2 for 1

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

I disagree here...I think it is debatable. I just happen to agree with you.

If you really want to get analytical.....
1. If we do score it gives NW less time to do the score and foul thing
2. We OREB 1/2 of our misses. Who is to say we don't collect the miss?

Since you can't argue math, I'll give you the math here.

1) Our team averages about .98 points per possession. Would you prefer 2 possessions or 1 possession? EVEN if the 2nd possession is only 10 seconds long.
2) We offensive board 33% of our offensive shots. Hypothetically if we pull down an offensive board shot clock goes back to 20 and there'd be in theory 28 seconds left which is when Ron took that shot. So, we'd be successful with the 2 for 1 there but that's really kind of like a 1 for 1 because it only happens IF we missed the first one.
3) There is no angle in which to argue this. It was the wrong move. Again, it's not even that we didn't get a 2 for 1, it's that we intentionally went out of our way to not even try for one.

 

[RUsojo]

I disagree here...I think it is debatable. I just happen to agree with you.

If you really want to get analytical.....
1. If we do score it gives NW less time to do the score and foul thing
2. We OREB 1/2 of our misses. Who is to say we don't collect the miss?

But again while it was happening I was surprised it wasn't a 2 for 1.

I like debates.

That wasn’t analytical....

Analytical is you add anywhere from .67 to .74 points over your opponent (average teams) from the existing score when executing the first shot attempt in a 2 for 1 scenario; depending on the study.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Gonna disagree with Pike on this.. we have seen our half-court O take the whole clock and still end up with a 1 on 1 move for the shot... we can shoot that anytime.

The reason every guy on a couch says you need to go 2 for 1 is that the vast majority of basketball coaches including the best basketball coaches would go 2 for 1 there. Pike should coach his team to be able to do a reasonable 2 for 1 there.

I also think we should have sped up the game.. we were favored.. our defense is good enough that more possessions by both teams over a given time period should have resulted in more scoring for us over them. Instead of that weave we should ave pushed the ball... which enhances the logic behind 2 for 1 at the end.

 

[RUsojo]

Probably less points added in college but the math functions the same way.

 

[RUsojo]

Gonna disagree with Pike on this.. we have seen our half-court O take the whole clock and still end up with a 1 on 1 move for the shot... we can shoot that anytime.

The reason every guy on a couch says you need to go 2 for 1 is that the vast majority of basketball coaches including the best basketball coaches would go 2 for 1 there. Pike should coach his team to be able to do a reasonable 2 for 1 there.

I also think we should have sped up the game.. we were favored.. our defense is good enough that more possessions by both teams over a given time period should have resulted in more scoring for us over them. Instead of that weave we should ave pushed the ball... which is the same logic behind 2 for 1 at the end.

To be fair a lot of college coaches don’t do it.

Frustrates me because it’s an even bigger edge in that context.

 

[S_Janowski]

To be fair a lot of college coaches don’t do it.

Frustrates me because it’s an even bigger edge in that context.

This will be my last post of the thread and I’ll bow out.

It’s not as black and white or as clear cut as a lot of people are making it out to be. Pikiell isn’t the only college coach in America who wouldn’t have called a 2 for 1. It’s much less frequent in the college game and also harder to execute with college kids (even though it’s the same concept). 2 for 1’s are not as common as you people think they are in college...maybe you watch too much NBA.

Watching this team closely the past couple of years I’m completely fine with not rushing and going for a 2 for 1 and letting Geo do his iso thing or dishing it off to an open guy.

I couldn’t care less that we didn’t have an extensive play drawn up...Geo was on fire in that 2nd half and you want the ball in your best and hottest players hands in that situation. We got a wide open look for Harper we may not have gotten if we rushed a shot and even though he’s been cold with this team I’ll take that open look.

 

[Pancho1939_rivals]

Look Pike has got this one wrong and you can tell because it is BS coach speak to assume you will get two bad shots in a 2 for 1 situation just as it’s BS you’ll get 1 good shot if you opt not to.

He doesn't assume he will get two bad shots. he knows he wants 1 good shot. that all he wants. One possession at time. make or miss the game is decided on he defensive end.

 

[xkiesterx]

Serious question- Who actually does this in college basketball?

Not sure I see anyone do it at all. Not really interested in rushing our guys, I think that's a great way to turn the ball over and take horrendous shots.

