2 for 1

[TODDB33]

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.

I think his plan was quite clear play for good shot or set play. This includes isolating Geo and letting him go 1 on 1 if he thinks he can get to basket he goes and then has 3 choices 1 keep going possibly gets fouled 2. Starts to go stops for pull up jumper. 3 dishes off to open man

 

[hoquat63]

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.


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

Not really, if and I say if our efficiency on 10 second plays is say .4 then one shot at .98 is better than 1 at .98

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

I think his plan was quite clear play for good shot or set play. This includes isolating Geo and letting him go 1 on 1 if he thinks he can get to basket he goes and then has 3 choices 1 keep going possibly gets fouled 2. Starts to go stops for pull up jumper. 3 dishes off to open man

So I'll ask again. What's the point of having Geo dribble in place without moving from 48 secs to 34 secs?

 

[phlop87]

KY are you watching the Baylor game? They were just taking about the 2 for 1 and they specifically said college coaches, with the exception of bill self at Kansas, just don’t run a set offense to take advantage of possible 2 for 1 opportunities. They just don’t. That’s an NBA thing

 

[Yeah Baby]

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

Everyone was saying that about Geo before last night. Grow up and enjoy the win.

 

[S_Janowski]

KY are you watching the Baylor game? They were just taking about the 2 for 1 and they specifically said college coaches, with the exception of bill self at Kansas, just don’t run a set offense to take advantage of possible 2 for 1 opportunities. They just don’t. That’s an NBA thing

Are you sure?

According to this thread 99% of college coaches go for a 2 for 1 and it was inexcusable, stupid and wrong for Pikiell not to do it last night. O and anyone who disagrees doesn’t know anything about basketball.

 

[Yeah Baby]

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

If I could shoot and was much taller I would be in the NBA. None of those things happened so why are we talking about it today? Loser mentality by our fans. That’s why.

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.

wow that’s a dumb comment. Geo has been off too. They left him open and we won. Maybe you are a NW fan?

 

[Loyal_2RU]

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.

@kyk1827

Kyk,
Let's play a game. Answer quickly.

I have 3 boxes. One has a cheap stuffed animal, one $10, and one $25,000. It's a fair game.

The boxes are labeled A, B, and C.

You select Box A. I tell you it is not Box B. Do you keep A or switch to Box C?

Loyal

 

[Loyal_2RU]

So I'll ask again. What's the point of having Geo dribble in place without moving from 48 secs to 34 secs?

Rhythm, sense, and flow. Also benefiting from repetitions

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

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

..okay.. I had not done the actual math.. yeah, I am convinced. It didn't really bother me.. though the weave (once we couldn't whittle down the lead under 10) in the second half did bug me..

Even if you say Geo is going to do a 1 on 1 move and end up with the same shot.. 8 seconds is not enough for that

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Kyk,
Let's play a game. Answer quickly.

I have 3 boxes. One has a cheap stuffed animal, one $10, and one $25,000. It's a fair game.

The boxes are labeled A, B, and C.

You select Box A. I tell you it is not Box B. Do you keep A or switch to Box C?

Loyal

yes you switch... its a famous math "riddle".. the Monty Hall problem

 

[sunsetregret]

wow that’s a dumb comment. Geo has been off too. They left him open and we won. Maybe you are a NW fan?

Yes, you figured it out ... I'm totally a diehard Northwestern basketball fan.

 

[TODDB33]

Are you sure?

According to this thread 99% of college coaches go for a 2 for 1 and it was inexcusable, stupid and wrong for Pikiell not to do it last night. O and anyone who disagrees doesn’t know anything about basketball.

So I'll ask again. What's the point of having Geo dribble in place without moving from 48 secs to 34 secs?

If coach is not worried about a 2 for 1 and is playing to score at that time, the less time left on the clock for opponent to score on our D the better.
I think the 2 for 1 becomes more important in a game when your are down a couple with less than a minute to go.
How many times have you seen a team down 3 or 4 come down the court in a 2 for 1 time situation score quickly and rely on D for stop to get ball back with chance to tie or win game on final shot

 

[RUInsanityToo]

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. I now know what it must feel like to be a PSU fan condeming Joe Pa while the looneys are saying he did nothing wrong.

