End of game coaching

[MrBing]

60%. Not great but he's been much improved from last year.

It's not uncommon for a team's best shooter to inbound the ball, especially when the other team isn't guarding the inbounder, because it's an easy pass right back to the guy who inbounded the ball. Not sure if that was Archie's original plan and it simply wasn't executed but it's not uncommon at all.

That's a play we ran all the time in those last second situations and it's what I expected to happen if the receiving player wasn't fouled. Either way with that much time on the clock it was a win if the ball was in without a turnover. It's just playing the odds.

 

[ORG]

hometownfan said:

↑



I love CAM, however, I was at the Nebraska game and we were up 3 with seconds remaining. I was screaming FOUL that cornholer and we didn't and they hit a 3 to tie the game. I also wish he would call time outs when teams have extended runs and I agree with others about not wholesale substituting when we are dominating our opponents. I still have faith in CAM but I think he has some learning to do in late game situations.Click to expand...

That’s what concerns me. Being the head b-ball coach at IU should not be a learning curve job.
[/quote]
So, you really believe a coach should know everything when h/she accepts a job at IU? You really believe a coach should not learn every day?

 

[kkott]

With 3 seconds left inbounding the ball is the first and primary priority. Who shoots the free throw is secondary. If Smith inbounded to Rob P and commited a turnover you would be complaining that the best passer should be inbounding the ball.

Wrong. It's important to do both: inbound the ball and get it to a solid ballhandler and hopefully good FT shooter. I don't know any team at any level that doesn't inbound to their PG or another solid ballhandler/FT shooter, unless, as someone pointed out, the intent is to pass it right back to the inbounder after they step in. We're talking college players here. If they have any feel for the game at all, passing the ball in, with knowing the set and play, is important, but hardly a super high level skill. In retrospect it seems like the perfect job for Smith since he's a little taller to pass over smaller defenders, is an upperclassman and doesn't have to dribble or shoot a pressure FT. I can't tell if some of you have watched this little bball, or are just that eager to make excuses, or both? I think it's got to be more the latter. You really don't think it's important to inbound to a solid ballhandler and FT shooter? Really?

 

[IndyResident16]

That's a play we ran all the time in those last second situations and it's what I expected to happen if the receiving player wasn't fouled. Either way with that much time on the clock it was a win if the ball was in without a turnover. It's just playing the odds.

And having your best shooter inbounding the ball also alleviates a potential double team thus making it harder to get the ball in play. Had Smith been inbounding the ball, nobody would have paid attention to Smith and it would have been much harder to put the ball in the play.

Smith makes one FT worst that can happen is OT, makes both it's over. Miss the front end and it's still a halfcourt heave and a very low percentage shot. Give me those odds over a potential 5 second call or a turnover on your own end any day of the week.

 

[bdhman]

I was the OP on this one. Wasn’t trying to criticize Smith. Presumably he lined up where he was supposed to, was fouled, and tried to hit the free throws (but missed). My criticism was more about the head ball coach not designing the in-bound play to get the ball in the hands of one of your best players.

 

[IndyResident16]

I don't know any team at any level that doesn't inbound to their PG or another solid ballhandler/FT shooter, unless, as someone pointed out, the intent is to pass it right back to the inbounder after they step in.

Maybe that was the play all along and it simply wasn't executed? Had Smith been inbounding the ball over someone like Phinisee or Durham, you could be sure that nobody would have been paying attention to Smith inbounding the ball and there would have been a free defender either playing center field or double teaming Phin or Durham. It would have been much tougher to inbound the ball.

Notre Dame conceded the inbounds pass to Smith which worked in our favor. It eliminated a dead ball turnover (5 second call) or a live ball turnover under the basket which would have potentially given ND a much easier shot than a desperation heave from 50 feet.

 

[IndyResident16]

I was the OP on this one. Wasn’t trying to criticize Smith. Presumably he lined up where he was supposed to, was fouled, and tried to hit the free throws (but missed). My criticism was more about the head ball coach not designing the in-bound play to get the ball in the hands of one of your best players.

You don't think ND designed a defense to prevent IU's best free throw from getting the ball? Why try and force an inbounds pass with 3 seconds left? Inbound the ball (which is 90% the battle), play your percentages, and walk out with a win.

 

[bdhman]

Well, could be, but seems unique to me. Don’t recall top coaches doing this when they are up by 2 with 3+ seconds left. Make the inbound pass to your best shooters, hit at least on free throw, and you win.

