Lebron James Goaltending in Game 5

[saevel25]

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23320247/victor-oladipo-indiana-pacers-says-cleveland-cavaliers-lebron-james-called-goaltending

Looks like Indiana should have won if the correct call was made. I doubt any ref would call the goaltending when it was that close of a call and especially against Lebron.  

[vasaribm]

I agree it's goal tending by the letter of the rule.  At full speed though that's a tough call and Lebron will almost always get the benefit of the doubt.  I wouldn't say Indiana should have won, since Lebron's 3 still wins the game if goal tending is called.  It could have changed the Cavs last play call though.  Rub of the green...

This is not as bad as the missed shot clock violation at the end the Celtics game a couple nights ago.

[klineka]

59 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23320247/victor-oladipo-indiana-pacers-says-cleveland-cavaliers-lebron-james-called-goaltending

Looks like Indiana should have won if the correct call was made. I doubt any ref would call the goaltending when it was that close of a call and especially against Lebron.  

How would Indiana have won? Even if Oladipo makes the shot, it puts the Pacers up by two. The Cavs call a timeout, and Lebron's 3 would have put the Cavs up by 1 for the win instead of up by 3 with the win.

 

Also, if you are going to point out the missed call on the goaltend, you also should call out the missed call on the Cavs possession right before that where the ball got knocked out by Indiana, landed on the baseline (so it should have been out of bounds right then), bounced up and hit Lebron's elbow, and was called out on Lebron when it should have been out on Indiana.

 

Edited April 26, 2018 by klineka

[jamo]

2 hours ago, klineka said:

How would Indiana have won? Even if Oladipo makes the shot, it puts the Pacers up by two. The Cavs call a timeout, and Lebron's 3 would have put the Cavs up by 1 for the win instead of up by 3 with the win.

I was going to post this as well, with the caveat that Indiana would/could have played different defense if they were up 2. Not radically different, because 2 points by the Cavs still would have tied it, but they probably would have been more aggressive on the perimeter if they knew the Cavs needed 3 to win. 

[mdl]

I thought the rule said it wasn't goaltending unless the ball was above the run, regardless of whether the ball had hit the backboard or not?  Which would make it the correct call.

[klineka]

15 hours ago, mdl said:

I thought the rule said it wasn't goaltending unless the ball was above the run, regardless of whether the ball had hit the backboard or not?  Which would make it the correct call.

No.

"In NCAA basketball, WNBA and NBA basketball, goaltending is also called if the ball has already touched the backboard while being above the height of the rim in its flight, regardless of whether it being in an upward or downward flight or whether it is directly above the rim."

Since the rim is so low on the backboard, pretty much any ball that touches the backboard is above the height of the rim, it should have been a goaltend. 

[freshmanUTA]

19 hours ago, klineka said:

How would Indiana have won? Even if Oladipo makes the shot, it puts the Pacers up by two. The Cavs call a timeout, and Lebron's 3 would have put the Cavs up by 1 for the win instead of up by 3 with the win.

Yeah but if the pacers were up 2 wouldn’t you think that a reasonable coach might just push for 2 points and not risk the game? The reason lebron even took a 3 is because if he missed it was going to overtime. If they were down the play call might be a bit different. But who are we to say? I don’t think either of us are NBA coaches 😛

[Patch]

16 hours ago, jamo said:

I was going to post this as well, with the caveat that Indiana would/could have played different defense if they were up 2. Not radically different, because 2 points by the Cavs still would have tied it, but they probably would have been more aggressive on the perimeter if they knew the Cavs needed 3 to win. 

I don't think you can assume that James makes that three pointer if down by two. Odds are in his favor, but there is also odds that say he misses that shot. 

[rehmwa]

I had to look it up.  I had thought goaltending was one of either things - on the way down, or in the cylinder (with caviats of the relative height of the ball vs the rim as 'potential to go in')

I did not know until now that regardless of motion up or down, after hitting the backboard is considered in the category of 'on the way down'

so if that's true, it's a very clear tend.  I wonder where the refs were standing, that was pretty tight to actually see.

[saevel25]

James makes 33% of his 3-pointers in the playoffs and 53% of his 2-point shots.  James also goes to the line for free-throws 57% of the time on all of his shots. He's a career 74% free throw shooter.

Taking that into account,

If James shoots a 3-pointer
CLE Wins: 33%
CLE Lose: 67%

If James shoots a 2-pointer
CLE Wins: 22.5%
TEAMS Tie: 45.3%
CLE Lose: 32.2%

The best chance for Indiana to win is to let James shoot the 3-pointer. Indiana wins 67% of the time.
The best chance for Indiana not to lose on that shot is to let James shoot a 2-pointer. Indiana wins 32.2% of the time, but doesn't lose the game 77.5% of the time.

I think letting James shoot that shot is the right choice. James is not an elite 3-point shooter. If they feel like they could win overtime, then let James go for 2-points.

[klineka]

48 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

James makes 33% of his 3-pointers in the playoffs and 53% of his 2-point shots.  James also goes to the line for free-throws 57% of the time on all of his shots. He's a career 74% free throw shooter.

Taking that into account,

If James shoots a 3-pointer
CLE Wins: 33%
CLE Lose: 67%

If James shoots a 2-pointer
CLE Wins: 22.5%
TEAMS Tie: 45.3%
CLE Lose: 32.2%

The best chance for Indiana to win is to let James shoot the 3-pointer. Indiana wins 67% of the time.
The best chance for Indiana not to lose on that shot is to let James shoot a 2-pointer. Indiana wins 32.2% of the time, but doesn't lose the game 77.5% of the time.

I think letting James shoot that shot is the right choice. James is not an elite 3-point shooter. If they feel like they could win overtime, then let James go for 2-points.

These dont make sense to me. The score was tied when James took the shot. If James missed the 3 pointer, they would have gone to OT, not "CLE Lose: 67%" 

Same with "if James misses a 2 pointer", they would have gone to OT, not "CLE Lose: 32.2%"

Unless you are stating those under the premise that the goaltend should have been called which would have put IND up by 2.

A flawed argument IMO because that fails to take into account the missed call from the Cavs possession on the play before (that I linked the video of earlier in this thread and the NBA admitted was a missed call), which would have kept the ball with the Cavs, have given the Cavs another chance to score and take the lead, which could have resulted in a completely different play call by IND which means that the goaltend likely never would have happened.

[saevel25]

27 minutes ago, klineka said:

These dont make sense to me. The score was tied when James took the shot. 

Oh I thought it was a 2-point lead for Indiana, my bad. The best option is let James shoot the 3-pointer. James makes 53% of this 2-pointers, and goes to the line 57% of the time making 74% of his free throws. The best odds to go to overtime is for James to miss that 3-pointer.

[Buckeyebowman]

I could see the argument if LeBron hadn't been getting regularly clocked by by the Pacers, with no calls!