Depends on who's running it: a Stockton or Nash pull-up 3 is worth the risk every time.

I've never understood the fascination with getting the last shot of a period. In my opinion, getting an open look with 15 seconds left, and the opposition getting a go at a bucket is a better play than hanging onto it for a last second shot when everyone knows the ball is going up withing a 3 second window.

Yes. It is.

Agreed. I would much rather get one clean look than getting two 'meh' looking shots. If you played the entire game that way (shooting it as quick as possible to increase your number of possessions), you would score far less than if you slowed it down and ran plays. Why change that in the last minute because you may get lucky.

I think one point worth considering is when Denver chose to go for the two-for-one, they gave themselves two rushed opportunities but the decision gave the Lakers one full possession.

I'd argue that this 3-pointer was the result of having ample time to set up and run a solid play with a full shot clock and the 2-for-one was a failure.

I think this is clearly something that can only be answered with exhaustive data. Clearly though, if I can up the odds that my teams will get one more possession by shooting early, then it makes sense to say that I should be a little less cautious about shooting.

I'd say the pull up 3 by a great shooter point by MC Welk is probably the best simple answer. If I've got a good shot, and normally I'd only pass up the shot because my teammates aren't in rebounding position, maybe now I take that shot.

Depends on who’s running it: a Stockton or Nash pull-up 3 is worth the risk every time.

I’ve never understood the fascination with getting the last shot of a period. In my opinion, getting an open look with 15 seconds left, and the opposition getting a go at a bucket is a better play than hanging onto it for a last second shot when everyone knows the ball is going up withing a 3 second window.

I'd say it depends if the two for one is rushed or not. Better to get an open look by running your set than throwing the ball up only to get another bad shot attempt later if you ask me. Denver got two shitty shots and the Lakers got two good ones. Unless there's some statistical analyses that says the team who rushes into a two for one in typically makes it worthwhile, but I'd doubt it.

Yes. It is.

Agreed. I would much rather get one clean look than getting two ‘meh’ looking shots. If you played the entire game that way (shooting it as quick as possible to increase your number of possessions), you would score far less than if you slowed it down and ran plays. Why change that in the last minute because you may get lucky.

I think one point worth considering is when Denver chose to go for the two-for-one, they gave themselves two rushed opportunities but the decision gave the Lakers one full possession.

I’d argue that this 3-pointer was the result of having ample time to set up and run a solid play with a full shot clock and the 2-for-one was a failure.

I think this is clearly something that can only be answered with exhaustive data. Clearly though, if I can up the odds that my teams will get one more possession by shooting early, then it makes sense to say that I should be a little less cautious about shooting.

I’d say the pull up 3 by a great shooter point by MC Welk is probably the best simple answer. If I’ve got a good shot, and normally I’d only pass up the shot because my teammates aren’t in rebounding position, maybe now I take that shot.

In general I think it is a good idea, given that you can get a decent shot out of your offense in the 8-10 sec you're likely to have on the clock in the second possession (ie much less so at the college level) & that the first shot isn't a total chuck; as ppl point out, some teams are better prepared for quick offense than others. Yeah, Billups gets a bad shot off, but that's got to have *some* expectation of value. Even a 25% scoring opportunity is worth half a point or so.
If we give that first shot a 25% of going in, then the only way this isn't a good idea is if the 8 second possession is much less likely to produce a score than a full 24 second possession, like 25% v 50% for break-even.
If you assume a really low-value chuck, like 10%, then it starts looking like a bad decision. If you assume inability to execute 10-second offense (or spend a timeout to set something up), then it starts looking bad as well.

Also, I think it depends on the score. Down 10 at the end of the third Id probably go for it (all else equal) even with a slightly negative expected return since Im likely on track to lose the game without some swings in my favor- Ill take the chance that I might start the 4th down only 6. Up 10, not unless I had a substantial expectation of a positive return.

