Strategic Blunder by Sampson

[MI Sooner]

I made this point at the end of the game thread last night, and the only person who responded disagreed, so I'm interested to hear what others think.

I think playing for the last shot when you're losing is a bad, bad, move. If you look for an early shot and it's not there, it's fine to wait. But to intentionally wait dribble out the clock near half-court is nuts. Granted, they shot with enough time to get the put-back, which was smart. I'd happily risk having to play defense for a couple of seconds (given you score), for the chance to foul and get the ball back (if you miss). Besides, shooting with enough time to get a rebound (4 seconds left) means you're going to give the other team the last shot anyway. And 3-4 seconds is often enough time for your opponent to get a good look at the basket or even an easy shot.

Sampson's move is analogous to a football coaching taking a knee three times and kicking a 45 yard field goal on the last play when the team is losing by 1.

Of course, if it's a tie game, playing for the last shot makes complete sense.

[MojoRisen]

I think it is OK- as long as you leave enough time to get the put back and foul if you have too- I think having control is sometimes the better situation - looks like they got a good ISO and rolled to the basket and got the tip- It was a good set up & play.

[TopDawg]

I think calling it a strategic blunder is a bit much. It's a gamble, no doubt, but a strategic blunder? It's a strategy that pays off quite often for many coaches.

[stoopified]

The problem with taking a shot even a made one with sinifigant time (10+ seconds) on the clock is the other team has the ball and time to take winning shot.In that event my approach is unorthodox( some say crazy)I say foul immediately and assure yourself of a final shot.My final word is I would rather have the final shot to win then give the final shot to the other team .Last night we almost left TOO much time for TT.

[Snyder Cyclone]

I tend to agree with you MI Sooner. It's hard to tolerate someone standing there dribbling, running the clock down, with the remaining 4 players standing around, then make a final drive to the bucket, shooting , most often, a pressured shot. It worked out last night, but most times, it does not.

[NUSooner]

I'm not sure you need to shoot right away, but I think you need to at least work for a good shot and take one when it's availible. OU didn't really seem to do that, as Everett put up his second wild, game-winning or tying attempt in as many games. Luckily we have two offensive boards in those two games. I see some merits to waiting for a few seconds, but I don't think that time should be spent dribbling. Although, this is one of those times I'll defer to those being paid to make the decisions...it worked, and I'd rather be second-guessing a winning play than a losing one.

[crawfish]

Are you saying you'd want to put the game in Jackson's hands?

The way he's been playing lately, I didn't like giving him the four seconds.

[NickZeppelin]

You don't want to give Jackson more then 5 seconds. OSU gave Jackson like 10 seconds and look what he did with it.

[tnraider1]

I have had simliar thoughts when watching close games like this one, and sometimes I would agree with you. In this case however, Tech's shooters were hot, they were on like a 20-10 run to finish the game. I'll give Sampson credit for not wanting to put the ball back in their hands. If the same play had taken place, but we gave them 20 seconds to work with instead of 4, we probably lose this game. You take your chances when you hold for the last shot, but at least you are in control of the ending. If you give the other team the ball with time to set up a play, you put the game in their hands. Just my 2 cents.

[MojoRisen]

Have you guys watched the replay? We did an ISO, and our two forwards rolled back to the basket with/out a body on them- it was an excellent play- TE's job is to get it up on the rim- if it goes in great- if not we had two people in position to win the game. At least get the rebound and get fouled putting it back up. We happened to tip it in with 4+ seconds.

I'll bust Kelvins XO strategy on plenty of otherthings but I believe that was a well executed play..

[bigdsooner]

it is a play used by coaches at all levels. it worked to perfection yesterday. especially being on the road you want to take away as much momentum as you can, nothing takes that away like the last shot...or put back :D

[BoomerJack]

I think calling it a strategic blunder is a bit much. It's a gamble, no doubt, but a strategic blunder? It's a strategy that pays off quite often for many coaches.

If Tech had come back down court and scored another basket at the buzzer it would have been a blunder.:D You're right. It was proper strategery that paid off.

As kind of follow up to this, why didn't Bob Knight call timeout after Bookout's tip-in to set up some kind of play?

[ouflak]

Did he have a timeout?

[lubbocksooner]

I am in the same camp as MojoRisen. I post my thoughts in the game thread. Basically, to let Terrel run the clock down like that since we had a bunch of turnovers and everyone else crash the boards when their defenders come off them to help on the drive. We rebounded much better than we handled the ball. A calculated risk that payed off but could have went the other way. Sometimes you just have to rool the dice.

[soonerlaw]

I too, thought it was a bit of a gamble. Our guys weren't shooting particularly well late in the game, and then Gray went out, and had it not been the delicate hands of the biggest guy out there, we would have come away with a loss. But at the same time, I guess that is why KS is paid the big bucks.