 

[Pancho1939_rivals]

The truth is regardless of what happened there was 50 scenarios that could have played out that lead to us winning or losing. Pikiell picked one. Didnt worry about anything but getting a good shot and defending. Do not over complicate it. good shot.defend. Very simple. very pikiell.

If Ron hits that 3 no one even talks about this today. If Geo travels trying to get a shot off because in the back of his head he is thinking about getting the ball back in 2 plays, this board goes nuts asking why would we try to go 2 for 1 when all we need is score and get a stop.

We are all speaking after seeing the outcome and some posters are stating with certainty that a 2 for 1 was absolutely the right move with no other possibilities. As Janoswski said this isnt black or white. if doing what we did was the absolute wrong thing to do than we would have lost the game.

 

[BigLou]

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.

So basically you want 2 rushed shots - the first in about 8 seconds which would leave 10 seconds on the clock after NW used 30, to get the 2nd shot off (having to go full length oof the court). Can you spell not our style?

Also, we were not getting the timeout that much faster than 6 seconds. Yeboah rebounded with 54, had to hand it off and the ball handler had to get over the line. Was not happening in 2 seconds.

Also you are not considering that we were killing it on the offensive boards (we had 16 offensive boards and they had 17 defensive) and maybe Pike liked our chances of getting a rebound better than scoring on a rushed play.

Lastly, we have had 2 of these situations this year and have gone on to win both games. Maybe the coaches know more than message board experts.

 

[Scangg]

So basically you want 2 rushed shots - the first in about 8 seconds which would leave 10 seconds on the clock after NW used 30, to get the 2nd shot off (having to go full length oof the court). Can you spell not our style?

Also, we were not getting the timeout that much faster than 6 seconds. Yeboah rebounded with 54, had to hand it off and the ball handler had to get over the line. Was not happening in 2 seconds.

Also you are not considering that we were killing it on the offensive boards (we had 16 offensive boards and they had 17 defensive) and maybe Pike liked our chances of getting a rebound better than scoring on a rushed play.

Lastly, we have had 2 of these situations this year and have gone on to win both games. Maybe the coaches know more than message board experts.

If you dont think 54 seconds is enough time for a 2 for 1, I can't take your reasoning seriously. That is an eternity.

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

He doesn't assume he will get two bad shots. he knows he wants 1 good shot. that all he wants. One possession at time. make or miss the game is decided on he defensive end.

If one good shot is a 28% shot we have a problem here houston.

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

So basically you want 2 rushed shots - first in about 8 seconds which would leave 10 seconds on the clock after NW used 30, to get the 2nd shot off (having to go full length oof the court). Can you spell not our style?

Also, we were not getting the timeout that much faster than 6 seconds. Yeboah rebounded with 54, had to hand it off and the ball handler had to get over the line. Was not happening in 2 seconds.

Also you are not considering that we were killing it on the offensive boards (we had 16 offensive boards and they had 17 defensive) and maybe Pike liked our chances of getting a rebound better than scoring on a rushed play.

Lastly, we have had 2 of these situations this year and have gone on to win both games. Maybe the coaches know more than message board experts.

we wouldnt have had to rush ****. There was alottttt of time on that clock. Geo dribbled for 14 second on the block R before moving

 

[Yeah Baby]

your arguement holds water if we are moving the ball, setting screens, etc..... We just had Geo stand (wasting time) before going with 9 seconds left.

That’s how we scored out last 40 points so I think it was okay to do it there. He was on fire.

 

[BigLou]

If you dont think 54 seconds is enough time for a 2 for 1, I can't take your reasoning seriously. That is an eternity.

we wouldnt have had to rush ****. There was alottttt of time on that clock. Geo dribbled for 14 second on the block R before moving

Its not that going for the 2 for 1 is not a viable option. Its' that you refuse to think the way Pike played it is also a viable option. Considering that our team does not shoot well, but does rebound and defend extremely well, Pike thought his way was the way to go against both Nebraska and Northwestern. Guess what, he was right.

 

[RUsojo]

Its not that going for the 2 for 1 is not a viable option. Its' that you refuse to think the way Pike played it is also a viable option. Considering that our team does not shoot well, but does rebound and defend extremely well, Pike thought his way was the way to go against both Nebraska and Northwestern. Guess what, he was right.

This line of thinking is the absolute problem.

 

[RUsojo]

He doesn't assume he will get two bad shots. he knows he wants 1 good shot. that all he wants. One possession at time. make or miss the game is decided on he defensive end.

