STL Officiating

[shockmonster]

One last thing. Stutz's shot was perfectly on line. It hit the front of the rim, so it wasn't off very much. It was a good shot.

[Rlh04d]

Both plays were supposed to go Joe. The first, Toure' was wide open and really went undefended for most of the court...after the fact, you really can't argue with the shot. Joe was the 1st option on the OOB play (same play we ran to Kyles against VCU) but it was guarded. Actually, the lob to Ben is option 1, but it's more of a "show" option.

As long as Joe was option 1, I have no problem with that then.

[Light 'Em up]

Like WuDrWi said, we had a play set up. 1st option was Ben. BUT the redbirds switched to zone. So immediately the shox had to scratch it. Garrett was wide open and by far the easiest person to pass to at the time. He just missed the shot. He wasn't expecting to ever touch the ball after the timeout.

[WINGdingBALLfling]

The redbirds showing a man then switching to a zone screwed up the entire play. Stutz went up to set a screen for a guard but there was no need for it. He then moved down a little to get open because time was running out and he got the ball and took the shot. There were about 5 feet between him and the defender so he could have gotten a little closer to the basket but I understand that with time running out he was going to take the ball wherever he could get it.

[shocklight]

ShockRef, I think we all understand that sometimes coaches and officals can get in a little bit of a tif. However, in the entire course of a game don't both professionals get back to doing their jobs?

I also understand that officals will miss some fouls or deam them to not be hindering play (not that the fans see it that way), but in the end when a veteran crew of officals, with the rough play, it should have been handled completely different. Everyone knew what was going on! The blame of what was the ultimate outcome, falls squarely on the officals shoulders. Had they kept better control of the game (which is their job) we wouldn't have been debating each call or no call. Having said that, the Shockers still could have won this game and are not free of blame. I think the word will be out in the NCAA, play the Shockers rough, they get rattled.

[Rlh04d]

The redbirds showing a man then switching to a zone screwed up the entire play. Stutz went up to set a screen for a guard but there was no need for it. He then moved down a little to get open because time was running out and he got the ball and took the shot. There were about 5 feet between him and the defender so he could have gotten a little closer to the basket but I understand that with time running out he was going to take the ball wherever he could get it.

Wait, that man/zone swap was the cause? They did that to end the half and to end the previous game, if I remember right. Probably should have expected it by that point.

[Kung Wu]

The same shot Stutz took is fine with me. Stutz is a decent shooter, but I have no doubt that Rags has a better shot at making a quick turn around fadeaway than he does. I would think that Stutz has about a 25% chance of making that shot and Rags has a 50% chance.

Hell, I'd rather have Rags shoot a 3 for the win in that situation than Stutz taking a shot that he clearly isn't comfortable taking.

I don't think that Stutz is the kind of player that can make that kind of shot. He has a decent percentage when he lines up, completely set, for 3 with nobody in his face and hits a 3 that he's practiced many times before. Most of those shots come from the defense backing off and being caught off guard by him. A hurried jump shot to win? I won't believe that Stutz has more than half the chance of making it that Rags or Toure has.

That said, Rags missed his last three shots down the stretch in that awful 7 minute vacation we took on offense, so he had the chance to win the game and didn't. By no means am I saying that we lost because Rags didn't get it enough. I'm just wondering if and why Rags wouldn't be our primary option for a buzzer beater

Everything you are saying is certainly reasonable but omits the fact that it's extremely difficult to get the ball to Ragland where Stutz was. If you say Stutz has a 25% chance of making the shot (I believe that is way too low, I'll go 33%), that's fine, but he has a 90% chance of getting the ball and getting the shot off. That's a 25% * 90% chance of making the basket = 22.5% of making it. In reality I believe it would be 35% * 90% = 31% chance (he'd make it 3 out of 10 times -- seems reasonable doesn't it?).

