A team is down by 7 with 30 seconds left. I am amazed everytime when I here these announcers saying go for the two, there is plenty of time. Everytime I just want to scream what are you talking about. I know these announcers (Doug Collins?) know more about basketball than me. I just think the best shot in that scenario is a three. When someone hits a 3, it greatly affects the game. Not only does it make the score closer, it puts fear in the opponent and hope into the team trying to pull it out. I was reminded of it yesterday in the Orlando game. He was constantly calling for the two when it was basically too late. If there was ever a time to shoot and make a three, it would be this time. Just my opinion. What think ye?

A team is down by 7 with 30 seconds left. I am amazed everytime when I here these announcers saying go for the two, there is plenty of time. Everytime I just want to scream what are you talking about. I know these announcers (Doug Collins?) know more about basketball than me. I just think the best shot in that scenario is a three. When someone hits a 3, it greatly affects the game. Not only does it make the score closer, it puts fear in the opponent and hope into the team trying to pull it out. I was reminded of it yesterday in the Orlando game. He was constantly calling for the two when it was basically too late. If there was ever a time to shoot and make a three, it would be this time. Just my opinion. What think ye?
Think of it mathematically...

a 2fg shoots 50%

a 3fg shoots 33%

in 30 seconds u may get 4 possesions

if: and Im using the Pistons vs Blazers from Bad Boys 90...10 sec per play... Isiah scores 90-85...

miss 2 ft's

Dumars scores 90-87...

now with 10 sec left...u still have a chance for the three to tie...


always shoot the two and foul immediately ..force them to make the FT's:hoops:

Nobody would argue that hitting a 3 is better than hitting a 2, but Hubie Brown has often pointed out in last-minute situations that "if you miss a 3 here, the game is over." Situations differ, but I think he's generally right to observe that while the upside of hitting a late 3 is better than that of hitting a 2, you also have higher odds of eliminating any chance at all of coming back if you shoot a 3 (and miss it). Better to keep yourself alive by getting 2s, and waiting on the 3 until you absolutely need it, is the philosophy there.

Down 7 with 30 seconds left, I'd rather just get points, try for steals, and hope that the other team misses some FTs. You're going to need all of those things to happen to have any chance anyway, so take the best shot you can get and try to get some more chances to score. Hitting a 3 to cut the lead to 4 instead of getting 2 and cutting it to 5 would be nice, but I don't think the upside necessarily outweighs the increased risk of slamming the door shut if you fail to get any points at all on that possession.

if you attack the basket you get a high percentage shot. The other team will hestitate to contest in order to avoid a foul. If they contest, you get a shot at drawing a foul for a three point play or 2 FT's with the clock stopped.

Long shots result in long rebounds. I don't think it is necessarily true that if you miss the 3, the game is over.

What % of 3's result in offensive rebounds?

I would bet the % is higher when the offensive team doesn't care about getting back on D.

I guess that's true, though I wouldn't want to count on having that much better a chance at getting the board on a 3.

Long shots result in long rebounds. I don't think it is necessarily true that if you miss the 3, the game is over.

What % of 3's result in offensive rebounds?

I would bet the % is higher when the offensive team doesn't care about getting back on D.
I would put forth the arguement that a long rebound isn't conducive for putbacks. That generally means a reset with precious time. I think the idea of going for two is that its a quick aggressive two.

I just don't like relying on the other team's best FT shooters to miss free throws. In college it works, but in the NBA, you get guys like Chauncey at the line.

WE have chauncey. THEY have Jameer. :pound:

WE have chauncey. THEY have Jameer. :pound:

I don't get it. Jameer shoots 83% free throws.

And we're discussing the situation in general... not what Detroit should do if we're down 7 to Orlando... because that would obviously never happen.

I understand what Buckeyes is saying. If taking a three is such a low percentage gamble...it wouldn't be worth taking at any point in the game. So if you have been hitting threes consistently throughout the game why does it suddenly become a bad idea? Particularly when a three would really help you get back in the game.

I think in a way it's just a knee-jerk cliche type of thing that announcers always say.