This line of thinking IS the problem.

And for what it’s worth he said that in the post game.

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

Its not that going for the 2 for 1 is not a viable option. Its' that you refuse to think the way Pike played it is also a viable option. Considering that our team does not shoot well, but does rebound and defend extremely well, Pike thought his way was the way to go against both Nebraska and Northwestern. Guess what, he was right.

Guess what?

A) He could've gotten harpers shot twice instead of once.
B) Northwestern could've hit a shot and ended our season.
C) Stop arguing this, it's not smart.

 

[BigLou]

This line of thinking is the absolute problem.

How is playing to our strengths the problem?

 

[Yeah Baby]

The point many of you missed is NW DID try a 2 for 1 and they rushed 2 terrible shots and we got a wide open look.

 

[RUsojo]

How is playing to our strengths the problem?

I didn’t want to respond because this response shows you’re missing the point. So, leaving aside the 2 for 1 conversation.

BUT, how does shooting one 3 point attempt as the 330th ranked three point shooting team in the country play to our strengths?

 

[BigLou]

Guess what?

A) He could've gotten harpers shot twice instead of once.
B) Northwestern could've hit a shot and ended our season.
C) Stop arguing this, it's not smart.

I forgot, you are the smartest guy in the room.

Over and out, hope you enjoyed the victory.

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

The point many of you missed is NW DID try a 2 for 1 and they rushed 2 terrible shots and we got a wide open look.

When did they try that? Because youre wrong

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

I forgot, you are the smartest guy in the room.

Over and out, hope you enjoyed the victory.

Not pretending to be but 1+1 = 2 x .98 > 1+ 0 = 1 x .98

 

[Big boy stan]

IMO, the question is not why did Pike not go 2 for 1. The question is is why waste 14 seconds. People keep saying that 2 for 1 is not our style but neither is waiting for the clock to run down and running a single kickout play. We had to do something abnormal for us just to stop it becoming a 2 for 1.

We intentionally went out of our way to do the exact thing that Coach said he did not want to do.
A) Run a quick play for our offense (time from Geo's initial move to Harper's shot hitting the rim was only 8 seconds)
B) give the opponent the ball with almost a full shot clock (Buie rebounds with 27 sec left on the clock).

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

That wasn’t analytical....

Analytical is you add anywhere from .67 to .74 points over your opponent (average teams) from the existing score when executing the first shot attempt in a 2 for 1 scenario; depending on the study.

I need more data.

 

[RUsojo]

I need more data.

Choose to research the subject matter or don’t get involved in the discussion. At least that’s what my VP boss would say to me.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

I am not sure why we can't have 2 different opinions and respect each side. I disagreed with Pike on this one, but I am sure he had a good reason.

 

[S_Janowski]

IMO, the question is not why did Pike not go 2 for 1. The question is is why waste 14 seconds. People keep saying that 2 for 1 is not our style but neither is waiting for the clock to run down and running a single kickout play. We had to do something abnormal for us just to stop it becoming a 2 for 1.

We intentionally went out of our way to do the exact thing that Coach said he did not want to do.
A) Run a quick play for our offense (time from Geo's initial move to Harper's shot hitting the rim was only 8 seconds)
B) give the opponent the ball with almost a full shot clock (Buie rebounds with 27 sec left on the clock).

I do agree with this.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Choose to research the subject matter or don’t get involved in the discussion. At least that’s what my VP boss would say to me.

You just spouted out numbers. They could be NBA as far as we know. Also it doesn't take in consideration the exact seconds left. Then if you add our team and our strengths and NW and their weaknesses.

I think at the end of the day it would be tough to support not doing 2 for 1 with raw numbers, but I'll bet you could get pretty darn near close.

As I said before....we got 50% of OREB and we are a bad foul shooting team. These are VERY important facts to the equation.

 

[RUsojo]

You just spouted out numbers. They could be NBA as far as we know. Also it doesn't take in consideration the exact seconds left. Then if you add our team and our strengths and NW and their weaknesses.

I think at the end of the day it would be tough to support not doing 2 for 1 with raw numbers, but I'll bet you could get pretty darn near close.

As I said before....we got 50% of OREB and we are a bad foul shooting team. These are VERY important facts to the equation.

Yawn.

 

[sunsetregret]

Harper got a clean look and if he hits that nobody is bitching about not going for the 2 for 1.

