What’s your philosophy on 2-for-1s?

[Roy H.]

Scal is a big proponent of always going for the two-fer (sometimes to an annoying degree), but last night even he thought the play calls were frustrating.

[Phantom255x]

I go for it the first three quarters, but in the 4th only focus on getting the best shot possible.

BUT I only go for it if there's 35 seconds left at the beginning of the sequence. If there's only 30 seconds left and you're chucking up a pull-up 3, I'm not a fan of that. Because either way there's only like a 2-3 second difference in shotclock and gameclock after that. No point. The goal is to at least have 5-6 seconds after the other team has their possession in the 2-for-1. That's more than enough time to run a play and take a quick shot before the buzzer

[Csfan1984]

Depends on a few things for me.
-Two for one is good if there is 32 to 38seconds. Below 32 or above 38 and you just take best shot possible. So it's really a specific margin to go for it.
-Never go for two for one if above 8pts. Just get a good shot.
-If your rebounding is poor don't go for it either.

[Roy H.]

Depends on a few things for me.
-Two for one is good if there is 32 to 38seconds. Below 32 or above 38 and you just take best shot possible. So it's really a specific margin to go for it.
-Never go for two for one if above 8pts. Just get a good shot.
-If your rebounding is poor don't go for it either.

Did you see last night’s ending?  What would you have done there?

[RMO]

Didn't see last nights game so speaking generally here.

If done well and intelligently I'm fine with it.  However, I think most of the time it results in two bad shots instead of one potentially good one.

So if I had to say for or against, I'd say against.

[keevsnick]

I have no problem going for two shots last night. Mathematically its almost certainly the right call, and whether we like it or not pretty much every coach in the NBA would do what Joe did that situation. When you are down you want to maximize the number of shots you take at the hoop, that why teams down one or 2 typically shoot well before time expires to get a chance at a tip.

The issue was more with the play calling. The first play resulted in a Tatum pull up three, which he shoots 28% on. Not a good shot. The second resulted in grant touching the ball as a decision maker. Not a good play design. You have to draw up better looks than that.

[Csfan1984]

Depends on a few things for me.
-Two for one is good if there is 32 to 38seconds. Below 32 or above 38 and you just take best shot possible. So it's really a specific margin to go for it.
-Never go for two for one if above 8pts. Just get a good shot.
-If your rebounding is poor don't go for it either.

Did you see last night’s ending?  What would you have done there?

I thought the Jazz rebounding was way better than ours so I would have been against it. With Al and TL I do it.

Still IMO it was actually the right call considering the C's were able to secure the last shot with 5 seconds down by one.

Why GW decided to be a hero is beyond me. Smart and Grant need to go this off-season if a title isn't won. Both play too selfish for their skill level.

[Roy H.]

Depends on a few things for me.
-Two for one is good if there is 32 to 38seconds. Below 32 or above 38 and you just take best shot possible. So it's really a specific margin to go for it.
-Never go for two for one if above 8pts. Just get a good shot.
-If your rebounding is poor don't go for it either.

Did you see last night’s ending?  What would you have done there?

I thought the Jazz rebounding was way better than ours so I would have been against it. With Al and TL I do it.

Still IMO it was actually the right call considering the C's were able to secure the last shot with 5 seconds down by one.

Why GW decided to be a hero is beyond me. Smart and Grant need to go this off-season if a title isn't won. Both play too selfish for their skill level.

Well, we got two rushed, horrible possessions that had maybe a 15% chance of working out (being very generous), versus one good look at the basket.

To me, one quality shot is worth two terrible ones.

[CelticSooner]

I’d love to see the analysis on if they work most of the time because when it comes to the C’s it feels like a wasted “shot.” A pull up three out of rhythm and maybe a couple seconds left if they get a stop.

[Csfan1984]

Depends on a few things for me.
-Two for one is good if there is 32 to 38seconds. Below 32 or above 38 and you just take best shot possible. So it's really a specific margin to go for it.
-Never go for two for one if above 8pts. Just get a good shot.
-If your rebounding is poor don't go for it either.

