The team with the most points per possession stat per Kenpom wins.
2 for 1
- Thread starter richthedentist
- Start date
The team with the most points per possession stat per Kenpom wins.
Listen, you and I agree on most points, judging from the likes each of us gives to the other’s posts, but I had absolutely no problem with Harper’s 3. It was not rushed, there was no hesitation, their was no step back , it was catch and shoot an open shot . Now that is different than my other posted suggestions that I want Harper away from hanging around the 3 point line but on the block or using his mid range game . But this shot I had no problem with , if Geo was not driving to the hole.
It’s not common sense, it’s just mathematical probability. All of the common sense in that game was owned by Pike, who had more understanding, insight, knowledge and wisdom about his players and his team than anyone else inside our outside that building.
By contrast you know nothing at all about me, starting with the fact that I was a varsity athlete, so your attempt at a personal attack fell flat, like many of your b-ball arguments.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
Heres what ive realized and its the only reason ill be able to sleep knowing people cant truly believe that not attempting a 2 for 1 is smart.
RU fans love pikiell so much that if he went for a 2 for 1 the same people in here arguing that he was smart not to go for a 2 for 1 would be lauding him. Its a credit to pike, he has RU fans willing to back him up on anything he does right now. Pike truly can do no wrong and hes the first RU coach that the majority of fans can say that about in a while
RU fans love pikiell so much that if he went for a 2 for 1 the same people in here arguing that he was smart not to go for a 2 for 1 would be lauding him. Its a credit to pike, he has RU fans willing to back him up on anything he does right now. Pike truly can do no wrong and hes the first RU coach that the majority of fans can say that about in a while
Guzzle a few white claws in the men’s room and you might see the light.
This is an interesting thread. It is interesting to discuss strategy and probability.
From my seat at the RAC, I would have gone for the 2 for 1. Rutgers had an additional time out, and in a 2 for 1 scenario, we could have brought the ball across midcourt and called a time out with about 3 or 4 seconds left in the game. Not a ton of time, but still enough time to get a shot off and give Rutgers another opportunity to score in regulation.
However, even though I would have gone for the 2 for 1, I think not going for it was a viable option. I also think that some of the people who are calling Pike's decision mistake are playing fast and loose with the numbers and statistics to support their argument.
First, Geo stalled for only 9.2 seconds, not 14. The ball was inbounded with 48.3 seconds on the clock, and Rutgers moved for 3 seconds before the stall started at 45.3 on the clock. The stall ended when Harper and Johnson started moving 9.2 seconds later with 36.1 on the clock. Harper took his shot at 29.4 seconds and Northwestern rebounded at 26.5 seconds. (In theory, if Rutgers got into position in 1 second rather than 3 and Baker didn't stall for 9.2 seconds, then there would have been 37.7 seconds left on the clock when Northwestern rebounded.)
Second, the fact that Rutgers averages 0.98 points per possession is somewhat meaningless in this situation. There is zero percent chance that Rutgers scores 0.98 points on its last possession. Rutgers might score 1 point, or 2 points, or 3 points, or even 4 points, but there is no way they score 0.98 points.
@Greene Rice FIG has it right, you really need to look at this through a probability tree. You would need to know the probability of all the individual possibilities such as making a 3 or making a 2 or getting fouled or committing a turnover, etc. And you would need to know if those probabilities are different if a shot is taken quickly vs if a shot is taken later. I don't know what those probabilities are. I doubt that anyone here knows what those probabilities are. I don't know if our coaching staff has looked at this in a generic situation, or maybe they have a guy with a laptop crunching the numbers and feeding the probability to Pike during the timeout.
There are also some intangible things that are a little harder to quantify. Does Geo's stall lull the Northwestern defense making it easier for someone to get open, or does it not make a difference. If Pike goes for the 2 for 1, do our guys play less intense defense because they are thinking about how to get the ball into the front court quickly for their last play.
There are a lot of variable here, and without crunching the numbers in real time and quantifying the intangibles, it is really hard to mathematically determine the best option. A lot of this has to be gut feel. So even though my inclination was to go for a 2-for-1 to have 4 seconds for a last opportunity, I think Pike's decision is certainly a viable choice.
