Good post - I just posted the same thing with a lot more words and a little more derision for our local hoops stats moron.
I’m pretty sure we won the other day. Stop being an asshole (EDIT: sorry man late-night posting).
Last edited:
We went over this. Any advantage of using the entire shot clock was negated by Geo intentionally running down the clock
I had no problem with him arguing for the 2 for 1 but I was extremely pissed that he implied early in the game thread that Pike should be fired which in my mind entitled everyone on the board to give him the silent treatment.
Mature. Probably not me at this point but would love to see you pick the wrong guy and get a royal ass-kicking.
Not only did they get two lousy shots ...they only managed that with the best point guard in the country
It’s not that ppl arguing against it. You’re just a pain in the ass acting as if it was a fireable offense.
It was a two for two last night anyway, as Illinois had 6.6 seconds left after Tillman dunked in the rebound. If Dosunmo didn't slip and gets off a shot there, maybe he hits another game winner for Illinois. That 6.6 seconds on an inbounds play is roughly as much as two rushed possessions on a 2 for 1 attempt if you start at 45 seconds left and your opponent uses 30 on their 1 possession.
Wanting to physically fight people that disagree with you over this? Life is too short to get so worked up over something that really doesn't matter all that much in the long run.
Wanting to physically fight people that disagree with you over this? Life is too short to get so worked up over something that really doesn't matter all that much in the long run.
Hey if we went 2-1 and had 8 seconds to score on #2 we could have thrown a full court pass that was deflected by one of their players to Harper in the corner who would have hit a bank shot off the glass. We all know that is possible
Northwestern tried a 2 for 1 against us and lost....
in fact pikiell played right into their hands by not going 2 for 1 he gave them more time work and get a better shot to win. Turns out they air balled a layup and and even worse air ball on the last shot.
How great it must be for pikiell to fully trust your defense to get stops. That is toughness! This staff has totally changed the identity of this program.
in fact pikiell played right into their hands by not going 2 for 1 he gave them more time work and get a better shot to win. Turns out they air balled a layup and and even worse air ball on the last shot.
How great it must be for pikiell to fully trust your defense to get stops. That is toughness! This staff has totally changed the identity of this program.
Last edited:
Just saw the highlight. Illinois ran a 2 for 1 and lost. They had the last shot with 6 seconds or so and never got it off. Michigan scores on a “2 for 1” but still left time on the clock for Illinois to get their 2 for 1... so in reality it wasn’t a 2 for 1 do Michigan state but a 2 for 1 for Illinois that did not work...
also Michigan state has 20 seconds to run their last possession and scored with 6. Rutgers would have been left 10 seconds max on both possession
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!!!!!!!
also Michigan state has 20 seconds to run their last possession and scored with 6. Rutgers would have been left 10 seconds max on both possession
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!!!!!!!
And all this doesn't take into account that the opposing team somehow gets a shot clock reset (offensive rebound, tie up, etc.) on their possession. In that case, all you have to show for a 2 for 1 is a bad, rushed shot attempt. And everyone would be complaining about the lousy shot that someone jacked up.
Why do there need to be like, 3 threads on this?
The OP is dead on.
We held the ball and Geo then went one on one. Geo was closed out and had to kick it out to Harper for a good shot.
When we finally decided to play, it took about 5-8 seconds. Harper's miss gave them the last shot to win the game.
It easily could have been lost at the buzzer with no chance to score again.
Why not just run Geo from the beginning. No one says you have to rush but players need to be looking for the first good shot.
It's totally illogical to expect the same result from a 1 for 1 possession game and a 2 for 1 game .
We held the ball and Geo then went one on one. Geo was closed out and had to kick it out to Harper for a good shot.
When we finally decided to play, it took about 5-8 seconds. Harper's miss gave them the last shot to win the game.
It easily could have been lost at the buzzer with no chance to score again.
Why not just run Geo from the beginning. No one says you have to rush but players need to be looking for the first good shot.
It's totally illogical to expect the same result from a 1 for 1 possession game and a 2 for 1 game .
Two threads started by people on one side of the debate and one started by someone on the other side. What else would you expect?
Just plain stupid to be arguing over this. Coach made a mistake, so what? There are hundreds of decisions each game and we won. He is a great coach, we are very lucky to have him. None of you posters have 1/100th of his knowledge. Please stop.
