MBB: Duke 61, Butler 59 - 2010 NCAA Champs!!!

[mapei]

From Lisa in my office, who runs our annual pool:

"We just came up a bounce short."

So said Butler coach Brad Stevens minutes after his heroic Bulldogs came up just two points shy of a national championship. But the pre-game hype had it all wrong (as did Final Four recapper Eben): Butler vs. Duke was no David vs. Goliath, nor Good vs. Evil, and it certainly wasn't 'Hoosiers, the Sequel.' These were two tough, gritty teams, almost evenly matched, playing ferocious defense all night long. Amazing defense. Relentless defense. In-your-face-so-close-I-know-what-you-had-for-lunch defense. Joy-to-watch defense.

If you missed the game, no recap I can provide could ever do it justice. Played at just the right pace to allow you to appreciate both teams' game plans and execution while still keeping you on the edge of your seat, the score remained close throughout, with numerous ties and lead changes by the narrowest of margins. When Duke went up by 5 late in the second half, it seemed an almost insurmountable lead, yet somehow Butler managed to cut the deficit to 1. The email from John Grant exclaiming 'Holy Sh*t!' arrived at the very moment those exact words escaped my lips.

Free throws, time outs, more incredible defense. A missed baseline jumper, a foul, a free throw made and the next intentionally missed to give the Bulldogs precious little time to run a play before the buzzer. Yet somehow they set a pick that allowed Gordon Hayward to heave a last-second half-court shot -- a shot dead on-line, that hit the backboard and bounced off the front of the rim. Everyone watching, in the arena and on TV, seemed to sense that neither team won nor lost, but rather that time had expired when Duke happened to be leading. Later one of the announcers commented that the game had been more exciting than many that had extended into overtime, and he was right. Two great teams, one great game. Instant Classic.

Final score: Duke 61, Butler 59.

Lisa isn't a Duke or Butler fan; she only roots with passion for the Hoyas (me too, except in my case I root with passion for Duke as well). She's just a basketball fan and a terrific writer.

[cruxer]

I'll have to go back and look at the play. But if it was as blatant a moving screen as it sounds, then they should have absolutely called it. You don't change the rules simply because it is the final seconds. I mean, by the same token, should we have been allowed to just tackle Hayward after he got the rebound with no call?

Again, I haven't watched the replay yet, but I remember thinking it looked illegal live. If it was an illegal screen, it should have been called.

Thankfully, things worked out for us anyway. But that's no excuse for blatantly bad officiating. I've always hated the "swallow the whistle" concept in the final minutes. That's a no-call that could have changed the outcome of the play entirely.

It was most certainly illegal, and I agree it probably be called, theoretically. If I'm the official, however, no way I make the call. Any shot they get off will be relatively low percentage anyway, and I'd be inclined to let the players decide the game.

[TampaDukie]

I was just on the Chronicle and on the twitter feed they have there, someone made an interesting point that the 3 teams America loves to hate (Duke, Lakers, Yankees) are all the champions right now haha.

Heh. Nobody hates a loser!

[CDu]

It was most certainly illegal, and I agree it probably be called, theoretically. If I'm the official, however, no way I make the call. Any shot they get off will be relatively low percentage anyway, and I'd be inclined to let the players decide the game.

By not calling the game the way the rules are stating, you are implicitly NOT letting the players decide the game. That's the problem. Should we have been allowed to body-check Hayward out of bounds as he was dribbling it up court? Because according to your logic here, the answer is yes.

The probability of Hayward making the shot is irrelevant to the decision to call a foul there. If Howard made an illegal play that improved Hayward's chances of making the shot, then a foul should have been called.

It reminds me of something someone said when I was getting a brief instruction on how to ref: "you have the whistle - don't be afraid to use it."

[roywhite]

By not calling the game the way the rules are stating, you are implicitly NOT letting the players decide the game. That's the problem. Should we have been allowed to body-check Hayward out of bounds as he was dribbling it up court? Because according to your logic here, the answer is yes.

The probability of Hayward making the shot is irrelevant to the decision to call a foul there. If Howard made an illegal play that improved Hayward's chances of making the shot, then a foul should have been called.
It reminds me of something someone said when I was getting a brief instruction on how to ref: "you have the whistle - don't be afraid to use it."

Seems to me (and Coach K made a reference also) that Kyle being out of the play did improve the shooter's chances. Kyle, the old ice hockey player, was skating along side the puck-carrier, steering him toward the side of the court, when he received an illegal cross-body check.

