plans sometimes, due to changing circumstance may requires improvisation and leap of faith, and very large "kahonies".

And again the solution that works is NOT wrong.

I may be wasting my time here and I did have some to kill but no longer.

I do realize it's only an internet message board so what does one expect.....it take a certain kind of man to admit error and move on and usually not the kind that professes to know all the answers. Sorry, I corrected your went/gone thing the rest not so much.

This was fun but let's not do it again or more.

 

[UConnLen]

Any coach worth a dam will teach his guard to go as fast as possible to the hoop and try and get a layup or foul. No coach teaches their players to pull up from 35 in that situation. But that's irrelevant since it went in I guess. It's not like a contested layup is a higher percentage shot than wide open 35 footer, right? Impossible.

So....my apologies to the board for assuming some people could have a reasonable discussion about whether a decision, while proven to be succesful, wasn't as sound as an alternative. I have been around this board long enough to know that isn't possible.

I'll refrain from discussing calculated risks, and playing the percentages in the future and stick to the typical "Gottlieb has us ranked at 30, so he hates UConn" and "Hubert Davis doesn't think we played will in an overtime win against a bad team, so he's a religious zealout, who also hates UConn". I guess that's a much more rational discussion to have around this place.

Don't be so sensitive-we're [mostly] all UConn fans! Just because some don't agree with you-we feel that was the right shot to take because he wouldn't have time for a layup or would have lost the ball or the shot would have been blocked or he woulda been fouled w/no call.

 

[BlueMAB]

Don't be so sensitive-we're [mostly] all UConn fans! Just because some don't agree with you-we feel that was the right shot to take because he wouldn't have time for a layup or would have lost the ball or the shot would have been blocked or he woulda been fouled w/no call.

I'm not upset. But people are confusing my argument that there was "a better decision" with the argument he made "the wrong decision". If I implied that, I didn't mean to. If I said it, I shouldn't have, but I don't think I did. I'm not saying he did the wrong thing, I'm saying there was a better decision to be made there. (BUT, that was before I realized what his injury is.) For example, duct tape will fix a lot of , it's not "wrong" to use it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a better way to fix something.

If the roles were reversed, and he was healthy enough to push it the length of the court; no matter how that turned out, nobody would have made the argument he should have pulled up where he did. Nobody.

Looking forward to Saracuse going down on Saturday. Wish I could be there.

 

[BlueMAB]

You miss the point.

To phrase it as a question: Do you think that was the right shot selection? May foster the discussion you are looking for.
Stating opinion as you did... that it was a "bad shot" is something altogether different.

You stated your opinion. The reply was predicable. What else do you expect?
You get what you give. Is that discussion? Not really but you were never open to a differing opinion anyway.

Now you presume to know what all coaches would do. Man that's powerful stuff. I had no idea who I was dealing with. I wonder should I be wary of the person who speaks in absolutes.

Maybe YOU should take over for Blaney and crew or at least share your insight. May you are the answer to question of who should succeed JC you do seem to know a lot.

I know I'm not as knowledgeable as you are because I don't profess to know what "no coach would do" AND what "every coach worth a dam" would do.

However I do know that some players have made ridiculously difficult shots/plays over the 45+ years of UCONN and others that I have watched and their choices seemed to this observer dictated by circumstance and self confidence rather than drawn up on a chalk board.

I have also heard on more than one occasion JC state (in his own words) certain players had the green light to make shooting decision. So I guess, from your perspective, JC, for one, isn't worth a dam.

Please forgive my naivety to presume that one size does NOT fit all...that not all circumstances dictate the same game plan and that the best of plans sometimes, due to changing circumstance may requires improvisation and leap of faith, and very large "kahonies".

And again the solution that works is NOT wrong.

I may be wasting my time here and I did have some to kill but no longer.

I do realize it's only an internet message board so what does one expect.....it take a certain kind of man to admit error and move on and usually not the kind that professes to know all the answers. Sorry, I corrected your went/gone thing the rest not so much.

This was fun but let's not do it again or more.

Are you done taking my comments out of context and putting words in my mouth? Because, if you are, you need not do this ever again.

Where do you find the time to run around correcting the entire interweb on grammar and the haphazardous usage of hyperbole? All while ignoring very basic sentence structure and punctuation. Well done sir! Or, do you only do that when you disagree with the point being made? Hmm, I wonder.

I'm curious, where was it that I "professed to know all the answers"? Don't spend too much time looking, you won't find it. Lastly, since you're so concerned with helping me appear intelligent, I'd like to recriprocate. The word you're looking for is "cojones".

 

[BlueMAB]

It was a bad shot. It was the wrong decision. He was saved by the fact it went in. He got the ball, jogged up the court, and made a lucky shot. The smart move would have been to go as fast as possible from the inbounds to the basket. Force the defense to stop you, foul you, or make you miss a layup. The Nova guard got up the court in 5.5 seconds for a layup, Bazz could have too.

