Where does Shabazz get off?

[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.