 

[IndyResident16]

Well, could be, but seems unique to me. Don’t recall top coaches doing this when they are up by 2 with 3+ seconds left. Make the inbound pass to your best shooters, hit at least on free throw, and you win.

Ha.

Yes in a perfect world you want your best FT shooter taking the foul shots to end the game, but there's a reason why Smith was open and it's because Notre Dame wasn't going to allow Durham to get the ball.

It's a numbers game with 3 seconds left. Best case scenario Smith makes both and it's over. Worst case (which we saw) it's a rebound, 2 dribbles, and 50 foot heave which is about as low of a percentage shot as you're going to get. Can you imagine the outrage if Phinisee tried to force an inbounds pass to a well covered Durham and it led to a lay up or god forbid a 3 pointer? As opposed to inbounding the ball to a player wide open and forcing the other team to make a half court shot?

Every coach in America is going to tell you priority #1 when inbounding the ball under your own basket with 3 seconds left is just that, GETTING THE BALL INBOUNDED.

 

[Cutter1973]

Wrong. It's important to do both: inbound the ball and get it to a solid ballhandler and hopefully good FT shooter. I don't know any team at any level that doesn't inbound to their PG or another solid ballhandler/FT shooter, unless, as someone pointed out, the intent is to pass it right back to the inbounder after they step in. We're talking college players here. If they have any feel for the game at all, passing the ball in, with knowing the set and play, is important, but hardly a super high level skill. In retrospect it seems like the perfect job for Smith since he's a little taller to pass over smaller defenders, is an upperclassman and doesn't have to dribble or shoot a pressure FT. I can't tell if some of you have watched this little bball, or are just that eager to make excuses, or both? I think it's got to be more the latter. You really don't think it's important to inbound to a solid ballhandler and FT shooter? Really?

With 6 seconds or 12 seconds I agree with you. With 3 seconds the priority is just inbounding the ball.

 

[IndyResident16]

With 6 seconds or 12 seconds I agree with you. With 3 seconds the priority is just inbounding the ball.

Absolutely.

 

[snarlcakes]

Maybe that was the play all along and it simply wasn't executed? Had Smith been inbounding the ball over someone like Phinisee or Durham, you could be sure that nobody would have been paying attention to Smith inbounding the ball and there would have been a free defender either playing center field or double teaming Phin or Durham. It would have been much tougher to inbound the ball.

Notre Dame conceded the inbounds pass to Smith which worked in our favor. It eliminated a dead ball turnover (5 second call) or a live ball turnover under the basket which would have potentially given ND a much easier shot than a desperation heave from 50 feet.

I highly doubt the intent was to pass it back to Phin. Not enough time on the clock for that play and Phin was being guarded. I assume Archie’s biggest concern was getting the ball in and it’s why Phin was taking it out.

 

[minneman]

With 6 seconds or 12 seconds I agree with you. With 3 seconds the priority is just inbounding the ball.

It might even change if the other team still has a timeout left. Notre Dame did not. So just 3 seconds left and no timeout means just get the ball in as you say.

 

[IndyResident16]

I highly doubt the intent was to pass it back to Phin. Not enough time on the clock for that play and Phin was being guarded.

I'm sure there was a play drawn up somewhere, but when Notre Dame left Justin Smith wide open, all bets are off and you get the ball inbounded anyway you can without turning it over.

 

[cshartle123]

Well, could be, but seems unique to me. Don’t recall top coaches doing this when they are up by 2 with 3+ seconds left. Make the inbound pass to your best shooters, hit at least on free throw, and you win.

Back to my original point. Smith was asked to knock down some free throws to close the game for his team. He blew it. I hope this stings enough for him to get more engaged. His care level isn’t anywhere near his capability yet.

 

[snarlcakes]

I'm sure there was a play drawn up somewhere, but when Notre Dame left Justin Smith wide open, all bets are off and you get the ball inbounded anyway you can without turning it over.

I agree.

 

[T.M.P.]

His care level isn’t anywhere near his capability yet.

Huh? He's been our most consistent defender and the most vocal on that end. Care level?

 

[IndyResident16]

I agree.

Well if you agree, why was your very first post on this thread

It was a bad play call. Smith shouldn’t have been in the game or at the very least not in that spot. The defender did exactly what he should have done. Let him go get the ball. Luckily it didn’t hurt us.

