Nebraska 64, Illinois 63 POSTGAME

[VTIllini]

Personally, I’ve always favored the strategy of fouling when up by 2 with more than 5 seconds on the clock. The one thing you want to take off the table is losing on a last shot and effectively having no ability to respond. By fouling (in a valid, hard attempt to get the ball), you can take that off the table and give yourself the opportunity (assuming enough time to inbound and get a reasonable shot, hence, the 5 seconds or more) of winning on a last second shot. At worst, even assuming the other team makes the free throws, the game ends in a tie. (As the saying goes, “What have you got to lose ?”) Of course, the other team could make the first free throw, rebound a second miss and have a put back — but what are the percentages of that ? Particularly such percentages as opposed to the percentages of stopping the other team from making a 3-point shot ? Just how rare is it for a team to make a 3-point shot these days in the waning seconds of a game or a half ? Haven’t we seen several of those the last week or so ? Added to that is just what such a shot by the other team does to your team; it literally knocks the stuffing out of them. (Not to mention the fact that a team is hesitant to vigorously defend the basket in the fear of giving up a traditional 3-point play.)

So, we didn't foul and opted to play defense — how did that work out ? Did we have the final chance (with little or no pressure of losing in regulation) to win the game ?

Where were you when I needed you, Primate?? I caved prematurely.

 

[Gunner23]

+1. There was WAY too much standing and dribbling and then Frazier having to play hero ball as the shot clock wound down.

I think that we need a new thread to debate the definition of "hero ball". That term gets thrown around on here all the time (and usually in a negative manner). What does it mean? It seems that most folks on here feel that "hero ball" is any play that a player tries to make a play by on his own, regardless of circumstance. I'm not sure that is an accurate definition of "hero ball". Sometimes circumstances require a play to be made. My observation on this forum is that "hero ball" occurs if a player tries to make a play and fails, but if that same exact situation occurs earlier/later in the game, and the player scores, it is a "great play", not "hero ball". Confusing...

For example, TF dribbles around as the shot clock winds down, spots up, and hits a 3 over some dude. Response: TF is "for real", etc.

Next example, TF dribbles around, has to drive into the lane as the shot clock winds down, misses the layup and no foul is called. Response: TF is playing "hero ball".

Now, "what if time"... What if TF misses the shot in example #1? Was that "hero ball" just because he missed? What if TF makes the layup in example #2 (maybe gets an "and 1")? Is that now a great play?

I don't think that "hero ball" should be defined based on the result of the play, but many folks on here throw that term around after the results of a play are known.

I want players to make plays that help our team. Demetri McCamey had to make a ton of plays at the end of the shot clock under BW. I didn't think that he was playing "hero ball". He needed to make a play at that time, or just what? Hand the ball over to the opponent?

I know that "hero ball" exists. I admit that I may not have any clue what is the "true" definition of "hero ball". One thing that I do believe is that this team, this year, does not have an issue with "hero ball". I love Malcolm Hill (my 16 year old Daughter's favorite Illini basketball player of all time) but, let me ask you this. Did he play "hero ball" or did he try to make plays for his team because plays needed to be made? (I would argue that he did both).

Sorry to be so off topic at such a late hour but, as I stated earlier, I don't know if I really know/understand the definition of "hero ball"...

Maybe those of you that are way smarter than me could educate me on this topic.

 

[ChiefIllini]

I don't think that "hero ball" should be defined based on the result of the play, but many folks on here throw that term around after the results of a play are known.

To me hero ball is isn't on a single player (most of the time). Last years team was a great example of this. Basically everyone stood around while Malcolm dribbled for 15 secs+. That was not entirely on Malcolm, in fact most of the blame is on the coach and other 4 guys on the court. Hero ball is forcing a guy to dribble around hoping for some sort of opening, or you just have to get a shot off once the clock runs down.

There have been a lot more plays where this is happening since Frazier's explosion. It's not a good trend, but every team plays like this at points. I think it needs to be cut down more, but we've actually got set plays working at times this year, unlike ever under Groce.

 

[illini62707]

I get the biggest kick out of some posters. Pointing out coaching errors makes you a hater. Way to extrapolate to the highest degree. I'm as much for Underwood and the team as anybody else. Frazier, was guarding somebody else then picked up Palmer around the 3 point line and Black DID NOT help out. Frazier, should have been on Palmer at least around half court and tried to deny ball. Who do you think Nebraska wanted to get the ball to? The guy who was doing the scoring for Nebraska. And the illini let him come down court with no pressure. Down screen, no help, Frazier did a good job of trying to defend. Too late. Coaching mistake.

