2015 Playoffs: (1) Atlanta vs. (5) Washington

[NovU]

Paul Pierce hits a game winning buzzer beater. Fuck...

[bowdown]

Honestly both gamewinners were kinda lucky and not that exciting to me because of it.

[Mandich]

Should Paul Pierce be considered one of the best clutch shooters of his generation, possibly even greater ?

I love Pierce. Hope the Wizards advance.

[Andrew]

Honestly both gamewinners were kinda lucky and not that exciting to me because of it.

Couldn't the same be said of most gamewinners? How do you separate a supposed "lucky" gamewinner from a "skillful" one? And if you can draw such a distinction, how is one exciting, and the other boring?

I recall this discussion coming up back in 2009, and from what I could tell, the main factors were the level of like/dislike for the players involved, and the result that the gamewinner yielded.

[NovU]

I have no idea how it happened but this game by all means should have been a blowout. How da heck you play Hawks bench in 4th and catch up against Wizard though they have no Wall.

That said, the Hawks starters are very disappointing outside of Demar Carroll. But you probably can't win this series with him as the best performer. Teague, this kid needs to play up to his talent or just give his place to Shroeder who's hot.

[bowdown]

Honestly both gamewinners were kinda lucky and not that exciting to me because of it.

Couldn't the same be said of most gamewinners? How do you separate a supposed "lucky" gamewinner from a "skillful" one? And if you can draw such a distinction, how is one exciting, and the other boring?

I recall this discussion coming up back in 2009, and from what I could tell, the main factors were the level of like/dislike for the players involved, and the result that the gamewinner yielded.

These are obvious cases. Nobody tries to bank a shot from those spots.

[Andrew]

They don't, but the shots were obviously still on target. Again, you could call most gamewinning shots lucky, especially those that come from attempts in less than ideal circumstances. Whether or not that takes anything away from the shot seems to come down to personal bias.

Let's take a player from your favourite team, for example:

phpBB [video]

Less than a second left, basically a heave without the usual follow through or squaring up. You can't tell me that wasn't lucky, simply because it's what he was presumably aiming for (all net). And even if it is lucky...does it matter? When you're talking about supremely talented players who can knock down shots, and will knock down tough looks, there's always some level of skill, some amount of shooting touch involved. Is there some luck involved when their aim is true, despite a seeming lack of precision? Absolutely, but it doesn't make it any less spectacular or exciting. Your own bias, your investment in the result, will naturally determine how exciting it is to you, and that's absolutely fine. But it does remain a subjective opinion.

What is wrong with the Hawks. Who called them the Spurs of East.

I know, it's pretty disrespectful. They're in the second round, while the Spurs blew a 3-2 series lead and bowed out in the first round.

In all seriousness, it's not that bad a comparison. Sure, they're looking more like pretenders than contenders, but even the best of the best have off-days, off-series, and fall victim to bad match-ups. Before their back-to-back Finals appearances and championship last year, the Spurs had come up much shorter in every season since 2007, and they had some tough series against teams you'd have expected them to beat more handily. The Hawks won 19 in a row this season, finished 60-22, and did inspire comparisons to the Spurs with their team-oriented style and workhorse success. It was an apt comparison at the time, and still is to some extent. There are similarities, they just aren't at the same level that the Spurs have reached during the past couple of decades.

Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. The similarities were there, and a comparison was made. Of course, we didn't know how they'd fare when the stakes were higher; the season has progressed, and now we have a better idea. It doesn't mean the comparison was completely wrong, at the time or now. It's kind of like looking back at an old video game: you'll see people commenting on old gameplay footage, and saying things like "Wow, this looks terrible. I can't believe I used to think this looked good!" Aside from the fact people use the word "terrible" in far too hyperbolic a manner these days, the fact of the matter is, those graphics may well have been cutting edge at the time, but technology marches on. We thought they looked good because at the time, they did. The Hawks were compared to the Spurs, because there were similarities to evoke those comparisons.

[bowdown]

Andrew you are really going ham on my comment. I know it is a subjective opinion and I was simply expressing them in my post. To me, those shots had more luck involved than game winners that go straight in.

If its still very exciting to you I have no reason to challenge that at all.

[Andrew]

It struck me as a strange thing to say, and reminded me of a previous discussion regarding gamewinning shots. I'm not going to press the issue any further if that's all you've got to say about it, but this is a discussion forum. Ideally, none of us are throwing out thoughts and comments in a vacuum here; discussion and conversation will be sparked.