 

[snarlcakes]

Well if you agree, why was your very first post on this thread

Lol...Thanks for always being insufferable. I was working off the premise that Smith was in the game because he was in the game.

 

[IndyResident16]

Lol...Thanks for always being insufferable. I was working off the premise that Smith was in the game because he was in the game.

LOL.

You don't think it was plausible that Smith's position on the court was for one of two reasons?

-sprint down the court taking his man with him and leaving that space open for another IU player to flash to that spot

-run across the formation and set a pick freeing up an IU player to cut to his previously occupied space

With the ND player playing off him, they were conceding the inbound pass. All 5 of the players on the court for IU have played high level basketball for nearly the entirety of their lives and they know if a team is going to concede an inbound pass with the lead under your own basket with 3 seconds left, you make that pass every single damn day of the week.

You're lying to yourself if you think the play call in the huddle was to go to Smith. These kids don't need their hands held.

 

[snarlcakes]

LOL.

You don't think it was plausible that Smith's position on the court was for one of two reasons?

-sprint down the court taking his man with him and leaving that space open for another IU player to flash to that spot

-run across the formation and set a pick freeing up an IU player to cut to his previously occupied space

With the ND player playing off him, they were conceding the inbound pass. All 5 of the players on the court for IU have played high level basketball for nearly the entirety of their lives and they know if a team is going to concede an inbound pass with the lead under your own basket with 3 seconds left, you make that pass every single damn day of the week.

You're lying to yourself if you think the play call in the huddle was to go to Smith. These kids don't need their hands held.

I never said the play call was for Smith. He did the right thing once his guy backed off of him. I only stated he shouldn’t have been in that spot.

 

[IndyResident16]

I never said the play call was for Smith. He did the right thing once his guy backed off of him. I only stated he shouldn’t have been in that spot.

Why? He was in that spot to either

a) sprint down the court taking his man with him
b) setting a screen to free up a man to occupy his previous spot

Tough to complain about getting a clean inbound pass under your own basket with the lead with 3 seconds left.

This forum never ceases to amaze me. Criticize the execution, but it's the outcome you want.

 

[snarlcakes]

Why?.

It’s a crazy theory, but I prefer getting the ball into your best ball handler and free throw shooter at the end of games. You can prefer getting it into the worst free throw shooter and continue making dozens of posts defending it.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

and you win.

We did.

 

[IndyResident16]

It’s a crazy theory, but I prefer getting the ball into your best ball handler and free throw shooter at the end of games. You can prefer getting it into the worst free throw shooter and continue making dozens of posts defending it.

Jesus you dumb shit. ND wasn't going to allow IU to get the ball into their best free threw shooter as evident by the way they lined up. Why do you think they were aligned the way they were. So rather than force the ball into your best free throw shooters hands under your own basket, inbound the ball and play your percentages, which is exactly what IU did. Had Phinisee forced the ball into Durham that resulted in a turnover all while Smith was wide open, we all know the stance you'd take.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

It’s a crazy theory, but I prefer getting the ball into your best ball handler and free throw shooter at the end of games. You can prefer getting it into the worst free throw shooter and continue making dozens of posts defending it.

Looks like almost everyone came around to agreeing that the top priority was to get the ball safely inbounds and doing so pretty much guaranteed a win - regardless of who got it. I think we’d prefer Steve Alford get the ball and knock down two free throws too, but he’s not eligible, but I have heard he can still nail free throws.

Bottom line for me is when the ball was safely inbounded I stopped sweating the win. Sure, a desperation heave goes in on occasion, but there’s a reason those are always on Sports Center - they very rarely happen.

Moving on to the next game.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Jesus you dumb shit. ND wasn't going to allow IU to get the ball into their best free threw shooter as evident by the way they lined up. Why do you think they were aligned the way they were. So rather than force the ball into your best free throw shooters hands under your own basket, inbound the ball and play your percentages, which is exactly what IU did. Had Phinisee forced the ball into Durham that resulted in a turnover all while Smith was wide open, we all know the stance you'd take.

The debate is over. Getting the ball safely inbounds was THE most important thing to do and it basically won the game.

