0.4, do you go for it or not?

[StoopsBros]

.4 on the clock...Do you attempt the full court pass and miracle or just settle for OT?

 

[Krugerfan52]

Yes, I go for it because you never know when somebody is going to foul you like we almost did when they went for their tip.

 

[OUhoops11]

Yes, considering Blair and Fitz both had 4, we were on the road, and we have a young team.

 

[colston15]

.4 on the clock...Do you attempt the full court pass and miracle or just settle for OT?

It was a matter of execution, not strategy. It wasn't on Capel.

 

[CMSOONER]

Yes, just keep the ball in play and don't launch it OB.

 

[red recluse]

i can imagine all the threads praising capel about playing to win even though isu won the game on a tip-in.

 

[Seymore Cox]

I've always wondered, what if someone just attempts to shoot it from the inbounds and hope that it bounces off the rim and someone might get a shot at it.

 

[sooner333]

I said No, mainly because that was a dumb idea. If there is a way to not risk throwing it all the way to the baseline and still try to get a shot up, then I'm for winning that way. But there is too much risk of having nobody touch it.

I think by doing the play we ran, Iowa State had a greater chance of winning in regulation than OU did...not good odds.

 

[qwertyqaz]

You absolutely do. Low risk/extremely high reward. We had MAJOR foul trouble that we had to take into OT. And there's always the chance they foul.

Of course, Caderade flubbed it--but if that same thing happens next game you do it again.

 

[StoopsBros]

It was a matter of execution, not strategy. It wasn't on Capel.

I agree with this. It was the right idea but maybe the wrong guys or the guys just failed badly. Your chances of performing a full court miracle are less than 1% but you have to give yourself that chance. In most cases (unlike tonight), there's really not much downside.

 

[sooner333]

You absolutely do. Low risk/extremely high reward. We had MAJOR foul trouble that we had to take into OT. And there's always the chance they foul.

Of course, Caderade flubbed it--but if that same thing happens next game you do it again.

I don't see how it's low risk. You are throwing the ball the entire length of the court. A lot can go wrong. Then, when it does go wrong, you are risking a much easier play for ISU (they did get a look at the win). I agree it's high reward though.

 

[Sid]

.4 on the clock...Do you attempt the full court pass and miracle or just settle for OT?

From half court? lol The question is did Capable remind Cade not to throw the ball outta bounds? As a senior, Cade should have known better.

 

[qwertyqaz]

I don't see how it's low risk. You are throwing the ball the entire length of the court. A lot can go wrong. Then, when it does go wrong, you are risking a much easier play for ISU (they did get a look at the win). I agree it's high reward though.

I hear you...the reason it's low risk in THIS situation is because of the amount of time that was on the clock. Another half a second and it's a whole different evaluation.

And you're right that if something goes wrong it can go VERY wrong--the point is that the risk of that in this situation was relatively low (not NO risk, LOW risk).

(and of course, there's the "high reward" part)

 

[colston15]

Oh for God's sake, just enjoy the win. Cade threw it out of bounds.

Unless you specifically thought before the play that he might throw it out of bounds, you're only criticizing the decision after the fact.

 

[Dem Coltz]

You absolutely do. Low risk/extremely high reward. We had MAJOR foul trouble that we had to take into OT. And there's always the chance they foul.

Of course, Caderade flubbed it--but if that same thing happens next game you do it again.

Low risk? Extremely high reward? Absolutely not, especially not taking the ball out from the other end of the court. A long pass would be necessary to have any chance. The risk of something like what happened tonight where a deep throw goes out of bounds is 1,000,000 times higher than the chance we somehow score. The refs on the road weren't going to give us anything even if something did happen. 0.4 seconds by the book means you can catch and release almost immediately. No time for a dribble, no time to turn more than 90 degrees. Everyone remembers the shot by Fisher against the Spurs, but that was within the same half court, he caught it going toward the basket - he caught, turned and shot at the same time and barely got it off. If we chucked the ball, someone would have to jump to catch it and they wouldn't even have time to come down, they'd have to either throw it over their head or catch sideways and chuck it sideways during the same jump. Heck, 0.4 seconds isn't even long enough to throw it for a guy to shoot it from 85 feet because you'd have to generate power to make the distance and there's not time to bend your knees and shoot.

You will never see a team win off a shot with 0.4 seconds left going the length of the court. This comes down to playing to win the game, which includes not taking ridiculous risks and putting yourself in situations where you can lose.

 

[Dem Coltz]

Oh for God's sake, just enjoy the win. Cade threw it out of bounds.

Unless you specifically thought before the play that he might throw it out of bounds, you're only criticizing the decision after the fact.

What's the difference if we're criticizing the decision after the fact or if before the play we thought the risks outweighed the rewards? Is there something wrong with criticizing after the fact? Should I have called Capel and told him not to run that play? We just fans, we have no control over anything that happens in games. So all we can do is give opinions about what should be done or think critically after the fact. There are other threads on this board celebrating the win. This thread is for discussion of basketball strategy.

 

[CMSOONER]

Should have had Blair inbound the ball and throw a full court oop to Cam.

 

[colston15]

What's the difference if we're criticizing the decision after the fact or if before the play we thought the risks outweighed the rewards? Is there something wrong with criticizing after the fact? Should I have called Capel and told him not to run that play? We just fans, we have no control over anything that happens in games. So all we can do is give opinions about what should be done or think critically after the fact. There are other threads on this board celebrating the win. This thread is for discussion of basketball strategy.

What risk is there?!?!?!?! The only thing that could go wrong, did. So what? If we're in the situation again I hope we throw it down the floor again, just with better execution.

 

[colston15]

Should have had Blair inbound the ball and throw a full court oop to Cam.

That's not a bad idea. He would have at least hit the glass. He hits the glass more than Cam's hands on alley-oops.

 

[okienole3]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I[/ame]