I'm really more questioning having RP inbounds the ball than I am JS receiving it. I can see him being a 3rd-4th option and you might have to get it to him, but as I said, this isn't the first time I've seen this and I think we can do more to insure we aren't the recipient of the Top 10 play that beats us at the end of a game.
End of game coaching
- Thread starter bdhman
- Start date
I'm really more questioning having RP inbounds the ball than I am JS receiving it. I can see him being a 3rd-4th option and you might have to get it to him, but as I said, this isn't the first time I've seen this and I think we can do more to insure we aren't the recipient of the Top 10 play that beats us at the end of a game.
What you don't get .. well there's a lot but in this situation you keep blaming the coach, like that's what he drew up, except you have no clue what he drew up or called, you don't know if someone was out of position, you don't know if Phin made a mistake. And, yet, you still speak.
I don't think anyone, with the possible exception of IndyResident is saying don't have your best players on the floor, although some of his justification did almost hint at that. It's just a question of who should be inbounding and to whom. I feel pretty comfortable of the coaching company I'm in saying get it to our best FT shooters and ball handlers.
If someone wasn't in the correct position, that's also on Archie. You're grasping at straws.
Last edited:
You’re inferring that was the play Archie drew up. It wasn’t. It’s more than likely there were 2 or 3 different plays drawn up depending of defensive alignment with the single caveat of getting the ball inbounds first and foremost. I don’t care if it’s Shaq, Justin Smith, or my 16 year old daughter, priority in that situation is to get the ball imbounded cleanly. If the other team is going to concede an inbound, you take it and play the percentages. I can count on one hand the amount of times I’ve seen a team lose on a missed free throw 94 feet from the basket with 3 seconds left.
Last edited:
That's fair. IndyResident is a loon and just enjoys arguing (I enjoy it as well). I do disagree with the placement of Smith. He's in the best position to get the ball.
Last edited:
With this team in that situation I can't think of anyone better to take the ball out. I think maybe the real question should be why was Smith on the floor in the first place instead of a better shooter and ball-handler? Probably because he wanted some experience out there. But who knows .
He’s a safety valve. I already explained why he was in the position he was in to begin with. To either sprint down the court taking his man with him leaving his previous space unoccupied for someone to flash or go screen for somebody to flash to his previous spot. With ND conceding the inbound, it simply came down to execution. Unfortunately Smith didn’t execute at the line, but even worse case scenarios left ND with less than a 1% chance to win.
Right? Who else would you want inbounding the ball under your own basket with a 2 point lead with 3 seconds to go??? Surely not you’re smartest player who also happens to be your best passer? The idiocy on this board never ceases to amaze me.
As opposed to being on Not Top 10 when anybody but you’re best passer turns the ball over on the inbounds pass? Why wouldn’t you have anybody but your best and smartest passer taking the ball out there in that situation? Don’t overthink this.
Last edited:
I appreciate your efforts to convince 2 basketball “experts” the nuances of out of bounds plays but they just want to ignore facts. It has been explained to them enough to understand it. Bottom line is that it was the right play because IU won the game.
Probably for his defense and rebounding abilities combined with his ability to do so without fouling. Plus experience, as you mention. I'd take him on the floor in that situation over Anderson, Hunter, Thompson, Brunk, or Davis. Maybe 4 guards plus TJD wasn't a lineup that Miller liked as far as getting the ball in or in the event of a missed FT. I believe Green was the one sitting on the bench that I would like to have seen in there over Smith.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Well, a couple of things coach.
First, the ball was under ND's basket. DEFINITELY don't want to turnover the ball there.
Second, the ND time out was before they inbound the ball under IU's basket with something like 15 seconds to go. No TO after the jump ball that gave IU possession, 3.9 seconds to go.
Al's man was behind him and he broke towards out basket. Maybe the play was for Smith to get him the ball on the break. I would think that if Al would have cut hard to the ball RP would have been able to cleanly get him the ball.
It all worked out for IU.
It's not that getting it a FT shooter isn't important, it's just MUCH less important than getting the ball in when there's only 3 seconds left. Even an 85% free throw shooter is only going to make both about 72% of the time. Smith will make both around 36% of the time.
But the ND half courter is, what, 5%? So, 36% of the 5% of the half-courters that go in will be negated by having the better free throw shooter at the line.
