2 for 1 not good ?

This is idiotic. The possessions on the basketball are independent to each other, like they just happen in isolation like tossing a coin? However, your bowel movement could very well be an independent event to what happens on the basketball court, but I will leave that to you to find out.

 

I am sure Morey has advanced statistical models built for that, weights on different types of games, regression and what not. That kinda shiat would require a player to be Robo-cop when he is taking that shot with those numbers going through his mind. Instead, heck with it, they just jack it up. I am pretty sure that's what happens.

 

The statistical evening out is cut and dry, but at certain situations you know a shot shouldn't be taken, least because it will be evened out by the next 100 shots in similar situations.
When you don't feel right, you don't hit 16 against 10. When you don't feel right, heck, you should chicken out on 15 or 14. I spent countless hours, way too many, in casinos at one point of my life to learn that.

 

So while "they" run it down, you somehow think they aren't compressing certain aspects of their offense? This is where studying tendencies of the other team comes in handy. If they just "run" down the clock, you have a pretty good picture of what they're going to do. If you don't have that picture, then you don't play for the 2 for 1. A cost benefit analysis is done before the game and again in the moment by our best player. It sounds like you just don't trust Harden and honestly, I'm not a fan of the way you think. It's weak minded and shallow. Who brings Shaggy P into and an argument like this? It's almost like you don't want to make sense. Harden is the best player in the league. Get that through your thick skull. He's dynamic. He makes a lot of decisions that lead to efficient ways of scoring. How is Swaggy P even mentionable here? I don't think you grasp the complexity of our particular 2 for 1's. They are not a sure thing, but you're so far off base that you make me wish Bill Walton was posting in your stead.

You're also completely missing everything if you think our players are "rushing a shot mindlessly". This team is not built on mindlessness and you're going to lose every single argument on the board if that's where you're coming from. Try harder. You're from 2003. That should mean something around here.

 

No one is arguing against taking 2 for 1 having a one shot advantage. This is not OP's point, not my point. Let's be clear the debate is whether Harden should step into a position 27 feet away to take a contested shot just to have one more possession at the end of the quarter when there is still plenty time on the clock to set up a better play. This is a basketball question that has nothing to do with trusting Harden or Dantoni. (Yes, I have been on coach and Harden's side for a while). Don't know where you get we don't trust Harden?
Don't really like the way of you putting your arguments by "belittling" other's intelligence. What's with this arrogance? As someone said, this is not a mathematical no-brainer. Not every team in this league take that shot and I am pretty sure every team has a "2 for 1" player by your terminology.

 

Haven't you noticed that the Rockets have been well out in front of the rest of the league in doing smart things?

Who cares if the rest of the league is too stupid to make it a point to take that 2-1 advantage when it's there.

We have been bombing threes for years, the rest of the league is just now catching up.

Also, aren't we sporting like the best offense ever? Sounds like a team making some smart decisions on offense.

 

That may be.

But listen, I guess OP, I and others don't look at those shots as a graph retrospectively and counting +0.4 PPP for that shot (which doesn't really make a difference in the final score for a single game as basketball scores don't have decimals). I think there is a fine distinction between when we say that shot should be taken because this is 33+% 3P shot in the flow of game vs. this is a shot to take because the stats say it's a "pay-off" shot when looked at them in series with the last shots gained.

Just think that for a minute.

All of these said, I apologize if I offend any one. Intuitively, I just don't like that shot and I did give some thoughts about this, which could be entirely wrong of course contradicted by actual numbers. At the end, what I like or don't like has zero impact to instructing Harden to take that shot. Just put things in perspective.

 

The question isn't whether the 2 for 1 is a good thing because it's obviously a good thing, the problem is the 2 for 1 isolation plays that we usually settle for. I would like to see more ball movement on these plays and guys actually moving around rather than standing still waiting for Harden to do something.

I don't know what our success rate has been on the 2 for 1 but Morey does and our offensive strategy hasn't changed much in this department which leads me to believe that whatever we're doing is statistically viable even though it may not look it to the casual fan.

In Morey/Harden/MDA we trust.

 

Agreed, this is not a mathematical no-brainer. It depends on how much time is left when you get the ball, whether you get early pressure that slows down the point guard, and whether you have a coach that believes in that philosophy. We're not a team that works the ball around and finds the best high percentage shot. We're a team that takes the first open shot that's within the player's range.

So, I agree that every team has a player that can be a 2 for 1 guy, but not every team has the coach that agrees with taking the first open shot. I agree with everyone that it's an ill advised shot, but not when you're working a 2 for 1.

Let's say Harden hits it 1 out of 4 times. That's a 0.75 ppp that has to be added to the ppp from the second half of the 2 for 1. So the second half of the 2 for one, if it's another 0.75 ppp bad opportunity, you still have 1.5 points for 2 possessions. Ordinarily that would be bad ju-ju but the other option is to run your offense that you regularly run but we do that at 1.2 ppp. The math makes sense unless the defense isn't giving you that early shot you're looking for.

Harden semi-wildly jacking up 25% shots works because if they play him tight, he's super quick at getting to the bucket if they play too tight. The real issue with the 2 for 1 is potential sloppy play that leads to a turnover and a sure basket for the other team. That's where the trust comes in (in my opinion). Whether or not you can trust Harden to rush a bad shot without a bad turnover because the math says it's a no-brainer for the Houston Rockets who boasts a 2 for 1 master player and boasts a 2 for 1 master coach. Not every team has that. I was never a fan of TMac 2 for 1s, but we didn't have the best player for that philosophy back then. Nor the coach.

