As I watched the final buzzer sound in tonight’s NBA matchup, I couldn’t help but replay the critical sequences that ultimately shaped the final score. The game was a nail-biter, with both teams trading baskets down the stretch, but one factor stood out more than any other: outside shooting efficiency. I’ve been covering the league for over a decade, and it’s become increasingly clear that three-point performance often dictates outcomes in today’s pace-and-space era. Tonight was no exception. One team shot a respectable 38% from beyond the arc, while the other struggled immensely, hitting just 7 of their 28 attempts. That 25% clip from deep, in my view, was the single biggest reason the game swung the way it did.

I remember thinking during the third quarter how the momentum began to shift. The trailing team, down by just four points, had three consecutive wide-open looks from three-point range—the kind of shots they normally knock down at a 40% rate. But one after another, each attempt rattled out. You could feel the energy drain from their bench. It reminded me of a post-game comment I once heard from a veteran coach, who said after a tough loss, "Yung outside shooting natin, ‘di tayo tumama sa labas kanina." Loosely translated, he was pointing out that their outside shots simply weren’t falling that night. That phrase echoed in my mind tonight, because it perfectly encapsulated one team’s struggle. When your primary offensive weapon fails you in crucial moments, it puts immense pressure on every other aspect of your game—defensive stops, rebounding, and even free-throw shooting tend to suffer as a result.

Let’s break down the numbers a bit more, because they tell a compelling story. The winning team capitalized on those missed opportunities by converting in transition. They scored 18 fast-break points in the second half alone, many of which came directly after long rebounds from missed threes. Analytically speaking, long rebounds off errant three-pointers often lead to odd-man rushes the other way, and tonight, that was a key catalyst. I tracked the plus-minus ratings for the main players, and it was glaring: the starting backcourt for the losing team finished with a combined -17, largely because their defensive assignments leaked out for easy baskets whenever a three clanked off the rim. On the other hand, the winning squad’s ball movement in half-court sets was crisp—they assisted on 65% of their made field goals, compared to just 48% for their opponents. That unselfishness created higher-percentage looks, even when their own outside shooting wasn’t lights-out.

From my perspective, what made the difference in those final five minutes wasn’t just shot-making—it was shot selection. I’ve always believed that disciplined offense wins close games, and tonight reinforced that belief. One team continued to hunt threes even when they weren’t falling, while the other adjusted, attacking the paint and drawing fouls. They went to the line 12 times in the fourth quarter, making 10 of those attempts. That’s a stark contrast to the three-point-reliant team, which attempted only four free throws in the same span. I can’t stress enough how important it is to have a balanced offensive approach, especially when the long ball isn’t working. It’s something I’ve seen championship teams do time and again—they find other ways to score when their bread-and-butter plays aren’t available.

Another aspect that stood out to me was the defensive adjustments. The winning team started switching more aggressively on screens in the second half, which disrupted the rhythm of the opposing shooters. I noticed one particular possession where they forced a contested, late-clock three that missed badly, leading to a run-out dunk on the other end. Those kinds of momentum-swinging plays are often the difference between winning and losing. Statistically, the losing team shot just 4-of-15 on contested threes, which is abysmal. In my experience, when your outside shots aren’t falling, you have to find ways to generate easier baskets—whether through offensive putbacks, drives to the rim, or exploiting mismatches. Unfortunately for them, they stuck to their original game plan for too long, and by the time they tried to adjust, the clock had become their enemy.

Looking back, I’d argue that the final score—112-108—doesn’t fully capture how dominant one team was in executing down the stretch. Sure, the margin was narrow, but the flow of the game told a different story. The team that lost had multiple chances to tie or take the lead in the last two minutes, but each time, a missed three-pointer or a rushed shot cost them dearly. It’s a painful reminder that in the modern NBA, living and dying by the three-pointer is a high-risk, high-reward strategy. When it works, it’s beautiful. When it doesn’t, it can feel like you never stood a chance. As that coach’s quote highlighted, some nights the outside shot just isn’t there, and the ability to pivot is what separates good teams from great ones. In my opinion, tonight’s outcome was a perfect example of that lesson playing out on the national stage.