A
2 for 1
- Thread starter richthedentist
- Start date
Look at the ESPN play by play
48 seconds - Rutgers TO
26 seconds - Ron missed jumper
23 seconds - NW rebound
let’s pretend Ron takes the shot a full 10 second earlier. That means NW rebound at 33 seconds. That gives us 2 seconds minimum or 5 maximum to score. It is math.
48 seconds - Rutgers TO
26 seconds - Ron missed jumper
23 seconds - NW rebound
let’s pretend Ron takes the shot a full 10 second earlier. That means NW rebound at 33 seconds. That gives us 2 seconds minimum or 5 maximum to score. It is math.
He was gonna call up 2 plays for your whippin boy Mulcahey but then realized he wasn't in the game and just said oh what the heck, do the usual Geo.
So now you’re mad at spike for not calling the timeout immediately under our hoop instead of when we crossed half court? Wow! You’re something else. For someone who has a lot to say, you haven’t said much about the defensive adjustments and Pike’s end game line up and rolling with his best guys
there was no screening action by Ron and Myles?
now you are just being dumb. Obviously geo was number 1 option but he reacted to the D and got Ron the ball with an open shot. I can’t remember if Johnson slipped it or not but I would assume he was an option as well
He is a dog with a bone. He has proclaimed that Pike has reached his ceiling. So now it's going to be s*** like this all the time.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
Our possession started with 54 seconds left, we called a timeout 6 seconds into it with 48 secs left and 24 on the shot clock. Theres nothing to argue here, any basketball coach or any analysts will tell you pike royally ****** that one up
I agree with this last part. If it's not there you don't have to force it but we didn't even start running our set until the 2 for 1 opportunity was lost because we just had Geo standing around for 10+ seconds. It's one thing not to force the 2 for 1 but it's another thing to not purposely not even try for it.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
This. We went out of our way to not even attempt it. There was a concerted effort made to not get a 2 for 1. Its not that we didnt get it, its that pike specifically essentially told the team dont even attempt a 2 for 1
If you're truly playing the 2 for 1 ron isn't waiting that long. Or its Geo's shot right away. You can't play it out that way. May be on another shot Rutgers gets the rebound.
Great, and analytics will also tell a baseball manager to leave the entire left side of the infield open with a left handed hitter up when your ace is on the mound. Point is, analytics aren’t always right. Give it a rest. And try to say one positive thing for once.
No assuming ESPN is accurate we got the rebound with 51 seconds left and then called a time out and inbounded it with 48 seconds left.
So with a 30 second shot clock for Northwestern we essentially had about 8-10 seconds to get off a good shot from the inbound to run an effective 2 for 1 that would have left leave us with approx 7 seconds for our 2nd shot.
That’s not our style. You’re off on this. I get you’re frustrated with the offense but you’re seriously making a big stink and over blowing this big time.
You want a two for one? Go watch the NBA.
Show me one time this year or ever that Pike's done this? You play to your strengths and play the game the way you have all year.
I'm pretty sure our offense planned on scoring or drawing a foul on the possession. The plan if they failed to score. Bank on your defense to not foul and stifle them one more time to force OT.
We won fellas!! Good grief!!
Show me one time this year or ever that Pike's done this? You play to your strengths and play the game the way you have all year.
I'm pretty sure our offense planned on scoring or drawing a foul on the possession. The plan if they failed to score. Bank on your defense to not foul and stifle them one more time to force OT.
We won fellas!! Good grief!!
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
We called timeout with 48 secs and 24 on shot call. You cant argue this one man lol, its unfathomable to not go for a 2 for 1. Theres not an analyst, or metric that would say otherwise.
Having 24 on the shot clock doesn’t matter when you consider the math i said above.
Northwestern still has a 30 second shot clock. That means we have 18 seconds for 2 shots...9 seconds each.
That is not our style. I repeat...that is not our style.
Did we miss our shot? Yes.
But I would rather take the extra time to get 1 good shot vs. 2 bad/rushed shots.
Apparently this does not matter to some. It’s a very valid point. We’re not the type of team who can score in under 10 seconds. I’m all for debate. But it’s unreal how some fans want to throw Pike under the bus for this
Geo's "thing" is dribble, dribble, cross-over, dribble, dribble, cross-over, step back, shoot with 2..............
Playing it the way Pike did you can control the situation better. Execute and score and you put the pressure on them.
If you try a two for one and don't score right away and they get possession they now have a full shot clock. Plenty of time now for your opponent to create possible foul shots or go ahead by two or three points. If they take the lead you HAVE TO score in a helter skelter end game scenario. Good luck!
I'll take the less risky more methodical way all night long!!
Rushing and missing a quick shot....Not good.
Taking your time to work for a good shot, making that shot and then playing good defense....Good
I thought 2 for 1 at first but we got a great look there...cannot ask for much more. Harper shot just a little strong in and out.
It's funny some people understand the concept of 2 for 1 and think it's a good strategy in the NBA but not college. Its the same exact concept. We are even just running an NBA iso play. Same as they do in the NBA.