 

[Innocent Primate]

I just want to make my position clear. (Which I didn't in my original posts.) My comments (supporting fouling when up by 2 with 5 or more seconds left) weren’t intended as a criticism of our end-of-game strategy against Nebraska. In fact, I assume the vast majority of coaches (heck, maybe all of them) would not agree with and wouldn’t employ such strategy. It is simply my own personal view that such strategy gives the team that employs it an advantage. Moreover, it allows the team employing such strategy to control the outcome as opposed to the other way around. In addition, it seems to me that it signals confidence in your team and takes much of the pressure off them — foul them, even if the foul shots are made we get the ball and come down and score and win. In the unlikely event we don't score, we win in overtime.

 

[JFGsCoffeeMug]

I just want to make my position clear. (Which I didn't in my original posts.) My comments (supporting fouling when up by 2 with 5 or more seconds left) weren’t intended as a criticism of our end-of-game strategy against Nebraska. In fact, I assume the vast majority of coaches (heck, maybe all of them) would not agree with and wouldn’t employ such strategy. It is simply my own personal view that such strategy gives the team that employs it an advantage. Moreover, it allows the team employing such strategy to control the outcome as opposed to the other way around. In addition, it seems to me that it signals confidence in your team and takes much of the pressure off them — foul them, even if the foul shots are made we get the ball and come down and score and win. In the unlikely event we don't score, we win in overtime.

You are doing the other team a favor by giving them the opportunity to shoot FTs to tie the game. It's easier to hit two FTs than to go all the way down the court, under time pressure, and make a shot to tie or win. Giving your opponent exactly what they would want in a game situation is not a winning strategy. It didn't work out for us in this particular instance. That doesn't necessarily mean it was the wrong decision at the time.

 

[PtownIllini8]

Nebby scored 24 pts off of 16 IL turnovers. To me that's the entire story of the game. Cut down on your dumb mistakes and you start winning some games.

I agree. Plus it's not just TOs, they happen. It's the really bad TOs, especially out top that lead directly to points on the other end. Young kids are going to make those kid of plays, unfortunately. But fortunately, all these freshmen playing this year will be sophomores ext year and we only lose Alstork and bring in a top PG in Ayo. The future is bright.

 

[illini62707]

Well, TALKTOCHUCK, that's how you win games, by paying attention to every detail, which you call critical. Having somebody right on Palmer isn't overly critical it's the obvious. And if you call a leaning 3 pointer a trick shot then I got a good idea who I'm talking to.

 

[ILLINI IN NE]

Well, TALKTOCHUCK, that's how you win games, by paying attention to every detail, which you call critical. Having somebody right on Palmer isn't overly critical it's the obvious. And if you call a leaning 3 pointer a trick shot then I got a good idea who I'm talking to.

Palmer made a low percentage shot, probably makes it 25% of the time and I think that's generous. So we win the game 3 out of 4 times. I take those odds every time.


And why are you so sure it was Underwood who made a bad call on the last play, you weren't in the huddle before the last play. Could have been a player/players that didn't execute what he wanted.

 

[TCTORNADO]

That last play brings up another debate, do you guard the man throwing the ball in?? I've always been of the school that yes you do and you use your biggest guy. We did not guard the inbounder.

 

[The Dave]

Sorry to be so off topic at such a late hour but, as I stated earlier, I don't know if I really know/understand the definition of "hero ball"...

Maybe those of you that are way smarter than me could educate me on this topic.

Sure, I'll educate you .

Everyone may have a different definition, but this is mine...When you're running the offense and the shot clock runs down and you have to throw up a less than ideal shot (regardless of it going in or not) I do NOT consider that "hero ball". That's a player being thrown in to a bad situation and hopefully making the best of it. You hit it often enough and you're "clutch" (that can be our next debate ).

When someone (TF in this case) stands up beyond the 3-point arc and dribbles the ball for 10 to 15 to 20 seconds and then drives the lane with 4 to go and throws up a shot, THAT is "hero ball" and I do mean it in a negative context.

I saw that scenario a number of times and it gave me the distinct impression that TF didn't trust his team mates to handle the ball, or catch, or be able to complete a pass, or whatever. It seemed like he felt he HAD to do it himself. MH was that guy last year.

 

[icengineer]

When someone (TF in this case) stands up beyond the 3-point arc and dribbles the ball for 10 to 15 to 20 seconds and then drives the lane with 4 to go and throws up a shot, THAT is "hero ball" and I do mean it in a negative context.

I saw that scenario a number of times and it gave me the distinct impression that TF didn't trust his team mates to handle the ball, or catch, or be able to complete a pass, or whatever. It seemed like he felt he HAD to do it himself. MH was that guy last year.

In fairness to Trent Frazier, there has been only one other consistent threat to score on this team in that situation, Leron Black. So if you want to call that Hero Ball, go for it. When one of our only two reliable threats to score takes it upon himself to make a basket, I can't really argue against it. I hate that it is that way, but it is what it is.

I'd like to see a two man game, Frazier and Black, be started at about the 10 second mark. I feel like at least we'd get a higher percentage shot. If either, or both, are guarded, there is certainly enough time to get the ball to someone open on the 3 point line for a wide open look.