Keep in mind, the ppp for 20% is 0.6 so if you add it to our 0.75 ppp on the second shot of the 2 for 1 (net 1.35), you're still netting greater than 1.2 ppp which is roughly our average right now. Terrible shots pay off in 2 for 1s provided that they're makeable occasional 3s and that you're confident you'll run some semblance of offense on the 2nd possession. Jacking up a long straight-up 3s are less likely to be turnovers, so it's low risk to gain 0.3 per 2 possessions (if my math predictions (the 0.75ppp) are roughly correct).

So, it's not a mathematical no-brainer, but for us and the conditions I've added of making it a low percentage chance of a turnover, you do it every time provided you have a certain amount of time on the clock. Personally, I would try to slow Harden down at the mid-court line and try to get him to take the defender one-on-one. The philosophy there is that the pick man won't expect to need to set a pick that high and you can f- with the timing and make Harden second guess his internal clock.

If we shouldn't be doing 2 for 1s, it's because the equation for the end of the half is not meeting the performance requirements to make the philosophy work. Here's the equation for the end of quarters [I'm ignoring turnovers and rebounds]: 3/x + y < > or = 1.2 ppp where x is the number of times Harden takes that long 3 per make and y is ppp(under 7 seconds in the quarter). If my guess is right that the ppp(under 7 seconds in the quarter) is around 0.75, that means Harden needs to hit a long 3 once out of 6.67 times to hit equilibrium.

So everyone is talking about not jacking up that long 3, but it's probably more of an issue of what 2 for 1s do to our last possession that should really be the discussion here because it's the net effect we're really needing to understand. If Morey's 'prob-squad' doesn't have a person dedicated to resolving that equation (including rebound probability and turnover probability), then he should hire one ASAP. There are bound to be factors that change the outcome and make it a 'brainer'. That information should be provided to MDmA and disseminated to Harden as well if it hasn't already (I fully expect that it already has been).

There are probably 70 or 80 two for one opportunities to study from this year's team and the model could be altered and studied predictively as to just what can be expected in a playoff game where adrenaline increases and factors need to be adjusted for because we all know that playoff basketball is not the same beast. Right Xavier?

 

You're basically taking a chance that you'll get 6 points in the last 35 seconds while the other team only gets 2. That's if everything works out for both teams. The worst case is that you get 0 points and the other team gets 3. That's not the end of the world for this team. The best case is that you'll get 6 points and they'll get nothing. It's a gamble, but it's low risk yet high reward.

 

Most teams try to take advantage of the 2 for 1, even the Spurs do it. The difference is that teams like the Spurs or Warriors have multiple guys who can be a threat in these situations where as the Rockets only have one which makes ours a bit more predictable.

But, it's like you said. Two lower percentage chances with the best player in the league are likely better than one chance to score. I think Morey and MDA would both agree with that too.

 

This is why I think they employ the boring long straight 3, it's got such a low percentage chance of blowing the philosophy up. It's boring, but if it works 8 times a year, that's 8 times that give you a better shot at winning the game. (when I say "works", I mean we get 6 points out of it)

 

Thanks for the thorough analysis

A few things I want to add just for consideration:
1. Statistical distribution - if you have both of those shots go in in one game, it's going to average out the other two to three games when none of those shots go in. Again, basketball scores don't have decimals. It is really it will work in one out of every three games.

2. A few other things could happen after that "wild" shot - we lose an offensive rebound to the opponent in their shot or we foul if we have one to give. Those could wipe out the beneficial effect of the shot

3. With 5 to 6 seconds left having to cross the half court and put up a shot. Intuitively that's a lower than 20% possession to me

But what do I know, Morey probably got it all figured out. These are just money wrentches.

Or could it be that's the next phase of Harden being an excellent PG knowing how to turn down that shot and excercise control?

 

And there will be times where both teams end up with zero. The point of it all is to know the strategy and play it. Hell, you could run a regular possession and still end up with nothing. So, your logic of their potentially being zero points works no matter what situation you play for. Nothing is a sure thing, so you play the percents. The percents say play the 2 for 1 no matter what fans think of it. It's the superior strategy for the team.

Yes, they're terrible shots when you compare them to our regular offense, but we still have a statistical advantage if you put up a shot that has a low chance of becoming a turnover. Don't forget this is about defense as well. We're already positioned to get back as soon as the shot goes up. That's a good thing. Force them into taking a shot against a 5 man defense.

 

Maybe this topic just interests me to no end ...

But I get the alternative is no better argument.

However, intuitively ...

A wild shot has a much less chance to go in then a set up play and an end-to-end in 7 seconds or less play has a very low chance of success. So more often than not we end up with nothing, but occasionally we will do much better than the opposing team and they pay off big. Correct?

While PPP says you take those shots because, over the time they pay off than your regular play with a less shot to take, but does it really matter that those will pay off in 82 games? What we are talking about is THIS game. In another words, the season record is measured by individual wins and losses, not total points scored. Pardon my lacking of better terms. Obviously math is not my craft.