Going 2 for 1 is so overrated

[TheNorthCydeRises]

One of the major complaints about Woody from some of you, is how he doesn't stress for the Hawks to go 2 for 1 at the end of periods. For some of our younger fans, going 2 for 1 means that you try to get 2 possessions at the end of the quarter, by taking a quick shot on your first possession, so you can take another shot on your 2nd possession. Say there's 40 seconds left in the 3rd quarter and the Hawks have the ball. If you want one more possession before the quarter ends, you'd have to shoot the ball early enough in the shot clock to make sure you get the ball back after your opponent shoots. It'll probably be best to take the shot before the 30 second mark to make sure you could get the ball back with at least 5 - 8 seconds left to get another shot at the end. Sounds like a good plan right? Well, I've always thought going 2 for 1 was overrated. The reason why I say this, is because the team trying to go 2 for 1 routinely takes a HORRIBLE shot, just to shoot the ball early enough to get the ball back. Then, by the time they get the ball back, they have to take another rushed shot just to get the shot off before the quarter ended. That's exactly what happened in this Celtics - Sonics game tonight on TNT. Sonics have the ball with like 36 seconds left in the 3rd quarter. Delonte West races down the floor for Seattle, looking to get a 2 for 1. TNT announcer Doug Collins, who was also a former player and coach, mentions that they can get a 2 for 1 right here. He throws up a horrible shot that barely hits the rim. Celtics go down and miss their shot. Seattle gets the rebound, but there is only like 2 seconds left to shoot. Seattle throws up a 3/4 court shot that falls short. Woody gets criticized all the time for not instructing the Hawks to go 2 for 1 at the end of quarters. In a situation like the one Seattle was in tonight, Woody would've preferred for the Hawks to play for a good shot, even if it meant sacrificing a chance for the 2 for 1. I'd love to see a stat or study on how successful teams are when they go 2 for 1. I even e-mailed the guys at 82games.com to see if they could study this back before the season started. I bet the success/number of points scored, are a lot lower than what people think it is. To me, it's like going for 2 in a football game in the 2nd quarter, when you're down 14 - 12. Ever hear about that "coaches chart" for when to go for 2? The success rate of going for 2 in football is low. Just kick the extra point and make it 14 - 13. And in basketball, teams should just run their offense, and get a quality shot, instead of worrying about getting 2 shots.

[MikeWilksBooth]

Never really thought about that. Take what the defense gives is what I say...if the 2 for 1 is there then take it. Don't force it or think about it.

[PureGreatness]

Quote:

---

One of the major complaints about Woody from some of you, is how he doesn't stress for the Hawks to go 2 for 1 at the end of periods. For some of our younger fans, going 2 for 1 means that you try to get 2 possessions at the end of the quarter, by taking a quick shot on your first possession, so you can take another shot on your 2nd possession. Say there's 40 seconds left in the 3rd quarter and the Hawks have the ball. If you want one more possession before the quarter ends, you'd have to shoot the ball early enough in the shot clock to make sure you get the ball back after your opponent shoots. It'll probably be best to take the shot before the 30 second mark to make sure you could get the ball back with at least 5 - 8 seconds left to get another shot at the end. Sounds like a good plan right? Well, I've always thought going 2 for 1 was overrated. The reason why I say this, is because the team trying to go 2 for 1 routinely takes a HORRIBLE shot, just to shoot the ball early enough to get the ball back. Then, by the time they get the ball back, they have to take another rushed shot just to get the shot off before the quarter ended. That's exactly what happened in this Celtics - Sonics game tonight on TNT. Sonics have the ball with like 36 seconds left in the 3rd quarter. Delonte West races down the floor for Seattle, looking to get a 2 for 1. TNT announcer Doug Collins, who was also a former player and coach, mentions that they can get a 2 for 1 right here. He throws up a horrible shot that barely hits the rim. Celtics go down and miss their shot. Seattle gets the rebound, but there is only like 2 seconds left to shoot. Seattle throws up a 3/4 court shot that falls short. Woody gets criticized all the time for not instructing the Hawks to go 2 for 1 at the end of quarters. In a situation like the one Seattle was in tonight, Woody would've preferred for the Hawks to play for a good shot, even if it meant sacrificing a chance for the 2 for 1. I'd love to see a stat or study on how successful teams are when they go 2 for 1. I even e-mailed the guys at 82games.com to see if they could study this back before the season started. I bet the success/number of points scored, are a lot lower than what people think it is. To me, it's like going for 2 in a football game in the 2nd quarter, when you're down 14 - 12. Ever hear about that "coaches chart" for when to go for 2? The success rate of going for 2 in football is low. Just kick the extra point and make it 14 - 13. And in basketball, teams should just run their offense, and get a quality shot, instead of worrying about getting 2 shots.

---

i always thought the same thing for some reason, 2 for 1 is so overrated. if your gonna try to score in a hury you should do it during the game (if it works).

[leftwich]

I watched that game and agree with you to a degree.

I think if you have the ball with 40-45 seconds left you should definitely try to run an up-tempo possession, but you shouldn't throw up a bad shot for the sake of a 2 for 1 like Delonte West did.

[coachx]

If you have a really quick PG who can get to the rim at will while having good basketball IQ then going 2 for 1 is a good idea. Ever see Nash it on the ball and no take advantage of a 2 for 1 oppurtunity. You just have play to the strength of ther personell the floor.

Neither JJ or AJ can really take their man off the dribble at will. JJ can alwayse pull up for a jumper but no need on rushing a pull up jumper unless JJ is just feeling it.

With a guy like Nash, Parer, Ford, Paul, Harris as my PG I'd tell them to do the 2 for 1 every time but taking it hard to the hole.

With AJ you just can't expect that out of him. So I do agree with you that going 2 for 1 as a rule of thumb is probably not a good idea for this Hawks team.

[TroyMcClure]

Only quality, skilled basketball teams can do a 2 for 1 the right way. you have to have guys with an ability to really shoot the ball across the board, as you usually take a jumper on a 2 for 1. I like the football analogy. Here's a spin on that, though. If you are good enough, you go for it. The Patriots lead the league in 4th down conversions every year.