2 for 1

[Greene Rice FIG]

The Michigan state - Illinois game really should not be used at all in the analysis. We didn't have a tie game and there did not appear to be an attempt at an "odd possession" situation.

Should be interesting to look for this in games around the country.

No one has chimed in as to the optimal shot time for the 2 for 1 team. I'd love to hear what it is and then dissect it.

 

[Loyal_2RU]

New poll! Please vote!

View embedded media

You are diminishing the podcast with these idiotic polls.

 

[RUScrewPod]

You are diminishing the podcast with these idiotic polls.

You probably don't actually listen to the podcast, since if you did, you would know that the podcast IS the idiotic polls.

 

[Loyal_2RU]

You probably don't actually listen to the podcast, since if you did, you would know that the podcast IS the idiotic polls.

I have listened and sometimes enjoy the podcast. Not yet this week. In the context of the 2 for 1 thread, that's an annoying notion

 

[BillyC80]

No one has chimed in as to the optimal shot time for the 2 for 1 team. I'd love to hear what it is and then dissect it.

Assuming no offensive rebounds for either side, I believe 40 seconds would be the optimum moment to release the first shot, to guarantee that you get the last shot. And I would think no more than 45 seconds in any case. So let’s say the window is between 40-45.

 

[Scangg]

I have listened and sometimes enjoy the podcast. Not yet this week. In the context of the 2 for 1 thread, that's an annoying notion

It's only annoying bc you're wrong

 

[RUScrewPod]

Going to duck out of this 2-for-1 conversation with this.

There is no scenario in which you are more likely to win a tie basketball game with 50 seconds left by having one chance to score vs having two chances to score. It's not even really math. It's just logic.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

42.5 seconds left shot goes up
40 seconds d gets rebound and shot clock operator resets clock
11 seconds left opponent takes shot
9 seconds you get a rebound

 

[S_Janowski]

Going to duck out of this 2-for-1 conversation with this.

There is no scenario in which you are more likely to win a tie basketball game with 50 seconds left by having one chance to score vs having two chances to score. It's not even really math. It's just logic.

It’s not as simple as 2 > 1.

Did you not read any of the 10 pages in this thread explaining why?

If it was this simple every single college coach would be calling a 2 for 1. The majority don’t.

Now that doesn’t mean more shouldn’t be doing it or practicing it or the college game shouldn’t adapt but just saying 2 chances are better than 1 is lazy and literally a 5th grade take.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Going to duck out of this 2-for-1 conversation with this.

There is no scenario in which you are more likely to win a tie basketball game with 50 seconds left by having one chance to score vs having two chances to score. It's not even really math. It's just logic.

Not true....

Rutgers last 2 home games had the perfect 2 for 1 chance and didn't take it.

Game 1 they got a 2-0
Game 2 they got a 1-1

That would be the expected result of a team that gets 50% rebound of their own misses.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Going to duck out of this 2-for-1 conversation with this.

There is no scenario in which you are more likely to win a tie basketball game with 50 seconds left by having one chance to score vs having two chances to score. It's not even really math. It's just logic.

If you want credibility break down when you are telling your team to get a shot in possession 1 and how much time you expect to have in possession 2. It sounds easy until you start doing the math and you realize it is harder than it looks.

 

[RUScrewPod]

Not true....

Rutgers last 2 home games had the perfect 2 for 1 chance and didn't take it.

Game 1 they got a 2-0
Game 2 they got a 1-1

That would be the expected result of a team that gets 50% rebound of their own misses.

You can still get that offensive rebound if you go for the 2-for-1 AND get still get another chance after that! That's the whole point of going for it.

As for the point about "not all coaches are doing it," it's possible that some coaches can be wrong.

 

[RUScrewPod]

If you want credibility break down when you are telling your team to get a shot in possession 1 and how much time you expect to have in possession 2. It sounds easy until you start doing the math and you realize it is harder than it looks.

You probably shouldn't go for the 2-for-1 unless you're going to get the ball back with at least...8 seconds left? 10? Not sure what the optimal time would be.

Something I believe people are overstating is the difference in the probability between making a "rushed" shot and one that you stand around and wait to take.

 

[Scangg]

You probably shouldn't go for the 2-for-1 unless you're going to get the ball back with at least...8 seconds left? 10? Not sure what the optimal time would be.

