No. 1 Virginia 67, Louisville 66
What did I say after the Miami game? Oh yeah. Ladies and gentlemen, De'Andre Hunter.
If his 22-point performance against the Hurricanes -- which included a posterizing dunk and four-point play -- didn't get everyone's attention, maybe this did. On Thursday night, the redshirt freshman drove a stake through Louisville's heart with a banked-in 3-pointer from a few feet beyond the arc as time expired to send the Cavaliers over the Cardinals, completing an improbable comeback on the road. Hunter only had seven points, but the way it happened is what got the nation's attention.
The shot was reminiscent of two years ago when Virginia's Darius Thompson banked in a 3 at the buzzer as UVa stunned Wake Forest, 72-71, also on the road, after being down by seven before Marial Shayok hit a 3 with 14.5 seconds left to cut the lead to four.
Even more shocking than Hunter banking in the game-winning 3 is how the Wahoos got in the situation. They didn't play well for most of the game against a Louisville team that knew it really needed a big win, and the 'Hoos found themselves down 13 in the first half, 13 in the second half
with 12:46 left, and down nine with 3:47 remaining. Then UVa was down four with 5.8 seconds left after two free throws by the Cardinals. Game over, right? Ty Jerome, who led the team with 21 points but was saddled with foul trouble throughout the game, dribbled upcourt and launched a 3 after a pump fake with the seconds ticking off. At best, he hits it, and UVa loses by one as the ball goes through as time expires. Instead, Louisville's Darius Perry hits Jerome's arm, sending him to the line for three shots with 0.9 seconds left.
Sidenote: This drives me bananas, and even the Cavaliers have done it a couple times this season, though it hasn't bit them. If you go up four with fewer than 10 seconds left, why are you guarding at all? It'll take a few seconds for your opponent to get the ball up the court. Then it needs to take a 3 and make it. Worst-case scenario, you're up one with a couple seconds left. But when you defend, you run the risk of what happened to Louisville -- a foul that stops the clock and opens the game up to quirky possibilities -- and of course sometimes the shot goes through with the foul and then the shooter can tie it at the line. To me, the risk of fouling outweighs the defensive pressure you can put on a 3-point shooter in that situation. Teams know they can't foul, so they don't usually contest the 3 too hard. So why do it at all and possibly foul?
So that mistake was on Perry for being too close to Jerome. Like I said, if he doesn't foul him, Jerome either misses, game over, or makes it with no time remaining, game over, or makes it with just a couple tenths of a second left. Game likely over, Louisville wins.
So Jerome goes to the line and makes the first two. Per the usual protocol for any team in this situation, he's ordered to miss the last one, with the idea being UVa will try to tip in a miss and tie the game to send it to overtime. He does miss, but something else happens that isn't a UVa rebound or a Louisville rebound -- a lane violation by Virginia. And this actually works out in the Wahoos' favor. The whole tip-in-and-miss thing doesn't usually work anyway. And if Jerome just makes it accidentally, the Louisville player can run the baseline like normal after a score. But the violation made it so that Deng Adel could not run the baseline. He forgot, and committed what ended up being a traveling violation. UVa ball.
And then the magic happened:
It makes me wonder if more teams, in a situation where there is so little time left, might start committing lane violations on purpose to make it so the inbounder can't move on the baseline. I suppose the tip-in method works occasionally, and if there is about 2-4 seconds left, it is still probably the best option, because you can foul on the opponent's rebound if you don't get the tip-in. Nevertheless, the way it worked out for UVa seems like an intriguing option.
The thing is, Adel moved on the baseline to find an open player. But with so little time left, a clean pass isn't even that important. All the ball literally needs to do is contact a player, and the game will probably be over. He could've thrown it at a UVa player's back or legs, or one of his teammate's. Another option would've been to chuck the ball high in the air toward midcourt and just wait for someone to touch it. Worst case, UVa steals it and gets off a long 3-pointer. The more likely scenario is a Louisville player swats the ball away just to get the clock moving, sort of like a football Hail Mary in reverse -- where you don't care if you swat the ball away instead of catch it. Something else that could go wrong if you just chuck the ball is it could go out of bounds. But you just have to be careful to throw the ball more up than far down the court. If it goes out without hitting anyone, then it would be UVa ball under its own basket, just like what happened. Even in a case though where UVa could've waited to see if the ball would bounce out of bounds, you'd think a Louisville player could touch the ball in that time frame to end the game.
