No, the OP's original point was that it might be better to settle for one good shot over two rushed ones, assuming similar time constraints. You said "Of course, Harden should take the contested shot if the time constraint is such that passing is not an option." so clearly you disagree with him. We already manage the clock the way you suggest. If we get the ball with 55 seconds left on the clock it's not like we pound the hell out of the ball for 22 seconds and jack up a contested shot just for the sake of getting a 2 for 1. We hunt for a good shot if time permits. If we get the ball with 35 seconds on the clock, then yeah Harden is going to jack one up and that's the right play.
I wish the Rockets would be smart enough to chart the effectiveness of 2-for-1 plays/shot selection and then publicly release the results for us. BUT NO. Kick that can, cheapos.
Can you provide any stats ? I actually remember a lot of times when Corey hit the 3 but can hardly remember if we ever scored with a few seconds left (except that one time when Eric Gordon run from coast to coast) for the second shot or harden hitting pull up 3 on the first. I wonder where any stats could be find on this subject?
I live in Vegas... my methodology is sound... Hitting 16 against a 10 is typically the better move... but if you can count cards, there is a point where the odds swing to the other side... ie: if you know the deck is heavy with faces... that's why I prefer 3rd base bc you get the most info to crunch before making your play... That's why i say, 2 for 1 overall may be the best move mathematically... but based on how other factors are playing out (rebounding/cards falling in front of you...) the equation can change... As the saying goes... "The book says you're supposed to do this... but the only person who ever got rich from 'the book' - was the guy that wrote it." lol
OK - counting cards is not the same as basketball because in general, one shot is not related to the next. The "hot hand" hypothesis has been disproven many times. In general, things operate more like coin flips - just because it flipped heads 10 times, it's not more likely to flip heads again or flip tails because a tails is due to come; it's 50/50. Vegas knows this too. So if shots aren't dropping tonight - why is that? Chance? Opposing defense? If the former, 2 for 1 is still better. If the latter, the only way that 2 for 1 wouldn't be better is if the points per possession were so much lower with the rushed shot over the half-court shot that the half-court shot was twice or more efficient than the rushed shot. That's just not very likely. Same with rebounding. No matter how much the other team is dominating the boards, they would have to be absolutely crushing you to really outweigh the 70-80% gain in production that you are likely to get by going 2 for 1; even the most pessimistic estimates would have you gaining 20-30% more production IMO.
No this is a flawed analogy. Counting cards IS mathematical move that tilts an already marginal decision. Going 2-for-1 is not a marginal decision. It's a decidedly SUPERIOR decision that can't be outweighed by any factor mathematically. Also, I think some are confusing what a 2-for-1 situation is. Getting the ball with 50-55 seconds left is not a 2-for-1 situation.That's too much time left and no, you shouldn't pound the ball and kill clock to force a shot at 32 seconds with that much time left, that's dumb. 2-for-1, to me is when you get the ball between 35 to 45 seconds left where it serves you well to get a shot up before the 32 second mark, which by its design is going to be a rushed shot.
Yup, exactly. 2-for-1 has to be decidedly less than 48 seconds left but decidedly more than 24 seconds left, so somewhere in the realm of 30-40 seconds. And just basic rules of probability - counting cards means you are incorporating prior knowledge into your future estimate of probability. But the burden of proof is on you to tell me that a player's chance of a shot going in, in any given game, is going to be meaningfully different than his season average unless there is measurable evidence that the defense is markedly different than the average defense he faces, or that there is some change to the player himself where his shot % is expected to be lower. So, when you are discussing 2 for 1 on average against any hypothetical opponent, it's almost always going to be superior. And for it not to be superior, you really have to get to the extremes of probability for several different scenarios.
Don't know if you can get those exact splits anywhere, but I guarantee you it's not 10%. Closest thing I know of is that Harden shoots 33% on contested 3's. 10% is so low for any split.
Theoretically, if harden and our shooters are having an off night and sucking from deep... but a Capella pick n roll has been money all night... I'd rather forgo a couple hurried chucks to spend the time setting up a higher % opportunity... Mathematically, 2 for 1 may be the better move overall throughout the course of the season... but there will be occasions where it is not... depends on how the game is unfolding... Just because something is usually the right thing to do - doesn't mean it always the right thing to do... that's the difference between someone running a team based solely on analytics vs someone with situational experience... with the ideal being a mesh of the two...
OOPS. Yes, egg on face. You're right, I completely misread the OP and never bothered to double check. I disagree that we seem to hunt for a shot when time permits... hence why I thought this was thread worthy, but not really thread worthy to just avoid 2-on-1's. In the last two games before half-time Harden has dribbled for several seconds at the top of the arc before jacking up a long shot for the first of a two-for-one attempt, and it made me roll my eyes both times. But clearly I've been arguing with myself most of the time in this thread. Well.... carry on.
Hmm, you're right. That's how they went down. Perhaps that's part of clock management? If we get the ball with 55 seconds and start swinging the ball around looking for an open shot, what happens if we get an open shot at 40-45 seconds? If we take it, they'll get the 2 for 1 instead. Is it better to look for an open shot and possibly give them the 2 for 1? Or to settle for a "bad" shot and guarantee the 2 for 1 for yourself?
Again, unless there are specific situations in which average estimates do not apply (for example, Kawhi is going to be guarded the pull-up jumper), the 2 for 1 is almost always going to be better. Your hurried chucks have to be substantially worse than a higher % opportunity. Even if you were setting up a 1.4 ppp play, your hurried chucks would have to be substantially worse than expected for 2-for-1 not to be better. Of course you don't run plays like you run a regression equation. But that still doesn't negate the fact that the 2-for-1 is almost always going to give you more chances to score.
I don't think there's a right answer, except that we'd like to see a little more creativity than dribble-dribble-dribble-dribble-heave.
You don't think rushing a shot mindlessly has an effect to the game? I am not sure what a 2 for 1 player is. Would Swaggy P be considered one? Some of Y'all kept saying Harden shooting a contested has 30% percent chance of going in. I honestly haven't seen it happen. More often than not I saw two wasted possessions at the end of the half. No big deal against the Lakers, but pretty critical against the Spurs. Taking a 2 for 1 is such a established principle in basketball. But honestly you think jacking it up just to have one more shot with few seconds left crossing half court is a good approach? Here is why they are dependent: you jack it up contested, brick, the other side run the clock because they don't have to jack it up now and swoosh, then you get the ball back with a just few seconds left to cross the half court and brick. While we are at it. Not liking taking that quick three with nobody in the rebounding position either.
Good lord, there is just no convincing these people no matter how many objective analysis you throw at them. How does that in ANY way show dependency? Just listing a series of events that happen to have happened in sequence does not demonstrate dependency. I poop in the morning, eat a gyro sandwich for lunch, Rockets lose. I should never poop then eat a gyro sandwich so that Rockets don't lose, right? How can you dispute an actual statistic because "I HAVEN'T SEEN IT HAPPEN!". Do you also not believe in dinosaurs because you haven't seen one?
