Kings surprised Finley took last shot

[MavsFanFinley]

Kings surprised Finley took last shot

By DAVID MOORE / The Dallas Morning News

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – If you're surprised that Dallas coach Don Nelson asked Michael Finley to take the final shot in the team's Game 2 loss to Sacramento, you aren't alone.

The Kings players were surprised as well.

Defensive ace Doug Christie expected the Mavericks to turn to their two-man game of Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki to tie the score in the final 15 seconds. So did forward Chris Webber.

Because Dallas had attacked Webber and Brad Miller all game and Nowitzki was hot (28 points), the Kings forward assumed the play would come his way.

Instead, the Mavericks isolated Finley on Peja Stojakovic. The Kings forward stripped the ball before Finley could squeeze off the shot.

"Once I saw Mike with the ball, I lingered around," Christie said. "That's how I ended up getting it when Peja hit it, because I was thinking they would go with the high pick-and-roll. But the time before that they did that and he [Nash] missed the shot. He had a good look at it and just missed.

"But Nellie's thinking is, OK, we had a good shot and missed it. They're probably not going to play it [high pick-and-roll] the same. Let's go to something else."

Webber was careful not to criticize Nelson for the call. In fact, he praised his former coach for putting the ball in the hands of the player who has been with Dallas the longest.

"I respect that as a player and I know Nowitzki and Nash respect that because they have been through the fire together," Webber said. "They know he [Finley] can make it. And that's the scary thing about playing them. They're not predictable."

[rakesh.s]

webber is yapping a little too much..especially in that other article about najera

dallas needs to start najera and bench walker....they better come out and win the next 2 games or it's going to be embarassing

[Murphy3]

I'm sure Webber is very thankful that the ball didn't end up in the hands of dirk.

[bernardos70]

Kings surprised Finley took last shot? But he didn't take the last shot, as he lost the ball on the way up. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

[FreshJive]

Of course Webber liked the decesion to give Fin the last shot. I think that goes without saying.

[twelli]

Gerry Fraley in the DMN:
"The Mavericks have been outscored by 18 points with Nowitzki on the floor. He must take some of the blame that falls on Nelson and Finley for the failed final play in Game 2.

Trailing 81-79, the Mavericks had the ball with 18.9 seconds remaining. The play started with the ball going to Nowitzki on the perimeter. He decided not to test Chris Webber, beaten into submission in the second half by Eduardo Najera, and handed off to Finley.

The ultra-talented Nowitzki is the Mavericks' best player. He had the ball with a favorable matchup. An elite player takes the shot in that situation.

Nelson knows Nowitzki tends to defer to others, particularly in the fourth quarter. Nelson's mistake was giving Nowitzki the option to pass instead of telling him to take over.

There are two flaws in Nowitzki's game: a limited low-post repertoire and a lack of assertiveness. The former can be improved. The latter could be a career-long problem.

An assertive player makes sure he takes the final shot. An assertive player talks his way into staying in the game rather than coming out with five fouls in the fourth quarter, as Nowitzki did in the series opener."



Does Dirk shy away from the big play at the end of a game? Should he make sure to make the final shot?
I think he should have gone inside and try to get a shot or a foul. He's grown up. He's capable. And Fin is in a slump. A no-brainer...

[mavsman55]

Well, Gerry Fraley probably didn't watch the freakin game. He probably just judged by what he saw on the ESPN recap (which was totally in favor of Sacramento, I might add). Nowitzki didn't shy away from the ball, he was simply following directions. Bad directions, sadly, but he was following them nevertheless. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant.

[twelli]

Should he follow or disregard those bad directions if he feels there is a better way to make a shot? Was MJ always following Phil's directions? For example, was the pass to Steve Kerr in one of the Finals games drawn up by the coach or was it based on what MJ thought was the best in that situation?

I would love to see Dirk make his own decisions and the coach allow him to do so, like "listen, dirk, I'll feed you the ball, you decide."

[Murphy3]

Fraley is a basketball idiot. He's never had much substance when it came to b'ball. The play was called for Finley. I suppose Dirk could have said 'to hell with what Nellie says'.

Fraley knows his baseball. It's just a shame that he's allowed to write about anything else. It really pisses me off that people such as him are allowed to throw out incorrect information simply because they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

[MavsFanFinley]

Mavs not dwelling on Finley's fumble

By Art Garcia
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

The Mavericks defended the shot ... perhaps better than Peja Stojakovic did. Each of the Mavs willing to talk about the potential game-tying possession ending with Michael Finley losing the ball refused to second guess.

In that regard, they seemed alone. Putting the ball in the hands of Finley with Tuesday night's Game 2 on the line led to the obvious question. Why?

"You would have liked a better shot than the one we got, because we didn't get one," Mavs coach Don Nelson said Wednesday, the day after the 83-79 loss that gave Sacramento a 2-0 lead in the first-round series.

"If I had known that, of course I would have done something else, but there wasn't another man hot other than Dirk [Nowitzki]."

Though Nelson is well aware of the criticism, he didn't second guess the play that began with Nowitzki. Nelson said the play went off as designed and Nowitzki didn't make a mistake by giving up the ball.

"Mike is struggling to the point that maybe you could question whether or not that play should have been run," Nelson said, "but that's a play that we've run in the past that's been very successful of getting a good shot for us. ... We got the ball where we wanted to whom we wanted it, and it just didn't work out."