@Huh90- “shooting it as quick as possible to increase your number of possessions”- that's not quite right. It's maximizing the ratio of your possessions to theirs, not total number of possessions. So yeah, it definitely doesn't make sense to rush shots all quarter under any analysis.

this is actually fairly easy to evaluate, though i'm not going to do too much work digging up the numbers.

let's be generous and say billups makes his initial shot 15% of the time. by putting the ball up, he's scored .3 points. we won't even account for potential OREBs bc the nugs weren't anywhere close to in position for one.

so then the lakers take the ball up, and get a standard 45% possession with it; ie, they score .9 points on that possession.

the nuggets take the ball up, and because the shot clock is down, they get a slightly worse possession–say 30% of the time they score. so they've scored .6 points, and .9 points total because of the 2 for 1. it's a wash.

there are a lot of other variables, including the times that billups puts up a better shot, say a 3 with a potential OREB waiting under the basket, or gets a 15 second possession that will result in a score 45% of the time. etc etc. it could get far more detailed. but in this situation, i don't think you can say it was a bad idea.

but also let me say, billups is on my fantasy squad, so i hated this shot.

I’d say it depends if the two for one is rushed or not. Better to get an open look by running your set than throwing the ball up only to get another bad shot attempt later if you ask me. Denver got two shitty shots and the Lakers got two good ones. Unless there’s some statistical analyses that says the team who rushes into a two for one in typically makes it worthwhile, but I’d doubt it.

In general I think it is a good idea, given that you can get a decent shot out of your offense in the 8-10 sec you’re likely to have on the clock in the second possession (ie much less so at the college level) & that the first shot isn’t a total chuck; as ppl point out, some teams are better prepared for quick offense than others. Yeah, Billups gets a bad shot off, but that’s got to have *some* expectation of value. Even a 25% scoring opportunity is worth half a point or so.
If we give that first shot a 25% of going in, then the only way this isn’t a good idea is if the 8 second possession is much less likely to produce a score than a full 24 second possession, like 25% v 50% for break-even.
If you assume a really low-value chuck, like 10%, then it starts looking like a bad decision. If you assume inability to execute 10-second offense (or spend a timeout to set something up), then it starts looking bad as well.

Also, I think it depends on the score. Down 10 at the end of the third Id probably go for it (all else equal) even with a slightly negative expected return since Im likely on track to lose the game without some swings in my favor- Ill take the chance that I might start the 4th down only 6. Up 10, not unless I had a substantial expectation of a positive return.

@Huh90- “shooting it as quick as possible to increase your number of possessions”- that’s not quite right. It’s maximizing the ratio of your possessions to theirs, not total number of possessions. So yeah, it definitely doesn’t make sense to rush shots all quarter under any analysis.

this is actually fairly easy to evaluate, though i’m not going to do too much work digging up the numbers.

let’s be generous and say billups makes his initial shot 15% of the time. by putting the ball up, he’s scored .3 points. we won’t even account for potential OREBs bc the nugs weren’t anywhere close to in position for one.

so then the lakers take the ball up, and get a standard 45% possession with it; ie, they score .9 points on that possession.

the nuggets take the ball up, and because the shot clock is down, they get a slightly worse possession–say 30% of the time they score. so they’ve scored .6 points, and .9 points total because of the 2 for 1. it’s a wash.

there are a lot of other variables, including the times that billups puts up a better shot, say a 3 with a potential OREB waiting under the basket, or gets a 15 second possession that will result in a score 45% of the time. etc etc. it could get far more detailed. but in this situation, i don’t think you can say it was a bad idea.

but also let me say, billups is on my fantasy squad, so i hated this shot.

When Chauncey fired that shot up last night (after playing matador with Kobe on D) I commented that he might as well of just given it to Fisher instead of throwing that POS shot up.

When Chauncey fired that shot up last night (after playing matador with Kobe on D) I commented that he might as well of just given it to Fisher instead of throwing that POS shot up.

It is much smarter to run the clock and get a full possession rather than have two 6-8 second possessions. The entire situation changes however, when you have a player like Kobe who can create a decent shot in those 6-8 seconds or a player like Durant or Nash who can pull up for the three on the run and make it a good chunk of the time.

It is much smarter to run the clock and get a full possession rather than have two 6-8 second possessions. The entire situation changes however, when you have a player like Kobe who can create a decent shot in those 6-8 seconds or a player like Durant or Nash who can pull up for the three on the run and make it a good chunk of the time.

I think if you don´t take a good shot (as Chauncey in this case) the 2for1 is a bad play.

I think if you don´t take a good shot (as Chauncey in this case) the 2for1 is a bad play.

I'd argue that the 3-pointer had nothing to do with setting up and running a solid play. It was the result of Billups falling asleep and leaving Fisher wide open.

i like what Camron and Parsifalls said.

If your 30-second shot is a 30% or better scoring opportunity, you should take it.

