Let's cut to the chase. In the final minute of last night's Bulls game, Ryan Arcidiacano buried a three to cut the Spurs lead down to just one. The Bulls then got a defensive stop with 27 seconds remaining, with two timeouts in their back pocket. The following possession featured a couple of decisions worth second-guessing.
1. Hoiberg Declined To Call A Timeout
This decision was quickly and heavily criticized. While I understand the complaints about the decision, can't take the timeouts home with ya, I'll side with Fred on this one. Especially after hearing his explanation after the game.
"I have confidence in Zach, that's why i didn't call the timeout. The way that the Spurs (could've) subbed, to get a defensive lineup out there...that's the group that I woul'dve rolled out there so thats what we rolled out there."Fred's job is to put his players in the best position to win. If he calls a timeout, not only are the Spurs able to put their best defensive lineup on the floor, but they could decide to front LaVine on the inbounds pass and prevent him from getting the ball in an ISO situation with enough time on the clock to attack the basket. Speaking of attacking the basket...
- Why Didn't LaVine Attack The Basket?
Hoiberg was visibly upset that LaVine waved off the Wendell Carter screen, but Fred should be smart enough not to call for that. The Spurs would've done what they had been doing for the entire fourth quarter, double team LaVine and force the ball out of his hands. It was a bad coaching decision and LaVine was smart to call Carter off. The actually shot decision by LaVine was stupid. The floor was spaced, you have the ballhandling ability/athleticism to get to the rim very quickly. Dribbling the clock out before heaving a difficult jumper is a bad decision in that spot.
It's a good thing that LaVine is a confident shooter, but he's a confident rim attacker as well and that was the smarter play last night. Hopefully, he learns from last night so that history won't repeat itself.