The reason he got a clean look is because everyone knows he hasn't come close to hitting that shot consistently in the last four or five games.

 

[sunsetregret]

The point many of you missed is NW DID try a 2 for 1 and they rushed 2 terrible shots and we got a wide open look.

... by a guy who couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat.

 

[RobotHunter]

Pike is a good coach but that doesn't mean he immune to making boneheaded decisions. Its amazing how many on here will defend every decision he makes at all cost. It was a bad move. They inbound with approx 49 sec left and Geo just dribbles for approx. 16 seconds before he even moves toward the defense. They had plenty of time to get a decent shot off and still ensure they had a final shot if NW scores there. Bad move no way around it but they won anyway so no harm done. If they lost on a last second bucket by NW I can't imagine the same people would be defending him here.

 

[hoquat63]

Since you can't argue math, I'll give you the math here.

1) Our team averages about .98 points per possession. Would you prefer 2 possessions or 1 possession? EVEN if the 2nd possession is only 10 seconds long.
2) We offensive board 33% of our offensive shots. Hypothetically if we pull down an offensive board shot clock goes back to 20 and there'd be in theory 28 seconds left which is when Ron took that shot. So, we'd be successful with the 2 for 1 there but that's really kind of like a 1 for 1 because it only happens IF we missed the first one.
3) There is no angle in which to argue this. It was the wrong move. Again, it's not even that we didn't get a 2 for 1, it's that we intentionally went out of our way to not even try for one.

Fallacy in your point #1 - we average .98 in a 30 second possession. How many points do we average per possession when we shoot in the first 10 seconds? I have no idea, maybe you have a stat for that?

 

[Scangg]

Its not that going for the 2 for 1 is not a viable option. Its' that you refuse to think the way Pike played it is also a viable option. Considering that our team does not shoot well, but does rebound and defend extremely well, Pike thought his way was the way to go against both Nebraska and Northwestern. Guess what, he was right.

If the team doesn't shoot well but rebounds and defends well then why would we only want one shot instead of two? You're listing reasons that support the other side of the argument.

Fallacy in your point #1 - we average .98 in a 30 second possession. How many points do we average per possession when we shoot in the first 10 seconds? I have no idea, maybe you have a stat for that?

The math still favors the 2 for 1 as long as your efficiency isnt zero

 

[FrankZ_RU93]

1) I always prefer 2 for 1.
2) I cringed when Harper took the 3 when we abandoned the idea yet again.

 

[zebnatto]

The truth is regardless of what happened there was 50 scenarios that could have played out that lead to us winning or losing. Pikiell picked one. Didnt worry about anything but getting a good shot and defending. Do not over complicate it. good shot.defend. Very simple. very pikiell.

If Ron hits that 3 no one even talks about this today. If Geo travels trying to get a shot off because in the back of his head he is thinking about getting the ball back in 2 plays, this board goes nuts asking why would we try to go 2 for 1 when all we need is score and get a stop.

We are all speaking after seeing the outcome and some posters are stating with certainty that a 2 for 1 was absolutely the right move with no other possibilities. As Janoswski said this isnt black or white. if doing what we did was the absolute wrong thing to do than we would have lost the game.

But if NU kid makes game winner after we do not go 2-for-1 it’s the only thing we talk about today.

 

[TODDB33]

Again, we inbounded the ball with 54 seconds left and our average possession length is 17.5 seconds. Wed have to really go out of our way to not go for a 2 for 1 and thats exactly what we did. Its inexcusable and couldve cost us the game

Kyk serious question what was score at that point 66 - 66. I think Pikes way of thinking was hold for the good shot no matter how long to get it. If we score with if we hold for close to 30 seconds we count on D to hold them. If 3 is made by us NW job is tougher. I guess he feels our D can win game in that type situation if we score

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

Kyk serious question what was score at that point 66 - 66. I think Pikes way of thinking was hold for the good shot no matter how long to get it. If we score with if we hold for close to 30 seconds we count on D to hold them. If 3 is made by us NW job is tougher. I guess he feels our D can win game in that type situation if we score

Again, I keep saying the same thing. It's one thing to try for a good shot it's another to do what pike did in having geo dribble for 14 straight seconds from 48 secs down to 34 secs at center court. There was no plan there, there was no logic. No one has yet been able to come up with logic on why that made sense because it simply didn't.