Except in some circumstances (1-point lead at end of 4th quarter).

What the exact percentage is would require data analysis.

It seems to me, and this is using fairly crude and non-intensive calculations, that it's worth it if you can assume that taking a hurried shot–and doing so twice, because the last shot is probably going to come with the last seconds ticking–is about half as likely to go in as a shot taken within a well-executed offensive set.

Let's assume a 50% chance of making a typical shot in a half-court offense, and 25% for a rushed shot, and let's use only 2 point baskets for this example, just to make the math easier. A 50% chance would net 1.0 expected point (2 points x 0.50), and a 25% chance would net 0.5 expected points (2 points x 0.25). It would stand to reason that shooting two shots that could be expected to go in 25% percent of the time would net 1.0 expected points (2 points 0.25 x 2 [possessions]), so it would be a wash.

But there's no downside, because the second missed shot comes at the buzzer, so there's no risk of giving the ball back to the opposing team; missing two “bad” shots is no worse than missing one “good” shot in this scenario. However, again, assuming a 25% chance that either of the “bad” shots goes in, there's a 12.5% chance that BOTH go in, and there exists the upside: the possibility of scoring 4 points, which would be impossible in a single possession–not counting a 4 point play; again, I'm thinking really simply here. This realizes the value of the extra possession.

Now of course, these numbers would change when factoring in 3-point shots, but ultimately I think it comes down to how “bad” the rushed shots would have to be. A transition 3 from Ryan Anderson or Rashard Lewis would probably be worth rushing the attempt to get an extra possession, because it's part of Orlando's set and fairly high percentage. Same goes with a Nash pull-up jumper, or John Wall or LeBron/Wade sprinting for a fast-break.

All of those attempts would assumedly be more than half as likely to go in as a half-court set attempt, and therefore worth it because of the opportunity to take two of them instead of one. Just throwing the ball at the rim twice is worthless.

Does that logic hold up? Any thoughts?

I’d argue that the 3-pointer had nothing to do with setting up and running a solid play. It was the result of Billups falling asleep and leaving Fisher wide open.

i like what Camron and Parsifalls said.

If your 30-second shot is a 30% or better scoring opportunity, you should take it.

Except in some circumstances (1-point lead at end of 4th quarter).

What the exact percentage is would require data analysis.

It seems to me, and this is using fairly crude and non-intensive calculations, that it’s worth it if you can assume that taking a hurried shot–and doing so twice, because the last shot is probably going to come with the last seconds ticking–is about half as likely to go in as a shot taken within a well-executed offensive set.

Let’s assume a 50% chance of making a typical shot in a half-court offense, and 25% for a rushed shot, and let’s use only 2 point baskets for this example, just to make the math easier. A 50% chance would net 1.0 expected point (2 points x 0.50), and a 25% chance would net 0.5 expected points (2 points x 0.25). It would stand to reason that shooting two shots that could be expected to go in 25% percent of the time would net 1.0 expected points (2 points 0.25 x 2 [possessions]), so it would be a wash.

But there’s no downside, because the second missed shot comes at the buzzer, so there’s no risk of giving the ball back to the opposing team; missing two “bad” shots is no worse than missing one “good” shot in this scenario. However, again, assuming a 25% chance that either of the “bad” shots goes in, there’s a 12.5% chance that BOTH go in, and there exists the upside: the possibility of scoring 4 points, which would be impossible in a single possession–not counting a 4 point play; again, I’m thinking really simply here. This realizes the value of the extra possession.

Now of course, these numbers would change when factoring in 3-point shots, but ultimately I think it comes down to how “bad” the rushed shots would have to be. A transition 3 from Ryan Anderson or Rashard Lewis would probably be worth rushing the attempt to get an extra possession, because it’s part of Orlando’s set and fairly high percentage. Same goes with a Nash pull-up jumper, or John Wall or LeBron/Wade sprinting for a fast-break.

All of those attempts would assumedly be more than half as likely to go in as a half-court set attempt, and therefore worth it because of the opportunity to take two of them instead of one. Just throwing the ball at the rim twice is worthless.

Does that logic hold up? Any thoughts?

“it's a wash”

This statement assumes that the baseline for comparison is 0. But why should it be 0?

In fact, it is better than 0. If the Nuggets instead go for the best possible shot, then the Lakers are in a position where they need to worry about clock management. The expected value of the Nuggets' possession will be greater than the expected value of the Lakers' possession, since the Lakers have the added burden of clock management.

