
Going for 2... (a statistics point of view)
I REALLY hate that we went for 2 instead of 3. I literally cannot believe how few coaches in any sport understand late game situations. Every college team should have some stat grad student they pay $10k/year to advise them on these exact situations.
First things first  Chris Allen is a 3 point shooter on the offensive end. That's it. He's our best ball handler outside of Royce, but he really is below average at finishing so it makes his drives somewhat pointless. Chris Allen shoots 37% from the field and 38% from 3. That means he is better at shooting 3's than 2's, that rarely is the case for obvious reasons. His specialty is set, spotup 3 point shots. He probably does that better than anyone on the team, but he is not a finisher at the hoop.
So why have a guy who doesn't finish well, drive for the 2? That's just dumb in of itself. But back to BASIC statistics. Let's say Chris has a 40% (generous) chance of making that runner over Nash. That means 40% of the time we are going to tie Ok State and go to OT. Let's say for argument's sake, that 50% of the time we win in OT (I would argue it's less, being on the road, but oh well). That means, by Chris Allen taking that shot, we have a 20% chance of winning the game.
Meanwhile, let's say the odds of Chris pulling up and making a 3 is 30%, 8% below his season average. Let's ignore the fact that he was incredibly hot from 3 and made 4 of his last 5 3point attempts and just say the chance of making it is 30%. That means we'd have a 30% chance of winning the game. THAT'S IT. That simple. By going for the 3, we have a 10% better chance of winning, and that's while being extremely generous to the opposite side. These are absolutely simple statistics, yet nearly every sports coach makes these mistakes and it pisses me off.
The end.

Re: Going for 2... (a statistics point of view)
Originally Posted by ISUPoker
I REALLY hate that we went for 2 instead of 3. I literally cannot believe how few coaches in any sport understand late game situations. Every college team should have some stat grad student they pay $10k/year to advise them on these exact situations.
First things first  Chris Allen is a 3 point shooter on the offensive end. That's it. He's our best ball handler outside of Royce, but he really is below average at finishing so it makes his drives somewhat pointless. Chris Allen shoots 37% from the field and 38% from 3. That means he is better at shooting 3's than 2's, that rarely is the case for obvious reasons. His specialty is set, spotup 3 point shots. He probably does that better than anyone on the team, but he is not a finisher at the hoop.
So why have a guy who doesn't finish well, drive for the 2? That's just dumb in of itself. But back to BASIC statistics. Let's say Chris has a 40% (generous) chance of making that runner over Nash. That means 40% of the time we are going to tie Ok State and go to OT. Let's say for argument's sake, that 50% of the time we win in OT (I would argue it's less, being on the road, but oh well). That means, by Chris Allen taking that shot, we have a 20% chance of winning the game.
Meanwhile, let's say the odds of Chris pulling up and making a 3 is 30%, 8% below his season average. Let's ignore the fact that he was incredibly hot from 3 and made 4 of his last 5 3point attempts and just say the chance of making it is 30%. That means we'd have a 30% chance of winning the game. THAT'S IT. That simple. By going for the 3, we have a 10% better chance of winning, and that's while being extremely generous to the opposite side. These are absolutely simple statistics, yet nearly every sports coach makes these mistakes and it pisses me off.
The end.
I don't think hoiberg told him to go for the 2 point shot. allen said after the game that he saw an opening and went for it. i agree with you tho that he should have shot the 3. i felt like the instant i saw him driving that we would lose the game

Re: Going for 2... (a statistics point of view)

Re: Going for 2... (a statistics point of view)
CA is also an excellent free throw shooter. Going for the layup give him a chance at 2 AND a chance of 2 free throws or a plus one.
I liked the call. I'm guessing Okie St was going to defend the 3 at all costs.

Re: Going for 2... (a statistics point of view)
Go for three you are on the road go for the win.

Re: Going for 2... (a statistics point of view)
But if we went for three most on here would say Oh we should have went for two.

Re: Going for 2... (a statistics point of view)

Re: Going for 2... (a statistics point of view)
I'm with you. If it was my call, I'd say to spot up and take the 3, especially considering how hot Allen was at that point in time.
But at the same time, no reason to dwell on the past. Can't change it now. Beat the Aggies on Saturday.

Re: Going for 2... (a statistics point of view)
good write up, makes a lot of sense.. But your statistics do not include variables. Were they expecting the three, would he have a good look, could he have got an and 1? I say do what feels right, and is comfortable at the time or open. Time to win at home. Royce could have helped as well by not turning it over in a two on one situation with about 37 sec left with the score tied up.
Last edited by Tedcyclone; 02082012 at 08:11 PM.