Let's give Ragland a 40% (he shoots 52% on the year) chance from that position. I say he only has a 40% chance of getting the ball in that position -- the pass will be intercepted and/or the shot will be blocked 6 out of 10 times because you can't simply throw it over the top to him like you can with Stutz and he cannot elevate over nearly 100% of the other team like Stutz can to guarantee a clean shot. That gives him 40% * 40% = 16% chance of making it.

As regards shooting the 3 instead of trying to get it inside to Ragland for a 2, the same problems apply. I give him a 35% chance at making it (he's 49% from 3 on the year, but he will be tightly guarded, not set, and have less than 1 second to shoot -- it won't be clean), and a 60% chance that he grabs it (no interception), doesn't get blocked. His chance would be 35% * 60% = 21%. Still better to go with Stutz, however now it's much closer and this would be much better than trying to get the ball to Ragland down low.

Over-analysis complete.

[pogo]

Everything you are saying is certainly reasonable but omits the fact that it's extremely difficult to get the ball to Ragland where Stutz was. If you say Stutz has a 25% chance of making the shot (I believe that is way too low, I'll go 33%), that's fine, but he has a 90% chance of getting the ball and getting the shot off. That's a 25% * 90% chance of making the basket = 22.5% of making it. In reality I believe it would be 35% * 90% = 31% chance (he'd make it 3 out of 10 times -- seems reasonable doesn't it?).

Let's give Ragland a 40% (he shoots 52% on the year) chance from that position. I say he only has a 40% chance of getting the ball in that position -- the pass will be intercepted and/or the shot will be blocked 6 out of 10 times because you can't simply throw it over the top to him like you can with Stutz and he cannot elevate over nearly 100% of the other team like Stutz can to guarantee a clean shot. That gives him 40% * 40% = 16% chance of making it.

As regards shooting the 3 instead of trying to get it inside to Ragland for a 2, the same problems apply. I give him a 35% chance at making it (he's 49% from 3 on the year, but he will be tightly guarded, not set, and have less than 1 second to shoot -- it won't be clean), and a 60% chance that he grabs it (no interception), doesn't get blocked. His chance would be 35% * 60% = 21%. Still better to go with Stutz, however now it's much closer and this would be much better than trying to get the ball to Ragland down low.

Over-analysis complete.

You know, you have way too much time on your hands.

[WstateU]

Everything you are saying is certainly reasonable but omits the fact that it's extremely difficult to get the ball to Ragland where Stutz was. If you say Stutz has a 25% chance of making the shot (I believe that is way too low, I'll go 33%), that's fine, but he has a 90% chance of getting the ball and getting the shot off. That's a 25% * 90% chance of making the basket = 22.5% of making it. In reality I believe it would be 35% * 90% = 31% chance (he'd make it 3 out of 10 times -- seems reasonable doesn't it?).

Let's give Ragland a 40% (he shoots 52% on the year) chance from that position. I say he only has a 40% chance of getting the ball in that position -- the pass will be intercepted and/or the shot will be blocked 6 out of 10 times because you can't simply throw it over the top to him like you can with Stutz and he cannot elevate over nearly 100% of the other team like Stutz can to guarantee a clean shot. That gives him 40% * 40% = 16% chance of making it.

As regards shooting the 3 instead of trying to get it inside to Ragland for a 2, the same problems apply. I give him a 35% chance at making it (he's 49% from 3 on the year, but he will be tightly guarded, not set, and have less than 1 second to shoot -- it won't be clean), and a 60% chance that he grabs it (no interception), doesn't get blocked. His chance would be 35% * 60% = 21%. Still better to go with Stutz, however now it's much closer and this would be much better than trying to get the ball to Ragland down low.

Over-analysis complete.

HI-YA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[shox8498]

In a jury trial, attorneys get to choose from a pool of prospective jury members. Maybe on a trial basis, schools should be allowed to choose from a pool of officials.

If the pool is large enough the two schools should collectively be able to come up with three decent sets of stripes.