[Jay C. Upchurch]

It was obviously the right strategy .... OU won the game.

There are different ways to play it in the final seconds, but if you call a play and it works — how can it be wrong?

[OUthunder]

I'm no basketball expert but I liked the call in that situation. However, the players execution left a lot to be desired IMHO! We have two of the best big men in college basketball and we fail to utilize them IMO. The ball should have gone inside at some point because our guard play is not good enough for them to dribble, penetrate, and hit a fall away jumper with a few ticks on the clock on a consistant basis.

Good call, poor execution, thank goodness our big men crashed the boards or we have another heartbreaking loss on the road last night.

[NUSooner]

It was obviously the right strategy .... OU won the game.

There are different ways to play it in the final seconds, but if you call a play and it works — how can it be wrong?

Well, I don't think anyone is complaining about the outcome, and I don't think it was a terrible decision either. However, theoretically, it could have been the winning, but wrong strategy...such as in a poker game where a person goes all-in with a 7 and 2 in hand versus 2 Aces. Sure, he made the wrong call, but he could win some percentage of the time...wrong strategy but the winning hand. It's possible to win with a poor strategy based on luck alone and not percentages.

[King Crimson]

you want to take the ball to the rim for a couple reasons:

1. a missed shot from the perimeter often produces a long rebound--which takes time off the clock to reverse back towards the hoop (provided you get the board, in the first place).
2. Everett might get fouled on the drive (which KS said he wanted him to do--take it to the hole--on the post-game show): we are in the double bonus, down 1.
3. or: as happened you seal off somebody and get a soft board and putback (also a potential foul situation).

in general, to the original question, i think on the road you'd rather control your own destiny.

[jdsooner]

If we didn't do it to them; they would have done the same thing to us. TT would have worked down the clock for a last shot if we had put it up too early. I agree with a drive to the basket, hoping for the foul call.

And Jackson got away with a shove on his last shot. We were fortunate that TT missed their last two shots.

[ouflak]

Well I've just watched a replay of this game, replaying the final play about twenty times. I think we had a very designed play there at the end. If you get a chance to see it, you'll notice we set up a 3-man blockout wall right underneath the rim just as Everett's shot goes up. The Tech guys found themselves totally out of position for the rebound en masse. Nicely executed.

After seeing this whole game again, I have to say that they really just let us get was too many rebounds.

[Jay C. Upchurch]

Well, I don't think anyone is complaining about the outcome, and I don't think it was a terrible decision either. However, theoretically, it could have been the winning, but wrong strategy...such as in a poker game where a person goes all-in with a 7 and 2 in hand versus 2 Aces. Sure, he made the wrong call, but he could win some percentage of the time...wrong strategy but the winning hand. It's possible to win with a poor strategy based on luck alone and not percentages.

I suppose a team could fluke off and win a game with the wrong strategy, but I'd have to say 95 percent of the time you run out onto the court with the wrong strategy or an ill-conceived game plan, you are going to fail.

[John Kochtoston]

It was the right call for the aforementioned putback and foul possibilities, plus, if Terrell misses and TTech gets the board, there is still time for OU to foul. TTech could only get up by three from the line if TE misses and a RRaider grabs the rebound, then gets fouled. OU would have had about four seconds to set up a three-point play, which isn't a lot if you have to go the length of the court, but it allows you to put up more than a prayer.
Glad it didn't come to that, though.

[NUSooner]

I suppose a team could fluke off and win a game with the wrong strategy, but I'd have to say 95 percent of the time you run out onto the court with the wrong strategy or an ill-conceived game plan, you are going to fail.

Agreed, at least if talent is even...I was just saying that it's not necessarily the right thing to do because it worked. In the end, it was a good strategy because he had a solid play made up and he thought he could get at least two shots out of it with little time for Tech to get one (turned out to be true). That being said, I don't think we'd be complaining if he took a quick shot either.

[NUSooner]

I suppose a team could fluke off and win a game with the wrong strategy, but I'd have to say 95 percent of the time you run out onto the court with the wrong strategy or an ill-conceived game plan, you are going to fail.

Agreed, at least if talent is even...I was just saying that it's not necessarily the right thing to do because it worked. In the end, it was a good strategy because he had a solid play made up and he thought he could get at least two shots out of it with little time for Tech to get one (turned out to be true). That being said, I don't think we'd be complaining if he took a quick shot either.

[MI Sooner]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is a mathematical answer to this question. It's based on the probabilities of OU and TTU scoring in the situations presented in the various scenarios. I don't claim to know the probabilities, but as the chance of OU or TTU scoring goes up, so does the benefit of holding for the last shot. The best strategy is the one that maximizes your chance of winning.

