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

[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 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.

 

[Cyclonefan89]

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

 

[CyBer]

I like going for 2

 

[intrepid27]

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.

 

[scyclonekid]

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

 

[scyclonekid]

But if we went for three most on here would say Oh we should have went for two.

 

[scyclonekid]

Baylor is very beatable.

 

[kas4cy]

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.

 

[Tedcyclone]

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.

 

[im4cyclones]

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

 

[MartyFine]

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.:smile:

 

[CYVADER]

I think the kids call that getting pwned

 

[Rhoadhoused]

 

[Wesley]

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.

 

[Cyclonepride]

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.

 

[Farnsworth]

But if we went for three most on here would say Oh we should have went for two.

exactly. if we lose the game, no matter what we went for it would have been the wrong call. If we go for 3 and miss, well it was overly obvious we were going for the 3, so they defended the line with their life. If we go for 2, well see what happened.

If he thought he had an opening, I'm glad he went for it. Didn't work out our way, but I don't understand all the fuss. We are cyclone fans, we usually come out on the losing side of these games 9 times out of 10, let's be happy we are winning some of these close ones for once.

 

[mg4cy]

moneyball

 

[je4cy23]

As soon as he hit the free throw line I would have liked to see him pass to McGee for the wide open 3.

 

[safmusic]

first of all would not have been so critical as Allen did not slide out on Nash on the screen so Nash got an easy pass in the middle of the floor to make his move. He'd made shots like that this game, so Allen should have been a step or 2 closer and then either would have eliminated that pass or he could have intercepted and maybe even gone down for a layup at the other end.
Allen was open for the 3 pointer at about 30 ft. but Nash was on him as he neared the 3 point line. Looked like he was pushing him but that was going on all night on both sides.
Stats dont really mean much, its the present situation, that is what makes the stats not the other way around.

 

[cymaniac17]

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

To be fair there are a ton of coaches at every level and in every sport that were never actually good at the sport they are coaching yet they are exceptional coaches.