 

[PlayAZ]

In fairness to Trent Frazier, there has been only one other consistent threat to score on this team in that situation, Leron Black. So if you want to call that Hero Ball, go for it. When one of our only two reliable threats to score takes it upon himself to make a basket, I can't really argue against it. I hate that it is that way, but it is what it is.

I'd like to see a two man game, Frazier and Black, be started at about the 10 second mark. I feel like at least we'd get a higher percentage shot. If either, or both, are guarded, there is certainly enough time to get the ball to someone open on the 3 point line for a wide open look.

Agree but they would have to "go" about 15 seconds...Leron seems to dwell on his move and or lack of kicking it back out at times (ALL), to get it all in/in 10 sec.

 

[yeahyeahyeah]

Oh no, we are getting a kick out of you coach. There were 5 players on the court and Palmer made a trick shot to win. Listen huncho - you can not defend against trick shots, if all 5 dudes would have guarded Palmer then they would have had a layup. Your comments are off-base and ludicrous.

Your viewpoint is over critical and off base but not as insane as the poster claiming to foul and put Nebraska on the line. I just want you to wait for real coaching errors before you point them out.

As others said, the result didn't work but the strategy and coaching was sound.

It might be defendable but when you make them have to take a "leaner" jump shot, which is probably not a form regularly practiced, then you've reduced the % of probability considerably. To demand that NO shot be taken, well, that's just nuts.

 

[yeahyeahyeah]

Agree but they would have to "go" about 15 seconds...Leron seems to dwell on his move and or lack of kicking it back out at times (ALL), to get it all in/in 10 sec.

Leron needs time to create good shot, but it's a high percentage shot, fwiw

 

[PlayAZ]

Leron needs time to create good shot, but it's a high percentage shot, fwiw

Yes they are usually, don't really knock him for not sending the ball back out for the most part.

 

[FiveStar]

I can’t believe we’re still talking about this. Every coach in America and around the world plays that last possession the same way we do. Some sort of full court pickup to slow them down, make them spend as much time in the backcourt as possible, force a low percentage, contested shot.

If I would have told any of you that we were gonna do that on the last possession, 100% of you would have taken it. If you wouldn’t have, you shouldn’t be commenting on any coaching decisions.

 

[IlliniBrave75]

Nebraska - 72
#23 Michigan - 52

 

[illini62707]

Some of you guys are talking about what happened right after the downscreen and leaner. I'm talking about what led up to the shot! You don't let the man who Nebraska wants to get the ball to if possible come up the floor with nobody in his shirt! You try to make him work and deny ball. Doesn't mean he won't get it, but he may not get it where he wants it.
And no not every college coach in America would have done it the same way. The defense on the right side and middle was okay. But the left side where Palmer was and who Nebraska wanted to get the ball to was not good(no pressure). Leron Black did not come out to help on the screen.

 

[PtownIllini8]

Well, TALKTOCHUCK, that's how you win games, by paying attention to every detail, which you call critical. Having somebody right on Palmer isn't overly critical it's the obvious. And if you call a leaning 3 pointer a trick shot then I got a good idea who I'm talking to.

Not sure it's a trick shot, but it sure as heck isn't a high % shot either.

 

[Ransom Stoddard]

Some of you guys are talking about what happened right after the downscreen and leaner. I'm talking about what led up to the shot! You don't let the man who Nebraska wants to get the ball to if possible come up the floor with nobody in his shirt! You try to make him work and deny ball. Doesn't mean he won't get it, but he may not get it where he wants it.
And no not every college coach in America would have done it the same way. The defense on the right side and middle was okay. But the left side where Palmer was and who Nebraska wanted to get the ball to was not good(no pressure). Leron Black did not come out to help on the screen.

You really should go back and watch the replay. Take note of where Black and Frazier are, then get back to us re: the bolded.

 

[Deleted member 16340]

Was watching the Wisconsin debacle today and towards the end of the game, They showed the Finke 3 point shot. In the shot was the game clock behind the basket. The clock a appeared to freeze at 8.1 seconds while the ball was at its apex. I thought that the clock shouldn't stop until the ball is through the cylinder. It looked like some home cookin there in Huskerland. Just wondering what the psychological impact of 8.1 vs 7.6 seconds might have had on the last shot...

 

[SycIllini]

Was watching the Wisconsin debacle today and towards the end of the game, They showed the Finke 3 point shot. In the shot was the game clock behind the basket. The clock a appeared to freeze at 8.1 seconds while the ball was at its apex. I thought that the clock shouldn't stop until the ball is through the cylinder. It looked like some home cookin there in Huskerland. Just wondering what the psychological impact of 8.1 vs 7.6 seconds might have had on the last shot...

I believe someone else pointed out earlier that the clock stopped on the foul call.