Something fans should remember is that guys like Doug Collins and Hubie Brown are not exactly fantastic coaches.

In fact, it's particularly ironic Hubie does playoff commentary considering that he was a lousy playoff coach.

Hubie Brown Coaching Record - Basketball-Reference.com (http://www.basketball-reference.com/coaches/brownhu99c.html)

I understand what Buckeyes is saying. If taking a three is such a low percentage gamble...it wouldn't be worth taking at any point in the game. So if you have been hitting threes consistently throughout the game why does it suddenly become a bad idea? Particularly when a three would really help you get back in the game.

But the question of whether you specifically set out to get a 3 is sort of different from the rest of the game. If you get a good look at a 3 in the flow of the offense, then sure, it's usually a good shot to take, at any point in the game. But the question of whether your primary play should be to go for 2 or for 3 in a late game situation is somewhat different.

Something fans should remember is that guys like Doug Collins and Hubie Brown are not exactly fantastic coaches.

In fact, it's particularly ironic Hubie does playoff commentary considering that he was a lousy playoff coach.

Hubie Brown Coaching Record - Basketball-Reference.com (http://www.basketball-reference.com/coaches/brownhu99c.html)

Sure, I was just quoting him because he's been saying that for many years in late-game situations, and it was a relevant point to add to the discussion. Not because he's any sort of genius who knows all or anything.

But as I said to Low earlier this season, don't fake on that 1975 ABA 'ship that Hubie won with the Kentucky Colonels! :winner_first_h4h:

True enough...but if you are a team that relies heavily on the three pointer throughout the game why not take the three if you can get a good look? You look at some of Chauncey's threes and they are quite a ways beyond the arc...and both he and Rasheed can get them off with a hand in their face...so even if a team is geared up to stop the three we have players that can hit that shot.

Yeah, but in the last minute of the game, Sheed is only dangerous from a minimum of 55 feet away. :lol:

I understand what Buckeyes is saying. If taking a three is such a low percentage gamble...it wouldn't be worth taking at any point in the game. So if you have been hitting threes consistently throughout the game why does it suddenly become a bad idea? Particularly when a three would really help you get back in the game.

I think in a way it's just a knee-jerk cliche type of thing that announcers always say.

Good job. I totally agree. Another thing. My guess is the three point percentage increases when it gets near the end of the game. My son is a perfect example of this. He could be having a very bad game but you could always count on him to get hot when the game was on the line. Some athletes rise to the top when the game is on the line. When there are only a few swings left, it's time to go for the knockout in my opinion. There are so many games. Find out which players rise to the top at the end of a game and then utilize their skill when these games are basically over. If shooting a three is a bad idea in the last 30 seconds, then it should be a bad idea throughout the game. I'm actually kind of surprised at this thread. I was only expecting a few responses. It just always bothered me why these announcers are so adamant about it, and that is why I was wondering if anybody saw it the same way as me. Sounds like I am in the minority again. :MusicBigGrin:

The reason why I think the three point percentage increases is because the concentration level is much higher when you know the game is on the line.

Think of it mathematically...

a 2fg shoots 50%

a 3fg shoots 33%

in 30 seconds u may get 4 possesions

if: and Im using the Pistons vs Blazers from Bad Boys 90...10 sec per play... Isiah scores 90-85...

miss 2 ft's

Dumars scores 90-87...

now with 10 sec left...u still have a chance for the three to tie...


always shoot the two and foul immediately ..force them to make the FT's:hoops:

Unless you're down by one at home...then ALWAYS shoot the 3 and make sure it's your least likely player on the floor to make the 3.

Sure, I was just quoting him because he's been saying that for many years in late-game situations, and it was a relevant point to add to the discussion. Not because he's any sort of genius who knows all or anything.
Yeah. It wasn't specific to your post. I've been wanting to take a potshot at Hubie's credibility for awhile. And Collins is kinda cool, but he hasn't really accomplished much as a pro coach.