The shooter changed direction, focused his attention on the net and fired one from the mid-line; fortunately, it clanked off the pipes.

[Classof06]

What a season. I cannot say enough about this team. I can't congratulate the players and staff enough. Woke up this morning and shed tears of joy, I was so happy.

GO DUKE!!!

[MChambers]

I'll have to go back and look at the play. But if it was as blatant a moving screen as it sounds, then they should have absolutely called it. You don't change the rules simply because it is the final seconds. I mean, by the same token, should we have been allowed to just tackle Hayward after he got the rebound with no call?

Again, I haven't watched the replay yet, but I remember thinking it looked illegal live. If it was an illegal screen, it should have been called.

Thankfully, things worked out for us anyway. But that's no excuse for blatantly bad officiating. I've always hated the "swallow the whistle" concept in the final minutes. That's a no-call that could have changed the outcome of the play entirely.

In 1994, in the semi-finals, Tony Lang, protecting a one-shot lead in the final seconds, drew a charge at half court, ending the game. The next Monday, my boss said "you don't make that call at that point in the game." I pointed out that the rules are the same in the final minute.

The next year, I got a new job.

[TampaDuke]

Exactly. You play to win the game, not to get to OT.

What is Z’s chance of making the 2d FT if he tries to make it? ... I say 60%.

What is Duke’s chance of winning if Butler hits a 3 to send the game to OT? ... I say 60%.

What is Butler’s chance of making a 3 off a missed FT (scramble play) versus Butler’s chance of making a 3 from an inbounds play? ... I say 1% off of a scramble play and 2% off of an inbounds play.

The formula.

1. Z intentionally misses the FT.

Butler has a .01 chance of winning the game. (1% chance of hitting the 3 on the scramble play, and we lose).

2. Z tries to make the FT.

Butler has a .088 chance of winning the game. ((40% Z misses anyway * 1% they hit scramble 3 for win) + (60% Z makes it * 2% they make inbounds 3 to tie * .40% Butler wins in OT)).

So, using my values, I would have had Z try to make the FT.

However, if you believe Butler is three times as likely to make a 3 off a set-inbounds play than it is off a scramble play (say, 3% to 1% rather than the 2% to 1% I used), and the other values are the same (60% Z makes it; 60% chance we win in OT) ... then it makes sense to try to miss the FT on purpose.

The strategic call was not unreasonable. Depends on what you believe the various probabilities were.

I agree with you that you have to factor in the probability of winning/losing in OT to gauge the correct call to make. I think you're also spot on that either call is perfectly reasonable depending upon how you assess the probabilities. I'm certainly going to defer to K on that type of assessment.

One thing I disagree with is the statement that you "play to win, not to lose" as implying that the obvious correct call was to miss the FT. By its very definition (as you illustrate), if your best probability of winning overall is by making the FT and risking OT, then you ARE playing to win and the alternative would have been playing to lose (or, conversely, playing to allow the other team a greater chance of winning). As your post states, it all comes down to how you assess the relative probability of each event.

They had squandered several chances in the final minute or so to put the game away and Butler was feeling pretty good. Z had four fouls and until that final drive that he was able to defend, Butler had been able to drive and score pretty easily. By planning to miss, he also gave Duke a better chance at tipping the rebound (which is all you need to do in this case - tip it and the clock starts).

While all true, we only put Lance on the lane to try to rebound/tip the miss. They had four players on the lane. Personally, I'd keep only one of our guys on the lane, too, lest we pick up a cheap foul trying to rebound. However, the odds of getting a tip seem slim if you go that route.

[TampaDuke]

Jon Scheyer gets the Sports Illustrated cover, with Z in the background!

Excellent. Wonder if our friends at Maryland will view their "Scheyer-face" shenanigans a little differently now.

Enjoy it Jon, you deserve it. Thanks for the ride.

[cruxer]

By not calling the game the way the rules are stating, you are implicitly NOT letting the players decide the game. That's the problem. Should we have been allowed to body-check Hayward out of bounds as he was dribbling it up court? Because according to your logic here, the answer is yes.

The probability of Hayward making the shot is irrelevant to the decision to call a foul there. If Howard made an illegal play that improved Hayward's chances of making the shot, then a foul should have been called.

You're right, of course, that NOT blowing the whistle has an obvious impact on the game, too. My argument is that it's better to have a sin of omission rather than commission in end-of-game scenarios.

