5/2 vs Portland

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
3,042
Three-point shooting has been unreal. Have to think we're not going to see 60%, 60%+ from both sides in the second half.
 

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
4,296
So, maybe CBS knew what he was doing by letting Fournier play through his illness.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
5,388
Jaylen just standing 3 feet further away from his man than he needed to be and giving up the easy af three is boggling.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,497
2 for 1 only sucks if like us your teamwide execution is terrible under pressure... less than 1 second on the play clock Tatum fouls, end of the 1st, offensive foul?
This team just shits itself in clutch situations. Maybe because it's a young team and the vet is often Marcus, who plays hard but very dumb most times
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
12,784
I get the logic of the two for one, but they always seem to get two awful shots while the other team gets a good one. Ends up costing them. I’d rather the Cs take their time to get a good shot, and even if they miss, it doesn’t give the other team a ton of time to get their own.
 

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
4,296
Smart can't shoot anymore, but he has six assists and no turnovers.
 

djbayko

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
15,615
Los Angeles, CA
The 2 for 1 doesn't have to work out very often for it to be the right play over the long run.
Of course. I'd like to see the numbers though because I think it completely fails a lot, as in zero baskets to 1. Much of the time you're getting 2 shitty possessions instead of one quality one while allowing the other team the comfort of taking their time (or possibly getting a transition basket).
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
4,467
I have no problem with the Tatum heat check three on the 2 for 1. That’s the guy we want taking them.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
5,111
Palo Alto
Of course. I'd like to see the numbers though because I think it completely fails a lot, as in zero baskets to 1. Much of the time you're getting 2 shitty possessions instead of one quality one while allowing the other team the comfort of taking their time (or possibly getting a transition basket).
This guy tracked 2-1 opportunities in 2015. Maybe the dynamics have changed in the seasons since then but it is pretty obviously an advantageous strategy. The gain is about .74 points per opportunity - not going 2 for 1 will give you maybe .1 points per opportunity. https://www.racketracer.com/2015/05/12/analytics-of-optimal-2-for-1-strategy-in-nba-basketball/
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
41,772
Of course. I'd like to see the numbers though because I think it completely fails a lot, as in zero baskets to 1. Much of the time you're getting 2 shitty possessions instead of one quality one while allowing the other team the comfort of taking their time (or possibly getting a transition basket).
Too often they are getting a 2 for 1 in name only, where the first shot comes around 31-33 on the clock, so when they inevitably miss and give up a rebound, the opponent has 28-30 on the clock. So you only end up with 3-5 seconds left anyway and both of your 2 end up just being rushed pull-up threes.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,815
New York, NY
Of course. I'd like to see the numbers though because I think it completely fails a lot, as in zero baskets to 1. Much of the time you're getting 2 shitty possessions instead of one quality one while allowing the other team the comfort of taking their time (or possibly getting a transition basket).
They’d have to be really bad shots though. Two 25% shots have the same scoring expectation as one 50% shot.
 

SteveF

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
215
The jump shooting by both teams is obviously unsustainable. The team that gets the most going to the rim will probably win this game.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
24,142
Saskatoon Canada
This guy tracked 2-1 opportunities in 2015. Maybe the dynamics have changed in the seasons since then but it is pretty obviously an advantageous strategy. The gain is about .74 points per opportunity - not going 2 for 1 will give you maybe .1 points per opportunity. https://www.racketracer.com/2015/05/12/analytics-of-optimal-2-for-1-strategy-in-nba-basketball/
Yeah if you make the first it's almost impossible to lose. Have to get a decent look 1st time. I see some coaches with rules like +8 seconds do it +6 just play etc.
Pros will have thinner margins I expect
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
5,111
Palo Alto
Yeah if you make the first it's almost impossible to lose. Have to get a decent look 1st time. I see some coaches with rules like +8 seconds do it +6 just play etc.
Pros will have thinner margins I expect
I think the psychology plays a large role since the relatively rare but non zero times where it bites you in the ass (you jack up two bad shots and the other teams scores) are way more salient mentally then they are quantitatively.
 

boxosII

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
11,143
there's an old quote but I can't remember who said it

'Let 'em shoot. Their arms will get tired.'