In football, kneeling is a better way to run out the clock than handing off. It doesn't mean 95% of the time you hand off, you're going to fumble, the other team will recover, they'll score, and you'll lose. It means that 99.99% percent of the time taking a knee works, and 99.44% percent of the time handing off works.

[SoonerDood]

high-risk, high reward strategy that paid off. "Blunder" is Waaaaaaayyyyy off base.

[NormanPride]

Are we still on this? I thought we won? :confused:

[GrapevineSooner]

Put it this way,

I have no problem with the play that was called because of the wealth of benefits that it offered:

1. Terrell hits the bucket
2. Terrell gets fouled.
3. Our big men are able to sneak into position to tip it in (which is what happened).
4. As John Kochtoston (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/member.php?u=44842) mentions, even if Tech gets the board, we foul them with about 5 seconds left giving us time to draw up a play for a game tying or game winning three.

[Blitzkrieg]

This is like the obligatory "I hate the prevent defense" thread in football.

Coaches earn their living playing percentages, and it was the right play.

[Blitzkrieg]

It doesn't mean 95% of the time you hand off, you're going to fumble, the other team will recover, they'll score, and you'll lose. It means that 99.99% percent of the time taking a knee works, and 99.44% percent of the time handing off works.

Unless you were 2005 OU in September, then it was 100% you'd fumble the handoff.

[soonerbub]

Have you guys watched the replay? We did an ISO, and our two forwards rolled back to the basket with/out a body on them- it was an excellent play- TE's job is to get it up on the rim- if it goes in great- if not we had two people in position to win the game. At least get the rebound and get fouled putting it back up. We happened to tip it in with 4+ seconds.

I'll bust Kelvins XO strategy on plenty of otherthings but I believe that was a well executed play..


Nailed it. Whatever we do from here on out is up to TE and Taj for the most part--so buckle up ;)

If we play CU again or someone similar in March I hope we will go zone and choke the lane. Mike Neal gets in too many mismatches with a tall swingman and has to score 25 to cover his D. Starting from here on if TE can have 4:1 dishes to apples and we continue to dominate the boards (again something we didn't do against the buffs) I expect a Sweet 16--it'll be a fun ride either way.

Meanwhile Sherri's squad can cut down the nets if Court and Leah can stay out of foul trouble--16-0 deserves a #1 seed I think.

[MI Sooner]

Just to clarify, my criticism of Sampson (at least in this thread) wasn't based on the play that was called, but based on the fact that we dribbled out the clock unnecessarily before running the play.

Again, to draw an analogy to football...

Calling a QB sneak on 3rd and goal with one second left might be the right play call, but I'd rather run it with 10 seconds left, and either have a second crack at it or have to defend for 10 seconds. Granted, it's a lot easier to stop a team for 10 seconds in football than basketball.

Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, that chick who chashed snowboarding and blew the gold lands her hot-dog move. Those 99 times it wasn't "good strategy." It's always a bad idea, whether it costs her or not.

I'm dropping it now. I try not to reflexively place blame after losses or dole out kudos after a win. That said, we did win. Fair or not, winning means Sampson isn't a goat, Gute isn't remembered as the guy who blew the Baylor game, and Jean Van de Velde is remembered as a Brittish Open Champ.

Wait, oops... maybe he shouldn't have pulled out driver.

[MojoRisen]

Well, you can only run so many plays- That is why people watch films and tendencies- it is a chess match- maybe they had 5 alterations they could have run in that situation and practice it- I am sure there are several different approaches that are good ones- it is hard to argue when it works. we all know that- as well your opinion didn't bother me.

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

The old baseball cardinal rule is to play for a tie at home and play for a win on the road. It is a little more flexible in basketball but in a 1-point game with the ball it probably fits. There have been some games where I've been more confortable getting a lead asap and then leaving it to the defense. My thinking in the TT game is if they had any more time then they did they would have either had a real good look or we would have been whistled for a foul.

They play itself was executed perfectly. It almost certainly worked for the better that Everett missed the shot.

[ouflak]

Just to clarify, my criticism of Sampson (at least in this thread) wasn't based on the play that was called, but based on the fact that we dribbled out the clock unnecessarily before running the play.

Again, to draw an analogy to football...

Calling a QB sneak on 3rd and goal with one second left might be the right play call, but I'd rather run it with 10 seconds left, and either have a second crack at it or have to defend for 10 seconds. Granted, it's a lot easier to stop a team for 10 seconds in football than basketball.


This isn't a valid analogy, and not even a really clear one. For one thing, in football (trying to make sense of your comparison) you've either got the ball 3rd and goal with one second left or you've got it 3rd and goal with ten seconds left. These are two very, very different situations. And neither of them really apply as there is no real chance for the opposing team to score if you give them the opportunity to get back on offense.