Butler also benefited from that type of officiating at the end of the MSU game when they clearly fouled the shooter on a shot in the lane. I would argue that was the more egregious case since the MSU player was shooting about a 10' shot (high percentage) and the foul was directly on the shooter.

Neither of us is wrong here. I agree with what you're saying about the impact of a non-call, but reality is these things will never be called in end-of-game situations. If Kyle had seen it coming, and absolutely blown up the screener, he wouldn't have been called either.

[downeastdad]

I just watched the TIVO of last night's game.
Don't know where this post belongs, but did anyone notice why Hayward got the clean board on Zoub's free throw miss? Lance was CLEARLY held up, wrapped up by Willie Veasley on the block, negating any possibility of his getting the board.
And, the cross-body by Howard, imo a punk who should have fouled out in the first half, should have been a major, flagrant, technical, whatever, foul, and certainly should have been whistled, no matter when it occured.

[hurley1]

I'll have to go back and look at the play. But if it was as blatant a moving screen as it sounds, then they should have absolutely called it. You don't change the rules simply because it is the final seconds. I mean, by the same token, should we have been allowed to just tackle Hayward after he got the rebound with no call?

Again, I haven't watched the replay yet, but I remember thinking it looked illegal live. If it was an illegal screen, it should have been called.

Thankfully, things worked out for us anyway. But that's no excuse for blatantly bad officiating. I've always hated the "swallow the whistle" concept in the final minutes. That's a no-call that could have changed the outcome of the play entirely.

it was definately a moving screen.....definately a foul, in fact, it could have been called an intentional foul....think about this....had the shot gone in, how big of a deal would that screen become ?????....they definately should have called it a foul....the refs are lucky the shot didn't go in....

[roywhite]

it was definitely a moving screen.....definitely a foul, in fact, it could have been called an intentional foul....think about this....had the shot gone in, how big of a deal would that screen become ?????....they definitely should have called it a foul....the refs are lucky the shot didn't go in....

The more times the replay of the final shot is shown, the more obvious that "pick" is noticed for what it was...an illegal block that looked it belonged on the football field or hockey rink. So glad the game was not decided by the final shot attempt, but I hate to see Howard's cheap shot and the non-call by the officials.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

I still can't believe the ending to this game,

[Greg_Newton]

The more times the replay of the final shot is shown, the more obvious that "pick" is noticed for what it was...an illegal block that looked it belonged on the football field or hockey rink. So glad the game was not decided by the final shot attempt, but I hate to see Howard's cheap shot and the non-call by the officials.

And, of course, the anchors on ESPNNews made a point to comment on the "wonderful pick" set by Howard to free Hayward up for that shot last night. No joke.

[House G]

I haven't read the entire thread so this may have been mentioned. Every so often during the game the CBS camera would pan out and give some sort of panoramic view of the court or some sort of overhead view of the action. My sons and I were watching the game together and none of us liked this new wrinkle. Did anyone like this?

[MChambers]

I haven't read the entire thread so this may have been mentioned. Every so often during the game the CBS camera would pan out and give some sort of panoramic view of the court or some sort of overhead view of the action. My sons and I were watching the game together and none of us liked this new wrinkle. Did anyone like this?

On a few plays in the WVa game, I thought it gave a good perspective, but if the camera was moving, I really wasn't able to see the play clearly.

There was a lob to Zoubs in the low post, with Hayward fronting him, down the stretch in the second half, and I really thought Hayward fouled Zoubs, but that silly camera angle made it difficult to see. (And, of course, there was no replay.)

[juise]

This video was on the DukeBluePlanet Twitter feed (which has some awesome stuff, BTW). It gave me chills... almost like I was watching it for the first time. Oh how I miss Cameron.

[soccerstud2210]

This video was on the DukeBluePlanet Twitter feed (which has some awesome stuff, BTW). It gave me chills... almost like I was watching it for the first time. Oh how I miss Cameron.

now THAT. is a video. goosebumps all over!!!! holy cow!

still hasn't set in all the way.

as for refs swallowing the whistle at the end of the game, that type of refereeing helped indiana to beating us after jwill's missed freethrow in '02. boozer was poised to pulling down that rebound had he not been grabbed around the shoulders and pulled to the ground

[mapei]

Staying on the topic of the end of the game, we tried hard to give it away. I think our last five possessions were
- turnover by LT
- Kyle travel
- Nolan miss from point-blank range
- Kyle airball
- BZ's FT

That was just awful. Were we somehow more tired than they were?