Re: Huh?

[William Lee <leew@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I kind of thought it was more a 2 man game - either Pierce or Baker.  To be 
fair, I thought Paul kept trying to get the ball into Baker during the last 
few minutes more than he tried to force the shots - but Baker was being 
smothered. FWIW, I thought the 3 was a clean look and, if Paul was shooting 
as usual, would have been a good shot.  Maybe that's the important point, 
he should better recognize when he is having an off-night (but then again, 
they say shooters have to keep shooting no matter what...).

Just going by the hot hand, as opposed to traditional roles, I would have 
tried to go to EW at the end.  The thing that distressed me most, was in 
not having Banks in there at the end. It looked to me like last night's 
offense was at its best when he was in there. James reminded me of Paul in 
that he kept shooting more than playmaking and he was not on last night. At 
least Paul has the excuse that he is not the point guard. To my inexpert 
eye it seemed like rather than reading the current game and seeing what is 
working best, they reverted to traditional roles (e.g. benching the rookie 
in favor of a more experienced (and starting) player, funneling the ball to 
the traditional "go to guy").

Bill

At 10:31 PM 11/17/2003, Dan Forant wrote:
> this is what happens when your addicted to Walker/Pierce shoot em up
> basketball....when the going got tough an addict falls to the
> obsession....OB choked........and DA got an eyefull from a good seat.....we
> only needed 2 to possibly win the game.......
>
> DanF