So in spite of the scads and scads of statistical evidence that overwhelmingly support one line of thinking against another, we're still supposed to toss in a "but, hey, that's just my opinion " caveat just because you think us too haughty? Get over yourself. And I suppose you would also rail against a football columnist who dared criticize the strategy of going for a single extra point with 10 seconds left in a game that a team is down two points? After all, Mr. Writer, you never know, things could work out in some fashion after going for one point. After all, how many football teams have you coached, genius? I've got news for you. This guy deserves to speak in black and white terms. He puts the work in. He works his ass off in a field where 98 percent of his colleagues decide to take it easy. If you don't like it, you're fine to read a Marc Stein or Kenny Smith piece about "killer instinct" and "the will to win." I, myself, like to learn new things. I like to question my beliefs. I like to work at this stuff. As far as Hayes goes, I was nervous about the substitution (not because I'm rooting for either team, but just because I like to see both squads at their best) because he had only played in the final possession of the third quarter in that second half. But I trust his footwork. But that's for bigs (or, in Chuck's case, 6-6 guys who play the big positions) only, with the rare exception of Lindsey Hunter (as Hollinger mentioned). Far too many times I've seen cat-quick guards with defensive reputations (guys like Randy Brown, Earl Watson) get plucked off the bench for end-game possessions after a long rest, and fail to stay in front of their guy. It's one thing to come in cold and play center or big forward. It's another to guard a point man. One other thought. The fans that obsess over who picks whom and in how many games before a series even starts are usually the ones who only deign to glance at the 1-to-5 star designation at the top of a movie/music/book review, and read nothing else.
The whims of the referee should have no bearing on strategy. Hayes moved his feet, squared his shoulders, and met the guard while in position. No slight on Yao, but I don't know if he would have been able to recover and do the same. And the "ex-post" stuff is nonsense. All year Hollinger has pointed out plays where the right decision has turned into an unlucky result for the team that made the smart call. If Hayes had been called for a block, that column is still in place. We don't do this to look good. Clarifying my take on the block/charge thing ... There shouldn't have been a call, in either direction. Hayes played it perfectly, but he flopped, and Roy had nothing to do with him falling to the ground. No block, no charge. I don't blame Chuck for doing what he did, it's just the way the game runs these days, and that saddens me. I miss the days when big men contested shots.
Why is fouling necessarily better than playing solid defense? By fouling you're extending the game and the number of possessions, so if your "clutch" free throw shooters are the likes of Aaron Brooks and bricks the shots, then they're only down 2 or even 1 for their last possession shot, which is obviously much more dangerous than if they were down 3.
To sum it up, the strategy of subbing Hayes in was clearly the correct one, especially given that the Blazers went small, making speed and quickness more important than height on defence. However, let's not get too much credit for Rick Adelman for this strategy because 1) it is a very obvious one, even a dummy lik us fellow forum lurkers would know and do if we were coaches, and 2) JVG had done it repeatedly in the years before when Juwan Howard was with us (sadly he doesn't have Luis Scola with him because otherwise we would definitely have beaten UTAH in 07, and which also make the subbing pattern moot because sometimes JVG also has Hayes on offense in late games). *** The other decision mentioned by Hollinger, the one about defending when down by 3 but with no timeouts left by Portland, seem more interesting. The OP failed to post part of the post by Hollinger, but even with the full post, the conclusion by Hollinger seem inconclusive at best about which is the correct strategy at that situation. Personally, I liked that Adelman covered two of their most dangerous 3 point shooters in Brandon Roy and Fernandez quite well that Portland was relegated to their fourth option(behind Blake) in Travis Outlaw. I am leaning to think what we did was correct because of the time on the clock. With 10 seconds left, it is unwise to foul a guy that early, especially when he had no intention of dribbling.
Frankly, the whole writing sounds like sports writer who doesn't get paid enough syndrome. You are free to take Hollinger's words as gospel, or hug his nuts. I will continue to laugh at him calling others "kindergarten" while himself doesn't offer much ground-shaking wisdom and churning up useless odds analysis all the time. Hubie stated on TV, that different coaches have different situational approach to this and himself doesn't like to foul. I guess John feel Hubie is so kindergarten also. Hey, at least he is well paid enough for his odds thing that he won't be arguing with me on a sports board. I also got news for you: this is a sports bbs, where conformity of opinion isn't required, paid writer or not. Prick (that's for you calling prat. fitting) PS: feel free to put me on ignore list if your blood pressure can't help to get high seeing my posts. Isn't that easy enough?
Kelly, I'm a big fan of your writing, but I watched that play 4 or 5 times and your statement is absolute (with all due respect) bull****. Hayes was there in time, his feet were planted, he was outside of the circle, and Roy plowed into him. A textbook charge. Sure, Battier looked like he would have blocked the shot attempt anyway (who knows how that might have gone with the refs), but that was a charge. A great play by the Chuckster. Hell, Roy admitted that Hayes was there in time. What more do you want? The God of Basketball giving his blessing?
I agree he didn't flop there. Flopping is where Przybilla just falls over. Roy jumped went into a 6-6 foot guy at full speed. I'm pretty sure if you were Hayes you would have fallen over. You can say one thing about the Rockets but they don't flop, they take the charges hard.
I'm with Deckard here. Roy hit Chuck really hard and would have knocked over almost all forwards. The only reason that he might have stayed on his feet was that he's Chuck Hayes and has the ridiculous strength that comes with being Chuck Hayes. If he had, the call *might* have gone differently. Unfortunately, an offensive player that runs into a stronger defensive player and bounces off is never called for a charge, so even if Chuck could have remained on his feet (which I think is debatable), he shouldn't have. Side note: Fantastic write-ups in your blog for the playoffs. It's been great.
