2 for 1
- Thread starter richthedentist
- Start date
1) It is not an "attack".. it is a comment. And for Pike to say 2 for 1 was not what he wanted removes the idea that it was a "mistake" in his mind. He could have said.. "maybe I should have done the 2 for 1.. it was a 50/50 thing with that much time on the clock". Maybe people would have just dropped it. Someone above mentioned it would have come down to 8 seconds and 10 seconds for our shots.. the way Geo takes him (and time to bring the ball up) that probably wasn't enough time. If YOUNG or MATHIS were lights-out FT shooters maybe it was plenty of time to drive to the rim.. but they are not.
2) the poker reference is off.. many times you have to make decisions well before you KNOW what you have... in Hold'em at least. What the previous poster was indicating was that just because drawing for a flush or straight worked out last time, is no reason to throw chips away chasing a result again.
Old school coaches !
Because the concept of a 2 for 1 just started a few yeas ago with the new breed of young gun coaches....lol
00:47 MISS 3PTR by EASLEY,CHARLIE
-- REBOUND DEF by MCCONNELL,CALEB
00:30 TIMEOUT TEAM by TEAM
00:30 SUB OUT by CROSS,KEVIN
00:30 SUB IN by OUEDRAOGO,YVAN
00:17 MISS 3PTR by BAKER,GEO
-- REBOUND OFF by YEBOAH,AKWASI
00:01 72-75 GOOD 3PTR by BAKER,GEO
00:01 SUB OUT by OUEDRAOGO,YVAN
00:01 SUB IN by CROSS,KEVIN
2 for 0
-- REBOUND DEF by MCCONNELL,CALEB
00:30 TIMEOUT TEAM by TEAM
00:30 SUB OUT by CROSS,KEVIN
00:30 SUB IN by OUEDRAOGO,YVAN
00:17 MISS 3PTR by BAKER,GEO
-- REBOUND OFF by YEBOAH,AKWASI
00:01 72-75 GOOD 3PTR by BAKER,GEO
00:01 SUB OUT by OUEDRAOGO,YVAN
00:01 SUB IN by CROSS,KEVIN
2 for 0
while I do think along the same lines, I also think Geo needs more time for a good shot one on one. If the earlier post about ti being 8 seconds for the first shot.. then 30 for NW.. then 10 seconds for our second shot.. I don't think that's enough time for Geo.
As I mentioned above, if we had a guy who could drive the length of the court in 4-5 seconds and get to the rim and hit 2 FTs on demand.. maybe we do that in a 2 for 1. Maybe he could dish to a lights-out 3pt shooter.. if we had one. But if we all agree that Geo was the guy.. I don't think that's enough time. Its close.. but I think that makes the choice of 2 for 1 or not a pickem.
How many games have they coached or even watched to PROVE that the 2 for 1 works out better in real games...not in a math class.
2 for 0 > 3 for 1
AND the quality of the 3 possessions not as high with #3 potentially being with little or no time
Lol ok? No one is saying if you dont go for a 2 for 1 you lose. It gives your team a better chance to win. That is the point.
To disagree is one thing. To not acknowledge this is a 2 sided argument is the issue.
it is 2 sided, both sides have merit.
it is 2 sided, both sides have merit.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
They wouldve gotten a 2 for 1 had they gotten the rebound, they didnt. They executed it perfectly minus grabbing the board. What if yeboah got called for a walk on the rebound which it clearly was? Now nebraska has the ball tie game with the shot clock off
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
Alot. We got a 25% look from harper. The math plays out to show if we got two 25% looks we have a 43.75% chance of one falling.
I guess you can do that math factoring in a 50% OREB rate and see what it says
No. I want Same debate. 3-0 going 2 for 1 with 48 seconds
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
So youre assuming a few things. A few points from me.
1) we started our possession at 54 seconds and called timeout at 48 seconds. The right move is to call timeout with 54 seconds. Then lets say the simpleton play we run takes 12 seconds (it took 8 in the game), then we shoot at 42 and they get the reb at 41.
2) are they really going to dribble down to zero on the shot clock to get off a shot? Well even if they do we get the ball with 11 seconds left for our second possession, this is an eternity, this is enough time to run that same “ play” once again.
this is math, this isnt hard, this is objective, theres no opinion needed here. You are wrong, math is right
Someone explain how this obvious Math takes Quality of Shots into consideration?
How about no more timeouts?
How about having to go 94 feet for the last shot?
How about no more timeouts?
How about having to go 94 feet for the last shot?
Theoretical question. You have possession with 1 minute left and take a TO with the intention of going 2 for 1.
When do you instruct the team to take the shot?
When do you instruct the team to take the shot?
