I think the fallacy with that line of logic is you don't just take that shot knowing it will be evened out by the next 100 shots. That 2 for 1 shot, the next opponent's shot and the last shot are not exactly independent events. It's demoralizing to your teammates when a bad shot taken. A bad shot so happens to go in that situation in a blowout game is different from one that didn't go in in a close game. Basketball is basketball. It's not Vegas. Make sure we run a play for a 2 for 1, if no one is open, don't take it.
Yeah but if you can get more shots than your opponent, you don't have to run a play just to make sure you take it quick. That's their logic right? Someone also mentioned sometimes you foul or lose the offensive rebound, that 2 for 1 adavantage is lost. The point is it's not so simple - 2 is better than 1
not sure if i can pinpoint it but i think there is something profound in the passage you wrote above....
Unless you can demonstrate quantitatively that rushing a contested shot is less than half of the expected points of a "good" shot, you're arguing against the fact that 2>1.
The Rockets average about 1.12 points per possession. There's no particular reason to think a "good" halfcourt possession beats the Rockets' average (if anything, teams get worse in the halfcourt than their halfcourt + transition average). So if you take two shots, you want them to be two shots that give you at least 1.12 points. The three-point accuracy that gives you 1.12 points per two shots is 19%. If you have any reason to think Harden is shooting 19% on 2-for-1s, then sure, it's a debate. But if he's around 30%, then the single possession you need in order to match that 1.8 points expected value is a dunk or Harden free throws, period - not even an open corner three gets the job done.
It would be nice to have the exact stats but going by eyetest I think they might be shooting 10% or something when they have only 4-5 seconds for the last shot
LOL, it's definitely not 10% man. You're definitely underestimating how low 10% is. Remember the dread when Corey Brewer shot a 3 this season? 10% is less than half of that. This is why eye tests are not reliable.
For the people that want to make this a mathematical equation... here's something to factor in... If defensive rebounds outnumber offensive rebounds at a rate of 3:1... that means on average... after we rush a bad shot, if the other team misses their attempt, 25% of the time they are going to get the offensive rebound and probably hold for the last shot... and we do not get the 2nd shot attempt...
Let's try and distill this into a unifying theory. First, are the shots related or unrelated? The team trying to get the 2 shots is likely to be taking worse shots either due to selection or stress from the time crunch. For example, you are trying to get a 2 for 1 once the play clock is under 40 seconds or so. That means, if the other team takes close to a full 24 second shot clock, you have roughly 8 seconds per shot. That may be enough in a D'Antoni offense to get a good shot off - but maybe not for all teams. Second, you are comparing a 2 for 1 with a 1 vs. 1 opportunity. Let's say that you have a 20% loss of efficiency in scoring because your shots are more rushed or not ideal. So instead of 1 point per possession (hypothetically), or 1.2 for a good offense, you have somewhere in the range of 0.8-0.9 ppp. But you get two possession. No matter what, you are going to have a higher chance in two plays to score than in one play. Let's factor in rebounding. So if offensive rebounds erase your 2 for 1 if the opponent gets an offensive carom, the flipside is that you also have TWO 25% chances to get offensive rebounds. Let's say that it's down to 15% because your shot is going up quicker, and people aren't in place (hypothetically, both teams would have difficulty getting into position), and let's ignore the second offensive rebound opportunity, as there's a low likelihood it would allow for a second scoring chance. That still means that, given the above numbers, you have two chances to get a below average shot - on average giving you 33% or more production over the opposing team. In addition, you are giving up a 25% chance that your opponent erases that second chance, while gaining at 15% chance that you get a second chance yourself. With a net deficit of 10%, that means you are losing on average about 0.08 ppp - still putting you on top. Now all these numbers are hypothetical and the math may be imperfect, but I can't find any convincing counterargument to the 2 for 1 being the tactic of choice in those situations.
The 2 for 1 is absolutely beneficial for us. You honestly think they haven't crunched the numbers in these situations? I mean, Harden does pull up 3's throughout the game anyway, but when doing it for the 2 for 1 his percentages are going to drop to 10%? I don't think so. As long as we have about five seconds for the second shot, we're getting two pretty decent opportunities for the other team's one.
Something we're not thinking about: Teams tend to alter what they do if we play for the 2 for 1. They tend to try to run the clock down and that shrinks offensive options for them as well. The two for one is just plain smarter. Both teams take terrible shots, but you get two chances at a terrible shot.
Regardless of us over-complicating this, every possession is the same in the sense that given the time remaining on the shot clock, you have a variety of options. I don't buy the argument that James taking a contested top-of-the-arc jumper is the only play we can run in order to get a 2-on-1. I think this is the OP's original point. If there is time, swing it around until someone is open; Ariza, Bev, Gordon, Lou, Capela inside, etc like you would on any offensive position with time constraint X. Given that point, our discussion should hinge on whether player Y taking an open shot is a better percentage than Harden taking a contested one, instead of whatever non sequitur stuff we're talking about now. Of course, Harden should take the contested shot if the time constraint is such that passing is not an option. The situation is always fluid - but that's exactly why we shouldn't keep seeing the same results repeatedly. True, and you still have to weigh that against the percentage chance that we score the first shot, the percentage chance that we recover the rebound on the first shot, the percentage chance that we score the second shot, etc. Assuming that our ability to get an offensive rebound is roughly equivalent to the other teams', those factors should cancel each other out. If you can solve this, send an application to Morey!
Tnx for this, I hate Harden's decisions in a 2-for-1 situation. We almost never get a good shot, only when Harden decides to drive or run pick-and-roll, but those dumb heaves with 30 seconds left are some of his worst. How this is not discussed in film sessions and coach does not implement a go-to play is just asinine.
idk... there are so many factors to consider... are the shots dropping tonight? What level of defense are we playing against? is one team dominating the boards? It's like in blackjack... you're supposed to hit 16 against a dealer 10... because mathematically that is the most advantageous move... but if I'm sitting at 3rd base with a 16 and I watched a couple 3s, a 4 and a couple 5s fall in front of me without a face card popping up... I'm tucking that 16 and hoping the dealer isn't pat...
The theory behind the 2fer1 is sound. The execution leaves something to be desired sometimes though... ...and God help me if I have to hear Bullard explain another 2fer1 shot situation "James will try to take a 3 at about 32 seconds" and then of course he does it... Like if Bullard knows it's coming, we know it's coming, dude trying to guard Harden knows it too. So maybe a different shooter or heaven forbid just a pickand roll attempt instead or something but the theory is good and should be implemented every time possible. What's made it unfavorable is that the defender knows what to do and is contesting the shot too well for it to matter.
So how do you see that these dependent acts affect one another in your mind? I see this as three low percentage shots being taken with the advantage going to the team that takes 2 shots. Low percentage shot followed by a slightly higher low percentage shot followed by a low percentage shot. Also, if the first play starts at 38 seconds, we get plenty of time for our 7 second offense to work its ways. Let's say that the opposition takes the best shot which falls somewhere in the middle of the shot clock and gets a higher percentage shot off. Then we have extra time on our possession to get a quality shot. That's still a win-win. So the issue is really only with the first shot because the next two following shots will have roughly equal value (rushed/rushed or quality/quality). Arguments against playing for the 2 for 1 are valid, but I think the coach and the playmaker are the important factors. I think we clearly have a 2 for 1 player and a 2 for 1 coach. Rick Barnes is not our coach and Mark Jackson isn't our ball handler so I don't understand the aversion here.