Quite honestly, who cares if he did something wrong? We're all human and this team is built on effort amid imperfection against league opponents with vastly more resources. We get it......we're all enjoying RU's best season in decades while you're on a crusade.....Pike to you is limited and you're posting history suggests you won't stop on pointing this out whatever way you can. BTW......NBA teams do not always deploy 2 for 1 strategies, especially at the end of games.......even less so for college teams.

Also ...... pretty ****** move trying to think of yourself as a martyr based on a forum debate comparing the other side to people who overlooked child rape. Classy.

 

[dpwhite]

I'm starting to wonder... I think Pikiell didn't mind going 2 for 1 when Corey was here. I think he went 2 for 1 in that game against Michigan State in OT, but it's hard to remember. So it could be personnel.

 

[RU677381]

This thread has an unreal quality to it. Several posters have made the case for two shots in the whatever time remained. Without arguing the merits of that decision either way, the issue remains that Pikiell makes thousands of decisions over the course of the season. His percentage of making the “right” decision is easily seen, 17 and 7 and 8 and 5. He knows the team better than any poster on this board and we should respect his explanation in this particular instance and move on.

 

[Pancho1939_rivals]

This line of thinking IS the problem.

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

what is the problem with this line of thinking?

we won. How could that be wrong?

You guys are all arguing against a plan/philosophy that worked!!!!!! It worked!!!!! We won!!! If we lose you guys can call it wrong, dumb, idiotic.... but we F*cking won. You are literally arguing against something that worked.

this is so confusing to me. You are bashing a coach for doing something that worked. It is kind of bonkers. Would a 2 for 1 have worked better? I don’t know but it doesn’t matter because WE WON. It is ok to admit that he had other options but to attack his offensive mind and say he needs to fire someone because of this is just absolute mind boggling

 

[mikebal9]

what is the problem with this line of thinking?

we won. How could that be wrong?

You guys are all arguing against a plan/philosophy that worked!!!!!! It worked!!!!! We won!!! If we lose you guys can call it wrong, dumb, idiotic.... but we F*cking won. You are literally arguing against something that worked.

this is so confusing to me. You are bashing a coach for doing something that worked. It is kind of bonkers. Would a 2 for 1 have worked better? I don’t know but it doesn’t matter because WE WON. It is ok to admit that he had other options but to attack his offensive mind and say he needs to fire someone because of this is just absolute mind boggling

Anyone who plays poker knows that results-based thinking is one of the worst things a player can do.

 

[Pancho1939_rivals]

Anyone who plays poker knows that results-based thinking is one of the worst things a player can do.

1. Exactly why I said perhaps he could have done something better but to attack him for it is crazy

2. in poker you know what you have that’s it. You think you may know what someone else has and then whatever card comes next is pure speculation. Pikiell knew what he had, he knew what northwestern had... he made a decision that worked. That doesnt mean he does it again next game, it means it worked today.


Maybe pikiell knew at home in OT with the crowd ready to blow the roof off the RAC after a huge comeback and the team locked in on defense closing out the game on a 22-8 run(i think) they win going away. Maybe at Purdue he says sh*t we need to win this in regulation.

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

what is the problem with this line of thinking?

we won. How could that be wrong?

You guys are all arguing against a plan/philosophy that worked!!!!!! It worked!!!!! We won!!! If we lose you guys can call it wrong, dumb, idiotic.... but we F*cking won. You are literally arguing against something that worked.

this is so confusing to me. You are bashing a coach for doing something that worked. It is kind of bonkers. Would a 2 for 1 have worked better? I don’t know but it doesn’t matter because WE WON. It is ok to admit that he had other options but to attack his offensive mind and say he needs to fire someone because of this is just absolute mind boggling

Well, here's the thing. It didn't work. We didn't get 2 possession. We went 1 for 1. We didn't score. Northwestern had the ball with the shot clock off in a win or go to OT scenario. It didn't work. Did we win the game? Yes. Did we win the game because of not going for a 2 for 1, not remotely, in fact it almost cost us a huge come from behind victory which would've in effected ended our season.