 

[snarlcakes]

Jesus you dumb shit. ND wasn't going to allow IU to get the ball into their best free threw shooter as evident by the way they lined up. Why do you think they were aligned the way they were. So rather than force the ball into your best free throw shooters hands under your own basket, inbound the ball and play your percentages, which is exactly what IU did. Had Phinisee forced the ball into Durham that resulted in a turnover all while Smith was wide open, we all know the stance you'd take.

At least you continue to show you don’t watch the games or forget what happens. Durham’s man was standing behind him. I’m not sure if this take or your first one that they were trying to get the ball back to Phin with 3 seconds left was dumber.

 

[IndyResident16]

At least you continue to show you don’t watch the games or forget what happens. Durham’s man was standing behind him. I’m not sure if this take or your first one that they were trying to get the ball back to Phin with 3 seconds left was dumber.

Never said they were trying to get the ball back to Phinisee. Said it’s not uncommon for your best shooter to inbound the ball because depending on the defensive alignment it’s an easy pass back. It’s why when a team is being pressed the PG inbounds the ball on a make more times than not because the second pass goes right back to him. Same rules apply.

Thanks for proving that you’re not only illiterate but don’t know anything about basketball.

 

[kkott]

Looks like almost everyone came around to agreeing that the top priority was to get the ball safely inbounds and doing so pretty much guaranteed a win - regardless of who got it. I think we’d prefer Steve Alford get the ball and knock down two free throws too, but he’s not eligible, but I have heard he can still nail free throws.

Bottom line for me is when the ball was safely inbounded I stopped sweating the win. Sure, a desperation heave goes in on occasion, but there’s a reason those are always on Sports Center - they very rarely happen.

Moving on to the next game.

No, not everyone agreed... the same 2-3 folks reposted the same drivel repeatedly. It's not a make or break thing, but it's worth questioning. The same thing happened last year too, where RP inbounded to JS at the end of a close game. Watch other teams and see how many have their PG inbounds the ball in critical end of game situations. It isn't a common thing at all.

 

[IndyResident16]

No, not everyone agreed... the same 2-3 folks reposted the same drivel repeatedly. It's not a make or break thing, but it's worth questioning. The same thing happened last year too, where RP inbounded to JS at the end of a close game. Watch other teams and see how many have their PG inbounds the ball in critical end of game situations. It isn't a common thing at all.

Then you don’t watch enough basketball. Time and scenario dictate the situation, but when you have the lead and inbounding the ball under your own basket, priority 1,2, and 3 is getting the ball inbounded cleanly and you want your best passer/highest IQ player doing so.

You want a wager that if the score was tied or IU was trailing the inbounder would have been different? Common sense man.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

No, not everyone agreed... the same 2-3 folks reposted the same drivel repeatedly. It's not a make or break thing, but it's worth questioning. The same thing happened last year too, where RP inbounded to JS at the end of a close game. Watch other teams and see how many have their PG inbounds the ball in critical end of game situations. It isn't a common thing at all.

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.

 

[T.M.P.]

No, not everyone agreed... the same 2-3 folks reposted the same drivel repeatedly. It's not a make or break thing, but it's worth questioning. The same thing happened last year too, where RP inbounded to JS at the end of a close game. Watch other teams and see how many have their PG inbounds the ball in critical end of game situations. It isn't a common thing at all.

Huh? That's not true .. it may not be the norm, but it's not uncommon at all.

 

[kkott]

And having your best shooter inbounding the ball also alleviates a potential double team thus making it harder to get the ball in play. Had Smith been inbounding the ball, nobody would have paid attention to Smith and it would have been much harder to put the ball in the play.

Smith makes one FT worst that can happen is OT, makes both it's over. Miss the front end and it's still a halfcourt heave and a very low percentage shot. Give me those odds over a potential 5 second call or a turnover on your own end any day of the week.

So the only alternatives you can imagine aside from inbounding to JS are a 5 second call, or a TO? I don't care who inbounds the ball... it could be the "best" hands guy and decision maker of JS, RT, JH, etc... but it would be far more "typical" to be inbounding to a trio that should've included RP, DG and AD. It's like putting your "hands" team in when the other team is likely to onside kick. My concern is, this isn't the first time I've seen it happen and if you tempt fate often enough, eventually it will bite you. I don't think we need to be risking that when we have better shooters, ball handlers and decision makers available.