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
from a statistical standpoint you can look at it any which way you would like to, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of the 2 for 1. We can get an offensive board too, no? Quick fact check, northwestern is #297 nationally in offense boards, we are 63rd best nationally at preventing offensive boards. Keep trying but math is burying your poor soul
Given Baker dribbling away the clock to 9 that becomes less of a factor in the analysis.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
Not too quickly because then you give the other team a chance to turn your 2 for 1 into a 2 for 2. So you ideally get the shot off with about 42-43 seconds left.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
Although initially while at the game , was yelling 2 for 1, I realize now both with Pike’s Answer in the presser and how it plays out in college , it is just different in college tan the pros and not executed at that more efficient pro rate. One thing that everyone in this extremely long thread has not mentioned if what if We go 2 for 1, and miss our shot , and Nw misses their first shot and gets the offensive rebound , and then holds for 1 shot. Then NW has 2 shots to our rushed shot . I do not believe anyone has considered it , in this multiple page response thread. Furthermore, the way we offensive rebound, and Pike had Myles still in the game , it was also possible that we get 2 shots to their 0. Not that far fetched , because it happened in the Nebraska game when we came down court with about 42-45 seconds and Yeboah got the rebound on Geo’s off balance shot , before he hit the game winner.
So overall, although initially I thought it was a no brainer, I now see Pike’s point. Couple that with his confidence in Geo closing , as we have seen him hit a lot of last second shots. Plus Pike trusts his defense , which has been outstanding all year , but especially in late game situations. Plus , some here are claiming Harper’s shot was not a good shot , or because he is a 25% 3 point shooter , it was not good, but I disagree as that was a great look. Yes Ron has been struggling from 3, but he was wide open and the ball was halfway down before it rimmed out.
Like Knight of Terrors mentioned , the criticism of Pike after a win , at 17-7, 8-5 is over the top. It is not so clear cut and it is not dumb. Could it have been done , yes, but the absolutes are just false.
So overall, although initially I thought it was a no brainer, I now see Pike’s point. Couple that with his confidence in Geo closing , as we have seen him hit a lot of last second shots. Plus Pike trusts his defense , which has been outstanding all year , but especially in late game situations. Plus , some here are claiming Harper’s shot was not a good shot , or because he is a 25% 3 point shooter , it was not good, but I disagree as that was a great look. Yes Ron has been struggling from 3, but he was wide open and the ball was halfway down before it rimmed out.
Like Knight of Terrors mentioned , the criticism of Pike after a win , at 17-7, 8-5 is over the top. It is not so clear cut and it is not dumb. Could it have been done , yes, but the absolutes are just false.
I would guess both you and the Northwestern coaches agree that they liked Harper taking a 3 in the midst of a multi game slump with the game on the line
I don't like how you apply the math and interpret it.
You didn't reply to my math riddle above. It illiterate that it is not just the bath but the ability to apply it correctly that matters and that is not always obvious.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
So to answer your bolded point, in other words in your mind our worst case scenario is quite literally what happened by us not going for the 2 for 1. NW ends the game with the ball and shot clock off.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
Heres the truth. We are statistically better off with inbounding it at 48 seconds and having Geo catch and shoot from the block R for a 10% shot and then getting another possession out of it with a 25% shot than to do what we did. If we did what I said above which is dumb and unnecessary it statistically still gives us a better chance of getting a bucket (32.5% to be exact) than just going out of our way to avoid a 2 for 1 and chucking up a 25% shot.
You would need to calculate the odds of us missing, then northwestern DREB, then NW missed shot, then NW OREB
It's possible m, sure, but very unlikely. Again its not a fact that if you go 2 for 1 you win and if you dont you lose. You want to give your team the best chance to win. Saying what if the worst case scenario happens isnt a reason to ignore the most likely scenarios
No that is what can happen in your scenario. Pike’s scenario he runs it down to 18-20 and Nw holds for 1 shot like they did. Remember and a lot of coaches do this , they call timeout. Buie or whoever got the rebound slowly dribbled up court and Collins called timeout with 13-15 seconds left and was holding for one. The 2 for 1 allows NW to get 2 cracks because their first shot will be hoisted with 10-12 seconds.
It’s not math class it’s sports. You can get all the analytics in the world to tell you to take a shot within 10 seconds to go for 2 for 1 ... when to punt on 4th down or go for it But the coach has to take into consideration many factors other then just the data you are presenting as the reason he is dumb for choosing to do what he chose to do.
Going 2-for-1 is bad, three pointers are bad, and Rutgers should dump the ball down into the post and let the big boys go to work more.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
here's the thing. The only reason I'm bringing math in is because it can't be argued. You guys think this is opinion and it's not, it's common sense which a lot of people are lacking.
Would you believe you could score more points if given 1 shot or 2 shots?
Last edited by a moderator: