re: The shot by Gordon was fine

It basically comes down to whether or not you want one shot to win/tie or two.

I'd prefer two.

quote:

---

This is silly. Results over process.

---

I often tell people that the right call and the one that works are not always the same thing in sports, so I agree with your premise here.

quote:

---

They worked a good shot. If he hits it, this post turns into "Great coaching to wait for the last shot so Curry has no time left." If they had gone early and he makes it "Fire Monty. They went too early and Curry had enough time to get off a shot to win." Or if they rush a shot and they miss "Fire Monty. Why did they rush the shot?"

Both taking a quick shot or waiting for the last one are valid strategies here. It's not an either/or proposition. The critique is only because he missed and they lost.

---

The problem with your argument is that you have proved yourself wrong based on your premise. The correct strategy would have been to run a set and take the first best look available. The plan of waiting until the shot clock runs down to make something happen and get an open look is a poor strategy.

First off, you may not get a quality look in that short amount of time. Secondly, you are only giving yourself one chance at a winning shot instead of multiple if needed.

Like your premise states, even if this strategy would have worked and the Pels would have won the game, it would still not be the best strategy to utilize.

They should have taken the first quality open look they got. If it goes in...great you have a lead and now have to defend. If not, you give yourself a chance to extend the game and another chance to win or oven tie.