[bowdown]

Actually no that's not all I have to say about it. After reading your post in more detail I absolutely disagree with you that Lillard's shot was a lot of luck. He got a clean look and is very good at hitting long quick three pointers. And you say all their shot's were on target. No, their shots were off target as they didn't target the backboard but targeted the rim most likely.

Lillard and Lebron tonight targeted the rim and sent the ball straight through.

Just because something has a bit of subjectivity to it doesn't mean it can be stretched out as far as someone wants. Banking a shot when not aiming to do so is more luck than sending the ball straight through the rim. Yeah someone may not be aiming to either swish or rattle the shot in, but its still more skillful than an inadvertent bank shot.

That's the reasoning (with a little objectivity) behind me not appreciating Rose and Pierce's shots as much as Lillard and Lebrons.

[NovU]

You both are damn right, andrew n bowdown, it's subjective at the end of the day.

I found the shot boring too because I dislike Paul Pierce and don't have much feeling invested in this series. And I know for sure it was a lot of luck. But it was a nice play by the Wizard, they ran a switch to force smaller Shroeder to guard Paul Pierce so Pierce was able to get the shot off with just a step back. He never called the bank, that was much luck (but luck is part of the game like ball rattles in/out, bounces in/out). It wasn't anything like Michael Jordan's shot over tripped Bryon Russell.

If this was Lillard or Wade, I'd have been excited but this was just Pierce, I couldn't careless about LUCK or NOT. At the end of the day, it's just your personal preference/taste.

[Andrew]

Actually no that's not all I have to say about it. After reading your post in more detail I absolutely disagree with you that Lillard's shot was a lot of luck. He got a clean look and is very good at hitting long quick three pointers.

I never said Lillard's shot was "a lot of luck". I said that there's an inherent amount of luck in most gamewinning shots, especially those attempted in less than ideal circumstances. Lillard had nine tenths of a second to square up and get off a somewhat off-balance shot. It's not all luck, but he did just kind of have to throw it up there.

And you say all their shot's were on target. No, their shots were off target as they didn't target the backboard but targeted the rim most likely.

They were on target. If they weren't on target, they would have missed.

Now, it wasn't the target they were aiming for, as such; as you noted, they weren't going for the bank, and that's what makes them lucky shots...to an extent. The shots were being sent to the rim with the intention of going in one way or another (obviously), which requires a good aim and shooting touch. There's some skill involved with that, and the shots were aimed in the vicinity of where they needed to go: through the hoop. However, they were lucky in that they shot it in such a way that they had the angle and it wasn't too strong so as not to bank in after overshooting the mark.

Just because something has a bit of subjectivity to it doesn't mean it can be stretched out as far as someone wants.

It's not about "stretch(ing things) out as far as someone wants", it's about identifying a bias that affects an argument or point of view.

For example, in the old conversation that I've referred to a couple of times, the poster was arguing that LeBron's gamewinner in the 2009 Eastern Conference Finals was simply lucky, whereas Hedo Turloglu's clutch shots were skilful and the sign of a talented crunch time performer. What it really came down to at the end of the day was that the poster didn't think much of LeBron's clutch abilities and liked Turkoglu, so they were willing to write off LeBron's shot as a lucky fluke, and heap praise on Turkoglu and anyone else who made a clutch shot or gamewinner. Bias (or personal taste, to use a more suitably neutral term) does come into play.

Banking a shot when not aiming to do so is more luck than sending the ball straight through the rim. Yeah someone may not be aiming to either swish or rattle the shot in, but its still more skillful than an inadvertent bank shot.

Not necessarily. It depends on the quality of the shot. If you're just tossing it up there towards the rim because you've got to get a shot off with very little time left on the clock, chances are it's something of a snap shot (in hunting parlance, rather than the photographic sense). Or something like LeBron's full court shot the other day in practice:

phpBB [video]

Again, I don't disagree that the bank shots weren't lucky. I guess if anything, I disagree how they're lucky, and suggest that being lucky still requires some inherent skill to set up the good fortune in the first place.

That's the reasoning (with a little objectivity) behind me not appreciating Rose and Pierce's shots as much as Lillard and Lebrons.