That's a 1.8 percent difference in outcomes. And that's with a generous estimate of 5% on that running, semi-contested half-courter. It's probably lower than that. If it's 2%, then the effect is only .7%
Was putting Smith up there the optimum result? No. Did it make a big difference? No. The team's odds of winning drop considerably more if they turn it over under ND's goal....probably by 20-30%
Would I prefer perfection there? Yes. Were they perfect? No. Did they prioritize the right aspect of the play? Yes, which was getting the ball in.
You are an idiot. Totally jackass approach to think it’s not a good idea to throw to a good ft shooter. STFU.
On the other hand, the play in the last few minutes coming out of time-out that got Jackson-Davis a dunk was outstanding.
LOL....another hack job who’s also illiterate. Where did I ever say it’s not a good idea to throw it to a good free throw shooter? I said inbounding the ball cleanly in that situation is priority #1 and you won’t find a coach in America who disagrees with me. Go bitch somewhere else.
Great post. You would have compare that to the probability of turning the ball over. And then how much does that change if Smith is taking the ball out? You also have to factor in Phin is more likely to get open than Smith (which is another reason why I prefer Rob to not take the ball out). Or what percentage of a difference does the turnover ratio need to be to justify it?
Last edited:
Novel concept, but I’m guessing having your highest BBIQ player who also serves as the teams best passer taking the ball out of bounds is the lowest probability of a turnover. The only way IU loses that game is by turning it over on the inbounds pass or ND hitting a 50 foot shot. Pretty obvious why Archie had his PG taking the ball out, to avoid a turnover.
I agree. There was no time out before that inbounds play and why would IU take their last time out only to let ND set up their D.
You can't see Archie but RP immediately stepped out to take the ball to throw it in. I would think it must have been a set play by the reactions of the players.
It's hard to imagine anyone being more likely to get open than Smith, given how wide open he was. But beyond that, our turnover rate is 18.6%. But, with so little time left they won't be able to organize. The rest of the math is tough, because you don't know where they turn it over. Throwing a jump ball up past half court might cause a scramble that ends up running out the clock. There' s much more uncertainty involved in that scenario. It seems silly to complain about a play that left IU as an overwhelming favorite to win.
I agree we’re screwing around on the margins and it’s not a big deal. I liked the math aspect of your post.
You don't have to be paid $3.5m/yr to know that Smith should have never been our Option A at the end of the ND game. When you execute your play exactly as your opponent hopes you do....you have to question your strategy.
My concern is that twice, (UConn and ND) we've had upper classmen at the line (Green, Smith) in the closing seconds with a chance to ice the game, and both times they've choked it up. Luckily we still won, but only because we were already leading and there was little time left on the clock. What if the game was tied? What if we were losing by 1 and needed that front end one-and-one? What if there were 10 seconds left on the clock (and not 2 or 3?) ? If we don't get the right guys at the line in these circumstances, we're going to lose a game or two that will cost us big time as we're trying to build our tourney resume.
My concern is that twice, (UConn and ND) we've had upper classmen at the line (Green, Smith) in the closing seconds with a chance to ice the game, and both times they've choked it up. Luckily we still won, but only because we were already leading and there was little time left on the clock. What if the game was tied? What if we were losing by 1 and needed that front end one-and-one? What if there were 10 seconds left on the clock (and not 2 or 3?) ? If we don't get the right guys at the line in these circumstances, we're going to lose a game or two that will cost us big time as we're trying to build our tourney resume.
You answered your own questions Chief. Time and situation dictate everything. Being up 2 as opposed to bring tied or down changes the scenario. With the lead, make the other team beat you, not yourself. Smith missing the front end of a 1 and 1 was absolute worst case scenario in that situation and IU was still had a 99% probability win rate because 2 dribbles and a 50 foot heave isn’t a recipe for success.
Then obviously a different playing is being called. With 3 seconds left a team rebounding off a missed free throw has enough time for 2 dribbles and a heave. With 10 seconds left, it’s more than enough time to grab a rebound a get off a good shot. But with 3 seconds left, the last thing you want is to beat yourself and turn it over under the other teams basket. Do you really think Archie doesn’t know this? Some of you people are astounding.