For example, if the Lakers reclaim the ball with 20 seconds to go, they would be ill-advised to attempt a shot in the first 10 seconds of the shot-clock. This means they have fewer offensive options, and thus a lower-EV possession.

“it’s a wash”

This statement assumes that the baseline for comparison is 0. But why should it be 0?

In fact, it is better than 0. If the Nuggets instead go for the best possible shot, then the Lakers are in a position where they need to worry about clock management. The expected value of the Nuggets’ possession will be greater than the expected value of the Lakers’ possession, since the Lakers have the added burden of clock management.

For example, if the Lakers reclaim the ball with 20 seconds to go, they would be ill-advised to attempt a shot in the first 10 seconds of the shot-clock. This means they have fewer offensive options, and thus a lower-EV possession.

Yeah, Nash could pull up for a three every possession if he wanted to and it would be a good shot, but he doesn't because that's not how he plays. It does makes sense to take such a shot in a 2 for 1 situation. I'd say it's worth it as long as you can get off a decently-good shot.

Yeah, Nash could pull up for a three every possession if he wanted to and it would be a good shot, but he doesn’t because that’s not how he plays. It does makes sense to take such a shot in a 2 for 1 situation. I’d say it’s worth it as long as you can get off a decently-good shot.

In te close of 2nd qtr SA-PHI, Tony Parker did the same: he forced a bad shoot, Sixers made two FT for a foul. And in the end, TP again couldn´t even take a shot (and didn´t pass the ball). The result: SA two possesions, 0 pts. PHI one possesion, 2 points….

In te close of 2nd qtr SA-PHI, Tony Parker did the same: he forced a bad shoot, Sixers made two FT for a foul. And in the end, TP again couldn´t even take a shot (and didn´t pass the ball). The result: SA two possesions, 0 pts. PHI one possesion, 2 points….

great post. totally agree that you need to prioritize an open look over the 2for1. its so annoying to see guys just chuck it with like 30 seconds left….seeing the other team come down and score at the end of the shot clock…and then seeing teamA force yet another bad shot cause they only have a few seconds.

not only do you take 2 bad shots, but you give the opponent the entire shotclock to work with. if you get a good shot with say 10 seconds remaining, there's a greater chance you force the opponent into a bad shot. also, it seems quite common that you see an offensive rebound off a miss that negates the second possession cause everyone is crashing extra hard on the last play of the quarter/half. the worst of all is when guys try the 2for1 without enough time to create a decent second possession. makes no sense if you don't leave enough time to even run a set play, yet the announcers will usually compliment it as a smart play.

great post. totally agree that you need to prioritize an open look over the 2for1. its so annoying to see guys just chuck it with like 30 seconds left….seeing the other team come down and score at the end of the shot clock…and then seeing teamA force yet another bad shot cause they only have a few seconds.

not only do you take 2 bad shots, but you give the opponent the entire shotclock to work with. if you get a good shot with say 10 seconds remaining, there’s a greater chance you force the opponent into a bad shot. also, it seems quite common that you see an offensive rebound off a miss that negates the second possession cause everyone is crashing extra hard on the last play of the quarter/half. the worst of all is when guys try the 2for1 without enough time to create a decent second possession. makes no sense if you don’t leave enough time to even run a set play, yet the announcers will usually compliment it as a smart play.

[...] like two for one situations, whether or not to call a timeout late when trailing by one is a “feel” decision. [...]

[...] brings up that whole two-for-one discussion yet again.  Do you go quick to prevent from having to foul the Suns?  Or do you look for the [...]

i agree, i was just giving a very loose example of a worst case scenario where the equities are close to equal. in reality, it's definitely a +ev situation for the nuggets to just shoot, because their actual percentages are higher and the lakers are possibly (or at least often) lower. it was a very casual statement, for all it was also incorrect.

i agree, i was just giving a very loose example of a worst case scenario where the equities are close to equal. in reality, it’s definitely a +ev situation for the nuggets to just shoot, because their actual percentages are higher and the lakers are possibly (or at least often) lower. it was a very casual statement, for all it was also incorrect.

i agree, i was just giving a very loose example of a worst case scenario where the equities are close to equal. in reality, it's definitely a +ev situation for the nuggets to just shoot, because their actual percentages are higher and the lakers are possibly (or at least often) lower. it was a very casual statement, for all it was also incorrect.