Obviously, this stems from Lillard's game winner, though I won't complain in this instance since it was a make. I see it happen frequently in the NBA and from Lillard at least three times this season. If a game is tied up and you have the last shot, doesn't it make sense to go for either a drive or a midrange jump shot? Isn't that an easier shot? The only possibility I see is due to an element of surprise or a more likely chance at getting the shot off, but it's a bad shot at that typically.
It's also usually harder to drive or get an open mid range shot in situations like that. The defense is at full force and the refs don't call a lot of fouls at the end of games.
In short-time situations (10 seconds or less), the defense knows it can collapse on the ball handler if he drives in, because a pass out is dangerous, takes too much time, and generally leads to a longer distance shot. So the conventional wisdom seems to be, give the ball to the best ball handler, and hope his range is good enough that he can get the shot off with only one player guarding him.
Plus, if you do make it and leave a bit of time on the clock, it all but eliminates the possibility of the other team beating you in regulation with a 3 at the other end.
There really wasn't that much time left and the Hornets actually defended it very well. Lillard got just barely enough space to get the shot off.
Thanks for waiting. And the answer is: The Blazer with ice water in his veins just happens to be better from outside than from closer. If this were the past with Roy, or the future with an improved Lillard, our best clutch shooter might be better when closer. Show me the prize.
That's a good point; Roy made some amazing drive-to-the-hoop game winners in his day (that one Knicks game, for example)
