LeBron James: “I’mma tell you what kills me: The 2-for-1 shot at the end of quarters… What people sometimes don’t account for, the 4 or 5 possessions before that.” JJ Redick: “I think it does f*ck with the flow of the game.”
by ImeStopPlayingDennis
@Boston Celtics
20 Comments
Umm. Rcists or somethijg. I’m upset.
I mean, he’s right. A rushed, low-percentage 3 followed by rushing a shot with only 6 seconds left in the quarter is probably worse than a set play or moving the ball to find an open shot. That being said, I don’t expect this team to adjust to that. They see 34 on the clock and go “UNGA BUNGA 2 > 1”
I get the point Lebron is making. The Celtics don’t really have this issue just cuz we get quality shots at an insane rate. But for other teams sometimes just slowing down and getting a quality bucket is more valuable for the momentum of the game.
people always say this because 2 for 1s can look ugly sometimes but the math will always favor 2 bad looks over 1 good look.
and ideally you get 1 okay look and 1 good look rather than two bad ones
Whatever, what kills me is the last minute of a somewhat close game becoming a 5 minute long hackfest.
I could care less about 2 for 1s
I do feel we’ve gotten better with this. There was once recently where we had the ball over the halfcourt line with around 30 seconds left, and we didn’t immediately jack up a 3!
Scal in shambles
End of game situations is where it stands out the most. Easily can turn into two bad possessions. One of those possessions need to be a great shot if not both
Score comes into play too. Are you up 1-3? Are you behind by two? That front end could be the more crucial possession or the one that ices the game
It’s one of those things where when you look at volume over the season, it works out. When the volume isn’t there and you’re reliant on those possessions to continue your season? Are those the shots you want to lean on? Then you get into what you work on in a season is to build up for that moment and what does the 2 for 1 prepare you for?
I’d rather one legit possession that heaving the ball from wherever just to ensure you get the last shot (which is also usually rushed).
A rushed bad shot fallowed by not getting back on defense is when it’s a fools errand
I disagree. I always take the greater expected points. Turns out the team that wins the game is the one that scores the most points. Not the one who has the momentum. Play to your odds and in the long run it will always benefit you.
Lotta ppl not able to look at nuance. What he’s saying is just going for 2 for 1 shouldn’t be the be all end all.
On a related note, I wonder how much field goal attempt optimization is being studied as an advanced metric already, and how much more it will be in the future.
Knowing what shots make sense, in different situations, based upon things like how much time is on the shot clock, who the shooter is, how good are they at that shot from that spot, who else is on the floor with them, and how good the defense is, could give a team a nice edge.
For example, a 30% shooter taking open 3 with 18 seconds on the shot clock with the starters on the court, would make no sense. But, at what point does that become the best shot you are likely to get in the possession. Obviously at 1 second it is, but what about at 5 seconds or 7 seconds?
I think for 2 for 1 to make sense it’s to have a shot taken and by the time the other team has the ball off a made basket or rebound the clock should be above 30 seconds or more. That way if you get the ball back again you still have time to make a decent play out of it instead of forcing to launch a shot from half court and beyond. I can’t stand when teams take a shot and there would only be a 2 second difference in shot clock and game clock thus resulting into a full court heave if you get the ball back unless the other team is stupid to take a shot early.
you get to take two bad shots and the other team gets to take one good shot lol
This post is gonna bring out all the dudes who lose their poker friendlies and blame bad deals 😂
People who are against the 2 for 1 mentally compare it as 2 bad shots versus 1 absolutely guaranteed make. LeBron’s even doing it. That’s not how it works. The Cs are shooting just north of 50% on wide open 2s and 44% on open 2s. So you should expect a 50/50 out of the very best possessions we generate, and even a good look should be expected to miss. In our 2 shots scenario, you’re overwhelmingly favored to make 1 of those 2 shots. 1 made basket is more points than 0 made baskets. There isn’t a single situation where you shouldn’t take this.
Bron’s point doesn’t even make sense. You’ve been getting stopped or taking shit shots for 3 minutes, and now you’re magically gonna generate a good one when you’ve clearly been trying and failing to do that over an extended stretch of time by taking a full shot clock? Why didn’t you just do that before if it’s that easy? Or, on the other hand, if you’ve been consistently getting good shots, why not take one mediocre/bad freebie and then go take a good shot to end the quarter, since you’re already generating them and have a pattern you can go back to? The logic doesn’t stand up to probing at all.
So I was looking at the comments and I realized that many are missing that with a 2 for 1, the opponent is getting a good shot now instead of a rushed one. So two rushed shots may not be better than one good one because the opponent might get the bad one instead
Let’s assume a good shot is 40% success and a bad one is 25% success. Let’s also assume that this happens with 30-33 seconds left. The maths is below and it’s not that clean as people think
In scenario 1, we take 2 bad shots, our expected success is 0.4325, or 0.87 pts (assuming these are 2-pointers). Opponent takes a good shot, so they make 0.8 pts. The difference is 0.07 pts for us
In scenario 2, we take one good shot and the opponent takes a bad shot. Our expected points is 0.8 pts while opponent is 0.5 pts, delta of 0.3 pts
So knowing what these percentages are is quite important. You actually want a bad shot to be fairly close in expected value for it to work.
The thing that I feel like isn’t really factored into the 2 for 1 math is the other team getting fast break chance if you brick a bad three point shot. Like I get the math that 2 shots even if they are rushed is still better than 1 shot no matter how good the look is. But what about when you brick a 3 that you rushed and that leads to the other team getting a fast break opportunity off a long rebound?
Idk man… what’s the worst possession you could think of. A Marcus Smart (bless your heart) 35foot three, shooting 25%? That’s 3*0.25=0.75 points per possession. Two of those is 1.5 points total, in expectation. That’s WAY better than even the best look you could imagine. The best transition offense in the league (PHX) gets 1.23 points per possession in transition. The best half court offense is closer to like 1.07 PPP. Two horrible shots is always better than the best look you could imagine.
You can say whatever about momentum (I’m of the camp that it’s BS), but honestly even if you subscribe to the idea that momentum matters, there should be *less* momentum between quarters anyway, with the free timeout.
Someone did an analysis of it a few weeks ago and the Celtics come out positive on 2 for 1s more times than not.