Tom Izzo just went for a 2 for 1 to end the illinois game andddddd WON

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

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 nam
Much love!

@BKIn118 so you think a 2 for 1 is a bad idea? I get some of you have been RU fans since before I was born however the game has changed since that time.

 

[zebnatto]

Your command of statistics is probably at about 8th grade level. Remember, you're the guy who started a thread titled, "Rutgers Basketball Has Gotten Worse Offensively Since Last Season. Fact, not opinion," in which you then tried to "prove" your point by saying that, "Last year in B1G play we averaged .987 points per possession, this year we've averaged .986 points per possession." Statistically, 0.987 and 0.986 are indistinguishable, and a margin of 1/1000th is ridiculous to use to try to claim that this year's offense is worse than last years. I won't even go into all the ridiculous things you said about Pike as an offensive coach, since this is about statistics.

https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...ly-since-last-season-fact-not-opinion.188880/

Similarly, this thread has its share of statistical nonsense from you. Yes, 2 for 1, executed well, is usually the better way to go, statistically, where the probability of making either of your two shots is similar to making your one shot if you don't go 2 for 1. However, in the college game with far less experienced players than in the pros (and no moving the ball to half court on a TO to make the 2nd attempt easier), many things can go wrong when rushing the first possession's shot attempt in the 2 for 1 scenario and it's also possible the amount of time left for the 2nd possession will greatly reduce the likelihood of getting a good shot.

Maybe, instead of a "standard" 45% chance of making a shot, the chances are more like 25% for that firs possession, because the team rushes it and takes a really bad shot or even turns it over. And then often the team will get the ball back with maybe 8 seconds left inbounding under their own basket, facing full court pressure and might either not get a shot off or only get off a really bad shot with maybe a 10% chance of scoring. Combined, those two possessions give you a 35% chance of making a shot. However, if you play for one shot and run your best play, it might be a 50% chance of making it, but even at the standard 45%, I'll still take that over 35% when rushing and poorly executing a 2 for 1.

The point isn't that my numbers are "actual" numbers for RU under Pike - I have no idea what the actual FG percentages are in these situations, but I guarantee you Pike has far more granular statistics on these situations than any of us do and it's at least possible in some situations with some teams that not going for 2 for 1 is the right call, statistically, i.e., it's not ALWAYS the right call to go 2 for 1.

but there would have been no need to rush the first shot. We didn’t gain any advantage by running off 20 seconds of clock. If here had been under 40 seconds left when our possession began, I agree, endgame would have been too rushed, but very different situation with 48 seconds on the clock. I think the “play” we ran actually took about eight seconds.

 

[ColonelRutgers]

@BKIn118 so you think a 2 for 1 is a bad idea? I get some of you have been RU fans since before I was born however the game has changed since that time.

Feel free to not answer, but how exactly has the game changed that makes a 2 for 1 a no-brainer play for college players versus "that" time in the past.? Don't tell me they're more capable or disciplined than players of yore because they're not.

 

[Scangg]

Feel free to not answer, but how exactly has the game changed that makes a 2 for 1 a no-brainer play for college players versus "that" time in the past.? Don't tell me they're more capable or disciplined than players of yore because they're not.

Analytics

 

[hoquat63]

@BKIn118 so you think a 2 for 1 is a bad idea? I get some of you have been RU fans since before I was born however the game has changed since that time.

Hey it takes time to put up the ladder to take the bal out of the peach basket

 

[ColonelRutgers]

Analytics

I thought he was referring to something having to do with the actual game or players themselves. Math is not new, sorry. In a vacuum, with all other factors equal, "2 shots are better than 1" is obvious and college coaches aren't dumb. They don't need "analytics" to know that. There are a lot of other things that factor in and the coach needs to consider them. That's why, unlike in the NBA, this 2 for 1 strategy is rarely seen. And especially by teams without elite offensive players, so don't try and argue that Tom Izzo or Coach K, guys with historically superior NBA level talent might employ this.

 

[RutgHoops]

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

There are 20 maybe 30 kids in the country playing college basketball right now who will get meaningful minutes in the NBA . In 48 minute NBA games the final score is in the 100s or 110s or 120s. In 40 minute college games scores are in the 60s and 70s. It's a completely different level of play. It is a completely different game.

And maybe that is part of the issue with this conversation. Asking college level kids to execute a 2 for 1 is a losing proposition (imo). It will, more often than not, lead to something you don't want (turnover, rushed shot). And Coach P said as much in his presser.

Maybe folks follow the NBA and feel NBA basketball strategies are transferrable to the college game. In my opinion they are not.