KSUFans Archives
Sports => Frank Martin's OOD sponsored by the "Angriest Fans in America" => Topic started by: michigancat on February 28, 2008, 09:34:22 AM
-
I have no idea how he came up with this data, but it's logical, and I'm sure surprising to old farts who lament the "lost art of the mid-range jumper". Also a Beasley mention.
(http://www.basketballprospectus.com/news/images/191_01.gif)
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=191
-
Fascinating.
-
At first I was surprised that FG percentage goes up as you move from the basket to the arc, but then as I thought about it; it's not that surprising considering one major factor: shots around the basket are almost always contested, and contact is usually involved, whereas shots on the perimeter are generally open to a degree, and contact is rarely involved.
I haven't read the article yet, so if he says that in there, my apologies.
-
Brilliant piece of work by Pomeroy there. Really shows the evolution of the game with the 3 point arc in play. I will be anxious to see if/when he does a follow-up in the next few years after the distance is moved back.
And the point on Beasley is interesting. He is money from the corner at 15 feet. And those shots are almost always contested.
And once again, that data really makes Wooly's "fool's gold" manta silly at best.
-
It summarizes what I think we all knew. The game is layups, dunks, and 3's. Stop and pop is dead.
It also gives insight into why KSU lost at least one game. It seemed to me like in the Mizzou game at Columbia, they hit a higher than normal percentage (by global standards) of 10-17 foot jumpers. Tech gets a lot of these shots out of their offense as well. 3's and FT's won that game, however.
-
to summarize: basketball players are lazy and don't want to work for their shots
and shuttlesworth, the graph isn't saying stop and pop is dead, i'm not sure where you got that from.
-
and shuttlesworth, the graph isn't saying stop and pop is dead, i'm not sure where you got that from.
Sorry, I assumed readers of my post would have played the game. Mid-range jumpers and stop and pop go hand in hand. There is much less mid range penetration with the intent of shooting a jump shot. Driving to the bucket and dishing to the arc has taken over.
-
you just do stop and pop behind the arc now.
-
and shuttlesworth, the graph isn't saying stop and pop is dead, i'm not sure where you got that from.
Sorry, I assumed readers of my post would have played the game. Mid-range jumpers and stop and pop go hand in hand. There is much less mid range penetration with the intent of shooting a jump shot. Driving to the bucket and dishing to the arc has taken over.
wow, my pinky has played more basketball than you, dolt.
you just do stop and pop behind the arc now.
thx
-
you just do stop and pop behind the arc now.
To me, stop and pop implies opting to stop a dribble drive somewhere short of taking it to the rack with the intention of shooting a jump shot in an open space of floor. You do see this from behind the arc, but it is mostly only when a PG is not picked up or from the trailer in a secondary break.
-
you just do stop and pop behind the arc now.
To me, stop and pop implies opting to stop a dribble drive somewhere short of taking it to the rack with the intention of shooting a jump shot in an open space of floor. You do see this from behind the arc, but it is mostly only when a PG is not picked up or from the trailer in a secondary break.
maybe if you played more basketball you'd understand the definition and evolution of stop and pop, just maybe imo
-
you just do stop and pop behind the arc now.
To me, stop and pop implies opting to stop a dribble drive somewhere short of taking it to the rack with the intention of shooting a jump shot in an open space of floor. You do see this from behind the arc, but it is mostly only when a PG is not picked up or from the trailer in a secondary break.
maybe if you played more basketball you'd understand the definition and evolution of stop and pop, just maybe imo
I can't decide if you need to work more on your reading comprehension or your humor. Try both.
-
you just do stop and pop behind the arc now.
To me, stop and pop implies opting to stop a dribble drive somewhere short of taking it to the rack with the intention of shooting a jump shot in an open space of floor. You do see this from behind the arc, but it is mostly only when a PG is not picked up or from the trailer in a secondary break.
maybe if you played more basketball you'd understand the definition and evolution of stop and pop, just maybe imo
I can't decide if you need to work more on your reading comprehension or your humor. Try both.
go play basketball, jerkstore
-
you just do stop and pop behind the arc now.
To me, stop and pop implies opting to stop a dribble drive somewhere short of taking it to the rack with the intention of shooting a jump shot in an open space of floor. You do see this from behind the arc, but it is mostly only when a PG is not picked up or from the trailer in a secondary break.
maybe if you played more basketball you'd understand the definition and evolution of stop and pop, just maybe imo
I can't decide if you need to work more on your reading comprehension or your humor. Try both.
go play basketball, jerkstore
OK. I'll bite. What is the highest level of competitive basketball you've played?
-
never played a day in my life :runaway:
-
FWIW, Pullen has been known to "stop and pop" on a fairly regular basis. If anything, it has become part of the game of smaller, quick guards. Often they'll be guarded tight outside the arc, take a guy off the dribble, but be wise enough not to take it into the bodies in the lane. Porter from Oregon essentually won the game in Bramlage hitting those shots IMO. Augustine hit several as well on monday night.