We can debate the best way Louisville should've handled the situation, but clearly, the Cardinals didn't do it correctly Thursday night.
What did I say after the Miami game? Oh yeah. Ladies and gentlemen, De'Andre Hunter.
If his 22-point performance against the Hurricanes -- which included a posterizing dunk and four-point play -- didn't get everyone's attention, maybe this did. On Thursday night, the redshirt freshman drove a stake through Louisville's heart with a banked-in 3-pointer from a few feet beyond the arc as time expired to send the Cavaliers over the Cardinals, completing an improbable comeback on the road. Hunter only had seven points, but the way it happened is what got the nation's attention.
The shot was reminiscent of two years ago when Virginia's Darius Thompson banked in a 3 at the buzzer as UVa stunned Wake Forest, 72-71, also on the road, after being down by seven before Marial Shayok hit a 3 with 14.5 seconds left to cut the lead to four.
Even more shocking than Hunter banking in the game-winning 3 is how the Wahoos got in the situation. They didn't play well for most of the game against a Louisville team that knew it really needed a big win, and the 'Hoos found themselves down 13 in the first half, 13 in the second half
 |
| Virginia celebrates De'Andre Hunter's 3 in a dogpile. |
Sidenote: This drives me bananas, and even the Cavaliers have done it a couple times this season, though it hasn't bit them. If you go up four with fewer than 10 seconds left, why are you guarding at all? It'll take a few seconds for your opponent to get the ball up the court. Then it needs to take a 3 and make it. Worst-case scenario, you're up one with a couple seconds left. But when you defend, you run the risk of what happened to Louisville -- a foul that stops the clock and opens the game up to quirky possibilities -- and of course sometimes the shot goes through with the foul and then the shooter can tie it at the line. To me, the risk of fouling outweighs the defensive pressure you can put on a 3-point shooter in that situation. Teams know they can't foul, so they don't usually contest the 3 too hard. So why do it at all and possibly foul?
So that mistake was on Perry for being too close to Jerome. Like I said, if he doesn't foul him, Jerome either misses, game over, or makes it with no time remaining, game over, or makes it with just a couple tenths of a second left. Game likely over, Louisville wins.
So Jerome goes to the line and makes the first two. Per the usual protocol for any team in this situation, he's ordered to miss the last one, with the idea being UVa will try to tip in a miss and tie the game to send it to overtime. He does miss, but something else happens that isn't a UVa rebound or a Louisville rebound -- a lane violation by Virginia. And this actually works out in the Wahoos' favor. The whole tip-in-and-miss thing doesn't usually work anyway. And if Jerome just makes it accidentally, the Louisville player can run the baseline like normal after a score. But the violation made it so that Deng Adel could not run the baseline. He forgot, and committed what ended up being a traveling violation. UVa ball.
And then the magic happened:
It makes me wonder if more teams, in a situation where there is so little time left, might start committing lane violations on purpose to make it so the inbounder can't move on the baseline. I suppose the tip-in method works occasionally, and if there is about 2-4 seconds left, it is still probably the best option, because you can foul on the opponent's rebound if you don't get the tip-in. Nevertheless, the way it worked out for UVa seems like an intriguing option.
The thing is, Adel moved on the baseline to find an open player. But with so little time left, a clean pass isn't even that important. All the ball literally needs to do is contact a player, and the game will probably be over. He could've thrown it at a UVa player's back or legs, or one of his teammate's. Another option would've been to chuck the ball high in the air toward midcourt and just wait for someone to touch it. Worst case, UVa steals it and gets off a long 3-pointer. The more likely scenario is a Louisville player swats the ball away just to get the clock moving, sort of like a football Hail Mary in reverse -- where you don't care if you swat the ball away instead of catch it. Something else that could go wrong if you just chuck the ball is it could go out of bounds. But you just have to be careful to throw the ball more up than far down the court. If it goes out without hitting anyone, then it would be UVa ball under its own basket, just like what happened. Even in a case though where UVa could've waited to see if the ball would bounce out of bounds, you'd think a Louisville player could touch the ball in that time frame to end the game.
We can debate the best way Louisville should've handled the situation, but clearly, the Cardinals didn't do it correctly Thursday night.
Comments
Post a Comment