And once Pike makes the decision to forego the 2-for-1, his decision to eat clock time makes sense. Rutgers wants to use up as much clock as possible to limit Northwestern's second-chance opportunities if they rebound their miss.
Also @BillyC80 brings up a good point about leaving Northwestern time to go for a 2-for-1. If 48 seconds is enough time for Rutgers to attempt a 2-for-1, would 38 seconds be enough for Northwestern to try a 2-for-1. They took 2.6 seconds out of their 1:00 timeout to put up their shot, albeit a wild airball (I don't understand why Northwestern rushed that shot since they had plenty of time to look for a better shot). Certainly if Rutgers went for a 2-for-1, and left Northwestern 38 seconds, do they have enough time to go for 2 shots? What is the maximum amount of time Rutgers could leave on the clock to prevent Northwestern from trying their own 2-for-1?
From my seat at the RAC, I would have gone for the 2 for 1. Rutgers had an additional time out, and in a 2 for 1 scenario, we could have brought the ball across midcourt and called a time out with about 3 or 4 seconds left in the game. Not a ton of time, but still enough time to get a shot off and give Rutgers another opportunity to score in regulation.
However, even though I would have gone for the 2 for 1, I think not going for it was a viable option. I also think that some of the people who are calling Pike's decision mistake are playing fast and loose with the numbers and statistics to support their argument.
First, Geo stalled for only 9.2 seconds, not 14. The ball was inbounded with 48.3 seconds on the clock, and Rutgers moved for 3 seconds before the stall started at 45.3 on the clock. The stall ended when Harper and Johnson started moving 9.2 seconds later with 36.1 on the clock. Harper took his shot at 29.4 seconds and Northwestern rebounded at 26.5 seconds. (In theory, if Rutgers got into position in 1 second rather than 3 and Baker didn't stall for 9.2 seconds, then there would have been 37.7 seconds left on the clock when Northwestern rebounded.)
Second, the fact that Rutgers averages 0.98 points per possession is somewhat meaningless in this situation. There is zero percent chance that Rutgers scores 0.98 points on its last possession. Rutgers might score 1 point, or 2 points, or 3 points, or even 4 points, but there is no way they score 0.98 points.
@Greene Rice FIG has it right, you really need to look at this through a probability tree. You would need to know the probability of all the individual possibilities such as making a 3 or making a 2 or getting fouled or committing a turnover, etc. And you would need to know if those probabilities are different if a shot is taken quickly vs if a shot is taken later. I don't know what those probabilities are. I doubt that anyone here knows what those probabilities are. I don't know if our coaching staff has looked at this in a generic situation, or maybe they have a guy with a laptop crunching the numbers and feeding the probability to Pike during the timeout.
There are also some intangible things that are a little harder to quantify. Does Geo's stall lull the Northwestern defense making it easier for someone to get open, or does it not make a difference. If Pike goes for the 2 for 1, do our guys play less intense defense because they are thinking about how to get the ball into the front court quickly for their last play.
There are a lot of variable here, and without crunching the numbers in real time and quantifying the intangibles, it is really hard to mathematically determine the best option. A lot of this has to be gut feel. So even though my inclination was to go for a 2-for-1 to have 4 seconds for a last opportunity, I think Pike's decision is certainly a viable choice.
And once Pike makes the decision to forego the 2-for-1, his decision to eat clock time makes sense. Rutgers wants to use up as much clock as possible to limit Northwestern's second-chance opportunities if they rebound their miss.
Also @BillyC80 brings up a good point about leaving Northwestern time to go for a 2-for-1. If 48 seconds is enough time for Rutgers to attempt a 2-for-1, would 38 seconds be enough for Northwestern to try a 2-for-1. They took 2.6 seconds out of their 1:00 timeout to put up their shot, albeit a wild airball (I don't understand why Northwestern rushed that shot since they had plenty of time to look for a better shot). Certainly if Rutgers went for a 2-for-1, and left Northwestern 38 seconds, do they have enough time to go for 2 shots? What is the maximum amount of time Rutgers could leave on the clock to prevent Northwestern from trying their own 2-for-1?