Which is fair enough, we all enjoy (or don't enjoy) things for different reasons. I suppose I found your assessment a little dismissive of what I thought were still great shots in their own right, which as I said I found to be a strange remark. Having said that though, it's possible that we're talking about two different things here, since you are referring to your own personal enjoyment of those plays, which is driven by personal taste. I'm still inclined to offer a counterpoint to that and explain why I conversely enjoy those shots, but I'm certainly not saying you have to feel the same way. On the matters of luck and skill...well, it's a murkier discussion that's interesting in its own right.

One of the reasons that I can enjoy a lucky shot as much as a supposed skilful one is that the result is the same, and luck doesn't prevent the shot from being spectacular. Take this Isaiah Rider shot:

phpBB [video]

That's pure luck, but it's still a highlight for the ages. It's still spectacular. In fact, you could say that it was amazing because it was so lucky.

I found the shot boring too because I dislike Paul Pierce and don't have much feeling invested in this series. And I know for sure it was a lot of luck. But it was a nice play by the Wizard, they ran a switch to force smaller Shroeder to guard Paul Pierce so Pierce was able to get the shot off with just a step back. He never called the bank, that was much luck (but luck is part of the game like ball rattles in/out, bounces in/out). It wasn't anything like Michael Jordan's shot over tripped Bryon Russell.

Indeed, when it comes to personal enjoyment, personal bias is naturally the deciding factor. I agree that LeBron's shot in Game 4 of the Bulls/Cavs series was a good one, and less lucky than Rose's. I of course enjoy Rose's more, because that led to a victory for my favourite team, whereas LeBron's handed my favourite team a loss.

[bowdown]

Yeah there are a lot of variables involved. For me a regular jumpshot from regular distance that wasn't intended to be banked is not as fun.

The last 2 videos you posted are fun just because the shots were highly unorthodox and difficult.

[NovU]

Yeah there are a lot of variables involved.

Like player, situation, team, and difficulty of shot, level of fluke, etc.

Considering all that, the shot for me was stale as well. First of all, Wizard never should have been in that situation. They fucked up so bad against inferior Hawks bench that they nearly lost the game. Boring game till last couple minutes. Secondly, plays leading to that shot wasn't too exciting. Neither the shooting motion/technique of Paul Pierce was. If this was shot didn't have significance to the outcome of the game, I am not even sure if this was sportscenter highlight worthy. Lastly, I ain't no fan of Wizard and Hawks series that much. It also lacks rivalry, personality, and star power.

Last great play that made me jump out of seat was Ray Allen's game tying three pointer that turned around the series. Sequence, magnitude, intensity, emotion invested, everything just made it special and exciting.

[Andrew]

Well, all gamewinners are primarily significant and noteworthy because they win the game, and a lot of them wouldn't make too many highlight reels otherwise, but I do get where you're coming from there.

What about CP3's shot against the Spurs?

[NovU]

True.

What about CP3's shot against the Spurs?

The lay up? That was awesome though it wasn't anything like Ray Allen's. It was indeed significant. Without it, we would be possibly seeing Spurs vs Hardone right now.

I would actually not only consider that play of the playoffs so far but also game of the playoffs so far. It was big and was fun. Like they said, that was the first round?

[[Q]]

I love Pierce.

this explains a lot

[NovU]

2-2 now.

Pierce wasn't clutch this evening.

[[Q]]

2-2 now.

Pierce wasn't clutch this evening.

it was questionable whether he was clutch the other evening too. C'mon man don't tell me he tried to bank that in

[NovU]

This one is for you Q!

phpBB [video]

[Andrew]

2-2 now.

Pierce wasn't clutch this evening.

it was questionable whether he was clutch the other evening too. C'mon man don't tell me he tried to bank that in

Shot was too strong, but on target. Way, way too much is being made of these shots banking in. All net, friendly bounce, banked in...he took the big shot, his aim was true enough for it to go in off the bank. Lucky, sure, but still clutch.

[Michael_OS]

Pierce should've moved a little bit closer.

[Mandich]

How is making the game winner not clutch ?

How do you define lucky from "skill". This is ridiculous.

As Andrew said, the "lucky" shots are good enough to get in and at the end of the day it's all that matters.

[NovU]

Missing a wide open possible game tying 3 pointer is not clutch though. I'm a disappoint, mr pierce.

[Andrew]

Pierce losing the ball in the last minute there? Not clutch. Hitting the three off after that out of bounds play, on the other hand? Clutch. But it's Horford with the final clutch play, as the Hawks go up 3-2. Great finish.