 

[KnightTerrors]

Well, here's the thing. It didn't work. We didn't get 2 possession. We went 1 for 1. We didn't score. Northwestern had the ball with the shot clock off in a win or go to OT scenario. It didn't work. Did we win the game? Yes. Did we win the game because of not going for a 2 for 1, not remotely, in fact it almost cost us a huge come from behind victory which would've in effected ended our season.

So which one is it? In one breath you're saying we don't run an offense. But in the next you want to get off a good shot within 8-10 seconds to win the game?

You have Geo playing out of his mind. You put the ball in his hand and let him make a decision. He hit Ron for an open shot that rimmed out. You live with that.

 

[TODDB33]

And there is no way in Gods green acres you or anyone on this planet knows if we would have won if we went 2 for 1. How about this scenario- we take a shot in 10 seconds - miss - that leaves about 35 seconds left. NW takes shot - scores and now we have to make a shot in probably 5 seconds.
You didn't like the decision - that's fine by me don't act like that was the ONLY CORRECT decision at that time. I think coach has more experience and knowledge with regards to end game strategy than ANYONE on these boards

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

This thread has an unreal quality to it. Several posters have made the case for two shots in the whatever time remained. Without arguing the merits of that decision either way, the issue remains that Pikiell makes thousands of decisions over the course of the season. His percentage of making the “right” decision is easily seen, 17 and 7 and 8 and 5. He knows the team better than any poster on this board and we should respect his explanation in this particular instance and move on.

I have

 

[bethlehemfan]

I am surprised anyone thinks rushing to get a shot off against a set defense in the half court is a good idea.

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

So which one is it? In one breath you're saying we don't run an offense. But in the next you want to get off a good shot within 8-10 seconds to win the game?

You have Geo playing out of his mind. You put the ball in his hand and let him make a decision. He hit Ron for an open shot that rimmed out. You live with that.

so again, I'll ask the same question that not one single person has responded to after asking it about 10 times.

- Geo got the ball in bounded at 48 seconds and dribbled in place at half court until 34 seconds before moving when Ron and Myles came up to set double screens. Geo then kicked it to Ron for a shot with 28 seconds left. In other words, this "play" took 6 seconds. Why couldn't we inbound at 48 seconds and do that right away in lets say 8 seconds vs the 6 second that it actually took? In that scenario we get the shot off with 40 seconds left and quite literally run the exact same play we ran but now get a 2 for 1. Why couldn't we do that? Here are the questions I want answered by those who think what we did was smart.

1) the bolded above
2) What was the thought process and advantage to having Geo dribble in place for 14 seconds as the clock ticked down from 48 seconds to 34 seconds?

If you can provide me with ANY rationale for this I'll accept it.

 

[Loyal_2RU]

so again, I'll ask the same question that not one single person has responded to after asking it about 10 times.

- Geo got the ball in bounded at 48 seconds and dribbled in place at half court until 34 seconds before moving when Ron and Myles came up to set double screens. Geo then kicked it to Ron for a shot with 28 seconds left. In other words, this "play" took 6 seconds. Why couldn't we inbound at 48 seconds and do that right away in lets say 8 seconds vs the 6 second that it actually took? In that scenario we get the shot off with 40 seconds left and quite literally run the exact same play we ran but now get a 2 for 1. Why couldn't we do that? Here are the questions I want answered by those who think what we did was smart.

1) the bolded above
2) What was the thought process and advantage to having Geo dribble in place for 14 seconds as the clock ticked down from 48 seconds to 34 seconds?

If you can provide me with ANY rationale for this I'll accept it.

As I wrote above.
Rhythm, sense, and flow. Also benefiting from repetitions

In other words, you play the way you practice. And if Pike prioritizes other things instead of practicing 2 for 1's, I don't think we know enough about the team to argue that.

