End of game coaching

[kkott]

Getting the ball safely inbounds effectively won the game no matter what happened at the FT line. All agree that we’d prefer the person getting the ball was a better FT shooter, but if a better FT shooter doesn’t get open the ball needs to be passed to the open man, no matter who that person is. There wasn’t enough time left for ND to get better than a half court shot and that isn’t going in 99% of the time, even in the NBA. The odds are less in college. This debate was over days ago, yet the Negative Nancies and Trolls won’t give it up

BECAUSE YOU DON’T NEED TO INBOUND THE BALL TO A BALL-HANDLER UP 2 WITH 3 SECONDS LEFT. IS IT REALLY THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND? THE BALL SHOULD NEVER TOUCH THE FLOOR IN A SITUATION WHERE THE OTHER TEAM IS INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO FOUL YOU. YOU WANT YOUR BEST PASSER (PHINISEE WHO IS ALSO THE PG) INBOUNDING THE BALL BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY IU LOSES THAT GAME IS IF THE BALL IS TURNED OVER ON THE INBOUNDS PLAY. WHY IN EFFING WORLD WOULD YOU NOT WANT YOUR BEST PASSER AND BEST DECISION MAKER MAKING THE MOST CRUCIAL PASS IN THE GAME? IT’S MIND-BLOWING THAT YOU MISS THIS ASPECT OF THE EQUATION. YOU DON’T NEED TO INBOUND THE BALL TO SOMEBODY WHO CAN DRIBBLE OR PASS IN THAT SITUATION, BECAUSE THE SECOND THE BALL IS INBOUNDED YOU’RE GETTING FOULED IMMEDIATELY.

I just went back and watched the Purdue game from last year and there’s not much to be mad about. With 3 seconds left you’re only getting 2 dribble + a shot. Doesn’t really matter if you get the ball to Phinisee or Smith there. Smith got the ball past half-court and Morgan got off a clean look from 35 feet. It’s not like Phinisee is going the length of the court in 3 seconds.

LOOK, I CAN TYPE IN CAPS TOO! FUNNY HOW YOU IGNORE THE FT SHOOTING PART, SO YOU DON'T WANT A BETTER FT SHOOTER AT THE LINE? DOESN'T MATTER TO YOU IF IT'S DG, AD, RP OR JS? YOU DON'T FEEL BETTER WITH A 3 OR 4 PT LEAD AND THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME TO GO THE LENGTH OF THE COURT?

I'VE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES, MY QUESTION ISN'T SO MUCH ABOUT JS RECEIVING THE BALL IN THIS GAME, BUT WHY WE APPEAR TO KEEP HAVING OUR PG INBOUND IT. WE AGREE, IT'S SOMEWHAT MOOT IN THIS GAME, SO I GAVE YOU A SITUATION THAT WAS DIFFERENT, WHERE BALL HANDLING, DECISION MAKING, ETC... WERE NEEDED, AND YET WE STILL HAVE OUR PG INBOUNDING. HOW ABOUT ADDRESSING THE QUESTIONS I'M ASKING RATHER THAN REHASHING WHAT WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED: IN THE ND GAME IT DIDN'T REALLY MATTER?

 

[MrBing]

Actually, just about everyone eventually agreed that getting the ball in safely was the most important thing to do in this situation and that doing so almost guaranteed the win. If you disagree, you’re actually going against probability.

The debate is over. Move on.

You're right that the debate should be over because once the ball was inbounded the game was practically over even if the FT is missed unless ND happened to make a 100-1 long shot. But there are three more pages of dead horse beating after this.

 

[MrBing]

As someone who has coached for nearly 30 years at the high school level, both girls and boys, I’d like to give some personal insight to the play in question.

First, I’ll say there has been some great insight on both sides, and there really is no right or wrong answer. Just personal preference with obvious hindsight playing a big part.

As one poster mentioned, time and scenario dictates to the situation. In this particular scenario, with a little over 3 seconds left up 2 with the ball under my own basket, biggest thing I’m stressing as a coach in the huddle is simply getting the ball in bounds. I did not see the play in question live, but have had a chance to watch the replay and here are my thoughts and what I may have potentially done differently. It’s important to know all the pertinent details as well.

Leading up to the inbound pass, Notre Dame previously called TO which would have still allowed the inbounder to run the baseline. With 1 TO for IU remaining, given the set IU was in, I would have preferred the Phinisee to take a jab step left to see if it would have enticed Durham’s man to follow the ball with Durham flashing the opposite direction. In the event it didn’t cause the defender to bite I would have used my remaining time out.

Of course I understand why Coach Miller would have wanted to keep his last time out and that is to set up a defense/fouling strategy in the event IU made the first free throw. Remember ND had zero timeouts and there’s virtually no offense that could be run off a missed FT other than a quick outlet and heave or 2 dribbles and a heave which neither are high probability shots. Also important to note that if IU burned their last time out before they inbounded the ball, the inbounder would be stationary on the next attempt out of bounds.

In the end I think what IU did is what most coaches in that situation would have preferred; a clean inbounds pass with a chance to win the game via execution at the free throw line. I wouldn’t have balked at the idea of IU trying to run something to free up a better shooter, but the last thing as a coach you want in that situation is not being able to get the ball inbounded on your initial play call and having to call your last TO to set up another play. Last thing you want as a coach is one of your players inbounding the ball from a stationary position under you own basket without a TO, ball has to go in to avoid a 5 second violation.

All in all, good discussion here, I think we can all agree the best outcome happened and that was IU coming out victorious.

Thanks Coach. That's a great explanation of the situation and it's how my coach explained these situations when I played. The thread could have stopped after your post because it is the bottom line explanation.