Back to the playoffs for a moment, I could find very little discussion of Thursday's game 6, and none on the last play. At the time, I was struck by the Warriors' decision to go for the three. Before the play, I was thinking, "We have 9 seconds in the front court and we are down one point. So a two pointer or three pointer can win the game, and a free throw can tie it and at least get us to overtime. My play would have been a drive to the basket. The shot would be aggressively defended by Toronto, but still possible, and if they are too aggressive, we might get a foul called and a trip to the line, where we can win or tie. Toronto would likely try to defend that shot by playing tough defense before the shot. I don't remember if fouls at that point were one and one or not, but there we might get at least a free throw to tie.
The shot Curry took, running laterally, catching the pass and turning and firing is a shot he makes often, but this time with three defenders closing on him, he looked to me like he had to hurry the shot, and he looked a little off-balance as he went up. His release is so quick, because he is shooting as soon as his feet leave the floor, so he he did get an open look in between the three defenders. That brings up another point, and that is with three defenders on Curry, there are two other Warriors left wide open. I wish I had recorded the game to replay the last play a few times,
I don't understand taking a lower percentage shot, the three, to win the game, when you only need two to win it, even if the shooter is Curry.. There was plenty of time to set up a play for a path to the hoop. If you drive to the hoop, you are likely going to get fouled and get at least one free throw attempt, but you might just get off a good shot. All the options have risk. I may be wrong, but I think I would have chosen another one.
SFCityBear