Did you see last night’s ending?  What would you have done there?

I thought the Jazz rebounding was way better than ours so I would have been against it. With Al and TL I do it.

Still IMO it was actually the right call considering the C's were able to secure the last shot with 5 seconds down by one.

Why GW decided to be a hero is beyond me. Smart and Grant need to go this off-season if a title isn't won. Both play too selfish for their skill level.

Well, we got two rushed, horrible possessions that had maybe a 15% chance of working out (being very generous), versus one good look at the basket.

To me, one quality shot is worth two terrible ones.

I agree. Still in crunch time most shots are going to be tough. So a walk up pull up isn't the worst shot. Just wish Tatum was having a good game when they decided on him for it.

[jpotter33]

I have no problem going for two shots last night. Mathematically its almost certainly the right call, and whether we like it or not pretty much every coach in the NBA would do what Joe did that situation. When you are down you want to maximize the number of shots you take at the hoop, that why teams down one or 2 typically shoot well before time expires to get a chance at a tip.

The issue was more with the play calling. The first play resulted in a Tatum pull up three, which he shoots 28% on. Not a good shot. The second resulted in grant touching the ball as a decision maker. Not a good play design. You have to draw up better looks than that.

Pretty much this. I think it’s context dependent. I think in general the 2 for 1 when you’re down in a late game scenario like that and you’re coming off the timeout is generally the right call, but you HAVE to draw up a good look if you’re doing it. The 2 for 1 they drew up the other night for JB on the baseline in Cleveland was good and produced a good look at the basket; the one last night was awful. A Tatum pull up, above the break three was not only a poor shot based on his performance that game but also his season-long percentages on that shot, as Keevs points out.

I think the first three quarter 2 for 1s are the bigger issue. They seem to always pursue them regardless of time remaining, and the majority of the time it leads to two, poor quality rushed shots instead of one good look.

This is pretty characteristic with the rest of Joe’s philosophy and the team’s overall demeanor - no nuance and always an absolute or extreme.

[knuckleballer]

I think it’s nuanced.  Last night Tatum took a quick low percentage three with about 30 seconds left which meant they only had about 5 seconds for their second possession.  That was not a good decision.  If you can get a decent shot leaving enough time to develop a play for the second possession, it would make sense.

[Who]

2 for 1s are great when you have players capable of controlling the clock and ensuring a solid scoring attempt for your team -- not an A+ scoring attempt but a B or a C+, something solid. Not Ds and Fs. Chris Paul was a master of this.

Do we have such players on our team?

I don't think we have the guards. I don't think Tatum does a good job of this either as he often just dribbles down the clock and settles for a low percentage step back 3 with a hand in his face.

[gouki88]

2 for 1s are great when you have players capable of controlling the clock and ensuring a solid scoring attempt for your team -- not an A+ scoring attempt but a B or a C+, something solid. Not Ds and Fs. Chris Paul was a master of this.

Do we have such players on our team?

I don't think we have the guards. I don't think Tatum does a good job of this either as he often just dribbles down the clock and settles for a low percentage step back 3 with a hand in his face.

Agree, we lack the on-court savvy to pull off 2-for-1s and 3-for-2s well. My answer is specific to this team: always go for the best shot.

[Roy H.]

I thought Joe was supposed to be good at analytics?

“I thought we’d want no better shot than Jayson Tatum shooting an off-the-dribble wide open 3. I’ll take that a hundred times a game,” Joe Mazzulla said of Boston’s penultimate shot against the Jazz. “Jayson Tatum shooting and off the dribble 3, uncontested, is a great shot.”

Except that it’s not, and he hasn’t been for a while. 

Tatum is shooting 30.8% on pull up 3-pointers since the All-Star break, and 29.1% this season. He shot 33.4% last season. The best of the best last year, like Klay Thompson, are in the mid-40% range. The good pull-up shooters are all around 40%. In the 20-21 season, Tatum shot 36%, and the year before that, 2019-20, was the last time he was actually good at that shot.

Our coach is a freaking moron.