I think his main issue is that he just doesn't like how the charge has become such a large part of the NBA. I've seen many people, including JVG, express that view. I can see where he's coming from. It is sort of "cheap" for a defender to slide in when the offensive player has little to no chance to change his direction due to momentum and take that hit. I'm not sure how the league would take it out of the game, though. As it stands, it's a smart defensive play that players should make use of. And the rules don't state that the contact should force a player to the floor for it to be an offensive foul. Did Chuck flop? Probably, he's a strong dude. That doesn't mean it wasn't a charge though.
Just curious, who do you like reading? Because if you interpret Hollinger's articles this way, you must interpret them all like that...Hollinger's articles are as benign as they come. Or is your beef just because he didn't pick Houston in the series? Did he kick your dog?
So, if a writer for a sports website of national prominence [Hollinger] considers his "useless odds analysis"-backed observations to be occasionally superior to those of a first-year NBA coach, he's obviously a self-aggrandizing jerk. Imperious in his ivory tower, that national writer is too loaded with Disney bucks and PER diem to care what his perceived lessers believe. How dare he criticize? He's never even held a clipboard! But if a writer for a rival publication [Dwyer], through the magic of the interwebs, actually does engage and personally respond to your criticisms, that makes him a hack so poor and embittered by his life's station that he'll do anything to prove his point. That national writer will, get this, even stoop to mixing it up with commoners on a message board, just to justify his argument! Which is it? Are sports columnists for national publications out-of-touch Rockefellers, demigods who hurl their lightning bolts of wisdom from on high, or are sports columnists for national publications check-bouncing, thin-skinned losers who care only what others think, lashing out when challenged? BTW, other than your interpretation of his tone, you still haven't addressed what you consider incorrect in Hollinger's original article. Of course, that's because his rather benign strategic points are correct, and evidenced by what actually occurred in the games cited (e.g., better rebounders rebound better). You tacitly admit this when you write that Hollinger only states what is already "out in the open, known by everyone who actually cares." Assuming you care, or watch the games themselves, you'd know he's right. It's not a matter of "conformity of opinion." It's a case of supporting a correct one. Hollinger and Dwyer are the anti-Blineburys; you don't have to agree with them, but that's reason enough not to fling mud in their directions. I agree, Hayes was hit, his feet were outside the line (itself a completely arbitrary and NBA-only distinction), but I'm guessing in a streetfight, Hayes doesn't fall down there. It was the correct call, but clearly it advantaged Hayes to go down to force the issue. If the defensive player doesn't go down, it's more likely to be called a foul in the other direction. That's how it's officiated, but it's not basketball. But Scola doesn't flop? To a lesser extent, Battier doesn't flop? We aren't watching the same games. Both fall down rather easily on the defensive end, usually when they appear to already have position. I like watching Scola & Battier because their games are so cerebral; flopping is their downside. It is, unfortunately, the smart thing to do, and part of today's NBA. What I liked most about Game 4 was that a few obvious flops by both teams weren't called, leaving the game 5-on-4 for a bit. Next year they should institute technical fouls for flopping.
I agree there shouldn't have been a call on that play, but I couldn't say Chuck flopped. We clearly need to play a more complete game tonight if we want to win. We can't expect that kind of call again.
oh cute, fling mud? I don't know what you are talking about, nor do I have enough time to care. I've largely put my position on the issue, if you care enough to read in stead of jump in. I'd say though, if you have this doctrine of "correctness" based on some vague stats...what can I say...Chuck flopped? anyway, I'll just ignore.
For short, I read all, any of them when I actually read those, when they are well written - including Hollinger's.
The way I look at it, it is only fair to have more charges in today's NBA because quick offensive players are unproportionally benefited from today's NBA rules, such as no hand checking and those tacky touch fouls that the likes of dwade are getting. So it is only fair that the interior defense is allowed more leeway to counter what had been lost in the perimeter defence. Now before we argue whether such changes is fair, one thing we have to admit is that having more freedom to drive does make the game more entertaining and appealing to a greater number of audiences, because quickness and athleticism often yield to dunks and amazing plays. But what about charges? Do they make the game more exciting? Some might prefer a block. I think a block is absolutely more amazing than a charge. No question about it. But if we got a guy, such as the uber undersized chuck Hayes, who cannot make a block in situations when a guy is driving at him, then the more amazing defensive play is a charge. That's why I don't see a problem with the NBA allowing more charges as long as they are no flops.
durvasa, I simply disagree. If Chuck could have remained on his feet, highly unlikely, IMO, Roy might have gotten the call and he also might have been hurt (we have to assume that Chuck is indestructable). If Chuck had managed that (staying on his feet. again, I don't see how he could) it would still have been a legal charge, even if the call had gone the other way, and people (possibly Kelly included) would have been screaming bloody murder that it was a freakin' charge. And I don't see what's cheap about it. Remember Yao funneling Roy into Brooks, who took the charge? Roy knocked the crap out of Brooks. Was that cheap? I thought it was a damn fine play. How in the heck is a legit charge "cheap?" It's either a charge or it isn't. Heck, frequently legit charges are called blocking fouls. Honestly, I can't see how this is even remotely an issue. Drawing a charge has been around as long as I can remember.
Completely agreed, Doc Rivers is such an overrated coach and even the defense the Celtics have and he gets credit for is from Tom Thibodeau and the tremendous job he's done. The man was screaming at Rajon Rondo for taking the last shot at the end of the first overtime on Sunday, yeah the same guy that got you 25 points 11 rebounds and 11 assists along with 1 TO the ENTIRE game...ridiculous