I think a better analogy would be that of a team that has got itself a first down and is in winning-field-goal position with just about two minutes left (no timeouts for the opponent). They can either decide to run out the clock and kick it with no time left, or they can go ahead and try and boot the thing through therefore hoping to defend well enough to win, perhaps even getting the ball back again later if things go badly on defense.

It's not an easy decision. Winning coaching will tend to make the right one, but it's up to the players to execute. You have to consider how the game has gone up to that point, and even consider what the trends in recent moments have been taking place.



Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, that chick who chashed snowboarding and blew the gold lands her hot-dog move. Those 99 times it wasn't "good strategy." It's always a bad idea, whether it costs her or not.


I'm not sure why you bring this event up. Are you saying that Ninety-nine times out of a hundred Sampson, or any basketball coach, would fail making the same call he did in this game? I disagree. I disagree completely. We'd been outrebounding them the entire game. We obviously had a set play meant to snare a rebound that particular possesion, which probably increased our already very good chance of getting yet another offensive board to add onto the pile. And even though we had been outscored in those last 5-6 minutes, we were hitting our free throws in the closing moments leading up to that play. Also their talented gaurd, who was already a scoring threat, suddenly caught on fire; NOT somebody you want to give time enough to set up and continue to execute what he's been doing to you.

I think about 70+ times out of a hundred, no matter what coach makes that call, it's the right call given the circumstances leading up to that situation.

[Blitzkrieg]

Samspon also told Terrell in the last timeout no jumpshots, drive to the hoop for either a soft rebound or a foul. Thats was playing the odds to perfection.

[OUTrumpet]

worked OK for Villanova last night too.

[NUSooner]

I think a better analogy would be that of a team that has got itself a first down and is in winning-field-goal position with just about two minutes left (no timeouts for the opponent). They can either decide to run out the clock and kick it with no time left, or they can go ahead and try and boot the thing through therefore hoping to defend well enough to win, perhaps even getting the ball back again later if things go badly on defense.

Well, maybe its somewhat similar if you have all three timeouts left, but not really. In basketball if you miss you can foul immediately, put the team at the line, and worst case scenario is you're down by three points and you can tie the game with a three. In football, you miss the field goal, you have to stop them from getting a first down or you lose...there is no automatic second-try that you would get in a basketball game. So, in football you would try for the last-second almost no matter what so that you don't have to stop them (because in either case in football you do, whereas in basketball, you either get the lead and make the stop or don't get it and just auto-foul).

[Soonerus]

I was out of state but unless I missed something, HE WON THE FRICKEN GAME...no win for Sampson with some of you guys....

[NUSooner]

I was out of state but unless I missed something, HE WON THE FRICKEN GAME...no win for Sampson with some of you guys....

jeez, I don't really think anyone is upset, I know I'm sure happy we won the game. I think many of us realize that it was a great play and it worked out as well. I also think that having a bit of basketball strategy discussion is pretty cool as well.

[Frozen Sooner]

Amazing.

There is not a single coach in basketball that would have done it any other way (other than possibly calling a different play.) Philosophically, that was exactly what Phil Jackson, Pat Riley, Roy Williams, Larry Brown, hell-Dr. NAISMITH, would have done.

You NEVER try to leave time on the clock for the other team to score. Never.

I've even seen basketball coaches call for the foul on a particularly hot-shooting team in that situation-reason being it gives you more time to go down and score and the guy still has to make free throws.

[birddog]

Bottom line is you HAVE to score no matter what. Whatever the defense gives you, take advantage. Whether it is 5 seconds or 10 seconds. You penetrate, then exploit how you see fit. Certainly you leave yourself enough time to get a rebound and a putback, or a foul. Don't analyze the hell outta this fellas. SAMPSON IS A GOOD COACH. You guys coach D1 basketball? And I don't mean Baylor.

[ouflak]

I think a better analogy would be that of a team that has got itself a first down and is in winning-field-goal position with just about two minutes left (no timeouts for the opponent). They can either decide to run out the clock and kick it with no time left, or they can go ahead and try and boot the thing through therefore hoping to defend well enough to win, perhaps even getting the ball back again later if things go badly on defense.

Well, maybe its somewhat similar if you have all three timeouts left, but not really. In basketball if you miss you can foul immediately, put the team at the line, and worst case scenario is you're down by three points and you can tie the game with a three. In football, you miss the field goal, you have to stop them from getting a first down or you lose...there is no automatic second-try that you would get in a basketball game. So, in football you would try for the last-second almost no matter what so that you don't have to stop them (because in either case in football you do, whereas in basketball, you either get the lead and make the stop or don't get it and just auto-foul).

Whatever. I mean I certainly think my analogy is way better than the one put forth by the OP. There just really isn't a good comparison as football and baskeball are two very different sports.



And I don't mean Baylor.

I think even the coach at Baylor would have called exactly this play and probably won with it considering Tech's rebounding woes this season.