Re: Going for 2... (a statistics point of view)
Originally Posted by ISUPoker
I REALLY hate that we went for 2 instead of 3. I literally cannot believe how few coaches in any sport understand late game situations. Every college team should have some stat grad student they pay $10k/year to advise them on these exact situations.
First things first  Chris Allen is a 3 point shooter on the offensive end. That's it. He's our best ball handler outside of Royce, but he really is below average at finishing so it makes his drives somewhat pointless. Chris Allen shoots 37% from the field and 38% from 3. That means he is better at shooting 3's than 2's, that rarely is the case for obvious reasons. His specialty is set, spotup 3 point shots. He probably does that better than anyone on the team, but he is not a finisher at the hoop.
So why have a guy who doesn't finish well, drive for the 2? That's just dumb in of itself. But back to BASICstatistics. Let's say Chris has a 40% (generous) chance of making that runner over Nash. That means 40% of the time we are going to tie Ok State and go to OT. Let's say for argument's sake, that 50% of the time we win in OT (I would argue it's less, being on the road, but oh well). That means, by Chris Allen taking that shot, we have a 20% chance of winning the game.
Meanwhile, let's say the odds of Chris pulling up and making a 3 is 30%, 8% below his season average. Let's ignore the fact that he was incredibly hot from 3 and made 4 of his last 5 3point attempts and just say the chance of making it is 30%. That means we'd have a 30% chance of winning the game. THAT'S IT. That simple. By going for the 3, we have a 10% better chance of winning, and that's while being extremely generous to the opposite side. These are absolutely simple statistics, yet nearly every sports coach makes these mistakes and it pisses me off.
The end.
Forget paying grad students, I am actually shocked you don't have coaches breaking down your door to pay you to do this indepth statistical analysis!
You hate when coaches don't follow the statistics you are making up? Want to know what I really hate? When a HS roleplayer sits back and secondguesses a 10 year NBA vet who also happens to have his team poised for its best season in 7 years.
Maybe it was a gamble. But if I have the choice, my money is on Hoiberg instead of you. Sorry to disappoint.
The End

Re: Going for 2... (a statistics point of view)
Originally Posted by im4cyclones
Forget paying grad students, I am actually shocked you don't have coaches breaking down your door to pay you to do this indepth statistical analysis!
You hate when coaches don't follow the statistics you are making up? Want to know what I really hate? When a HS roleplayer sits back and secondguesses a 10 year NBA vet who also happens to have his team poised for its best season in 7 years.
Maybe it was a gamble. But if I have the choice, my money is on Hoiberg instead of you. Sorry to disappoint.
The End
What he said.

Re: Going for 2... (a statistics point of view)
I think the kids call that getting pwned

Re: Going for 2... (a statistics point of view)

Re: Going for 2... (a statistics point of view)
In retrospect, I would have called the last timeout if we had scooted the ball up court and then had a 2 second play. I did not sleep in a Holiday Inn and I am not a grad assistant...just a poster. For grins, I was at first thinking the refs might have put 5.0 seconds on the clock instead of 4.6 seconds.
Let Prohm's Posse Ride: Hallice, Brady, Stu, Lard, Naz, Deonte, Monte, Matt, Simeon, Jordan, and Babb.

Re: Going for 2... (a statistics point of view)
Originally Posted by ISUPoker
I REALLY hate that we went for 2 instead of 3. I literally cannot believe how few coaches in any sport understand late game situations. Every college team should have some stat grad student they pay $10k/year to advise them on these exact situations.
First things first  Chris Allen is a 3 point shooter on the offensive end. That's it. He's our best ball handler outside of Royce, but he really is below average at finishing so it makes his drives somewhat pointless. Chris Allen shoots 37% from the field and 38% from 3. That means he is better at shooting 3's than 2's, that rarely is the case for obvious reasons. His specialty is set, spotup 3 point shots. He probably does that better than anyone on the team, but he is not a finisher at the hoop.
So why have a guy who doesn't finish well, drive for the 2? That's just dumb in of itself. But back to BASIC statistics. Let's say Chris has a 40% (generous) chance of making that runner over Nash. That means 40% of the time we are going to tie Ok State and go to OT. Let's say for argument's sake, that 50% of the time we win in OT (I would argue it's less, being on the road, but oh well). That means, by Chris Allen taking that shot, we have a 20% chance of winning the game.
Meanwhile, let's say the odds of Chris pulling up and making a 3 is 30%, 8% below his season average. Let's ignore the fact that he was incredibly hot from 3 and made 4 of his last 5 3point attempts and just say the chance of making it is 30%. That means we'd have a 30% chance of winning the game. THAT'S IT. That simple. By going for the 3, we have a 10% better chance of winning, and that's while being extremely generous to the opposite side. These are absolutely simple statistics, yet nearly every sports coach makes these mistakes and it pisses me off.
The end.
With all due respect, a coach who used solely statistics to make his decisions would be fired pretty quickly.
Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads
 You may not post replies
 You may not post attachments
 You may not edit your posts

Forum Rules
 

Bookmarks