Nah he has a hole in his pants and is sitting on something. He laughs harder when he wiggles in that vid.
The cackling was very strange. The Bazz game winner was a horrible, horrible, horrible shot. He had time to get to the hoop and make the defense stop him or make a layup. Instead he chose to shoot a 35 foot jumper. Bad, bad, bad judgement from the point guard. The PG should have the highest bball IQ on the court, and Bazz just doesn't. He has huge brass balls, which is great too, but he needs to make better decisions throughout the game. Just because the game winner went in, doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. It was a lucky shot, a very low percentage shot, and a poor decision. If he had driven the length of the court for a layup, no matter the result (foul, no foul, make, miss, turnover, whatever); NOBODY would have said "he should have pulled up from 35 feet instead".
As I said in the other thread: If that's the case, then the ball should have been passed to Boatright who was right next to him on the in-bounds, and Bazz did the best he could.The problem is I think back to the Marquette game where he was begging guys to run up the court with him, and I have to believe he was capable of going harder, especially with the adrenaline pumping in a late game situation.I'm honestly just glad that we can debate as to whether it was a good or bad shot. Because if he missed it, there would be no debate. I'll add here that usually, if a foot injury is preventing you from running full speed, it would also prevent you from having enough elevation to hit a true jump shot from 35 feet. He looked fine to me, but obviously I don't know how much it bothered him.
Dude sounds creepy alright. Caws like a freaking crow. Crows are actually intelligent and serve a purpose in the ecosystem, though.
It was not a high percentage shot, not by any stretch of the imagination. But he was open and able to get the shot off, at least. His other options were: 1) Take one more dribble and take a 24 footer instead of a 30 footer - however the 24 footer would have been tightly contested and maybe even blocked by Cheek. 2) Go all the way to the rim and try to score over Yarou, Sutton, and Pinkston. The chances of being bailed out by a foul are slim to none, and the chances of Shabazz scoring over the trees in that spot are probably not much better than the chances of the 30 footer going in. You're right that nobody would have criticized his decision had he attacked the basket. But I also doubt that he scores - and we might still be playing.
Fair points. I watched it again and there were only two players in the paint, Yarou and Sutton maybe. But they were able to set up because he wasn't going 100%. Had he gone hard with the ball from the moment he got it, they may not have been set up. Usually in that situation the defense isn't set up because of the pace of the ball up the court, and in those situations guys will try to avoid contact making it harder to block the shot. Bottom line, even if he couldn't get a better shot, he could have made a better decision. If he weren't a point guard it wouldn't matter much. His decision making is a concern, and IMO, that was a poor decision. BUT, I don't know how bad his foot is, and his fearlessness and confidence are amazing and a huge asset to this team.
I'm confused. If there wasn't a better shot, how the heck could there have been a better decision? What was he going to do, pass it to someone behind him?
The better decision was to drive to the hoop. By "better shot", I meant a more "open look". He got an open look because he was 35 feet away from the hoop. A layup would have been contested, it might not have been a "better" look, but it would have been a better decision. It's not difficult: 35' open look < contested layup
You're right; it's not difficult. Either you think the layup was a better shot and your post makes sense, or they were equal and your post makes no sense.
Or, you're being intentionally obtuse by pretending that "better shot" doesn't also mean "a more open look" as I've already explained. Like when a coach tells a player to make the extra pass because while he may have had a shot available, there was a "better shot" because his teammate was "more open". The guy I responded to said the 35 foot open shot, was better than a 25 foot contested shot. So when I said "better", I was referring to "more open". Either you understand that, or you don't. But my post makes sense.
I liked the shot selection. Had he taken it coast to coast (if he could have) with the way this season has gone it is more likely that he gets charged with an offensive foul and Nova goes to the line to beat us. As Shabazz says, he did what Nova didn't expect and that's why it worked.
Actually, I didn't understand your equation of "better shot = more open shot" because I was still mostly going off your first post, which you said it was a horrible shot. If openness of shots = better, then his shot was about as open as it gets. The only way "better" makes sense to me is if it was a) more likely to go in the net, or b) more likely to result in points. And that seemed to be the sense you meant it in originally. The follow-up clarification on your part felt like an increase in confusion, not a clarification. In fairness to you, I read your recent post quickly and didn't consider carefully enough before responding. My apologies for the snippish tone.
