12:30 p.m. ET, 5/24/07
LeBron Scrutiny Excessive
Posted by Kelly Dwyer
LeBron James (left) didn't find much room to operate against Rasheed Wallace and the Pistons in Game 1.
It's been a few days since The Pass, a well-timed and pinpoint dish thrown to Donyell Marshall in the waning seconds of Cleveland's Game 1 loss to the Pistons in the Eastern Conference finals, and the clamor surrounding The Passer has yet to die down.
Upon first (and second and 112th ...) glance, it appeared as if LeBron James had a relatively easy window toward either a layup or game-tying dunk with under 10 seconds left Monday, but he instead decided to go with what seemed like his first option all along -- finding Cleveland's sometimes sweet-shooting big man for the game-winner that wasn't.
The decision hasn't exactly polarized observers: Most tend to think LeBron made a mistake in giving up the ball, and many of those critics are also finding something in the split decision that they think is representative of James' attitude toward the game.
Which is silly. It was a pass -- not The Pass -- and you can't chalk it up to anything more than the result of a few obvious influences that begged for a pass instead of The Dunk.
Let's start with what still seems obvious: James should have attempted a shot, and if he finds himself in the same position in Thursday's Game 2, here's hoping he's does just that. Considering the fallout, I'm assuming many observers shared my initial reaction before the ball even touched Marshall's hands: "LeBron, you gotta take that!" That reaction wasn't created by a need to see James win the thing on his own or create some Jordanesque play for the ages; it was merely a visceral response to what looked like the easiest open lane to the rim the Cavs had seen all night. Had Larry Hughes been driving the ball, just replace one L-word with another. Eric Snow? Not so much.
Though some intelligent observers have argued passionately in defense of the pass, it still seems like a high-percentage take for James. Rasheed Wallace, a help defender with seven blocks already to his name, was still technically on the weak side as James made his decision, hardly in prime blocking or shot-changing territory. Tayshaun Prince, who could stay in front of a '68 Mustang even without the benefit of hand-checking, was a half step behind James for the first time all night. It looked like a gimmie, even if James had to lay it in or jump off the wrong foot.
But there were no gimmies, all game long, for James. It's hard to spend nearly 48 minutes adapting to that knowledge and then, in one split second, disabuse yourself of the notion that each layup attempt will be contested (or summarily rejected) by three defenders at a time. To me, this was a reaction made out of near muscle memory, not an attempt to pacify the Play The Right Way crowd and go for that proverbial win (not a tie) on the road.
Again, James just didn't have a clear look at the rim all night, as Detroit's defense was that sound, and in a low-possession game with sound decisions at a premium, each suitable reaction is worth its weight in gold.
When a 20-year-old Magic Johnson led his Lakers, sans Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, to a win in Game 6 of the 1980 Finals, the two teams combined for 230 points. When a 23-year-old Michael Jordan dropped 63 on the Boston Celtics in 1986, the final score (aided by two overtimes) was 135-131. The score of Monday's game was 79-76, a low-possession slugfest of the highest order. The 22-year-old James' decision ended with his team's best three-point shooter having an open look to win the game. I still don't think it the ideal move, but I also can't get too upset by it. And I certainly don't think it indicative of any fault in LeBron's makeup.
He was just doing what seemed right. And, in the end, he gave his team its best chance to win, on the road, against a team that has made the conference finals five years in a row.
Do you want to see him try to send it into overtime? Definitely. Was James somehow at fault for not attempting to? Absolutely not.
LeBron Scrutiny Excessive
Posted by Kelly Dwyer
LeBron James (left) didn't find much room to operate against Rasheed Wallace and the Pistons in Game 1.
It's been a few days since The Pass, a well-timed and pinpoint dish thrown to Donyell Marshall in the waning seconds of Cleveland's Game 1 loss to the Pistons in the Eastern Conference finals, and the clamor surrounding The Passer has yet to die down.
Upon first (and second and 112th ...) glance, it appeared as if LeBron James had a relatively easy window toward either a layup or game-tying dunk with under 10 seconds left Monday, but he instead decided to go with what seemed like his first option all along -- finding Cleveland's sometimes sweet-shooting big man for the game-winner that wasn't.
The decision hasn't exactly polarized observers: Most tend to think LeBron made a mistake in giving up the ball, and many of those critics are also finding something in the split decision that they think is representative of James' attitude toward the game.
Which is silly. It was a pass -- not The Pass -- and you can't chalk it up to anything more than the result of a few obvious influences that begged for a pass instead of The Dunk.
Let's start with what still seems obvious: James should have attempted a shot, and if he finds himself in the same position in Thursday's Game 2, here's hoping he's does just that. Considering the fallout, I'm assuming many observers shared my initial reaction before the ball even touched Marshall's hands: "LeBron, you gotta take that!" That reaction wasn't created by a need to see James win the thing on his own or create some Jordanesque play for the ages; it was merely a visceral response to what looked like the easiest open lane to the rim the Cavs had seen all night. Had Larry Hughes been driving the ball, just replace one L-word with another. Eric Snow? Not so much.
Though some intelligent observers have argued passionately in defense of the pass, it still seems like a high-percentage take for James. Rasheed Wallace, a help defender with seven blocks already to his name, was still technically on the weak side as James made his decision, hardly in prime blocking or shot-changing territory. Tayshaun Prince, who could stay in front of a '68 Mustang even without the benefit of hand-checking, was a half step behind James for the first time all night. It looked like a gimmie, even if James had to lay it in or jump off the wrong foot.
But there were no gimmies, all game long, for James. It's hard to spend nearly 48 minutes adapting to that knowledge and then, in one split second, disabuse yourself of the notion that each layup attempt will be contested (or summarily rejected) by three defenders at a time. To me, this was a reaction made out of near muscle memory, not an attempt to pacify the Play The Right Way crowd and go for that proverbial win (not a tie) on the road.
Again, James just didn't have a clear look at the rim all night, as Detroit's defense was that sound, and in a low-possession game with sound decisions at a premium, each suitable reaction is worth its weight in gold.
When a 20-year-old Magic Johnson led his Lakers, sans Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, to a win in Game 6 of the 1980 Finals, the two teams combined for 230 points. When a 23-year-old Michael Jordan dropped 63 on the Boston Celtics in 1986, the final score (aided by two overtimes) was 135-131. The score of Monday's game was 79-76, a low-possession slugfest of the highest order. The 22-year-old James' decision ended with his team's best three-point shooter having an open look to win the game. I still don't think it the ideal move, but I also can't get too upset by it. And I certainly don't think it indicative of any fault in LeBron's makeup.
He was just doing what seemed right. And, in the end, he gave his team its best chance to win, on the road, against a team that has made the conference finals five years in a row.
Do you want to see him try to send it into overtime? Definitely. Was James somehow at fault for not attempting to? Absolutely not.