 

[IndyResident16]

So the only alternatives you can imagine aside from inbounding to JS are a 5 second call, or a TO? I don't care who inbounds the ball... it could be the "best" hands guy and decision maker of JS, RT, JH, etc... but it would be far more "typical" to be inbounding to a trio that should've included RP, DG and AD. It's like putting your "hands" team in when the other team is likely to onside kick. My concern is, this isn't the first time I've seen it happen and if you tempt fate often enough, eventually it will bite you. I don't think we need to be risking that when we have better shooters, ball handlers and decision makers available.

I will take a 63% foul shooter taking free throws 94 feet from my basket up 2 with 3 seconds left on the clock where the opposing team doesn’t have a TO over forcing a pass under my own basket into my best FT shooter who is being heavily guarded any day of the week.

You play your percentages and I’ll play mine. I’ll be coaching a lot longer than you.

 

[kkott]

Huh? That's not true .. it may not be the norm, but it's not uncommon at all.

I don't know where you'd find stats on it, but I think it's pretty unusual, especially if you take out plays where the intent is to get it back to the inbounder. I know it's rare enough that it catches my attention each time it happens. Maybe it's how I want to remember it, but my recollection of end of game situations for past great teams is getting the ball to guys like Quinn, Isiah, Coverdale, or Alford and I think it's a far better idea to be trying to inbound to RP, DG and AD.

 

[snarlcakes]

I will take a 63% foul shooter taking free throws 94 feet from my basket up 2 with 3 seconds left on the clock where the opposing team doesn’t have a TO over forcing a pass under my own basket into my best FT shooter who is being heavily guarded any day of the week.

You play your percentages and I’ll play mine. I’ll be coaching a lot longer than you.

Durham wasn't being heavily guarded. They were standing behind him. You are making sh#t up again.

 

[kkott]

I will take a 63% foul shooter taking free throws 94 feet from my basket up 2 with 3 seconds left on the clock where the opposing team doesn’t have a TO over forcing a pass under my own basket into my best FT shooter who is being heavily guarded any day of the week.

You play your percentages and I’ll play mine. I’ll be coaching a lot longer than you.

Who said anything about "forcing a pass"? That's your squirming to try and justify your point. I'm talking about having our 2-3 best ball-handlers coming off screens or cutting and misdirection to get them open. Everything you said about time and percentages is true and the odds only improve for IU if we have better shooters and ball handlers receiving the pass, and there are 3 on our roster. Sheesh, pick almost any close game and watch how other teams do it. Inbounding to your best ballhandlers and shooters isn't the Gordian Knot you are making it out to be.

 

[T.M.P.]

I don't know where you'd find stats on it, but I think it's pretty unusual, especially if you take out plays where the intent is to get it back to the inbounder. I know it's rare enough that it catches my attention each time it happens. Maybe it's how I want to remember it, but my recollection of end of game situations for past great teams is getting the ball to guys like Quinn, Isiah, Coverdale, or Alford and I think it's a far better idea to be trying to inbound to RP, DG and AD.

I don't really disagree with the gist of getting it into your best over ballhandler/ft shooter but shit happens, and there's another team out there trying to stop you from doing that. So, what if the other team has Quinn, Isiah or Alford locked up and unable to free up and the first person open is Smith and the count is at 3, do you wait hoping someone else gets open, and taking a chance at a 5 second call, or pass it to Smith?

Also, how do you guys know Miller didn't tell them to give it to someone else? Were you in the huddle or overhear the instructions? I mean everyone gets that the players are not puppets and the coach doesn't have strings to control every action, right? Not every bad play is a coaching mistake.

 

[snarlcakes]

I don't really disagree with the gist of getting it into your best over ballhandler/ft shooter but shit happens, and there's another team out there trying to stop you from doing that. So, what if the other team has Quinn, Isiah or Alford locked up and unable to free up and the first person open is Smith and the count is at 3, do you wait hoping someone else gets open, and taking a chance at a 5 second call, or pass it to Smith?

Also, how do you guys know Miller didn't tell them to give it to someone else? Were you in the huddle or overhear the instructions? I mean everyone gets that the players are not puppets and the coach doesn't have strings to control every action, right? Not every bad play is a coaching mistake.

I would hope a Kenpom nerd like yourself wouldn't disagree with getting it into your best ballhander/ft shooter. The debate was over who should be in the game and in what positions. You're arguing Quinn, Isiah, or Alford should be either on the bench or taking the ball out. We're arguing the opposite. No one is debating whether or not Smith should have went and got the ball,