The role of the longest tenured Maverick isn't the question, as Finley has proven his worth to the franchise through the years and throughout this season. Nelson, however, admitted after the Kings beat the Mavs in the opener that Finley wasn't himself. Finley, normally willing to face the music in any situation, declined to comment after the game and again on Wednesday.

The tri-captain struggled through Sunday's 116-105 loss in Game 1, scoring nine points on 4-of-13 shooting in 38 minutes. Finley wasn't faring much better Tuesday, having missed 8 of 12 shots leading up the possession that held the game in balance.

"He won a lot of games for us, and Mike's been our leader all year," said Nowitzki, who is averaging 30 points in the series.

The sequence began with the Mavs down 81-79 with 18.9 seconds left. Taking a pass from Nowitzki near the top of the arc, Finley found himself isolated against Stojakovic. Finley has largely settled for jump shots since returning from a two-game absence late in the season due to back spasms, and against the 6-foot-10 forward, he began to drive left before planting for a fadeaway jumper.

The move is one of Finley's favorites, but as he began to elevate the ball slipped out of his hands and into the grasp of Doug Christie. Finley fouled the Kings guard with 9.9 seconds remaining, and Christie nailed both free throws, effectively closing out Sacramento's victory.

But not the series, according to the Mavs. The best-of-seven, in the midst of a three-day break, resumes Saturday with Game 3 at American Airlines Center. The fourth game, also at AAC, is Monday.

"The more games that you lose the tougher it becomes," Nelson said. "However, the way a seven-game series is programmed, now we go home for two, and we were the best home-court team in the league this season."

The Mavs did own a league-best and franchise-record 36-5 mark at home during the season. They've also won five of the last six against Sacramento at ACC, including last year's playoffs.

Though no one is ready to issue do-or-die proclamations, the Mavs do realize the next two games are crucial. No team in NBA history has rallied to win a series facing a 3-0 deficit. The 2001 Mavs did, however, forge back from 0-2 to upset the Utah Jazz in five games.

"It's not impossible," guard Steve Nash said. "We just have to stay positive. What are your alternatives? Give up or keep fighting. We've got to keep fighting and stay alive."

Perhaps, but Finley's wayward attempt serves as a microcosm of a series in which the Mavs have had their chances. "We had a lot of good looks, everybody did," Nelson said.

Nash added the game shouldn't be boiled down to Finley's try, and echoed Nelson's sentiment of missed chances in the final few frantic minutes.

"It was a tough shot, but I think it's close-minded to look at that as the play that decided the game," said Nash, who went 6-of-20 from the field. "There were so many plays prior to that. I think it was a whole portfolio of missed opportunities for us."

[rakesh.s]

mavs are relying too much on the home court...in the playoffs, they've shown that they can be beaten at home..so they better win these next 2 games or all the talking was no use

[grndmstr_c]

Honestly, at this point what else do they have that they can rely on? You get two chances at home down 0-2, you rely on it, you stake your life on it, because it's sure as hell more solid ground to stake your tent in than an elimination Game 5 in Sac.

[PubaNWO]

But then you have to think about it this way....MAvs have to win 4 straight to avoid a game 7 at Arco.

[TwoDeep3]

Of course Murphy.

Fraley is a basketball idiot. He's never had much substance when it came to b'ball.

Just like Nelson. You have been on him for three years. Fact is you stated you never liked the idea of Nelson coaching this team once.

Cuban. Your disdain for him is almost legendary.

Walker. Needs no quote.

Nick Van Exel was terrific last year, but the way you tell it he would have choked this year. (How you would possibly know this is unimportant I suppose. Oh yes, stats! I forgot.)

Anyone is an idiot that doesn't agree with you that Dirk is the answer to all questions about the Mavs.

In another thread when it was mentioned that the big three weren't getting it done, you agreed with everything but the implication Dirk wasn't getting it done.

Obviously, this guy simply does not know how to use stats.

You are a truly unique character, Murphy. A basketball genius without a team of your own.

Two things.

First, Dirk was 3 of 6, not 3 of 5. Not a significant difference but enough.

Two, ever hear of the draw play in football? It looks like a pass, but suddenly it's a run.

Seems to me that occassionally you force the other team to guard Dirk and then toss them a change-up.

And please tell me you have noticed that Finley has made a few game winning shots in his career. Even when he is ice cold from the floor.

I know you are running for your stat book now.

[kg_veteran]

TwoDeep - How about commenting on the validity of Fraley's opinions instead of the ad hominem attack on Murph, eh? Fraley either didn't watch the game or is in serious Nellie-apologist mode. Kind of like you are.

Seems to me that occassionally you force the other team to guard Dirk and then toss them a change-up.

This is just a euphemism for what Nellie would call using Dirk as a "decoy".

The opinion is pretty universal for everybody not named Nellie, Fraley, or TwoDeep. You give the ball to Dirk and let him win or lose the game.

That's not because everybody thinks Dirk can do no wrong. It's because they know he has the best chance of doing right.

[Murphy3]

TwoDeep, you never comment on the statistical analysis that anyone else provides. All you have is "you're wrong" or "you think you know more than the coach".

Yes, you have opinions of your own, but do you ever provide analysis to back up your opinions? Do you ever counter someone elses analysis with analysis of your own? Or, do you just provide empty words?