You can also look for the 2 for 1 and tell your players if it's not there don't just jack up any shot but look for one quick. It doesn't make any sense to slow play the clock on purpose and intentionally kill any chance at a 2 for 1
You can also look for the 2 for 1 and tell your players if it's not there don't just jack up any shot but look for one quick. It doesn't make any sense to slow play the clock on purpose and intentionally kill any chance at a 2 for 1
Kyk, read the book Flaw of Average to help to understand why estimates of central tendency can mislead.
It is far from that simple. When this came up a few weeks ago something posted I think a kenpom article on this subject. The numbers for not sorry a definite conclusion.
Time wasn’t there. If played PERFECTLY maybe it works. We are far from a perfect team. The NBA it works because of 24 seconds. I know you can math but that is a full 6 seconds shorter than NCAA. If this were nba Rutgers would have gotten ball back with 12 seconds or so. That is a big deal.
in order for it to work you needed ball up within 3 seconds which would give time for NW rebound with 42 seconds that would leave us with the ball with 7 or 8 seconds.
It is exactly our style to run 9 second plays! We do it all the time. That’s what the Geo isolation play is. Run the clock down to about 9 or 10 seconds and Geo goes to work. This should have been done immediately out of the time out. Further, Geo is a smart guy. You tell him that if he doesn’t have anything he should pull it back out.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
why? Please break down the exact timing we would need to execute a proper 2 for 1 where we get a good shot on both possessions.
how long should each possesion take assuming no matter what northwestern is going to take 29 seconds off before they take a shot?
Pancho, I don't know why you continue to argue with him on this. Your math is solid and he's not going to hear it. At 48 seconds, we would have less than 9 seconds per possession on a 2 for 1. That's all the math you need. Even if you want to use his 0:54 as a point of reference, that leaves us 24 total seconds for 2 possessions.
I would much rather get one good shot than two rushed shots. Coach knows his team. He also knew that NW had gone ice cold on offense so there was a great chance we'd get the stop that we needed.
There's no need to continie arguing this point. You're right and we all know it.
Yeah but analytics lol
I agree with this. I love how some on here are acting as if Pike didn’t even think about this or even do the math.
Numbers are dangerous in the hands of people that don’t understand them.
The best part is we are assuming everything goes right for us. which is not realistic.
For instance, lets say we get same out outcome a ron miss just 10 seconds earlier. Boui instead of taking a terrible shot, Northwestern gets a good shot and actually scores leaving us with 8 seconds to rush. Or maybe bouie doesnt make a shot but NW gets the rebound and they get two possessions to close out the game with 8 seconds left instead of only one. We are also assuming Ron would have gotten the same shot, open standing still 3, if we do start earlier... who knows. Pikiell has been consistent all year. Control what you can control. Defend and rebound.
After sleeping on it, with the time left there was maybe time to start 2, 3 or 4 seconds earlier in the play. but that doesn't really make a difference.
The point is we won a game in which we were down 18. The guys battled back, got stops when we needed them, hit big shots, finally showed some life on offense down the stretch of games..but we are going to kill the coaching staff.
For instance, lets say we get same out outcome a ron miss just 10 seconds earlier. Boui instead of taking a terrible shot, Northwestern gets a good shot and actually scores leaving us with 8 seconds to rush. Or maybe bouie doesnt make a shot but NW gets the rebound and they get two possessions to close out the game with 8 seconds left instead of only one. We are also assuming Ron would have gotten the same shot, open standing still 3, if we do start earlier... who knows. Pikiell has been consistent all year. Control what you can control. Defend and rebound.
After sleeping on it, with the time left there was maybe time to start 2, 3 or 4 seconds earlier in the play. but that doesn't really make a difference.
The point is we won a game in which we were down 18. The guys battled back, got stops when we needed them, hit big shots, finally showed some life on offense down the stretch of games..but we are going to kill the coaching staff.
Pike said when you try for the 2 for 1 you can end up with 2 bad shots. He wanted a good shot and said he trusted his d. Not a bad explanation.
But that’s another problem we constantly call timeout and no plays are drawn up in the timeouts. We didn’t get off a good shot anyway we could have gotten that same shot if we went quickly
Didn’t get off a good shot? Now you’re making things up. Harper had an open stand still 3
Lol wide open squared up 3. Don’t quit your day job
Not the first 9 seconds of a play...no it’s not.
Our style is to run a weave and iso Baker towards the latter end of the shot clock.
Kyk even said our average possession is 17.5 seconds. We run so many fast transition plays that I would even say our average half court possession is a lot longer than 17.5 seconds.
They had no one to stop Geo. I thought he was going to take it to the hoop immediately and either dish, or get fouled. He was white hot down the stretch.
But, we won the game, some great adjustments were made in game, and Geo is back! I went to bed happy.
But, we won the game, some great adjustments were made in game, and Geo is back! I went to bed happy.