Izzo did not try to run a 2-for-1. They had a 1 point lead and inbounded the ball after the time-out with 54.7 seconds on the game clock and 26 seconds on the shot clock. If Izzo was trying for a 2-for-1, he would have had the team take a shot attempt, to preserve time for their second attempt. Instead they moved the ball around for 14 seconds without a shot attempt, and turned the ball over with 40.7 seconds on the shot clock. Illinois went for a quick shot on the fast break, got the rebound on the miss, and took the lead on free throws. After MSU scored, Illinois still had 6.6 seconds to get their last shot.
I find it ironic that Kyk is saying that 6.6 seconds wasn't enough time for Illinois to score. That's pretty much the same amount of time that MSU would have had on their second attempt if Illinois ran down the shot clock, rather than trying for the fast break after the turnover. It is also more time than Rutgers would have had for the second attempt that Kyk is faulting Pike for not attempting.
I find it ironic that Kyk is saying that 6.6 seconds wasn't enough time for Illinois to score. That's pretty much the same amount of time that MSU would have had on their second attempt if Illinois ran down the shot clock, rather than trying for the fast break after the turnover. It is also more time than Rutgers would have had for the second attempt that Kyk is faulting Pike for not attempting.
Because Pike doesn’t like the structure of our defense and our ability to stay ahead of the ball after a rushed or ill advised shot
Something you’re not thinking about.
I was on the side that a two for one is a no brainer but now I have changed my mind. I was on this side only because we held the ball and didn’t run an offense. The more I think about it though that is a comfortable play for Geo. Taking his time, thinking about what he is going to do and then going. As opposed to the ball is passed in to him and he just goes which is what he would have had to do in a two for one situation. Comfort over the play call has to factor in.
Dribbling the ball at halfcourt served a purpose and was done for a reason....especially when its Geo doing it.
I think Geo was option 1 and Harper was option 2 but a catch and drive...not a catch and shoot.
Oh look, AreYouNUTS is launching profane attacks on other posters again. Does this board have a moderator?
@Rutgers25 and I already gave him a royal ass-kicking. Statistically, at least, lol.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
Lets assume the first shot is the shot we got vs NW, since we could've gotten that at any time. And the 2nd shot is an awful rushed off balance 3.
:)
And the second one will be rushed as well.
If Geo baker rushes his first shot, turns it over, shoots an air ball, or gets a bad look, the second shot will likely be to tie the game:Wink:
And the second one will be rushed as well.
If we assume a 30% chance that RHJ makes that shot and another 30% chance that we get the rebound in the event of a miss, then holding to take that exact shot was the right call at the time. 60/40.
It's why the pros do it most of the time and I like doing it - when I feel like we'll get a good shot. But as Pike has explained, he doesn't want to rush a bad shot just to get the 2-1, as that takes away the usual statistical advantage of the 2-1 as I explained in my post last night. The issue with kyk is he's simply a tool, who thinks he "knows" things and speaks arrogantly and erroneously in absolutes, when there are scenarios where the 2-1 is not the correct statistical play.
Cant make that assumption. It's a game, played by humans against other humans. Cant make assumptions how something would have turned out based on stats accumulated based on actions of other humans.
You are ignoring the human element of the game.
I'm obligated to mention that personal attacks aren't really the way to go here.
Argue his point, which is ridiculous on its face, but leave out the name calling. Deal?
Much love!
I could argue that it's worse coaching to try and rush 2 shots and having a lower percentage of 2 rushed shots, vs taking your time and running an isolation, where Geo isn't forced to give up the ball and he has an opportunity to size up a defender that isn't going to block his shot and had not stopped him on the previous 6 or 7 possessions in the 2nd half.....Imagine if the game plan to get 2 for 1, was to inbound the ball to Jacob Young, who is our fastest and most explosive player, end to end, and having him take a quick wild reverse layup for a quick 3 and having no real time on the last 2 for you....Pike would be roasted on here, we don't have the footspeed to get something done, full court under a minute, for a 2 for 1.
The math is correct, but again, if you read the Northwestern boards/blogs, they're complaints are not about 2 for 1, which they got....it's about how neither of the last 2 shots really had no chance at success and RU's last one to force OT, did.
We are about 7 hours from game time, at which, it appears that there will be new material to bash Pike about, since 40 minutes of high level basketball, especially on the road, provides plenty of ammunition for criticism....
