This is real simple, You do not bench a guy that can turn a game around with a couple of outside shots when there wasn't another player on the court that could hit outside shots.
Pierce was in foul trouble all night. That meant Tony Allen had to be playing. Once KG sat, without Ray, there's no threat of an outside shot and without a threat of an outside shot to space the floor LA packs it in and Boston will have major problems scoring.
Ray, even cold, is a threat to hit and keep hitting at any time. He must stay in the game as a threat to hit the outside shot so that space opens up for Perk, pierce, KG, Rondo and the rest of the Celtics to operate inside when they need to.
You don't bench Ray for that reason, because he's your best three point threat and because he just went off and the chances of him going 0 for the game the next game are unfathomable.
Define unfathomable. Because I believe it was just fathomed. Anybody who believes something is "unfathomable" and it ends up happening is inept at fathoming in my opinion. Even KG said, "Anything is possible." That anything doesn't always have to be a positive thing.
I was calling for Ray to be benched in favor of Tony during the game, but my friend insisted with the same logic that "he can hit at any moment." But couldn't Tony also? To me, they both seemed equally unlikely at the time. But in the game up to that point, Tony had harassed Kobe on defense and Ray was letting Kobe get off shots he wanted, even if they were "contested" we know that Kobe can still hit contested shots that he wants.
So you are going to make fun of my use of an adjective and call me inept at something? What is so hard to understand about what I said?
After going 11-20 and 8-11 from three on Sunday night it is almost impossible to conceive(unfathomable) that Ray Allen could go 0-13 in the very next game. Just because you are in the immensely vast minority that could conceive this ahead of time(which by the way I seriously doubt, I am more inclined to believe you are just doing a magnificent job of being brilliant through Monday morning quarterbacking), doesn't make the notion unfathomable for all us much less clairvoyant people.
A coach needs to play the odds. The odds are that at any given time(ANY GIVEN TIME, even after Ray has missed 12 straight shots and Tony Allen has made 12 straight shots) Ray Allen will hit a shot before Tony Allen will. In a late game situation, Ray Allen has to be in if you are behind, not Tony Allen. It's the correct and intelligent basketball decision to make because Ray has more experience in making shots in those situations, is more likely to hit a shot in those situations, and creates more opportunities for his team mates to hit shots in those situations. Just one look at the 20 footer Tony heaved up earlier in the game is testament to that fact.
Sorry if that came off as snide and making fun of you, Nick. I can see how it came off as that, maybe I was generally annoyed, but I think I was a little misunderstood also. I sincerely apologize and have always enjoyed reading your opinions and generally tend to agree with you. TP for you.
I do agree that it would be nearly impossible to believe at the start of game 3 that Ray would have gone 0-13. But, I thought you were talking about it being unfathomable in the 4th quarter, when Ray was already 0-11 or so. That's when I was calling for Ray to be benched for Tony. At that point, I find it completely possible that Ray might not a hit a shot all game and would be very surprised for somebody to find that unfathomable. That's what I thought you were saying. And everybody is right, maybe Tony won't hit one either. But if I were coach, my game plan would have been for neither of them to be one of our top offensive options, our offense would be running through Garnett. So it would matter little who would hit the next shot. What would matter was that somebody still had to guard Kobe, which I would want Tony for.