Something I believe people are overstating is the difference in the probability between making a "rushed" shot and one that you stand around and wait to take.

Especially when they use that argument and we watch Geo stand motionless intentionally killing the clock and any advantage "not rushing" gives you

 

[RUScrewPod]

Unless you settle for a truly awful shot on the first possession, there's never going to be a time after a game where you say "I wish we hadn't gone for that 2-for-1."

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Especially when they use that argument and we watch Geo stand motionless intentionally killing the clock and any advantage "not rushing" gives you

To me this is the factor that makes me be for 2 for 1. If we are reversing the ball, getting touches for Myles, and using screens I am all for quality over quantity. When we milk the clock.......why not 2 for 1 it.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

...............but the success rate with Geo or Ron in the 1 for 4 end game milking shot clock has worked......despite me scratching my head

 

[BillyC80]

To me this is the factor that makes me be for 2 for 1. If we are reversing the ball, getting touches for Myles, and using screens I am all for quality over quantity. When we milk the clock.......why not 2 for 1 it.

You would then have to factor in turnovers or having them foul Myles as soon as he touches it. I wouldn’t necessarily conclude that that kind of ball movement is better quality for our last possession of a tie game.

 

[bethlehemfan]

You would then have to factor in turnovers or having them foul Myles as soon as he touches it. I wouldn’t necessarily conclude that that kind of ball movement is better quality for our last possession of a tie game.

The only way Myles was touching there was an offensive rebound.

 

[Scangg]

The only way Myles was touching there was an offensive rebound.

What's the rule about fouling away from the ball? Could they just hack a Myles away from the ball? If I was a coach I'd rather Myles at the line for a 1-1 than see Geo shoot

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

You would then have to factor in turnovers or having them foul Myles as soon as he touches it. I wouldn’t necessarily conclude that that kind of ball movement is better quality for our last possession of a tie game.

stop being so negative....he'd make both :WideSmile:

 

[bethlehemfan]

What's the rule about fouling away from the ball? Could they just hack a Myles away from the ball? If I was a coach I'd rather Myles at the line for a 1-1 than see Geo shoot

They could have grabbed him if he was moving I suppose but have to watch a flagrant or intentional there.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

What's the rule about fouling away from the ball? Could they just hack a Myles away from the ball? If I was a coach I'd rather Myles at the line for a 1-1 than see Geo shoot

Just like coachs may not have the stomach to go 2 for 1 OR foul up 3 with with 10 seconds to play, I don’t think many coaches would instruct to foul Myles in that spot even if advanced metric dictate it.

Fouling Myles would mean an expected .8 points in the possession assuming no OREB. Below 1.0 but I am not taking that risk, especially in a tie game

 

[dpwhite]

On his podcast last night, Pikiell said--in regards to Myles--they need him on the floor for defense and rebounding. They have enough sets to run where he isn't involved and that if he got fouled, it'd likely be away from the ball and therefore a flagrant 1 or intentional or whatever it's called right now. He also said coaches have their beliefs and they stick with them and they know their roster. And sometimes the people in the stands have their beliefs and think they know more than the coaches.

 

[Scangg]

Just like coachs may not have the stomach to go 2 for 1 OR foul up 3 with with 10 seconds to play, I don’t think many coaches would instruct to foul Myles in that spot even if advanced metric dictate it.

Fouling Myles would mean an expected .8 points in the possession assuming no OREB. Below 1.0 but I am not taking that risk, especially in a tie game

Agreed. I was thinking if a team is down they could potentially commit a quick foul on Myles and stop the clock and get the ball right back if he misses the front end. Hes shooting 37% for the season. If I'm coaching I would consider the scenarios pregame as to when I would employ it and give the team a signal if he wants them to foul Myles.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Going to your example....

RU with ball in a tie game.
You foul Myles and in the process create a 2 for 1.
So you have 4 possessions
1. Myles 2 foul shots = .8
2. Your rushed possession = .8
3. RU possesion not rushed =1.0
4. Your possession (time ?) = .8 to 1.05

this is not counting for added time to a possession with a OREB

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

1 and 1 turns that possesion in to .56

 

[Scangg]

I know it's the 2 for 1 thread but I am thinking in terms of a comeback not really 2 for 1 although if a coach wanted to get cute or maybe Myles is already 0-6 from the line that day I could see it. If you shoot 37% overall from the FT line what do you shoot in high pressure situations?