2 for 1
- Thread starter richthedentist
- Start date
You are naive if you do not think that there are some mental things going on. Making an opponent stand around and wait before you attack. But, call in your butt buddy for help.
Last edited:
With 1:15 left why didn't Collins go 3 for 2? Buie took a shot with 53 seconds.
I realize not the strongest of arguments
I realize not the strongest of arguments
Just looked and Ron is 1 for 14 from deep since the Iowa game. Wow. Slump city. Let's hope he breaks out of it tomorrow night.
As for the 2 for 1 debate: my only counter is we didn't spend much of our possession running a play to get a good shot, but just ran the clock down. Yeboah got the rebound with 55 seconds left. Plenty of time to go down and get a shot like the one Harper took. If the scenario happens again, I would prefer we look to get a good shot ASAP. If nothing is there, sure, run it down and take the best shot you can. If we grabbed the rebound with 42 seconds left, no need to rush for a 2 for 1 IMO.
With 1:15 left why didn't Collins go 3 for 2? Buie took a shot with 53 seconds.
I realize not the strongest of arguments
Eventually we will get to the point where every shot needs to be taken in 8 seconds to make sure you get more shots in a game....it's Math.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
bac come on man. LOL. Even if you get an extra .01 points by getting the 2 for 1, it makes sense. We average .98 points per possession.
1) Would you rather have 2 possessions to score or 1 possession to score?
2) Why couldn't we have run the same play but just immediately rather than dribbling at half court for 14 seconds with zero reason behind it?
It was a dumb move by pike, we won so people think it doesn't matter but it does. You can't do **** like that.
So before I address the bolded, Pikiell obviously believes that lets take whatever time is needed to get the look we want then I trust my guys to defend. You would choose to go two for one and try to get a shot up in 8-10 seconds. It doesn't make either of you wrong. You have different philosophies.
I'd agree with him and I'd point back to the Nebraska game because it is eerily similar. Tie game and we have the ball with ~45 seconds. Geo takes a shot with ~15 seconds left, Yeboah gets the huge offensive rebound, and you know the rest.
To your bolded point, once you make the decision the use your full possession, why would you rush? Also, context matters. Geo is unconscious at this point. Sometimes it isn't complicated...put the ball in that kids hand and let him make the decision. He found one of our best shooters for an open look that rimmed out.
I think the biggest problem is why are we picking apart wins in the midst of a historic run? This is why we can’t have nice things!
We can’t have good things has zero to do with fans debating going 2 for 1 in a winning game.
not recruiting length, point guards and not having 4 year players celebrating senior day is a tad bit more the reason
not recruiting length, point guards and not having 4 year players celebrating senior day is a tad bit more the reason
Rutgers misses the shot and gets the offensive rebound and then gets the last shot. We rebounded 50% of our own misses...Over 50% if you removed missed FTs
We were 50/50 on rebounds from our offensive glass. If we rebounded the Harper miss, we would get the last shot, making it 2 RU shots for 0 NW shots.
It goes without saying that we are having a great year by Rutgers standards. And hopefully better is to come but you never know.
I see why people are talking about “two different philosophies” and I see why people are defining it as such. BUT, one Philosophy (in the NBA) has proven to add more expected points over an opponent, 2 for 1, then the other philosophy. When considering that it seems to me one philosophy should be adopted over the other.
I will indulge the “rushed shot argument” even though it is a fallacy that shots taken in a 2 for 1 must be rushed. What I will say to that is even a rushed layup attempt is a higher percentage shot than a Ron Harper Jr. 3-pt attempt. So not only did we potentially trade two possessions for one, we did so for one shot that’s a lower percentage one than a rushed layup that people are arguing against.
I’ll leave it at that.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
2 bad shots statistically is better than > one good shot which you guys are defining as a 25% shot. Not opinion just math. What we generated was 1 25% shot that we could get at any time. Horrific.
2 is greater than 1, simple
The "but we won" argument is so, so, SO bad. If Buie pulls a Wieskamp and his ridiculous running hook at the buzzer goes in, does that change whether or not passing up the 2-for-1 was a bad decision? Of course not!
So you’d rather have only one chance at an offensive rebound rather than two? Lol
I might as well make this my signature on this message board, I swear: Pikiell is a doing a good job overall but even good coaches have weaknesses and one of Pikiell's is that he doesn't integrate modern basketball theory (the stuff backed up by oodles and oodles of research) as much as he should.
It was a dumb move by pike, we won so people think it doesn't matter but it does. You can't do **** like that.[/QUOTE]
Pikiell's record, 17 and 7, 8 and 5, are indications that for every "dumb move" he must be making some "smart moves." To cherry pick and call certain plays "dumb" based on hindsight makes no sense to me. Was he dumb for taking Peter Kiss, or was it a decision which didn't work out? In this instance is his decision dumb for not going 2 for 1 or is it a decision that didn't work out? Take his whole body of work and we all know that his good decisions far outweigh his bad ones.
