I made this point on Twitter to the author because he talks about the Celtics perfecting the 2-for-1 instead of just taking it at any situation. I think that’s exactly the idea of forcing it always when it is available.
As the author said we can estimate we get about 3 2-for-1 situations per game, which is 246 tries out of the whole season. Well that’s a nice sample size but it breaks down in very small sample sizes if we go by play type, defensive situation, lineup, player taking the shot. Effectively forcing this shot might be detrimental for the regular season record (which we give 0 fucks about with this team tbh), but by doing so you gather enough information to know “this is the correct situation to go for it” in the playoffs.
nerdyykidd
Agree with Scal. As long as they’re not forced, poor attempts; I love them.
If we can get anything other than a contested step-back 35ft 3 pointer from Tatum with ~30 seconds left, I think that should be an automatic greenlight.
More points > fewer points.
iliketuurtles
I find it similar to the double dip in the NFL. It rarely works but when it does, it can be a game changer.
altilly
I appreciate the review of actual data but I feel like the benefit is pretty obvious without it. Two jacked up 3-pointers still outvalue a single “excellent” shot.
Two 3-pointers at 25% each = 1.5 points
One 2-pointer at 75% = 1.5 points
One 3-pointer at 50% = 1.5 points
SfGiantsPanda
I love this.
For those that didn’t read it, the Celtics through 50 games had 150 chances (1st thru 3rd quarter) to get a 2 for 1 opportunity. They put themselves in position for the 2-for-1 71% of the time, and of those, they either tied or outscored their opponent 78% of the time.
King_Of_Pants
Gotta credit the author.
They keep saying they don’t like the look of the 2-for-1’s but the entire article is really just rattling off reasons why it’s been working and they have the ability to step back and acknowledge that.
However, just a couple of points.
Firstly, the author mentions Boston shooting a lot of 3s in these situations:
>Boston does take a lot of threes in the top half of the two-for-one. So far, 56 of their 95 shot attempts have come from long range in that situation
*Note: Normally, 47% of our shots come from 3 however in this situation it’s 59%.*
But the author turns to FG% for the “efficiency” metric:
>As a team, the Celtics have converted on 44.5% of their first two-for-one shots. That number is over 3% lower than their season-long efficiency of 47.7%.
If we’re shooting a greater percentage of 3s then of course our FG% will drop, but that doesn’t mean our efficiency is dropping. It’s why Harden in 2016-17 could be more efficient shooting 44% (eFG% – 52.5%) than DeRozan was shooting 47% (eFG% – 48%).
They should have used TS% or eFG% here instead of FG%.
Secondly:
>Seeing how the Celtics should be getting 66% of possessions in the final minute or so, then they should be outscoring their opponents at least 66% of the time. But, as mentioned earlier, that number is actually a tick under 50%.
The whole point of a 2-for-1 is:
1. Two bad possessions are greater than one. You’re not supposed to count all 3 possessions equally.
2. You’re trying to create no-lose situations which essentially let you play with house money. The out-scoring is actually secondary.
Think about taking the final shot of the first quarter. If I hold the ball and shoot right at the buzzer then I’ve gamed the situation. Sure I want to maximise my shot quality and a 30% chance to hit a long 2 isn’t great, but my 30% is better than your 0%. By taking the final shot on the buzzer, I’ve created an unloseable situation. There’s a (small) chance I score, which is greater than your no chance of scoring.
It’s not scoring efficiency that matters. It’s relative scoring efficiency. Which the author seems to understand and addresses in the article but then loses in this one late-ish section.
MomOfThreePigeons
Anyone know why they don’t really do 2-for-1 in NCAA? I understand they play halves so they only really have 1-2 consistent opportunities per game as opposed to 3 or 4 in the NBA. But it’s something we’d do a little bit in high school (quarters, not halves), and it’s something most NBA teams do. But I feel like I almost never see it in college.
8 Comments
I made this point on Twitter to the author because he talks about the Celtics perfecting the 2-for-1 instead of just taking it at any situation. I think that’s exactly the idea of forcing it always when it is available.
As the author said we can estimate we get about 3 2-for-1 situations per game, which is 246 tries out of the whole season. Well that’s a nice sample size but it breaks down in very small sample sizes if we go by play type, defensive situation, lineup, player taking the shot. Effectively forcing this shot might be detrimental for the regular season record (which we give 0 fucks about with this team tbh), but by doing so you gather enough information to know “this is the correct situation to go for it” in the playoffs.
Agree with Scal. As long as they’re not forced, poor attempts; I love them.
If we can get anything other than a contested step-back 35ft 3 pointer from Tatum with ~30 seconds left, I think that should be an automatic greenlight.
More points > fewer points.
I find it similar to the double dip in the NFL. It rarely works but when it does, it can be a game changer.
I appreciate the review of actual data but I feel like the benefit is pretty obvious without it. Two jacked up 3-pointers still outvalue a single “excellent” shot.
Two 3-pointers at 25% each = 1.5 points
One 2-pointer at 75% = 1.5 points
One 3-pointer at 50% = 1.5 points
I love this.
For those that didn’t read it, the Celtics through 50 games had 150 chances (1st thru 3rd quarter) to get a 2 for 1 opportunity. They put themselves in position for the 2-for-1 71% of the time, and of those, they either tied or outscored their opponent 78% of the time.
Gotta credit the author.
They keep saying they don’t like the look of the 2-for-1’s but the entire article is really just rattling off reasons why it’s been working and they have the ability to step back and acknowledge that.
However, just a couple of points.
Firstly, the author mentions Boston shooting a lot of 3s in these situations:
>Boston does take a lot of threes in the top half of the two-for-one. So far, 56 of their 95 shot attempts have come from long range in that situation
*Note: Normally, 47% of our shots come from 3 however in this situation it’s 59%.*
But the author turns to FG% for the “efficiency” metric:
>As a team, the Celtics have converted on 44.5% of their first two-for-one shots. That number is over 3% lower than their season-long efficiency of 47.7%.
If we’re shooting a greater percentage of 3s then of course our FG% will drop, but that doesn’t mean our efficiency is dropping. It’s why Harden in 2016-17 could be more efficient shooting 44% (eFG% – 52.5%) than DeRozan was shooting 47% (eFG% – 48%).
They should have used TS% or eFG% here instead of FG%.
Secondly:
>Seeing how the Celtics should be getting 66% of possessions in the final minute or so, then they should be outscoring their opponents at least 66% of the time. But, as mentioned earlier, that number is actually a tick under 50%.
The whole point of a 2-for-1 is:
1. Two bad possessions are greater than one. You’re not supposed to count all 3 possessions equally.
2. You’re trying to create no-lose situations which essentially let you play with house money. The out-scoring is actually secondary.
Think about taking the final shot of the first quarter. If I hold the ball and shoot right at the buzzer then I’ve gamed the situation. Sure I want to maximise my shot quality and a 30% chance to hit a long 2 isn’t great, but my 30% is better than your 0%. By taking the final shot on the buzzer, I’ve created an unloseable situation. There’s a (small) chance I score, which is greater than your no chance of scoring.
It’s not scoring efficiency that matters. It’s relative scoring efficiency. Which the author seems to understand and addresses in the article but then loses in this one late-ish section.
Anyone know why they don’t really do 2-for-1 in NCAA? I understand they play halves so they only really have 1-2 consistent opportunities per game as opposed to 3 or 4 in the NBA. But it’s something we’d do a little bit in high school (quarters, not halves), and it’s something most NBA teams do. But I feel like I almost never see it in college.
I guess I have to reevaluate my hate for it lmao.