The Great "Closer" Fallacy of the NBA

by DRJ1 on Jan 12, 2010 2:11 AM EST

After the 1/11/10 loss to Atlanta, Doc said about the Hawks: “They have two closers... guys who don’t need a play to score, they just need the ball.” Yes, JJ and Crawford are what is known as “closers” in the NBA, and Paul is the "closer" for the Cs. But I’m sitting here shaking my head in disbelief. I do not understand the concept surrounding this term, at all..…

It is a truth universally accepted in the NBA that great teams must have one or more great “closers”… guys like Kobe, Lebron, Pierce, Wade, etc., who can score points when the game is on the line in the 4th quarter. So here’s what happens, using the Cs as example:

Your team has no trouble scoring points through most of the game. Your PG, a world-class playmaker, has done well – penetrating, scoring, and distributing pretty much at will. Now the end of the game is at hand.

Since you subscribe to NBA dogma, you have your world-class point guard STAND ASIDE… like a shrinking violet relegated to the corner… and you give the ball to Paul Pierce… to score. Why? Because he’s a “closer”, of course. Omg… OF COURSE! How STUPID of me to even ask. OF COURSE you abandon everything that has worked all game long, and now - because there are only 2 minutes left in the game - you must let ONE GUY run everything. If he’s tired, if he’s having a bad day… doesn’t matter! He’s a CLOSER!! Give him the ball!!!

Sorry, but this whole sacrosanct NBA dogma about “closers” makes ZERO sense to me. When the game is on the line, you need to give the ball TO YOUR BEST PLAYMAKER. You do NOT abandon your entire game plan at the end of the game when it matters most!! What are you, nuts? When it matters most, you need to EMBRACE your game plan EVEN MORE.

If it’s a great idea to give the ball to your “closer” at the end of a game, then it’s an equally great idea to do the same in the middle of the game. And if it’s a great idea to have your world-class PG run the offense all game long, then it’s also a great idea for him to do it when it counts the most. Changing your entire approach to offense at the end of a game makes NO SENSE AT ALL. Just because it has become NBA dogma doesn’t mean that Doc Rivers should follow it. (And it's not like everybody doesn't KNOW that you're going to Paul at the end!)

Let all the other teams play their stupid games. The fact that it’s dogma to do things one way only indicates that it’s probably wrong. Now STOP making Rondo stop playing his game when the game is on the line. What you are doing is INSANE. Use your best playmaker to make plays when it matters most. Use your best plays to score points when they matter most. Do what you know works… and stop following the craziness that surrounds the mythology of last-minute “closers”.

Be respectful and keep it clean. Thanks.

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The thing about the end game closer

is that defenses know exactly where the ball is going to. it’s going to Kobe. it’s going to Wade. to me, the obvious thing to do would be to NOT give it to that player. confuse the defense and let someone else take the shot. alas…

by KY Celts fan on Jan 12, 2010 2:29 AM EST reply actions

Usually though

When the C’s give the ball to Pierce with a few minutes left, they’re actually running set plays for him. It’s not just like, “Oh hey, Paul, here’s the ball. Go make something happen.” Usually, it’s an isolation play on the right wing for him or the pick-and-roll with KG when Garnett’s healthy.

I understand what you’re saying and it’s not a bad argument at all…I just wanted to point out that sometimes there is a system behind it.

by Greg Payne on Jan 12, 2010 12:44 PM EST reply actions

plus, its about deception...

rondo is not a seasoned actor like pp. the flops pp gets away with gives you twice the ability to win than by leaving it in rondos hand. that head fake pp uses, the refs will buy into it more than any foul rondo could create.

Lakers, Hurricanes, Dolphins
Imagine my sports world in the 80's. They're almost back, 'ceptin the Dolphins

by LAKESHOWrydamee on Jan 12, 2010 2:10 PM EST reply actions

Yes, and...

PP is a better foul shooter too.

All good points. But last night… probably due to exhaustion… it did degenerate into “give it to Paul and let him score” time. But then, they had no coach…….

by DRJ1 on Jan 12, 2010 2:29 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah they needed to get to the basket more last night late in the game

Ray and Paul are both great jump shooters, but they would have benefited more taking it to the free throw line…Paul didn’t take a single free throw last night and Ray only took 3.

by Greg Payne on Jan 12, 2010 6:26 PM EST reply actions

The problem of counting on Rondo to make THE score will probably induce the other team to foul Rondo and ….at this stage of his career, "you know the rest of the story’. PP is a better foul shooter than Rondo, albeit a slower and more guardable player. Im not sure Doc. in his insecure mind wants to put Rondo under the pressure of having Rondo take that responsibility. Maybe If and WHEN Rondo gets to be a consistent foul shooter and he is still on our team, he will probably get the call to be our closer, a la AI, Baron Davis, Wade, Kobe, Lebron, Hondo, Bird, etc. etc .etc.(all great foul shooters) But he has to make his foul shots. Like Greg P. just said. The problem with PP and Ray is that they are a step slower and its becoming harder and harde for them to make their own shot. (3 fouls between tghem last night against a weak defender. This si not 2008 any longer – our stars are a liuttle older, a step slower and more injury prone – and lest I forget, Stern and the refs have it against us. C’est la vie.

by Reyquila on Jan 12, 2010 9:53 PM EST reply actions