I'll explain this very clearly so theres no room for confusion on your part. Smart basketball does not necessarily mean effective basketball. Just b/c a player misses a shot doesn't mean it was a bad decision. If its within his ability and its uncontested, then he should take the shot. For instance, I believe that if Scola has an open 15 ft jumper, he should take it everytime. On the other hand, Tmac knew his jumper was unreliable due to lingering injuries and he still decided to take it. Thats not smart basketball.
Wrong. That would be a stupid decision where he got lucky. That said, there is a big difference between an 18-20 ft jumper to win a game and the decision you just described. One is stupid, and one is questionable. Um, considering they only needed a two to win the game and they took that shot, the likely outcome is the Rockets lose by 3. Also, I'm not wrong. Let's say in your 100-100 scenario the rockets had 10 turnovers that led to 10 points for the other team. If you don't turn the ball over you could have scored enough points to make a game winning shot meaningless or the other team would not have scored enough to be tied. Point is a turnover in the first quarter affects the game the same as one on the last play, just like scoring two points early in the game has the same affect as two points at the end of the game.
Tmac knew his jumper had problems and he still took it. IMO, thats stupid, especially with the game on the line. And btw, I was just responding to your earlier premis that if he makes the shot, its not a terrible decision. Actually, you are wrong. Keep in mind that when Yao took the ft, there was .8 of a second left on the clock. For the Rockets to lose by 3, thats means that a Trailblazer would have had to catch the ball in mid-air and throw it the length of the court. And in this scenario, you have to keep in mind that it would be a Portland big catching the ball, not one of their guards. Also, for this to happen, it would have to be an uncontested rebound with no one tipping it. That logic is overly simplified and as a result, fundamentally flawed. Simply put, it omits too many variables. No offense, but I can see that I'm not going to get a good debate from you so don't be offended if I dont respond to you in the future.
Didnt we go over this last year?? Good shot, bad shot, and neutral shot. You have 2 variables before the shot goes up, and 2 after. It's a good shot or it's a bad shot. It goes in or it misses. An open 18 footer from T-Mac at the top of the key is a good shot. Before you saw the result from the shot, it was a good shot. The result made it neutral. (Guess there should be a 4th option for missing a bad shot -- turrible?)
Why does everyone ignore the fact that Tmac himself said that his jumper didnt feel good....which is why he was attacking the basket more? An 18 foot jumper from a healthy Tmac is a good shot. An 18 foot jumper from a Tmac who has temporarily lost faith in his jumper is a bad shot....especially since he was having a lot of success attacking the basket.
I was under the impression that he was making a statement to the early going of the season, that his legs arent under him on his jumper. Not necessarily pertaining to that game. His jumper hasnt been there consistently this season, but the Blazer game he was his best from a J perspective.
I can't believe people are talking about Yao's confidence. Yao had a couple of bad games. you can take guess on a lot of reasons, his leg(foot),his previous playing time(stigma), his judgement,or even his confusion with some of offense set ups, but not the confidence! man, watch the game carefully and try to make a logical interpretation.
did you even see the game? he made 2 jumpers prior to that shot. what makes you think a player of tmac's caliber does not have the confidence when he just made 2 jumpers prior to that? the great scorers just need to make 1 basket and they think they're on fire. tmac was pretty much shooting the ball very well in the 2nd half. like i said, was it the best shot? no. was it a bad shot? no.
it was his confidence. bill worrell saw it. clyde drexler also said the same thing. when your own announcers say it, it's probably right. you had the see the way yao played. after that blocked shot, he missed 2 dunks and got more blocks.
T-Mac had just hit a jumper the prior possession, and Aldridge was playing off on him the last play. If T-Mac drove into a lengthy defender that was sagging off him with everyone else standing around, that would likely result in a wild shot by T-Mac, a dribbling TO, or a passing TO. T-Mac took what the defense gave him.
No. for those specific plays, you can say the previous one had an affect on them. maybe he lost concentration and tried to hard to get it back or just pure mistak/bad luck/bad match up, whatever. Anyway, it was some "short term" effect, not the main reasons for his bad games. If it really was his confidence, he wouldn't have tried that hard demanding the ball and made the 2+1 with 1.9s left when we were 2 points behind. I wouldn't give that play as much praise as most on the board would. For the same reason, I would consider the plays you mentioned as bad as you would.
Fair enough. I see your point, and made a miscalculation. I'm human, and I can admit my mistakes. I was thinking they could have called a TO and had enough time to run their play. That said, I really don't care what you do, but my logic is not omitting any variables. The variables are always accounted for regardless of the time of any play. Points count the same whether I score them in the first quarter or the fourth, or in overtime. It's fact. Disagree with it all you want, but two points that win a game are not any more valuable than the two points you scored earlier that tied the game. You needed all of them to win the game. Just like Yao's free throw to give them the lead. It's not any more valuable than a free throw you hit in regulation, or missed in regulation. If you missed or hit one more in regulation, overtime might not have even been necessary. Possessions later in games are perceived to have more value because there are fewer remaining in the game, and they can directly produce a winner(like the Roy shot). That gives the impression they were more important than a possession in the first half, but it's not the case.
i think when bill worrell and clyde drexler said in these exact words, "yao has lost some of his confidence." you know they're sensing something since they're courtside.
I think its why Yao came out like gangbusters in the Clipper game. You could really see Yao sink during the Celtic game. Not so much the Blazers game though he was down for a bit after Pryzbilla blocked his J. His confidence was shaken(and probably stirred too) but he shook it off better against the Blazers. Against Boston he was borderline useless after the rim blocked his dunk a few plays after the Celtics got another one.
yea i thought yao played well v. the clips. people would say, eh, mediocre game b/c of only 16 points. but he got 5 blocks and defended the paint very well and grab rebounds better than the past 2 games. he def. focused more defensively. again, as long as yao mans the paint, rocket fans are satisfied b/c he'll return to his ways offensively.
It wasnt the points or stats, it was how he played. Seemed up to the challenge, especially after the performances against Portland and Boston.
