Good Win But Terrible Last Possession In Regulation

[bonefish1]

That action for SS is about a good a shot as possible for him, Frazier just blew it up (either from a missed screen or just fighting over the screens). There's nothing wrong with going to the hot hand to win the game and that was SS yesterday. Ivey wasn't hitting at all yesterday so I have no problem going to a second option.

Again, it's a tie game and you have the last possession. You don't need a 3, you need a 1.
I don't care if Steph Curry is shooting. At best, shooting a 3 is a 50% shot. Add in the fact that SS isn't going to be able to create separation and now, it's about a 15% shot.

You give the ball to your best playmaker and tell him to go get you a bucket or get fouled. It's not even up for question.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

CMP admitted in the post game it was a terrible call on his part. It was a bad play. We all knew it at the time. Coach knows. We're ok.

 

[PurdueDave]

Again, it's a tie game and you have the last possession. You don't need a 3, you need a 1.
I don't care if Steph Curry is shooting. At best, shooting a 3 is a 50% shot. Add in the fact that SS isn't going to be able to create separation and now, it's about a 15% shot.

You give the ball to your best playmaker and tell him to go get you a bucket or get fouled. It's not even up for question.

Sometimes coaches outsmart themselves thinking to use the star as a decoy. If it works, he's a genius. If it fails, he's labeled an idiot. Nothing to get all worked up about.

 

[POTFHBTFU]

But why run that with SS instead of Ivey? SS isn’t going to shake his man and get a good look in that scenario.

Ivey slipped when setting the screen

 

[Chi-Boiler]

Again, it's a tie game and you have the last possession. You don't need a 3, you need a 1.
I don't care if Steph Curry is shooting. At best, shooting a 3 is a 50% shot. Add in the fact that SS isn't going to be able to create separation and now, it's about a 15% shot.

You give the ball to your best playmaker and tell him to go get you a bucket or get fouled. It's not even up for question.

I often go back and forth on these end of tie game situations. I think part of the fear for coaches is giving up a turnover if you try to get the ball down low. There is less risk of losing the game if you keep it on the outside and shoot a jumper. It's like you're playing with house money with the downside being OT. It doesn't seem to make much sense otherwise, like you say.

 

[bonefish1]

Sometimes coaches outsmart themselves thinking to use the star as a decoy. If it works, he's a genius. If it fails, he's labeled an idiot. Nothing to get all worked up about.

What's funny is that I posted the question at halftime yesterday "Why doesn't Painter ever call a TO at the end of the half to set up a play?"

This is exactly the reason you take advantage of those opportunities at the half. Set something up and see if it works. It's just a good opportunity to work on something against a real defense.

 

[bonefish1]

I often go back and forth on these end of tie game situations. I think part of the fear for coaches is giving up a turnover if you try to get the ball down low. There is less risk of losing the game if you keep it on the outside and shoot a jumper. It's like you're playing with house money with the downside being OT. It doesn't seem to make much sense otherwise, like you say.

Agree. Setting up for a jumper is just a low % play. The best and most high % play is to give the ball to your playmaker, send him to the rim and have your bigs crash the boards to clean up a put back.

 

[PurdueDave]

What's funny is that I posted the question at halftime yesterday "Why doesn't Painter ever call a TO at the end of the half to set up a play?"

This is exactly the reason you take advantage of those opportunities at the half. Set something up and see if it works. It's just a good opportunity to work on something against a real defense.

I don't disagree. It would be an interesting study to see how often they succeed in end of half/game scenarios. I remember JI being successful once. Williams a few times, others zero

 

[Chi-Boiler]

What's funny is that I posted the question at halftime yesterday "Why doesn't Painter ever call a TO at the end of the half to set up a play?"

This is exactly the reason you take advantage of those opportunities at the half. Set something up and see if it works. It's just a good opportunity to work on something against a real defense.

I think often times he does if he hasn't used one so far in the half.

 

[Jbigler1986]

I'm a little stuck on why Jaden settled for a three. Purdue was in the bonus and he only had 1 really flaky FT that went in. You can say 4/10 times he hits the 3, but if the ref doesn't swallow his whistle...I like careful penetration...possible foul...close shot....potential rebound. Course, Ill figured he would drive as well and so we don't know the best choice, but I probably lean to careful probing under control for the shot or kick...

Purdue played a good game, but we all can see with a little improvement and the same fight the boilers can be pretty good.