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
Great post. This is why 2 for 1 at end of game is tough. What is the optimal time to take the shot?
I know this thread is really long but I'm fairly certain you asked this and he answered already
Listen there are 4 scenarios with your 2 for 1 . Not sure if you are using 51 seconds when Yeboah rebounded or 48 seconds when Pike called time out.
1) Rutgers hits a shot between either 51/48 and I guess 40 seconds , NW rebounds and hits one to tie, and Rutgers gets last shot that goes in for the win or OT in 10 seconds or less.
2) Rutgers misses first shot , NW hits its shot , either a 2 or a 3, using almost the whole 30 second clock and getting the look they want and not scrambling, leaving Rutgers less than 10 seconds to get the rebound and hit shot for the tie, win or loss.
3) Rutgers misses first shot , Nw misses their shot in the first 30 seconds , gets the rebound, and within 10 seconds shoots for the win or OT. This scenario gives NW 2 chances to win or game goes to OT , and Exactly the same as it played out with NW with the ball last with a chance to win.
4) Rutgers misses first shot between 51/48 seconds and 40 seconds , Rutgers gets the rebound and holds for most of the next 30 seconds , and either hits for the lead, leaving NW scrambling to come down court with less than 10 seconds to try to tie or win , or Rutgers rebounds the second miss and gets a third shot to win or go OT .
2 of the 4 scenarios numbers 1 and 4 are favorable for Rutgers but scenarios 2 and 3 are not favorable for Rutgers. Not so clear cut as one might originally thought, so second guessing Pike does not guarantee the victory in regulation even in scenarios 1 and 4
Nope-
I’d say after spending all year with his players, learning their tendencies and how they respond under game pressure, coupled with the important factor of who the opponent is on that night...
He was confident a 2 for 1 was good play.
I don’t defend either play, I’m defending the coaches choice
For those wondering, and maybe this is why people prefer holding the ball, the most frequent outcome of a 2 for 1 situation is to gain 0 points over your opponent. The next most frequent is 2 points more than your opponent. The other scenarios follow at a much less frequent rate.
I think it’s 9 seconds over the shot clock amount.
What’s more is that if Pike was less stubborn he could prepare for these scenarios in practice and actually be even more effective.
His responses have been telling. He doesn’t care for the 2 for 1 at all and there for doesn’t prep accordingly. When you consider that, than there is reason to believe it won’t be executed properly anyway.
But that should change.
His responses have been telling. He doesn’t care for the 2 for 1 at all and there for doesn’t prep accordingly. When you consider that, than there is reason to believe it won’t be executed properly anyway.
But that should change.
I’m sure it will when he thinks it fits the personnel.
Something tells me if he had Christian Laettnner he’d be doing 2 for 1s
Why should that change? How is a proper way to execute a 2 for 1? All he has to do is say Geo, Myles and Ron start at x seconds. Why would he waste more than 4 minutes of practice on a situation that happened 1 time in 24 games this season. The only time it really matters is a one and done situation...
Show your work to back up these most frequent and 2nd most frequent outcomes in College Basketball ? College, not NBA.
Link the sites where you got this info.
Last edited:
I really think if an optimal shot time can be had we would still be able to poke holes in a 2 for 1 arguement.
38 seconds leaves not enough time for a 2Nd possession
44 seconds allows for a 2 for 1 for the other team (although we are arguing against 2 for 1...)
38 seconds leaves not enough time for a 2Nd possession
44 seconds allows for a 2 for 1 for the other team (although we are arguing against 2 for 1...)
Just decided to rewatch last 5 minutes of game.
1 minute left northwestern taking ball out on side line buie gets goes right to the rim and air balls a layup. Rutgers rebound. 48 seconds left Rutgers TO. Elmore says something pretty funny “the only thing I can think of in a quick shot like that Chris Collins is playing for 2 for 1 otherwise you have time to go high screen and role and give yourself options”
So Collins got exactly what he wanted a 2 for 1. What he didn’t want was two terrible air balls on two consecutive possessions to close out the game.
