Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 92
  1. #1
    Rookie
    Points: 9,967, Level: 30
    Level completed: 3%, Points required for next Level: 583
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    352
    Points
    9,967
    Level
    30
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 10
    Given: 1

    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 3-point 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.



  2. #2
    Bench Warmer
    Points: 12,674, Level: 34
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 676
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    Created Album picturesVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Cyclonefan89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Ankeny
    Posts
    321
    Points
    12,674
    Level
    34
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 36
    Given: 47

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ISUPoker View Post
    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 3-point 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



  3. #3
    CyBer
    Guest

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

    I like going for 2



  4. #4
    Pro
    Points: 73,761, Level: 84
    Level completed: 36%, Points required for next Level: 1,089
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    intrepid27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Marion, IA
    Posts
    2,991
    Points
    73,761
    Level
    84
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 392
    Given: 494

    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.



  5. #5
    Addict
    Points: 45,600, Level: 66
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 1,350
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    scyclonekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,608
    Points
    45,600
    Level
    66
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 162
    Given: 37

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

    Go for three you are on the road go for the win.



  6. #6
    Addict
    Points: 45,600, Level: 66
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 1,350
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    scyclonekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,608
    Points
    45,600
    Level
    66
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 162
    Given: 37

    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.



  7. #7
    Addict
    Points: 45,600, Level: 66
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 1,350
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    scyclonekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,608
    Points
    45,600
    Level
    66
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 162
    Given: 37

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

    Baylor is very beatable.



  8. #8
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Iowa City, IA
    Posts
    1,504
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    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.



  9. #9
    Pro
    Points: 43,422, Level: 64
    Level completed: 37%, Points required for next Level: 828
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    25000 Experience PointsCreated Album picturesVeteran

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    West Des Moines
    Posts
    2,768
    Points
    43,422
    Level
    64
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 212
    Given: 495

    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; 02-08-2012 at 09:11 PM.

  10. #10
    Hall-Of-Famer
    Points: 57,839, Level: 74
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 711
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    im4cyclones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ames, IA
    Posts
    3,566
    Points
    57,839
    Level
    74
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 812
    Given: 799

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ISUPoker View Post
    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 3-point 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 in-depth 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 role-player sits back and second-guesses 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



  11. #11
    Pro
    Points: 63,347, Level: 78
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 1,503
    Overall activity: 5.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    MartyFine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Warren Co., IA
    Posts
    2,053
    Points
    63,347
    Level
    78
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 498
    Given: 211

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

    Quote Originally Posted by im4cyclones View Post
    Forget paying grad students, I am actually shocked you don't have coaches breaking down your door to pay you to do this in-depth 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 role-player sits back and second-guesses 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.



  12. #12
    Addict
    Points: 80,754, Level: 88
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 1,196
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    CYVADER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cornfields
    Posts
    5,315
    Points
    80,754
    Level
    88
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 51
    Given: 10

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

    I think the kids call that getting pwned



  13. #13
    Legend
    Points: 185,594, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Rhoadhoused's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ames, IA
    Posts
    11,000
    Points
    185,594
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,416
    Given: 734

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




  14. #14
    Speechless
    Points: 458,422, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Wesley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Omaha
    Posts
    69,718
    Points
    458,422
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,173
    Given: 1,942

    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: Georges, Georgios, 3sus, Hallice, Deonte, Abdel, Monte, Matt, and McKaT.

  15. #15
    Speechless
    Points: 826,246, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranCreated Album pictures50000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    Cyclonepride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    A pineapple under the sea
    Posts
    58,028
    Points
    826,246
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 8,471
    Given: 3,771

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ISUPoker View Post
    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 3-point 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
  •  
  • TV: ESPNU
  • HOOPS: Iowa State @ Texas Tech
  • February 9, 2016
  • 08:00 PM