Is this thread seriously still going on 2 days after we won
2 for 1
- Thread starter richthedentist
- Start date
Difference is bunt or no bunt, it's only debated for 3 days if your team lost. If your team WON the manager is the next Miller Huggins. This thread can't take the joy out of winning, but it's trying.
in the game thread when it happened, I initially said should have gone 2 for 1 but said we got a great look there for Harper. We can debate all the variables but the shot was a very clean look for 3, who wouldnt want a shot like that in the end game. It really was not controversial, if Pike doesnt like 2 for 1s end of discussion, I dont like fouling a guy up 3 either but some coaches love it..see Roy Williams
maybe we should be debating why Collins called timeout then had Bababuoy dribble the ball for 10 seconds and throw up a prayer because that is more meaningful toward why Rutgers avoided disaster
you are assuming the 2 for 1 would have worked even though you have no basis to believe that. Maybe i could argue that putting in Peter Kiss who is a better shooter than Ron would have worked.
Agree 100%. Collins probably wanted something different than what they got.
This is my biggest issue with Kyk. he is categorically saying pikiell got out coached for not going for the 2 for 1 even though collins ran that out of a time out. I can only imagine if the roles were reverse.
I already have all up and down this thread. The math says 2 for 1 every time. Every time. You saying that it doesn’t matter that Pike fbs the clock down to avoid a 2 for 1 because “we don’t know what could’ve happened” is outrageous. What we know did happen is he took expected points added off the board.
What I’ve said about Geo: he is a pull up shooter and off ball defender. That’s it. Most of the time he’s not that good especially against teams with a pulse. He can’t get to the rim consistently and can’t guard any decent guard in the league man to man on the ball. He is severely impacted by Pikiells rotations flaws, which isn’t his fault.
I think the whole point is that it should be a "math" thing. Pikiell is not out of the mainstream for college coaches on this issue, so that isn't / should not be the criticism of him, but there seems to be an inefficiency there. It is the same thing that existed for years (and still does, but to a lesser extent) with going for it on 4th downs in football -- the stats always said teams should go for it much more often than they did.
Pikiell did the same thing in the Nebraska game, and I raised the issue then.
Another issue is why let NW get the last shot of the game? If you can foul a NW shooter who is under 70% and they only get a 1 and 1, math says they should be fouled. I don't know the NW FT percentages well enough to know if that was even possible on Sunday, but it is another thing that is rarely done in bball even though the math seems to dictate otherwise.
I agree that those who use it as an example of being "outcoached" are incorrect, at least because almost all ncaa coaches seem to do the same thing. The issue is whether there is an inefficiency there that could be taken advantage of.
whose math?
you know what should have happened was why didnt Collins have someone hack Myles when RU was up 2 in OT or even earlier when they were up 1 before Yeboah hit a 3...why let Geo run the clock out...foul Myles and do you think he makes 2.
i am far more bothered by us not even trying to foulout Ba Ba Booie for ~ 10mins than the 2 for 1...
Sure - make a thread about Collins coaching errors that helped lift Rutgers to victory. I’d love to discuss it.
There was 48 seconds when that timeout was called by Rutgers at halfcourt.
A 2 for 1 would have required a shot in about 8 seconds. That's a rushed shot.
As many have stated, 2 for 1 works well in tbe NBA because the ball is advanced. And that's if you have a timeout....Rutgers did not.
Advocating for two rushed shots in 8 seconds and maybe 10 seconds for a last shot when you have to go fullcourt is stupid and that's why Pikiell is a good coach.
We did have the ball at half court and the play we ran took 6 seconds. Less than 8. Yet you’re saying it wasn’t a rushed shot. Which it wasn’t. Which is why you’re argument is bunk.
Yea well that’s an NBA study.
NBA players are more polished and experienced vs. College players and are more capable of executing a 2 for 1. The defense in the NBA is also a joke.
Find me a college study and I bet the numbers are worse.
Again, I’m not completely against a 2 for 1 in college and coaches should probably do it a lot more often. I probably would have called it the same way Pikiell did against NW considering our personnel and the fact that NW had only made 1 field goal in the last 7.5 minutes of the 2nd half....I think that’s a pretty “serious” take.
