The Jazz Go For The Three Instead Of The Quick Two, Was It The Right Call?
Against the Spurs, the Jazz found themselves down five points with 20.9 seconds left in the game. At this point in the game, and with 1 timeout left, the Jazz were faced with a tough decision. They could decide to either go for the quick two, foul, and use their timeout to extend the game, or go for three and do the same thing. Utah decided to go for three:
Now, obviously if you can get three points, you take them, but usually threes are harder to come by late, meaning more time will come off the clock instead of going for a quick two. Often times if you try to get a quick three up (which is what Williams does in the first clip), it is going to be contested, and that is exactly what happens here.
I am leaning towards going for the quick two, mainly because the Jazz still had a timeout, but also, defenses tend to give up quick twos, and I would have used that to my advantage. I would have liked to see them get a quick basket, foul, hope for some free throw misses, and then look to tie the game with a three coming out of a timeout.
I know that scoring and then having the Spurs miss two free throws is a long shot, but if you continue to extend the game, crazy things tend to happen. You miss the three (which is what happened to the Spurs here), and the game is over. If you can get an open three point shot quickly, you should definitely take it, because you are going to need to hit a three eventually to complete the comeback, but with 20 seconds still left in the game, I wouldn’t force a contested three up just yet. What do you guys think?
