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

[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. 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.