Last edited:
Its not a "math" thing. Its a coaches philosophy thing. Some coaches foul up by 3 and less then 10 seconds.and some don't. Some coaches call timeout with the ball and less then a minute left and some don't. Some coaches take out a player if they pick up their 2nd foul in the first half and sit them for the balance of the half, some don't. These are just basketball examples ... Every sport has things that fans, analysts, talk sports hosts etc can/will debate and it comes down to the coach making a decision that they feel will give their team the best chance at winning the game. There are very few absolutes in sports and going 2 for 1 is certainly not one of them.
Dude, the NBA advances the ball to halfcourt on a timeout. That's why it done in that league.
Rutgers was out of timeouts, so the option to advance and call a timeout was not there. We are talking about getting a rebound, get it to a guard for a last second shot after going fullcourt. Very low chance of success.
Last edited:
I am on your side with the argument, but I think I gave real answers for the other side.
The primary reason.........assuming no turnovers......in this game you have a 50% chance of a 2 for 0 if you don't actually make the shot
Simplistic (non 2 for 1)
50% RU makes and NW has 1 chance
25% RU misses and gets OREB and has the last shot (2 for 0)
25% RU misses and NW gets DREB
Last edited:
There is no universal application of that math that is correct. I use numbers for a living in medicine and health Care. And that first statement is one primary lesson i have learned over the decades.
The play took the time that was used. Geo dribbling at halfcourt and making the defense think about what going to happen was part of it. If you come out of a timeout and do something different there a no guarantees that the same shot is there.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
So your excuse is you need to dribble in place for 14 seconds while staring at the clock to get rhythm sense and flow? Again, we didn't even have to practice a 2 for 1 here LOL all we had to do was run the same exact play just start 14 seconds sooner rather than dribbling in place for 14 seconds. I'm in the twilight zone, it's official.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
I am simply assuming we would have gotten 2 possessions instead of 1 possession which statistically, unequivocally increases our chances of winning. It cannot be argued.
Yeah of course. But you’re not able to render a study meaningless with an argument like grass isn’t green because you saw it burnt beige before.
Very well said. These are the decisions that coaches make every game and they have a ton of data that they can point to that supports their decisions. The difference is how each coach INTERPRETS the data. I trust Pikiell's decision making based on his years of doing this and his track record. I can't believe this thread is still going on!! Time to move on.
EXACTLY! The edge is so huge because no one else is using basic math to gain an edge.
It’s why the best teams in the NFL are using analytics and winning big. It’s why only recently a small number of college teams are using it because it applies to college football - though the outputs will be slightly different BUT FAVORABLE
What nobody seems to be addressing is that if Rutgers really rushed the first shot, with say, 42 seconds left, then NW would have had time for a 2 for 1 of their own. So, you’d not only be rushing into a likely miss, but then you’re giving your opponent two chances to beat you.
The whole “rushing a shot” narrative is created by stubborn coaches. There’s no need to rush a shot in a two for one, though sometimes you can in an effort to create the opportunity, and in this case rushing a shot was not necessary to get one based on the clock.
The major problem in this thread is that you have different people arguing different things and a lot of it is getting crossed over.
You seem to be arguing that it would have been a better statistical decision to go for 2 for 1 there and that more college teams should be doing it. That is fair and I can’t really disagree with that. But it’s still not totally black and white and coaches should be able to use some intuition based on their personnel and the flow of the game. We are not a great half court team to begin with let along getting off a planned play in 8 seconds...AND we held NW to 1....I repeat 1 field goal in the last 7.5 minutes. Those two facts alone would steer you away from a 2 for 1.
Then you have @kyk1827 arguing that 99% of coaches would have called for the 2 for 1, that it was the absolute wrong decision and anyone who disagrees doesn’t know basketball or is a Penn State child rape enabler. That is all a bunch of bs and not even worth arguing any more tbh.
Me. I would not want a shot like that ... he only averages 27% on three-pointers and he's been shooting poorly the last 10 games or so.
Good summation. I’ll only add that your second fact, NW only having one FG for 7+ down the stretch, shouldn’t impact the 2 for 1 discussion seeing as NW would still only have one offensive possession.
I do agree with KYK regarding what Pike actually ran though and how long the “play” actually took.
Geo getting the ball at halfcourt and immediately going into a 8 second play does not get the same shot for Harper.
99% of the people watching, including the NWU defense have seen it before. Geo dribbling at halfcourt, slowly moving forward with the crossover to take a shot. So Yes, the halfcourt dribbling was the plan and that's why Harper was open.
You are being your usual anti-Pikiell self. Using the NBA as a guide. They advance the ball to halfcourt on a timeout. That means 2-1 makes more sense.