Please explain last play of the game?

[frankthetank966]

I was unable to watch the game on TV today and was following on my phone via Gamecast. All I saw in the play-by-play "Jamal crawford steals" with 7 secs. left in the game. Then "Wilson chandler blocks Josh Smith's layup." I understand Horford got the shot off after the buzzer but what the heck. How did Josh Smith miss a layup. Am I missing something?

[MaceCase]

Wilson Chandler destroyed him at the rim. Josh went up strong too with two hands but Wilson timed it and met him in a manner where I wouldn't of been surprised if they called a jump ball.

[frankthetank966]

Wilson Chandler destroyed him at the rim. Josh went up strong too with two hands but Wilson timed it and met him in a manner where I wouldn't of been surprised if they called a jump ball.

So did Jamal just have to chug the ball to him bc time was expiring? I still cannot believe smoove got blocked on a dunk. Thats unheard of.

[spotatl]

Crawford pushed the ball up the floor. Harrington went to help and Crawford dropped it to Josh right at the rim. It was a nice play and it looked like Josh was in a great position. Then Chandler came over and made a great block.

[DJlaysitup]

I was unable to watch the game on TV today and was following on my phone via Gamecast. All I saw in the play-by-play "Jamal crawford steals" with 7 secs. left in the game. Then "Wilson chandler blocks Josh Smith's layup." I understand Horford got the shot off after the buzzer but what the heck. How did Josh Smith miss a layup. Am I missing something?

First off the strategy was VERY questionable IMO. Woody chose to let them run time to where they didn't even have to shoot until there were like 3 seconds left. Had that happened and had there been a long rebound we would have been screwed anyway. In the postgame presser Woody was asked about that and became defensive. Luckily we got a steal. As far as the play at the rim, like CTC said, Smoove went up strong but the defender timed it perfectly and made the block. ish happens. Horford did all he could but was too late.

I really expected us to foul and extend the game. I guess you could argue either way.

[frankthetank966]

I had a feeling we were going to loose when I heard the guy from 680 the fan say "The hawks face the dreadful knicks tonight..." But he failed to mention the knicks had already beaten the hawks both times this yr.

[jhay610]

First off the strategy was VERY questionable IMO. Woody chose to let them run time to where they didn't even have to shoot until there were like 3 seconds left. Had that happened and had there been a long rebound we would have been screwed anyway. In the postgame presser Woody was asked about that and became defensive. Luckily we got a steal. As far as the play at the rim, like CTC said, Smoove went up strong but the defender timed it perfectly and made the block. ish happens. Horford did all he could but was too late.

I really expected us to foul and extend the game. I guess you could argue either way.

I don't see how you can really get around the fact that this was a tactical blunder from our head coach. If the Knickerbockers had an ounce of sense about them they would have ran the shot clock down to the wire and taken a shot which the Hawks would not have been able to control and get a timeout before 2 secs remained in the game at earliest. If you make the shot you are up 3 with about 3 secs left. If you miss and get a tip or an offensive rebound the game's over.

We should have fouled immediately. Woodson is not the sharpest knife in the drawer by any metric, but where he is glaringly deficient is in the management of tactical situations/strategy late in games. This is also, unfortunately, where the head coach will have the greatest impact on the outcome of a close game.

[spotatl]

I don't see how you can complain about Woodson not fouling considering how well it worked out. I did want a foul at the end but if Woodson thought that because the opposing team had a rookie PG that they didn't have to foul then it turns out he was right.

By not fouling the Hawks had a layup opportunity to win the game. If the Hawks don't foul I do think there would be plenty of opportunities to complain about it- I just find it funny that people would pick this one.

Edited March 9, 2010 by spotatl

[MrRyda]

To foul or not to foul was debateable, but it definitely worked out in our favor. Craw made the right choice goin to Smoove too. Wilson Chandler just made a great play on the block.

It shouldn't have come down to that though. We settled for way too many dumbass jumpshots in the last two minutes.

[jhay610]

I don't see how you can complain about Woodson not fouling considering how well it worked out. I did want a foul at the end but if Woodson thought that because the opposing team had a rookie PG that they didn't have to foul then it turns out he was right.

By not fouling the Hawks had a layup opportunity to win the game. If the Hawks don't foul I do think there would be plenty of opportunities to complain about it- I just find it funny that people would pick this one.

I have serious doubts as to whether Woody went through the thought process as you suggested above -- I just can't see him having the presence of mind to diagnose that the correct play would be to foul, but allow that the Knicks had a rookie PG who would more than likely make a mistake. If he decided not to foul as a result of that reasoning then I suppose I have underestimated him, but I highly doubt that is the case.

At any rate, I am less interested in the result, which was fantastic for us, than I am in the statistically correct play. For someone who has trumpeted the value of statistics in other threads, I think you can appreciate where I'm coming from here. I am more concerned that probably 8 out of 10 times (of course this is just conjecture on my part) the decision not to foul there blows up in your face. I would always, always prefer to dictate the outcome rather than hope for a grievous blunder from the opposing team.

[spotatl]

As I said- I would have fouled there. I was telling the TV that we had to foul there. But I just think when a coach makes a decision I disagree with then I can both say I disagreed with the decision and give the coach credit. I don't think that fouling is always going to work- i think it gives you a better percentage. But to me part of that is acknowledging that there is a percentage of the time when the other decision would have worked better.

[AHF]

As I said- I would have fouled there. I was telling the TV that we had to foul there. But I just think when a coach makes a decision I disagree with then I can both say I disagreed with the decision and give the coach credit. I don't think that fouling is always going to work- i think it gives you a better percentage. But to me part of that is acknowledging that there is a percentage of the time when the other decision would have worked better.

I liken Woodson's decision there to Josh Smith taking and making a critical three pointer.

I wouldn't have Josh shot the shot so I disagree with the decision but give him credit for making the shot. I just don't think the outcome determines whether or not it was a good decision - particularly when the outcome is outside of your control.