Pikiell's record, 17 and 7, 8 and 5, are indications that for every "dumb move" he must be making some "smart moves." To cherry pick and call certain plays "dumb" based on hindsight makes no sense to me. Was he dumb for taking Peter Kiss, or was it a decision which didn't work out? In this instance is his decision dumb for not going 2 for 1 or is it a decision that didn't work out? Take his whole body of work and we all know that his good decisions far outweigh his bad ones.
Everyone agrees with this and no one is arguing otherwise.
Pike runs practices and knows the mind-set of his players...he didn't think a 2 for 1 was giving his team the best chance to succeed and make a stop
Nobody's debating this.
If your kid brings home his report card and tells you that his good grades outweigh his bad grades, do you ignore the D in Algebra?
I wasn't advocating one way or the other here, just explaining what he meant.
it wasn't dumb! You can agree or disagree, but it wasn't dumb.
If we debate the 2 for 1 and add who we will allow on the bus from New Brunswick to Omaha , NE this thread could reach 20 pages.
I’ll take Pikes assessment of personnel, both physical and mental over the math of analytics every time.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
if that's his thought then he's just dumb and doesn't get math. We quite literally have people in this thread arguing that 1+0=1 is better than 1+1=2. We are arguing math. Math that a 1st grader comprehends.
The coach who has been on the sidelines for 25+ years explained it based on his first hand experience of seeing how it actually plays out in games. He said he has seen two rushed shots in this situation.
It's not math....it's what his eyes have seen in real games over 25 years.
Of course not.
But the external validity of the NBA study dress but extend to college. And there is heterogeneity regarding the application of data that depends on lots of local factors and details.
I am not arguing that 2 for 1 is a bad strategy. I am arguing that in the college game it is not a universally good strategy and i trust this coach to know the game and his team week enough to make the judgment.
Chances of getting the rebound or inbounding off a make and getting the ball upcourt with 5-10 seconds left (maybe less if they got an offensive rebound) and making a shot would be a total fluke not 25%. A wide open uncontested squared up 3 I will take any time over a hurried possession followed by a possible prayer.
Old school coaches, as usual, are behind when it comes to change. You see it in every sport. Cosches can be notoriously stubborn. Everyone will be doing 2 for 1 eventually. It is just a matter of how fast people adapt.
People keep using the same argument over and over and over that does not apply here its wild. You cant use the argument that you need the full shot clock to get a good play and a 2 for 1 is rushing and then say we should stand are half court and dribble out the clock and start the offense with little time left on the shot clock. They are mutually exclusive
It. Is. The. Same. Exact. Concept.
This is amongst the worst arguments against 2 for 1 I've seen especially when the play we run at and of games is just give it to your closer and watch him go one on one. Exactlyyy what they do in the NBA. The difference really would be college players would miss more which only further makes getting a second shot by going 2 for 1 a better idea
Lol, yea Geo lulled them to sleep. Those dribbles were essential
In this situation its irrelevant obviously since so much time was left. In another situation, sure, that difference might make you not pursue a 2 for 1. This situation, this game? zero factor
Co-signed.
I also take offense to anyone saying questioning any of Pike's decisions means you somehow hate Pike or dont support him. I've been one of the absolute biggest Pike supporters since day one. I've got I like Pike pins and a Pike bobblehead
Actually kyk and I both predicted much better seasons and were right about the team this year. How about all the "Pike haters" picking this team to win 15 games?
Let's not get into a situation where Pike is deemed correct 100% of the time with anyone who questions anything he does is a traitor and hater
In the end, this is the best answer.
RU players expended a lot of energy climbing back into this game. We had to be exhausted and running in adrenaline, especially Geo.
Slowing it down to give our guys a chance to breathe before running the play for a potential game winner, then counting on our defense to close it out, was Pike’s call. I’m good with that, despite the math.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
B1G math guys and podcast legends @rutgersfandan and @RUScrewPod chime in with the math from the top rope.
in a 2 for 1 scenario if we just assume each shot attempt we took was a 25% shot (not even a good shot) we would have a 43.75% chance of scoring just once. The people arguing a 2 for 1 are arguing that 1 25% shot is better.
RUScrewpod is assuming a 25% shot, danny assumes a 30% shot below (which wouldve given us a 51% chance of getting a bucket but you guys believe 25% on one shot is better lol)
in a 2 for 1 scenario if we just assume each shot attempt we took was a 25% shot (not even a good shot) we would have a 43.75% chance of scoring just once. The people arguing a 2 for 1 are arguing that 1 25% shot is better.
RUScrewpod is assuming a 25% shot, danny assumes a 30% shot below (which wouldve given us a 51% chance of getting a bucket but you guys believe 25% on one shot is better lol)