So I find it historical that northwestern ran a successful 2 for 1 and Rutgers didn’t but both ended up in overtime which was a clear advantage to Rutgers. NW then went on to lose. So Chris Collins did the “right” thing according to posters and got exactly what pikiell didn’t want. “Two bad shots”!!!
1 minute left northwestern taking ball out on side line buie gets goes right to the rim and air balls a layup. Rutgers rebound. 48 seconds left Rutgers TO. Elmore says something pretty funny “the only thing I can think of in a quick shot like that Chris Collins is playing for 2 for 1 otherwise you have time to go high screen and role and give yourself options”
So Collins got exactly what he wanted a 2 for 1. What he didn’t want was two terrible air balls on two consecutive possessions to close out the game.
So I find it historical that northwestern ran a successful 2 for 1 and Rutgers didn’t but both ended up in overtime which was a clear advantage to Rutgers. NW then went on to lose. So Chris Collins did the “right” thing according to posters and got exactly what pikiell didn’t want. “Two bad shots”!!!
This thread is going to be 100 pages if we lose in the tournament in a 2 for 1 situation lol
Great post.
This isn’t a black or white decision and doesn’t come down to the simple probability of 1 shot being better than 2 shots.
It’s amazing how stubborn and one sided some people can be. It really diminishes their points.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
For those at home. Tom Izzo just went for a 2 for 1 and they won because of it. Are you smarter than tom izzo? No. Tom izzo understands math
I saw the highlights not the game
correct me if I am wrong but it wasn’t a 2 for 1.
1. Illinois got the ball back with 6 seconds and got it down court and turned it over. That is pretty much exactly how it would have ended for us... Michigan didn’t get last shot. Illinois has it. Illinois ran a 2 for 1 that didn’t work!
2. Michigan state also had 20 seconds or so to get a shot up on their last possession we would have been left with 10 max
Last edited:
So after all this arguing how dumb pikiell is we saw two games over three days where 2 for 1 could have been applied. The two teams that took the opportunity were Illinois and NW and they both lost!!!!!!!
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
Im not sure you understand what a two for 1 is bud. To recap:
1) NW gets the ball with 1:08 left after Geo hits a 3 to tie it. The 2 for 1 move here is to not take a shot until there close to zero left on the shot clock, which would give RU around 38 seconds left either tied or NW up two and that would prevent RU from getting a 2 for 1. What did NW do? They got a shot off with 56 seconds left like morons giving RU the opportunity for a 2 for 1.
2) Illinois didnt have a chance for a 2 for 1 due to clock
3) youre dumb
NW came out of the timeout with 1 minute put up a shot by 51 seconds guaranteeing they get the ball back. Rutgers puts up a shot at 27 second. NW gets last possession with shot at 1 second... that is the pure text book definition of 2 for 1. Even if Rutgers gets a shot up before the 30 second mark NW was stil guaranteed a shot leaving Rutgers 5 seconds just like Michigan state.
I will admit didn’t see before 17 second mark but does change the fact that Michigan state did not successfully run a 2 for 1 by giving Illinois 6 seconds to score which if Ayo doesn’t get hurt they at least get a shot off. Not too mention michigan state put up a terrible runner and got lucky no one boxed out.
Regardless of what Illinois did you are still wrong
I will admit didn’t see before 17 second mark but does change the fact that Michigan state did not successfully run a 2 for 1 by giving Illinois 6 seconds to score which if Ayo doesn’t get hurt they at least get a shot off. Not too mention michigan state put up a terrible runner and got lucky no one boxed out.
Regardless of what Illinois did you are still wrong
Illinois was behind so they could not hold the ball there. NW if we missed would have been tied. They would not have (or should not have) shot quickly like Illinois. They would have bled the clock since it was tied. We would have been left launching a prayer. Different circumstances and also different players.
If you think that is the equivalent of our argument....................