I would also read the OSU boards about their offense and shot selection and you would be surprised about how common this theme actually is....not necessarily the 2 for 1, but the offense.
kyk is a hard-core fan and we're not going to always agree on items, just understand that this is a uber competitive league and everyone program has good coaches and players that can play. The basketball program has done wonders for the entire fan base, that has been literally destroyed by Chris Ash and poor football play and coaching. We now have Schiano here to clean up the massive mess left behind and there hasn't been anything successful to be happy about in a VERY long time.
The one program that has actually OVER delivered for salvaging a fan base has been the efforts over 4 years by Pike and the players he's recruited....and exceeding expectations for the NCAA's in Year 4, when many conservative fans really thought it would be Years 5 through 7, to see results.
It's all about perspective my friends....enjoy the games, stop making things negative and nitpicking on BS....Go RU.....!!!
Tom Izzo is a great coach. Tom Izzo has stated numerous times how highly he thinks of Pike and his coaching skills. I'd trust Izzo on this. Pike is a great coach, obviously.
Does the SITUATION matter? I believe our game was TIED at the time, whereas MSU was losing by 1 point.
You beat me to the "human" point.
When I read this debate about 2-for-1, it reminds me of the movie Sully. Bear with me here, I realize this analogy will be a little broad. In the final scene during the NTSB hearing, they show all of the "test runs" to determine if Sully made a mistake in landing on the Hudson, and in all of them, the pilots in the simulator immediately turned back to LaGuardia after the bird strike, as if it was a foregone conclusion that returning to LAG was the right choice among the various options.
But Sully (Tom Hanks, in a wonderfully understated performance) explains to the NTSB that you can't just rotely calculate the time it would take to return to LaGuardia after the bird strike, as that assumes that the pilots absolutely knew what to do and would immediately turn back.
"You're leaving out the human element," he asserts, because it took him time to figure out his options, make mental calculations about which one was best, and then implement his choice. Based on the time it took to go through this human thought process, by the time a decision was made, it WAS too late to turn back, and the only option was to land on the Hudson River.
Here, you can't just say "there's 48 seconds left, so we should go 2 for 1." Accounting for the 30 seconds NW would have had the ball in the "middle" possession, that leaves just 18 seconds for Rutgers to run TWO possessions from the opposite end of the court. And in the heat of battle, is that really sufficient time to get two halfway decent shots up? Maybe, maybe not.
It's certainly not sufficient to simply say we should go 2-for-1 since there's more than 30 seconds left. It's not an automatic decision, but rather depends on many different in-game factors. And it certainly isn't the "wrong" decision, or a "bad" decision to NOT go 2-for-1 when the game is already tied. Reasonable minds can differ here.
You beat me to the "human" point.
When I read this debate about 2-for-1, it reminds me of the movie Sully. Bear with me here, I realize this analogy will be a little broad. In the final scene during the NTSB hearing, they show all of the "test runs" to determine if Sully made a mistake in landing on the Hudson, and in all of them, the pilots in the simulator immediately turned back to LaGuardia after the bird strike, as if it was a foregone conclusion that returning to LAG was the right choice among the various options.
But Sully (Tom Hanks, in a wonderfully understated performance) explains to the NTSB that you can't just rotely calculate the time it would take to return to LaGuardia after the bird strike, as that assumes that the pilots absolutely knew what to do and would immediately turn back.
"You're leaving out the human element," he asserts, because it took him time to figure out his options, make mental calculations about which one was best, and then implement his choice. Based on the time it took to go through this human thought process, by the time a decision was made, it WAS too late to turn back, and the only option was to land on the Hudson River.
Here, you can't just say "there's 48 seconds left, so we should go 2 for 1." Accounting for the 30 seconds NW would have had the ball in the "middle" possession, that leaves just 18 seconds for Rutgers to run TWO possessions from the opposite end of the court. And in the heat of battle, is that really sufficient time to get two halfway decent shots up? Maybe, maybe not.
It's certainly not sufficient to simply say we should go 2-for-1 since there's more than 30 seconds left. It's not an automatic decision, but rather depends on many different in-game factors. And it certainly isn't the "wrong" decision, or a "bad" decision to NOT go 2-for-1 when the game is already tied. Reasonable minds can differ here.
Why do people insist that 50+ seconds will get you a rushed crappy shot? And that using the shot clock leads to good shots? But actually we dont use the shot clock to work for a good shot at all. Then people are actually making the argument Geo standing motionless dribbling is essential to the play. Hard logic to get behind
Similar threads
