An experienced human mind (which we should expect within a 5 million dollar coach) is difficult to replicate with simplified models, so I'd have a hard time accepting the recommendation of a "chart" to say whether to go for 1 or 2. In all likelihood, that chart just doesn't represent all of the pertinent, complicating factors.
I didn't have a problem going for two in that situation, though at the time I did feel there was a good chance it would backfire. The bigger issue, for me, came later, if it is really true. That is, Franklin actually basing the decision on a "chart."
If one knows nothing about the teams, nature of the game, conditions, strengths, weaknesses, and so forth, then maybe using such a chart derived with aggregate data makes some sense. But that is not what we have here. This wasn't a simulation, and the situation wasn't perfectly aligned within all of the bulk averages.
So, by using such a chart you are admitting at the time that you either know or understand nothing about the game at hand. You are admitting to bringing an inadequate level of pertinent experience to the table. That is the disturbing issue for me.