Foul at the end??

[GINNNNNNNNNNNNOBILI]

Up 3 with 5 seconds left, would you have put nash at the line instead of giving him a chance to tie it up??

[GINNNNNNNNNNNNOBILI]

I wouldn't, I think fouling brings losing into the equation, whether its them missing the 2nd ft and getting the long rebound and hitting a 3, or spurs missing ft's on the other end.

[BadlyDrawnBoy]

Up 3 with 5 seconds left, would you have put nash at the line instead of giving him a chance to tie it up??

No. You D up.

It's a chicken shit move to foul.

[PM5K]

Up 3 with 5 seconds left, would you have put nash at the line instead of giving him a chance to tie it up??

As much sense as that might make you just never do it for fear you catch him in the act of shooting a three, or foul him and he somehow manages to get a shot off.

As unlikely as that may be, you still go with what's considered the safe play which is just really, really good defense....

[Tek_XX]

With our record of getting burned by last second shots i would have fouled him but hey i liked the end result so it was an excellant decision not to.

[Phil Hellmuth]

It wasn't like we had Jason Terry guarding him, going to give him 5 feet of space to hit a three pointer to put into overtime.

For a guard at the end of the game:

You take a wide open three pointer it has a 40% shot to go in.

You do a running three pointer it probably has a 25-30% chance to go in.

You do a running three pointer with two guys on your ass it probably goes down to 5-10%.

As a poker player, you got to play the percentages. It was a good move not to foul.

[Phil Hellmuth]

are u the real poker player as ur avatar?

Perhaps. If you want autograph we can arrange that.

[Solid D]

In that situation it was tempting but they had to advance the ball from 3/4 court in 4.5 seconds and the Spurs pride themselves on their defense. The clock is the enemy with no timeouts remaining and that much court to work with.

At least two bad things could happen if they foul. 1) The ball-handler shoots in the grasp and the ref. gives him 3 FTs, regardless of how unlikely it was that it was a shot. 2) They knock down both FTs, foul quickly, anything can happen, especially if Spurs miss FTs.

[Phil Hellmuth]

I 2) They knock down both FTs, foul quickly, anything can happen, especially if Spurs miss FTs.

I agree that they should not have fouled, but this reason is flawed because:

1. When suns shot ft's the clock probably would have been around 3-4 seconds.

2. When Suns foul the spurs, 3.7 seconds would remain.

3. If Spurs missed both, the Suns would still have to do a running desperate two or three pointer to win with 4 of the spurs players back in the suns zone in 3 seconds.

[PM5K]

I agree that they should not have fouled, but this reason is flawed because:

1. When suns shot ft's the clock probably would have been around 3-4 seconds.

2. When Suns foul the spurs, 3.7 seconds would remain.

3. If Spurs missed both, the Suns would still have to do a running desperate two or three pointer to win with 4 of the spurs players back in the suns zone in 3 seconds.

The reason really is as I said because it's the safest and most conventional move, any other move puts far too many other things into play, for example trouble inbounding the ball with no timeouts left after Phoenix making both foul shots.

That's just one example....

[GINNNNNNNNNNNNOBILI]

I think if you have a team that shoots ft's great, fouling might be smart, but a team like the spurs should just gut it out.

[Solid D]

True, Helmuth. With no Timeouts remaining the Spurs could purposely miss and run the clock out...however, stuff happens. (3/4 court shots, FT lane violations, fouls boxing out).

[Boo]

Put it this way:

IF Nash made the shot, we would all say right now "WE SHOULDA FOULED HIM!"

Since Nash missed the shot, we're happy we didn't foul.

It all comes down to what happens, not really what you think is best.