If the defense is giving you a 2-point shot, you should probably ask yourself why they are doing that. Cause it's fool's gold... iron pyrite. Always do what your opponent doesn't want you to do. That works in almost every contest.

Thinking about it from the other side of the coin. If my team is up by 7 with 30 seconds left, I WANT them to go for the two. Like I said earlier, if one of their players drains a three, the crowd goes nuts, I'm trying my hardest to stem the floodgates from pouring in. Very tough to do when that momentum swings at such a pivotal point in the game. If I was coach, in my timeout, I'd be asking who can drain that 3. Actually, I probably would already know from practice and previous games. In fact, I would have that as a basketball drill in practice. Scoring 7 points in 30 seconds. Hitting a 3 and immediately fouling. Sure my team would lose most of the time. But I bet it would win more than simply going for the two, fouling, and hoping the other team misses a foul shot several times.

Last year the average NBA shooting percentage from two was 0.4537, from three 0.3583.

That makes the expected value of a two point shot 0.9559 points and the expected value of a three point shot 1.0749 points.

Now of that says anything about when the shots might be taken in a game. But, if you allow that a reasonable share of two point shots are layups or dunks that have a higher shooting percentage, then the mid range jump shot probably isn't that much better a shot than the three most of the time.

At the end of a game though you have to take what the defense gives you. If you have two possessions and need five points going to the hoop first time is probably the better idea. You might get an old fashioned three, and you might get a very high percentage shot. Besides, a three ought to take less time than a drive to the basket, so save it for your second possession. But if you can't get a layup, and assuming the shooter is decent from three, you're probably better off to take a three over a midrange or long two - certainly no worse off.

i agree they should go for 3 in one of my games we were down by 4 wit 25 seconds(no shot clock) we go fro three make it get them to turn it over(10 seconds wit out crossin half) so there was 12 seconds left and we made a 2 pointer as time expired to win it it was sweet but they may say that because they have prolly been involved wit bball for a while so theyve prolly seen it before,but i do agree wth although doug collins isnit as bad as bill walton

Id have to go with the 2pt shot. Higher percentage than the 3. As pointed out earlier a 35% shot means 65% of times you will miss and in this case means game over. Save the 3 for the next play. At least you give yourself a better chance...

Id have to go with the 2pt shot. Higher percentage than the 3. As pointed out earlier a 35% shot means 65% of times you will miss and in this case means game over. Save the 3 for the next play. At least you give yourself a better chance...

If there was a 1 point shot that you would make 75% of the time, would you choose to go for that?

If there was a 1 point shot that you would make 75% of the time, would you choose to go for that?


:pound: :pound: :pound: :pound: :pound: :pound: :pound: :pound:

here is the thing you can always try for the easy two in a situation like this because if you drive and get fouled or get fouled in the act of shooting you get the chance to not only go for a three point play but also you have the chance to stop the clock. The whole point is to get as many chances to make shots at the end of the game if you are down, that is why you will always see teams fouling at the end of games. The only time that I would think be the best to jack up three pointers is when there is only like 3 to 5 seconds left and you are down to three or even two for that matter depending on whether or not you are away. Just my two cents on that.

Nice first post cdecember

I would think that there should be options for a decision maker on the floor to do what's best in the situation like that. Lets say you have Steve Nash wide open at the 3-point line (hypothetically) would you rather see him pull up or drive inside trying to draw contact? I'd say that the best course depends on situation on the floor.

You do realize that the clock starts up again when the other team inbounds the ball, right?

If you drive and get fouled with 10 seconds, and then make 2 free throws, then you can foul the other team with about 9 seconds on the clock.

If you hit a 3 with 10 secs, then the same thing.


When on offense, you want to score. When on defense, you want to stop the clock.

I would think that there should be options for a decision maker on the floor to do what's best in the situation like that. Lets say you have Steve Nash wide open at the 3-point line (hypothetically) would you rather see him pull up or drive inside trying to draw contact? I'd say that the best course depends on situation on the floor.
Honestly with a guy who is a known clutch performer I would put my faith in him to make the shot. That is a great point to make about this situation Mikhail.