Inbounding the ball safely is always the top priority . . . No one would disagree with you because it’s not a matter of debate for anyone but you. The nuanced point being made that those of you who never played and have rarely watched is that well coached teams make sure that the ball goes into the hands of reliable ball handlers and good free throw shooters. That didn’t happen, and IU was left exposed when Smith missed the front end and gave ND a chance to get the ball back down the floor. Their odds were small but they still were left with an opportunity, primarily and overwhelmingly because IU failed to execute. Not sure why this continues to be a struggle for some of you, other than it satisfies your need to argue and defend.
When your top priority is to inbound the ball safely and a team is conceding a safe inbound pass with 3 seconds left......YOU TAKE IT AND PLAY YOUR PERCENTAGES. Good coaches and players play to their odds and that’s exactly what IU did. It’s only nuanced because people will do anything on here to bitch and moan about anything. If Justin Smith executes, there’s ZERO bitching to be done.
I played 3 seasons of varsity high basketball for a head coach who was there 34 years and won 4 state championships. Even way back then, we practiced these situations. Our objectives were to 1) in-bound the ball to our best free throw shooters (not just inbounding, but to the right guys), and 2) call time out if needed (assuming we had a TO left). My Coach never designed an in-bound play that put the ball in the hands of our weakest shooters. Glad it worked for IU, but would love to hear Archie break this one down for us.
Wife and I are headed to Jacksonville for the Gator Bowl. Go Hoosiers!
You’re assuming that Justin Smith getting the ball was option A, B, and C. It’s more than plausible that Archie had a play(s) called depending on ND’s alignment. It’s very likely that Archie put the ball in the hands of Phinisee, the teams smartest player and best passer, to make a decision based on the defensive alignment that ensured getting the ball in safely. With ND literally conceding an inbound pass, it became a no-brainer decision.
You play the percentages best by making sure that whoever receives the inbound pass is both a good ball handler and a good free throw shooter. That’s how you play the percentages. Not sure this continues to be so difficult for you to understand, other than you never played and have rarely watched. Saying it’s a matter of “having plays called” confirms that you don’t really have any insight.
There’s no ball-handling that needs to be done in that scenario jackass. The defending team is fouling IMMEDIATELY after the ball is inbounded. You get the ball inbounds any way you can, hope your player executes at the line, and worst case if he doesn’t, the opposing team gets 2 dribbles and 60 foot heave. If it goes in? Darn, tip your cap.
Thanks once again for demonstrating your complete lack of awareness to situational basketball.
no but if you're looking for a recipe for success, getting the ball into your best FT shooter's hands, and having them nail 2 FTs to go up 4 points with 3 seconds left....I prefer those odds. At some point this year, we won't be up 2 with only 3 seconds, and will need to get the ball into our best FT shooter's hands....so why we didn't run that play on Saturday is difficult to understand.
not worth beating it into the ground. We won the game.
3 seconds left and possibly no timeouts for ND was the only reason this was successful. Normally that is a low BB IQ play, to inbound to the worst FT shooter on the floor, knowing that he will immediately be fouled. I am really surprised ND did not have a long pass plsy set up for that type of game situation. And ND has some good 3pt shooters.
Last edited:
Look, in a scenario where there 6+ seconds left and the other team has enough time to rebound, get the ball across half court, and get off a decent look, you bet I want a play drawn up that gets my best FT shooter the ball.
In a scenario like Saturday, where with even a missed front end of a one and one only nets a 60 foot shot and a prayer, I want the ball safely inbounded first and foremost, which is exactly what happened. I’m not opposed to getting the ball to the best FT shooter in that scenario, but like I’ve said numerous times in this thread, I’m content with safely inbounding the ball even if it is to Justin Smith and forcing ND to beat you with a 60 foot Hail Mary in the event the FT(s) are missed as opposed to inbounding the ball to a player the opposing team is keying on, especially under the opposing teams basket. The probability of scenario 1 working out in your favor is much greater than scenario 2.
Agreed most importantly
You need to watch more basketball then bc players hit game winning half court shots way more often then that
Every post you make proves you don’t have any idea about this stuff, and it’s obvious you never played and have watched very little. The fact that a poor free throw shooter was a primary target for the inbounds pass shows that the execution was flawed. As for ball handling, you always need someone who can either pass or dribble out of trouble. But ball handling first and foremost is securing the pass. This is basic stuff that you don’t understand. It’s how you’re coached in those situations, and it’s always practiced. That’s why not calling timeout shouldn’t impact the play on the floor. Again, you don’t know any better for a reason, which is why you continue to look so lost in this thread. Please tap out.
Similar threads