Did you understand why I brought up the game I did above and why its implications disrupt the certainty of your predicted values? I'll tag you in it on case you missed it above.
Loyal

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

I am surprised anyone thinks rushing to get a shot off against a set defense in the half court is a good idea.

That is less of an argument when we take the air out of the ball for 15 seconds intentionally leaving us with the situation you describe.

Another thing that is parallel to this is the fact that Pike has had multiple chances this year to foul at the end of the 1st half when we were not in the bonus and hasn't.

I really think it comes down to not wanting to put a bit extra on a team and put them in situations to screw up.

 

[bethlehemfan]

Part of the 14 seconds is to read the defense. Questioning the 10 other seconds is fair imo but you’ve already made the decision you’re not trying to get a 2-1 which was the correct decision. Starting a few seconds earlier doesn’t get a legitimate opportunity for a second shot anyway so why instill a rush mentality. You may not agree but it’s kind of tickytack at that point. Arguing for a legitimate 2-1 by rushing is not smart.

 

[S_Janowski]

so again, I'll ask the same question that not one single person has responded to after asking it about 10 times.

- Geo got the ball in bounded at 48 seconds and dribbled in place at half court until 34 seconds before moving when Ron and Myles came up to set double screens. Geo then kicked it to Ron for a shot with 28 seconds left. In other words, this "play" took 6 seconds. Why couldn't we inbound at 48 seconds and do that right away in lets say 8 seconds vs the 6 second that it actually took? In that scenario we get the shot off with 40 seconds left and quite literally run the exact same play we ran but now get a 2 for 1. Why couldn't we do that? Here are the questions I want answered by those who think what we did was smart.

1) the bolded above
2) What was the thought process and advantage to having Geo dribble in place for 14 seconds as the clock ticked down from 48 seconds to 34 seconds?

If you can provide me with ANY rationale for this I'll accept it.

Ok I’m back in.

We could have ran that same play right away...but we all have no idea if it would have played out the same. There’s a chance the defense would have reacted differently and Harper wouldn’t have been open....and then we may have chucked up a contested/bad shot just to get a 2 for 1.

We got a clean look which is what we needed in that possession. Just because we missed doesn’t mean it “didn’t work”.

Myself (and I think others in this thread) who were okay not going for 2 for 1 are also open to going for it as well. I don’t think it’s black and white and I would have been fine with either....but with our personnel I think we’re better off not going for it. It has nothing to do with being a Pikiell lover.

Also nobody is talking about how Northwestern went cold and our defense was playing great towards the end of the 2nd half. Another consideration in deciding not to go 2 for 1.

I have an issue with people in this thread claiming he absolutely made the wrong decision or that almost every other college coach in America would have went 2 for 1...or trying to throw NBA stats out there when the College game has traditionally treated this situation differently. There’s no clear cut right or wrong.

 

[ancienthooper]

This thread is unreal. Even Eagles fans celebrate the wins.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Part of the 14 seconds is to read the defense. Questioning the 10 other seconds is fair imo but you’ve already made the decision you’re not trying to get a 2-1 which was the correct decision. Starting a few seconds earlier doesn’t get a legitimate opportunity for a second shot anyway so why instill a rush mentality. You may not agree but it’s kind of tickytack at that point. Arguing for a legitimate 2-1 by rushing is not smart.

You and Pike disagree with me and other.........but I totally get and understand your arguments.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

This thread is unreal. Even Eagles fans celebrate the wins.

This thread is great. Part of why baseball is a great game is because of the decisions managers make and how the game is impacted.

This was a huge decision by Pike with pluses and minuses each way.

This is like arguing a manager should have bunted a player over with no outs a runner on 1st in a tied playoff game in the 9th inning. The argument against it is that the player hasnt been asked to bunt all season and now in a big spot he should be called on to do it?

 

[RUsojo]

what is the problem with this line of thinking?

we won. How could that be wrong?

You guys are all arguing against a plan/philosophy that worked!!!!!! It worked!!!!! We won!!! If we lose you guys can call it wrong, dumb, idiotic.... but we F*cking won. You are literally arguing against something that worked.

this is so confusing to me. You are bashing a coach for doing something that worked. It is kind of bonkers. Would a 2 for 1 have worked better? I don’t know but it doesn’t matter because WE WON. It is ok to admit that he had other options but to attack his offensive mind and say he needs to fire someone because of this is just absolute mind boggling

You can’t possibly be this simple.