I said it in another thread, but i'll repeat it here. No matter the result, if he had went to the hoop hard, nobody would have argued he should have stopped for a 35 foot pull up jumper instead.

But, it went in. Thank God. Hopefully we make some more Saturday, we'll need them.

EDIT:: I Shouldn't have said "wrong" decision. I should have said there was a better one to be made. My bad.

 

[champs99and04]

I don't understand the argument here. While nobody is arguing with the result, the fact that the shot went in doesn't necessarily mean it was a great decision. Sometimes bad decisions can lead to good results and good decisions can lead to bad results. What WingU-Conn is focusing on here is the process, not the result.

In my opinion, the process in that situation, should be to get the ball down court as quickly as possible, preferably to the foul line area, where the player has the option of pulling up from ten feet, attacking the rim, or kicking it out to an open shooter, depending on the formation of the defense.

If Shabazz is injured as seriously as Fishy lets on, the process, in my opinion, should have never involved Shabazz handling the ball. I don't think it would be sensible to conclude that the process was not flawed simply because the shot went in.

If I'm missing the argument here, then please correct me.

 

[Fishy]

There's five seconds when the Nova player scores and the ball has to be inbounded.

It is not practical, nor necessary, in the 1/3rd of a second between the ball going in the basket and the ball being inbounded, that the five players on the court should mind-meld and decide that because Shabazz had an injured foot, someone else should bring the ball up the court.

There were two options there - Shabazz and Boatright. Alex looks at his options and, correctly, decides that the better option is Napier. So he looks past Ryan and passed the ball in to Shabazz.

Napier brings the ball up court. He goes at a speed that separates him from Cheek and actually causes Cheek to have to twist and find him and ultimately overrun the play a bit.

At 2.9 seconds, here is what he is facing...

He has space between himself and Cheek; however, Cheek has stopped moving up court and is now closing out on him. Continuing to dribble means engaging Cheek and trying to go past him with 2.9 seconds is not a good option.

There are two Nova defenders in the lane - both are turned to Napier's side of the court. One is in position to defend Napier if he presses his luck and tries to go past Cheek. That player, Sutton, is 6'11".

Ryan Boatright has made less progress heading up the court. He is just a half-stride past center court and is not in position to receive the ball and do anything other than take the same shot that Napier will. (And there is a Nova defender positioned to engage him if need be.)

Smith is near the three-point line, but is covered. Lamb has managed to get himself pinned along the sideline 26' from the hoop. Alex O is behind the play. None of the three are options.

I think he has one play there - if he steps in further, he's a 6' guard trying to take a contested shot over a 6'6" defender. If he decides to try go around Cheek, he's going to have to pull up and shoot before 6'11" Maurice Sutton gets to him. More likely, he shoots over a double-team there.

Again, our six-footer, with no viable passing options, has a 6'6" and 6'11" defenders between him and the basket.

Now, he takes the shot.

At two seconds, the ball is leaving his hands. Cheek is on him already...Cheek's right arm is between Napier's hands, but the ball has beaten him and is on the way. Cheek actually makes contact with Napier's body before Napier lands. It was that close.

Boatright is still 30' from the hoop, Lamb is still gloved and Roscoe's man has left him to go to Napier. No options opened in that second.

The odds are that a 27' shot does not go in, but then again, the odds are that you do not score in a five-second end-0f-game possession. UConn got what everyone wants in that situation - a clean look.

Getting up the court faster, passing the ball, etc., etc., presented worse odds for UConn in that instance. The player with the best chance of succeeding in that scenario put UConn in its best position to win the game - and they did.

I suspect that the only thing that seems to be causing angst is that some peeps are a little pissed that Shabazz Napier was the one who won the game. The "well, the shot went in, but it was a terrible play" argument is just too cute by half, especially given the snap shot in time with 2.9 seconds left in the game.

 

[SJ]

There's five seconds when the Nova player scores and the ball has to be inbounded.

It is not practical, nor necessary, in the 1/3rd of a second between the ball going in the basket and the ball being inbounded, that the five players on the court should mind-meld and decide that because Shabazz had an injured foot, someone else should bring the ball up the court.

There were two options there - Shabazz and Boatright. Alex looks at his options and, correctly, decides that the better option is Napier. So he looks past Ryan and passed the ball in to Shabazz.

Napier brings the ball up court. He goes at a speed that separates him from Cheek and actually causes Cheek to have to twist and find him and ultimately overrun the play a bit.

At 2.9 seconds, here is what he is facing...

He has space between himself and Cheek; however, Cheek has stopped moving up court and is now closing out on him. Continuing to dribble means engaging Cheek and trying to go past him with 2.9 seconds is not a good option.

There are two Nova defenders in the lane - both are turned to Napier's side of the court. One is in position to defend Napier if he presses his luck and tries to go past Cheek. That player, Sutton, is 6'11".

Ryan Boatright has made less progress heading up the court. He is just a half-stride past center court and is not in position to receive the ball and do anything other than take the same shot that Napier will. (And there is a Nova defender positioned to engage him if need be.)

