"Yeah, teams usually don't win when their best player passes off to George Hill in crunch time..."
You mentioned 3 things 2 of which I agree with but I'm wondering what exactly does this statement imply? To me that's saying Lebron should've done otherwise. He shouldn't have passed the ball to a wide open George Hill is what it sounds like to me.
I think that a George Hill layup has a much higher success rate than Lebron isolating Steph Curry WITH Draymond Green and Kevin Durant sitting high at the elbow waiting on him to make a move. He probably would've had to force a 20+ footer to get a bucket. Give me the lay up in that situation. Klay and Draymond were sleep on that cut, and Looney wasn't sagging off on Kevin Love whatsoever. I personally think holding for last shot was the right call. Lebron has this habit of shying away from big moments but as you said was pretty clutch all playoffs. He scored the go ahead bucket right before Steph Curry hit that And 1. Not to mention after JR got the rebound off of George Hills missed free throw, he was calling for the rock to take the last shot. Sounds like we're living in the past a tad bit too much here. I don't see any sense of a player shying away from a big moment doing what he did. Lastly, both players should get credit. A great cut by Hill and a great pass by LBJ.
Let's not speak of players getting passes because the list is very long lol. I just can't imagine myself blaming Lebron James for making the right basketball play in a situation like this. You definitely got an argument with his actions after the 4th Q ended and the OT performance. End result was a blown game by Cleveland as a whole not just one player. That's just my take. Flip it how you want though lol.
My response was intended to point out that there are arguments both ways and that hate did not "overshadow" logic. I set forth my arguments, and I acknowledge yours. Through my arguments, I was suggesting that there is logic in questioning lebronze's decision with respect to that play. I also suggested that, at the very least, George Hill should get credit for the play, which you acknowledge.
With that said, I will add just a few things regarding the "best player = last shot" angle...
Regarding this angle, the statement "teams usually don't win when their best player passes off to George Hill in crunch time" implies the following: A team's best player usually takes the last shot in crunch time situations, such as the one lebronze was in at the time. (I again note that this is particularly true for perimeter players, as traditional big guys had to rely on perimeter players feeding the ball to them and have historically been slower/bulkier/usually playing a "back to the basket" type of style that is easier to trap. Further, true pass first point guards are also not necessarily in this group, even though they may arguably be their team's best player.)
A team's best (perimeter) player usually represents the best chance for success in such situations. This is usually due to some combination of factors (physical and/or skill) that make them difficult to guard, which is necessary in such situations because the defense is usually playing at full intensity. To cut to the chase, a team's best player is usually best-equipped to handle these situations due to these abilities and because they usually have a lot of experience in these situations. On the other hand, role players (regardless of overall experience) do not always handle these situations very well, whether that is due to a lack of ability, inability to handle pressure, lack of experience in such situations, or a combination of these and other factors. Although I don't have concrete evidence, I would argue that there are more role players out there who will perform like Nick Anderson in crunch time than will perform like Robert Horry.
(In this situation, George Hill actually ended up proving this point in a way. He buckled under the pressure by missing the second free throw. He is basically an 80% free throw shooter for his career in the regular season and playoffs.)
So, rather than rely on a role player who may be out of their league/comfort zone in such situations, I think a lot of the all-time greats looked at these opportunities as moments where they had control of their own fate. Because of this, the "best basketball play" as the play developed went out the window in a way... during a crunch time situation, having the ball in their hands for the last shot WAS the "best basketball play" by default. I'm not saying selfishness doesn't play a factor at times here, but the general premise still stands... most teams would roll the dice with a situation where their best perimeter player (particularly if they are an all-time great) was taking the last shot, regardless of the circumstances/potential selfishness involved.
Certain players almost always took this responsibility upon themselves, with the true greats delivering more often than not. To name a few examples, people were shocked anytime that MJ, Kobe, Larry, and Reggie did NOT take a shot during crunch time, particularly the last shot. These players almost always took the last shot. Were those shots always the "best basketball play?" I would say they probably were the best option at the start of all of those plays... as the plays developed, maybe they ended up being less desirable plays from an observer's perspective. But even in those situations, from a player's perspective and a results perspective, the all-time greats MADE these plays work.
It's very difficult to argue that a play wasn't the "best basketball play" when it works, and the all-time great clutch players took it upon themselves to make it work more often than not. lebronze has a history of avoiding these moments... there is simply no way around this (and again, his previous game winners in the 2018 playoffs really suggest he should have embraced this moment as well). Thus, while lebronze may have made the "best basketball play" from an observer's perspective, if lebronze is as great as everyone says he is, he should have kept it in his hands and left no room for debate by making it work himself.
(This play in particular is very difficult to give him a pass for, as CURRY was the primary defender. I know the rest of the defense was watching him, but he had a guaranteed clean look at the basket from the top of the circle area based on Curry guarding him.)
So, in summary, I definitely think there is something to be said for players that embrace the fact that they have control over their fate in these situations. Due to their sheer physical advantage/skill advantage/will/determination/talent/etc., they decide that their shot, regardless of difficulty, is the "best basketball play," whether that ultimately was the "best basketball play" to make in that situation or not from an outside perspective. The all-time greats usually left little room for debate because they came through in the clutch on their own more often than not. It's pretty difficult to argue with their results.
And again, I repeat, I never said that lebronze failed to make the "best basketball play" in this situation, and I still have not said that. All I am saying is that it is debatable (and, therefore, not illogical to question this decision), particularly in light of the fact that all-time greats usually don't leave this type of thing up for debate.
SMH
. Thought we lost another great!
How can you lose constantly and run away from home constantly and be insecure about going bald yet be this cocky??
