I was watching game 5 of the Lakers/Suns western conference final in my NYC rent stabilized apartment which was an already über interesting game with when it happened...Ron Artest shot a 3 pointer instead of holding on to the ball and "milking" the clock. At the moment it happened as well as today I can't say whether or not the shot was wise, warranted, incorrect, or whatever, but I can say that the immediate visceral reaction was far too much. Bill Simmons tweeted out "Ron Artest!" over and over repeatedly to strengthen his already made up mind on Ron Artest. The commentators screamed about how awful the shot was, and Phil Jackson barked at Ron on the timeout (Jackson being upset is significantly more reasonable because he is the coach and conceivably could have given orders to not take the shot and approach the situation/circumstance a particular way had it presented itself). However, Jackson unquestionably did not remove him from the game. After all, he still has value despite his widely accepted "knuckle headed" decision.
Henry Abbot and his True Hoop blog were discovered by me about a month ago. I heard about it and read it randomly and infrequently, but not regularly and certainly not as intently as I now wish I had. He clearly laid out some of the things that I was thinking such as what if Artest had made the 3 as well as the truly infuriating assumption that not shooting the 3 would result in a win or a significantly higher chance of winning while not taking into account the million potential outcomes. Henry Abbot delved further into this and eloquently elaborated further below. I used most of his framework and descriptions below and added commentary below...
With about a minute left in Game 5 of the Western Conference finals Pau Gasol chased down an offensive rebound in the corner.
Steve Nash is loaded with veteran tricks. Gasol had his back turned. Nash resolved to get a steal by sneaking up behind to poke it away. It almost worked! But at the last instant, Gasol saw the approaching Canadian and whipped a pass to Ron Artest, who was just about to ignite a hailstorm of criticism.
Nash was now horribly out of position, still in the corner. Three Lakers -- Artest, Derek Fisher and Kobe Bryant -- were spread across the arc of the 3-point line, and every single one of them about as open as NBA players ever get.
Without a lot of analysis, the general thought is to burn clock in this situation. The Lakers have the lead, and would be smart to limit the number of times the Suns get the ball to try to change that.
But under no circumstances were the Lakers going to get an easier scoring opportunity over the remaining seconds of the game than this moment, and they were certain to need a bucket or two before the final buzzer to win.
Three NBA players empowered by their coaches to shoots 3s. No defense. You don't have to be an idiot to consider pulling that trigger. And this regular season Artest, believe it or not, was the best 3-point shooter of those three. He made 36% of his shots from downtown, compared to Fisher's 35% and Bryant's 33%.
So he shot it. The non progressive anti-statistics driven people unwilling to accept new information and adapt will disregard the statistics and point to situational statistics and intangibles which under no circumstance can be quantified, proven, or rationally argued.
Commentators were uniformly dumbfounded. Even though Artest would later win the game with an amazing and heroic play, this shot overshadowed all as the big topic of his post-game interview.
His poor judgment features prominently in all kinds of game coverage. Which seems a little unfair, for (three) reasons:
There are a thousand sins worse than taking a wide open jumper.
If anyone hurt his team with poor judgment on that play, you'd have to at least consider the possibility it may have been the out-of-position Nash. Artest had a 36% chance at making that shot. What chance did Nash have at getting the steal, 5%? Next, is a double teamed fading away from the basket tight to the baseline 23+ feet away from the basket a quality shot? Indeed, Kobe is the best player and you want him to take the final shot, but at what costs? Are all shots (both guarded, unguarded and varying distances) equal?
You can't prove burning clock leads to more wins.
That's the accepted dogma, but a lot of accepted dogma is wrong. How many truly wide open shots does an NBA team get in the playoffs? Can you afford to pass up any of them? I'm not saying I know the answer, but I am saying that there is way more tradition than evidence at work. What if a Nick Anderson situation emerges (clank clank!) a turnover, a poor decision, or a good defensive play, or merely a missed shot? All of which are significant reasonable outcomes.
Are they criticizing the decision to shoot, or the miss?
Shot selection is about decision-making before the shot goes up -- not whether it happens to come down in the basket or not. This player, that spot, these teammates, those defenders, that game plan, that many seconds on the clock ... that's what matters in judging if the decision to shoot was good or not.
But we the fans and the media have a sloppy habit in talking about shot selection, which is that if the ball happens to go in, it gets a free pass. (Find me examples of experts criticizing players for poor shot selection after makes. It's not easy.)
If Artest's shot had gone in, today the world would be praising his poise and killer instinct in icing the game, not unlike the adulation Northern Iowa's Ali Farokhmanesh received in this year's NCAA tournament for a similar decision. That's the shot Artest thought he was taking. And if it had gone in, everybody would have seen it his way. It's the argument of ballsy and gutsy v. dumb and undisciplined.
Farokhmanesh would have more than likely been called sophomoric, inexperienced, not ready for the big stage, the quintessential mid major player that lacks the big time intangibles, sensibilities, and etc. within Big East and ACC players.
Sportynation, it's about playing the result and not the action at the moment. It's about being fair and trying or at least pretending to be consistent. It's about not looking for information to strengthen our already established beliefs while discounting all other information.
This is my Minority Report.