 

[RUsojo]

Ok I’m back in.

We could have ran that same play right away...but we all have no idea if it would have played out the same. There’s a chance the defense would have reacted differently and Harper wouldn’t have been open....and then we may have chucked up a contested/bad shot just to get a 2 for 1.

We got a clean look which is what we needed in that possession. Just because we missed doesn’t mean it “didn’t work”.

Myself (and I think others in this thread) who were okay not going for 2 for 1 are also open to going for it as well. I don’t think it’s black and white and I would have been fine with either....but with our personnel I think we’re better off not going for it. It has nothing to do with being a Pikiell lover.

Also nobody is talking about how Northwestern went cold and our defense was playing great towards the end of the 2nd half. Another consideration in deciding not to go 2 for 1.

I have an issue with people in this thread claiming he absolutely made the wrong decision or that almost every other college coach in America would have went 2 for 1...or trying to throw NBA stats out there when the College game has traditionally treated this situation differently. There’s no clear cut right or wrong.

You can’t be serious with this response.

 

[S_Janowski]

You can’t be serious with this response.

Okay how about providing an actual response if you feel that way.

People like you crack me up. You disagree and provide nothing back.

I can’t take your posts seriously anyway after claiming that Geo is a non-factor on this team and refusing to retract your statement.

Your basketball knowledge is very very low.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

his responses remind me of someone...someone really famous or maybe infamous

 

[Scarletnut]

Pike knows his players and feels if he tells them he wants two possessions to the opponent’s one it’ll screw his kids heads up.
I’m sure he’s tried it in practice and doesn’t like what he sees

Zap is right. I wouldn't expect Pike to answer, "Yes, I prefer to go 2 for 1 but we are limited offensively". He believes this is the right strategy for this team. I'll bet when we have multiple top notch shooters he'll go 2 for 1 in this situation.

 

[Scangg]

It seems like the people who dont want the 2 for 1 keep coming back to the same point of "you dont want to rush a shot" saying you have more time to work for a good shot if you dont.... but they haven't answered the question of why we had Geo kill the clock on purpose to leave less time which destroys that argument so they need a new one. If we ran a set offense and moved the ball around and didn't find a shot fast enough for a 2 for 1 that would be completely fine. Intentionally killing any chance of a 2 for 1 on purpose only to have Geo go one on one as the clock winds down is not using the full shot clock to work for the best available as not to rush. Its just not. So what is the new argument? Why couldn't Geo have just went one on one earlier in the clock? There hasn't been one real answer its people just with that gut feeling of "not rushing a shot and using the time to get a better shot" but its not what happened

 

[Big boy stan]

Lets take the shot clock out of this for a moment.

Can we all agree that having two chances to score is better than having one chance to score?

Or do some disagree with this statement?

 

[TODDB33]

so again, I'll ask the same question that not one single person has responded to after asking it about 10 times.

- Geo got the ball in bounded at 48 seconds and dribbled in place at half court until 34 seconds before moving when Ron and Myles came up to set double screens. Geo then kicked it to Ron for a shot with 28 seconds left. In other words, this "play" took 6 seconds. Why couldn't we inbound at 48 seconds and do that right away in lets say 8 seconds vs the 6 second that it actually took? In that scenario we get the shot off with 40 seconds left and quite literally run the exact same play we ran but now get a 2 for 1. Why couldn't we do that? Here are the questions I want answered by those who think what we did was smart.

1) the bolded above
2) What was the thought process and advantage to having Geo dribble in place for 14 seconds as the clock ticked down from 48 seconds to 34 seconds?

If you can provide me with ANY rationale for this I'll accept it.

I answered when I gave you 3 options he had. Drive lane, pull up , dish off. Pike told him to do that. Why can't you accept the fact he was following coaches instructions. Rationale is coaches decision based on his vast number of years coaching