Yeah but then you take the chance of an offensive foul. Ivey like to get out of control and puts himself in bad spots alot.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Sometimes coaches outsmart themselves thinking to use the star as a decoy. If it works, he's a genius. If it fails, he's labeled an idiot. Nothing to get all worked up about.

 

[Hausta01]

Again, it's a tie game and you have the last possession. You don't need a 3, you need a 1.
I don't care if Steph Curry is shooting. At best, shooting a 3 is a 50% shot. Add in the fact that SS isn't going to be able to create separation and now, it's about a 15% shot.

You give the ball to your best playmaker and tell him to go get you a bucket or get fouled. It's not even up for question.

That's assuming the best playmaker has a better chance of scoring than getting your best shooter an open look.

I often go back and forth on these end of tie game situations. I think part of the fear for coaches is giving up a turnover if you try to get the ball down low. There is less risk of losing the game if you keep it on the outside and shoot a jumper. It's like you're playing with house money with the downside being OT. It doesn't seem to make much sense otherwise, like you say.

A lot of those situations coaches play the "extend the game" card rather than try to win.

 

[bonefish1]

That's assuming the best playmaker has a better chance of scoring than getting your best shooter an open look.

A lot of those situations coaches play the "extend the game" card rather than try to win.

Wait....what? Are you saying a coach with the ball on the last possession of a tie game is looking to extend the game by not drawing up the best offensive play possible?
Please clarify.

 

[POTFHBTFU]

Sasha is a 40%+ shooter and that was one of the better looks he had all game. Also there was enough time for Edey to put it up if he wasn’t fouled. Or Edey and Sasha get ca foul callZ. I would say we had better than a 50/50 chance we win that In regulation. And I’m not sure we have that odds if we force it inside or worse yet there’s not a turnover going the other way for the loss. I still think it’s a moot point since the plan was likely SS was supposed to hit Edey if he was open.

 

[KenTre1983]

It is and always has been about execution. There are advantages to 10 seconds and 12 seconds, but 2 seconds is not what blows up a set in the huddle. Had Sasha had 2 more seconds to go...he wasn't going anywhere. Actually the end of reg and both ends of OT could have been much better. I'm more interested in why Purdue didn't try to deny Curbello (sp?) the ball to eat another 5 seconds or so towards the end of both reg and OT.

Exactly. The offensive possession at the end of reg wasn't nearly as bad as the last two defensive stands during regulation. Boilers gave Curbelo whatever he wanted, and he took it.

 

[tjreese]

Exactly. The offensive possession at the end of reg wasn't nearly as bad as the last two defensive stands during regulation. Boilers gave Curbelo whatever he wanted, and he took it.

It wasn't so much that Curbelo wanted it and took it...that shouldn't be a surprise unless FRazier took it first. Where I'm a little befuddled is with Curbelo after a couple of buckets and with DAvis (Wisc) towards the end of the game, could...should Purdue have put for effort to deny the ball to either? With time on clock being an issue...does ball denial at least reduce the clock?

 

[Aamesker]

It wasn't so much that Curbelo wanted it and took it...that shouldn't be a surprise unless FRazier took it first. Where I'm a little befuddled is with Curbelo after a couple of buckets and with DAvis (Wisc) towards the end of the game, could...should Purdue have put for effort to deny the ball to either? With time on clock being an issue...does ball denial at least reduce the clock?

We don't have someone that can play ball denial and then have the size/speed to recover when they get beat

 

[Hausta01]

We don't have someone that can play ball denial and then have the size/speed to recover when they get beat

We need Ray Davis on this team.

 

[tjreese]

We don't have someone that can play ball denial and then have the size/speed to recover when they get beat

you mean like allowing easy access to the ball and scoring at will like what happened with Davis AND Curbello?

What you are trying to do is reduce teh clock. The player is going to get the ball eventually, but did you reduce clock? If the player gets the ball in a different location...to get to where he wants , does that eat more clock? Hunter could have denied long enough to have been a plus and maybe had Ill quickly decide to make a play anyway.

It's not like you are going to deny for 30 seconds. Hunter, Isaiah and Jaden are all quick enough to make it difficult for a few seconds and then to settle into normal D once he gets it. This is an end of game thing...not the whole game or most of the game...

 

[tjreese]

We need Ray Davis on this team.

and we know that Ray is not as quick as Hunter, Isaiah and jaden. You know who they want to get the ball to. YOU know where he wants to go...you just put forth the effort for a few seconds...

Every single player on Purdue has went through ball denial drills before coming to Purdue. Just a few seconds may be enough?