Smith is near the three-point line, but is covered. Lamb has managed to get himself pinned along the sideline 26' from the hoop. Alex O is behind the play. None of the three are options.

I think he has one play there - if he steps in further, he's a 6' guard trying to take a contested shot over a 6'6" defender. If he decides to try go around Cheek, he's going to have to pull up and shoot before 6'11" Maurice Sutton gets to him. More likely, he shoots over a double-team there.

Again, our six-footer, with no viable passing options, has a 6'6" and 6'11" defenders between him and the basket.

Now, he takes the shot.

At two seconds, the ball is leaving his hands. Cheek is on him already...Cheek's right arm is between Napier's hands, but the ball has beaten him and is on the way. Cheek actually makes contact with Napier's body before Napier lands. It was that close.

Boatright is still 30' from the hoop, Lamb is still gloved and Roscoe's man has left him to go to Napier. No options opened in that second.

The odds are that a 27' shot does not go in, but then again, the odds are that you do not score in a five-second end-0f-game possession. UConn got what everyone wants in that situation - a clean look.

Getting up the court faster, passing the ball, etc., etc., presented worse odds for UConn in that instance. The player with the best chance of succeeding in that scenario put UConn in its best position to win the game - and they did.

I suspect that the only thing that seems to be causing angst is that some peeps are a little pissed that Shabazz Napier was the one who won the game. The "well, the shot went in, but it was a terrible play" argument is just too cute by half, especially given the snap shot in time with 2.9 seconds left in the game.

I like you even better now. Thanks for taking time to break it all down. I am too lazy to compose fine posts. I must have watched that 30 times that night and I noticed no one yet has mentioned that defender's hand and that one, two more steps forward was not an option. Also, perhaps he was a bit more risky because NOT making it would be a tie, not a loss. Better than getting a potential foul. Someone did point this part out.

Also, whan-whan-whan-whan (in the voice of adults in the Peanuts). This is what four pages of this sounds like to me.

I am so glad that shot went in. Good for Shabazz!

 

[Catsailor]

There's five seconds when the Nova player scores and the ball has to be inbounded.

It is not practical, nor necessary, in the 1/3rd of a second between the ball going in the basket and the ball being inbounded, that the five players on the court should mind-meld and decide that because Shabazz had an injured foot, someone else should bring the ball up the court.

There were two options there - Shabazz and Boatright. Alex looks at his options and, correctly, decides that the better option is Napier. So he looks past Ryan and passed the ball in to Shabazz.

Napier brings the ball up court. He goes at a speed that separates him from Cheek and actually causes Cheek to have to twist and find him and ultimately overrun the play a bit.

At 2.9 seconds, here is what he is facing...

He has space between himself and Cheek; however, Cheek has stopped moving up court and is now closing out on him. Continuing to dribble means engaging Cheek and trying to go past him with 2.9 seconds is not a good option.

There are two Nova defenders in the lane - both are turned to Napier's side of the court. One is in position to defend Napier if he presses his luck and tries to go past Cheek. That player, Sutton, is 6'11".

Ryan Boatright has made less progress heading up the court. He is just a half-stride past center court and is not in position to receive the ball and do anything other than take the same shot that Napier will. (And there is a Nova defender positioned to engage him if need be.)

Smith is near the three-point line, but is covered. Lamb has managed to get himself pinned along the sideline 26' from the hoop. Alex O is behind the play. None of the three are options.

I think he has one play there - if he steps in further, he's a 6' guard trying to take a contested shot over a 6'6" defender. If he decides to try go around Cheek, he's going to have to pull up and shoot before 6'11" Maurice Sutton gets to him. More likely, he shoots over a double-team there.

Again, our six-footer, with no viable passing options, has a 6'6" and 6'11" defenders between him and the basket.

Now, he takes the shot.

At two seconds, the ball is leaving his hands. Cheek is on him already...Cheek's right arm is between Napier's hands, but the ball has beaten him and is on the way. Cheek actually makes contact with Napier's body before Napier lands. It was that close.

Boatright is still 30' from the hoop, Lamb is still gloved and Roscoe's man has left him to go to Napier. No options opened in that second.

The odds are that a 27' shot does not go in, but then again, the odds are that you do not score in a five-second end-0f-game possession. UConn got what everyone wants in that situation - a clean look.

Getting up the court faster, passing the ball, etc., etc., presented worse odds for UConn in that instance. The player with the best chance of succeeding in that scenario put UConn in its best position to win the game - and they did.

I suspect that the only thing that seems to be causing angst is that some peeps are a little pissed that Shabazz Napier was the one who won the game. The "well, the shot went in, but it was a terrible play" argument is just too cute by half, especially given the snap shot in time with 2.9 seconds left in the game.

Exactly!

 

[UofCT]

My original post to start this thread was actually referring to shabazz calling out his teammates, glad we turned it into something positive because as you all know i tend to get negative from time to time.