Going for 2... (a statistics point of view)
- Thread starter ISUPoker
- Start date
So your argument is "he's the coach, you're not, therefore he's right"...? Wow, what a great argument you make. You really owned me. Coaches aren't perfect and Fred would be the first one to tell you that.
Since you dismiss statistics so willingly, let me guess, you thought it was a good decision when Tom Coughlin DID NOT tell Ahmad Bradshaw to slide at the 1 so the Giants could kick a FG (Eli did as he was handing the ball off, but Ahmad didn't slide soon enough). The Giants can run the clock out and win the game as time expires, which by the way, kicking a FG at the 1 has a 97%+ chance of going in. Instead they give the ball back to Tom Brady with 57 seconds left and a timeout. While I don't know what the chance of Tom leading the Patriots down to score, I'm going to guess it was >3% (according to AdvancedNFLStats.com, the Giants win probability actually went down when they scored). Just because it worked out for the Giants, doesn't mean it was the best decision at the time.
Please provide statistics or, if you're incapable of comprehending them, provide logical reasoning that shows why taking a 2 is a better shot than a 3. I may have made assumptions, as anyone who has taken Stat 101 knows that every model has assumptions, but my assumptions were based on actual statistics and I was VERY generous towards the side of making a 2. And despite that, it was still 50% better to go for a 3.
By the way... what happened in the Duke/UNC game tonight? I rest my case.
you're right. statistics decide who wins or who loses. just kidding, you're an idiot.
Hoiberg is the coach, you're not, and there is a reason for that. if you think you're so good why not coach somewhere? seeing as how you are "in the know"
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. Wow.
Well it's pretty clear that Fred is perfect and should not be questioned, so I'll just move along, because clearly intelligent conversations are impossible here.
So what happens if Allen makes his layup and we win in OT? You probably wouldn't have made an outrageous post about how the "statistics" say that you would've rather Allen took the three. And why not? The statistics wouldn't have changed in that situation regardless of whether it worked out or not.
Lol and you get on me about my assumptions? You just openly assumed my response based on nothing. Maybe you should read what I write. As I said above regarding the Giants slide, just because it works out does not mean it was the correct decision. I still would've said that going for 3 would've been the smart play.
Once again, I invite you to rip my statistics up and debate with me why they're so offbase and why they're bad assumptions. If you think my statistics are "outrageous" surely you have a reason why you think so?
Player had the chance to shoot a 3 or 2 based on the play called. He has a fraction of a second and had to use his instincts. In that fraction of a second he made a decision and did the best he could to put himself into a good position to take a shot.
That's it, nothing more. He did the right thing, but odds says we lose most the time either way.
I was glad he took control, let his instincts take over, and gave us a chance to extend the game into overtime.
Well done Allen!
That's it, nothing more. He did the right thing, but odds says we lose most the time either way.
I was glad he took control, let his instincts take over, and gave us a chance to extend the game into overtime.
Well done Allen!
Because your statistics are not relevant! If you were able to run that exact play 1000 times and have CA take a 2 500 times, and a 3 500 times and compared that data I would listen to you. However, the data you have is for different situations where the game is not on the line, there is more than 5 seconds on the clock, CA doesn't have to dribble 3/4 of the court, the defense doesn't have to respect a pass or pump fake because there is not time to execute those moves, ect.
If I had to guess I'd say Allen had the option on the play to pull up or take an opening to the basket if given one. Watching it live I was shocked he didn't pullup, but upon watching it again there were two OSU defenders waiting for him at the spot where he was headed to pullup for the 3. The defense was essentially inviting him to drive left at that point. He might be a 37% 3 pt shooter when he's got an open shot, but I highly doubt he'd shoot that % a few feet back with two guys in his face.
So I had no problem with the decision he made to take it to the cup. The thing that upset me was he should play to contact in that situation instead of driving away from the defender when you know damn well that guy wants no part of fouling him at that juncture. Should have been a dunk with the possibility of and 1, or a hard foul and two shots.
So I had no problem with the decision he made to take it to the cup. The thing that upset me was he should play to contact in that situation instead of driving away from the defender when you know damn well that guy wants no part of fouling him at that juncture. Should have been a dunk with the possibility of and 1, or a hard foul and two shots.
I would have liked to see a 8-10 foot jumper with the way Nash was defending. If CA made a quick pullup, he would have had an open shot since Nash wouldn't have had enough time to recover. Either way I realize that was really hard either way.
I'm usually in agreement about going for the win on the road, instead of overtime, but I also assumed OSU expected a 3-point attempt. It'd be different if ISU had only 1 reliable shooter from that range, and they could key on him. What were there, 4 such players on the floor at the time? (Don't recall if McGee was in — I caught the action just before the inbound)
I didn't read anything postgame from coaches or players about the strategy they wanted to use. So my assumption was it was a counter-strategy because Hoiberg thought OSU would crowd the 3-point line.
Also, I hadn't even thought about the FT shooting aspect — maybe he doesn't convert 3-point play, but may draw a foul.
I have to admit, it was a heckuva defensive play. If Chris went off-******, I'm not going to lay everything on his shoulders, especially considering his overall performance.
You could just as easily criticize the team for allowing OSU's final basket.
It was a missed opportunity for another road win, a bummer. But everyone needs to remember Iowa State pulled off late-game heroics twice in recent weeks in home games we really needed to have vs. OSU and KSU. Could have quite easily lost both.
I'll accept the 2-for-1 tradeoff with those 3.
D
DistrictCyclone
Guest
A few things, to demonstrate that you're a clown:
1) The difference between Allen's FG% (37) and his 3P% (38) is not statistically significant. For all intents and purposes, they're identical, so what exactly is your point?
2) Allen's FG% includes everything from jump-shots with a toe on the 3-point line to easy layups, and there's variance across those different types of shots. His (like most any player's) FG% is probably much higher than 37% for layups.
3) A player's more likely to draw a foul on a drive to the basket than he is shooting a 3. I.e., if Allen shoots the 3, it's all or nothing...but driving to the basket gives him a chance to score and/or the chance to shoot free throws. Did you work this into your super-complex statistical model?
4) You're correct in that Allen is a good set shooter, and getting him an open look could have paid off big. The only problem is that this requires us to run the offense to set Allen up, which isn't something a team has the luxury of doing with 5 seconds left on the clock.
5) Taking my point in #2 further, a player's shooting percentage doesn't just vary according to whether they're attempting a three or a two, but changes depending on many factors. For example, what's Allen's 3P% when he's being guarded as opposed to being left open? How likely is he to score when he's also bringing the ball up the court? Does he shoot better or worse when there's little time on the shot clock? Does he score more in transition or on set plays?
If you're going to argue for the use of statistics in situations like these, you can't just apply broad generalizations without considering the many other relevant circumstances of each situation.
Last edited by a moderator:
This. Take a three for the win. I don't get why you guys are bashing this kid for speaking the truth.
We weren't hitting threes to start the game when they were expecting it, we had to power it in with Royce and/or the other guys had to drive it in to open up some three point shots. Why do you think the three would be open when they were expecting it again?
I actually thought the play worked pretty well, Allen was able to cruise all the way down court in no time. Just thought he saw an opening and took it instead of popping the three (I believe it was his decision to drive it in as he said in the post game interviews).
Exactly. Comparing that last shot situation with a normal game situation with set plays and set shots without a hand in his face is a lot like comparing a normal game situation with warm ups. Apples and oranges.
