Explain these dumb strategies to me (or maybe I'm the dumb one)

Here's a dumb NBA strategy: the so-called 2-for-1 at the end of a quarter where a team takes a quick shot with more than 24 seconds left in the period in order to assure that they'll get the ball back for the last shot of the quarter, which usually results in another rushed shot at the buzzer. How about just taking the best shot you can get on every possession instead of worrying about getting one more shot than the other team in the last 30 seconds? It kills me when I hear Doug Collins going on and on about the importance of getting 2 for 1. It makes no sense.

 

I disagree ... you don't tell your guys to take a stupid shot, but you certainly speed up your offense and try to get 2 for 1. If there's 38 seconds on the clock, you don't spend seven or eight to bring it upcourt and start your offensive set -- you get it up quickly and try to run a play.

Not only do you want to maximize each possession, you want to maximize the number of possessions you get.

 

I agree with your last sentence, but you're not maximizing each possession if you take a shot you wouldn't ordinarily take just so you can (potentially) get the ball back for one more possession, on which you'll probably have to take another shot you wouldn't ordinarily take in order to beat the buzzer. Bottom line is, I'd rather have one good possession than two rushed ones.

 

NBA teams generally shoot between 45-50 percent from the field for a season. I'd take two possessions where the defense isn't set rather than setting up for one possession where the defense can get settled in.

It seems to me there are three things that can happen: You score on both possessions, you score on one possession, you score on neither. Two of the three are good things. I'll take that over a 50-50 chance.

 

Pitchers thrive on routine. There is a reason managers like to have their closer pitch one inning at the end, if possible.

If you wait until men are on base, oftentimes you've waited too long.

Each team carries 11-12 pitchers. There's nothing at all wrong with having two guys to pitch one inning each in close wins.

Your starter goes seven and he has the lead, he's done. Also, a pitcher is MUCH more likely to hurt something when he's tired.

 

pitch counts, and protecting 20-million dollar assets

 

True, but I am more looking at a setup guy who breezes through a batter or two only to give way to a closer for the ninth who has trouble. I would pull the setup man after the first baserunner though, but is he does not allow any, why yank him?

I guess I am just a if it not broken don't try to fix type of theorist when it comes to pitching.

 

Well, this might seem like counterintuitive logic, but, because you have him for those situations.

Regardless of financial compensation, being a closer is a lot about mindset. Nearly all managers think that the "true" closer wants the ball in any and all save situations.

If you don't go get your closer, what's he going to think? If you go get him with a runner on second and no one out and he blows it, what's he going to think?

Also, if you lose with less than your best on the mound, you will get roasted for it.

 

good points

I guess you dance with the girl who brought you.

 

Actually, closers are one of those things that are intriguing in baseball, particularly among followers of baseball divided among sabremetricians and old school followers.

I know one thing for sure: Closers are slightly overvalued, but nowhere near as much as some of the stat-geeks would have you believe.

But I know where you're coming from.

 

Tiger-proofing doesn't make it harder for Tiger to win, it makes it easier.

But what it does is inhibit Tiger from shooting 25-under to win. See: Augusta National, which didn't want to see him shoot 18-under anymore. Tiger still wins his share there, but he hasn't sniffed 18-under again.

 

Since the normal NBA offensive strategy on any given possession is to milk 22 seconds off the shot clock to get a 42% shot, getting a 37% shot with 10 seconds left on the shot clock (and 35 on the game clock), thus guaranteeing you will get at least one more possession, is probably a profitable overall strategy.

Of course it's all contingent on the idea you get a stop on the defensive possession -- if you don't, all the strategy is out the window anyway.