12-22-2021, 02:45 PM
Contrarian that I am, I want to defend Cameron from the apparently unanimous view, both here and on the ESPN broadcast, that she made a indefensibly terrible decision to shoot that shot with about 18 seconds left in the game. There is validity to that view, but . . . .
If, as one of the world's foremost Stanford women's basketball critics (Lobo) was quick to point out (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight), she tries to drive to the hole, let's play out what would have happened: Almost certainly, Boston is NOT going to let her drive to the rim and shoot a layup. There is a high degree of likelihood that Boston does whatever is necessary to create a turnover. And there is ZERO percent chance that she is going to get called for a foul, regardless of what she does. Anybody who thinks there is any chance whatsoever that Boston gets called for a foul in that situation was watching a very different game than the one I was watching or the one I watched in San Antonio last spring. She is a heck of a player, but the treatment she gets from officials who ignore her near universal hip checks on screens, frequent traveling, and very aggressive defense is ridiculous.
So let's say Cam tries to drive. She gets manhandled, but no foul is called, so there is a turnover. At that point, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, Lobo (ignoring the uncalled foul that just occurred, just like she ignored the many other uncalled fouls on Boston over the last 8 quarters of SC v. Stanford basketball she has observed in San Antonio and Columbia), says something like, "Brink needs to make better decisions. Boston is way too great a defensive player for Brink to think she can get around her." On this board, we post, more honestly, "Cameron needs to know that there is no way that Boston is going to get called for a foul, so she needs to do something other than try to drive to the basket."
Of course, Cameron could have looked to pass, instead of shoot. But there is something to be said for shooting with (about) 18 seconds left, as there is still game time to possibly recover from a miss. Of course, getting a better shot later in the possession is better than taking a contested bad shot earlier, but there is something to be said for taking a shot early.
My bottom line is that, while it is easy for all of us to say, after she misses, that she should have never taken that shot, given the realities of the situation at the moment, it was not so clearly a horrible decision, at least to me. If you are going to play the most subjectively officiated sport this side of figure skating, you need to adjust to the officiating. It might not be fair that nothing is ever going to be called on Boston, but it is reality. It is legit for Cameron to factor that reality into her decision making.
Some on this board hate Bill Walton as a commentator. My special disdain is for Lobo. She personally observed approximately 5.8 straight (to her) quarters of Stanford basketball (against AZ and then against SC) where Stanford took exactly TWO free throws, without ever commenting on it. I know she knew Stanford took one free throw through 3+ quarters in San Antonio, because she looked at her stat sheet when I yelled out that statistic. Do you think there is a snowball's chance in you know where that she would not point that out if it happened to UConn? [I do realize the ridiculousness of imaging that it would ever happen to UConn, but you get the point.]
I'm tired of how Stanford's women's basketball team gets treated, by the officials and the commentators. Tara has done so much for the sport. Including, by the way, for the SC coach. I'm sick of Lobo and the whole UConn/SC/East Coast lot. Don't get me started on the Olympic basketball team selection process.
That said, I am okay with the loss at this point in the season. There are things for Tara and the team to work on. They will, with perhaps more urgency than if they had won (which I definitely wanted to happen, as you can probably tell from this post). As I used to tell my law school students in Trial Practice classes, winning has a whole lot of advantages over losing. Losing has only one advantage over winning: It is a much better teacher.
If, as one of the world's foremost Stanford women's basketball critics (Lobo) was quick to point out (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight), she tries to drive to the hole, let's play out what would have happened: Almost certainly, Boston is NOT going to let her drive to the rim and shoot a layup. There is a high degree of likelihood that Boston does whatever is necessary to create a turnover. And there is ZERO percent chance that she is going to get called for a foul, regardless of what she does. Anybody who thinks there is any chance whatsoever that Boston gets called for a foul in that situation was watching a very different game than the one I was watching or the one I watched in San Antonio last spring. She is a heck of a player, but the treatment she gets from officials who ignore her near universal hip checks on screens, frequent traveling, and very aggressive defense is ridiculous.
So let's say Cam tries to drive. She gets manhandled, but no foul is called, so there is a turnover. At that point, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, Lobo (ignoring the uncalled foul that just occurred, just like she ignored the many other uncalled fouls on Boston over the last 8 quarters of SC v. Stanford basketball she has observed in San Antonio and Columbia), says something like, "Brink needs to make better decisions. Boston is way too great a defensive player for Brink to think she can get around her." On this board, we post, more honestly, "Cameron needs to know that there is no way that Boston is going to get called for a foul, so she needs to do something other than try to drive to the basket."
Of course, Cameron could have looked to pass, instead of shoot. But there is something to be said for shooting with (about) 18 seconds left, as there is still game time to possibly recover from a miss. Of course, getting a better shot later in the possession is better than taking a contested bad shot earlier, but there is something to be said for taking a shot early.
My bottom line is that, while it is easy for all of us to say, after she misses, that she should have never taken that shot, given the realities of the situation at the moment, it was not so clearly a horrible decision, at least to me. If you are going to play the most subjectively officiated sport this side of figure skating, you need to adjust to the officiating. It might not be fair that nothing is ever going to be called on Boston, but it is reality. It is legit for Cameron to factor that reality into her decision making.
Some on this board hate Bill Walton as a commentator. My special disdain is for Lobo. She personally observed approximately 5.8 straight (to her) quarters of Stanford basketball (against AZ and then against SC) where Stanford took exactly TWO free throws, without ever commenting on it. I know she knew Stanford took one free throw through 3+ quarters in San Antonio, because she looked at her stat sheet when I yelled out that statistic. Do you think there is a snowball's chance in you know where that she would not point that out if it happened to UConn? [I do realize the ridiculousness of imaging that it would ever happen to UConn, but you get the point.]
I'm tired of how Stanford's women's basketball team gets treated, by the officials and the commentators. Tara has done so much for the sport. Including, by the way, for the SC coach. I'm sick of Lobo and the whole UConn/SC/East Coast lot. Don't get me started on the Olympic basketball team selection process.
That said, I am okay with the loss at this point in the season. There are things for Tara and the team to work on. They will, with perhaps more urgency than if they had won (which I definitely wanted to happen, as you can probably tell from this post). As I used to tell my law school students in Trial Practice classes, winning has a whole lot of advantages over losing. Losing has only one advantage over winning: It is a much better teacher.