-
FWIW, Pullen has been known to "stop and pop" on a fairly regular basis. If anything, it has become part of the game of smaller, quick guards. Often they'll be guarded tight outside the arc, take a guy off the dribble, but be wise enough not to take it into the bodies in the lane. Porter from Oregon essentually won the game in Bramlage hitting those shots IMO. Augustine hit several as well on monday night.
Heinrich was a master at it.
-
FWIW, Pullen has been known to "stop and pop" on a fairly regular basis. If anything, it has become part of the game of smaller, quick guards. Often they'll be guarded tight outside the arc, take a guy off the dribble, but be wise enough not to take it into the bodies in the lane. Porter from Oregon essentually won the game in Bramlage hitting those shots IMO. Augustine hit several as well on monday night.
Kansas guards do this when they are successful.
-
FWIW, Pullen has been known to "stop and pop" on a fairly regular basis. If anything, it has become part of the game of smaller, quick guards. Often they'll be guarded tight outside the arc, take a guy off the dribble, but be wise enough not to take it into the bodies in the lane. Porter from Oregon essentually won the game in Bramlage hitting those shots IMO. Augustine hit several as well on monday night.
Like Pomeroy said, this will still be important against good defenses. (It's interesting that both of our home losses involved the opposition relying fairly heavily on mid range jumpers).
-
FWIW, Pullen has been known to "stop and pop" on a fairly regular basis. If anything, it has become part of the game of smaller, quick guards. Often they'll be guarded tight outside the arc, take a guy off the dribble, but be wise enough not to take it into the bodies in the lane. Porter from Oregon essentually won the game in Bramlage hitting those shots IMO. Augustine hit several as well on monday night.
Like Pomeroy said, this will still be important against good defenses. (It's interesting that both of our home losses involved the opposition relying fairly heavily on mid range jumpers).
Rusty, would you say that ku hits a lot of mid-range j's? Arthur and Jackson love that little shot from the elbow. Rush will dribble (right-handed) to an open spot inside the arc as well.
-
FWIW, Pullen has been known to "stop and pop" on a fairly regular basis. If anything, it has become part of the game of smaller, quick guards. Often they'll be guarded tight outside the arc, take a guy off the dribble, but be wise enough not to take it into the bodies in the lane. Porter from Oregon essentually won the game in Bramlage hitting those shots IMO. Augustine hit several as well on monday night.
Like Pomeroy said, this will still be important against good defenses. (It's interesting that both of our home losses involved the opposition relying fairly heavily on mid range jumpers).
Rusty, would you say that ku hits a lot of mid-range j's? Arthur and Jackson love that little shot from the elbow. Rush will dribble (right-handed) to an open spot inside the arc as well.
I don't think they shoot a significantly high number. I honestly haven't watched them closely much this year, though.
-
what an incredible article and graph.
pomeroy should charge d1 schools as a statistical consultant. any coach that could look at that information and not realize the importance of the 3 pt shot....
-
FWIW, Pullen has been known to "stop and pop" on a fairly regular basis. If anything, it has become part of the game of smaller, quick guards. Often they'll be guarded tight outside the arc, take a guy off the dribble, but be wise enough not to take it into the bodies in the lane. Porter from Oregon essentually won the game in Bramlage hitting those shots IMO. Augustine hit several as well on monday night.
Like Pomeroy said, this will still be important against good defenses. (It's interesting that both of our home losses involved the opposition relying fairly heavily on mid range jumpers).
Rusty, would you say that ku hits a lot of mid-range j's? Arthur and Jackson love that little shot from the elbow. Rush will dribble (right-handed) to an open spot inside the arc as well.
I don't think they shoot a significantly high number. I honestly haven't watched them closely much this year, though.
Rush doesn't hit jack crap if he has to move.
-
so...does this make frank a retard for sticking to man?
-
so...does this make frank a retard for sticking to man?
Not quite. But he needs to be more willing to throw a 3-2 attacking zone, more often. And earlier in the course of a game.
-
Frank is a brilliant effing coach and I will kneecap the next f*cker that suggests otherwise.
-
so...does this make frank a retard for sticking to man?
Not quite. But he needs to be more willing to throw a 3-2 attacking zone, more often. And earlier in the course of a game.
QFT.
-
I don't think we got one stop in the 3-2 zone against UT. (not saying you guys are wrong, btw)
-
Actually, we got several "stops", but we couldn't rebound out of it and gave UT second chances. And most often we combined token 1-3-1 halfcourt and fell back into the 3-2. UT just beat us.
-
Actually, we got several "stops", but we couldn't rebound out of it and gave UT second chances. And most often we combined token 1-3-1 halfcourt and fell back into the 3-2. UT just beat us.
Um, those aren't stops.
-
It's a shame he couldn't factor in shots inside of 5 ft. I'd also like to see the data on getting points as a result of being fouled on shots. Pretty incomplete study and nothing at all revolutionary or interesting.
IMO
-
Rusty, you know what I mean. We defended well for a possession and forced a tough shot, but let them extend the possession. That's why I put "" around stops. :)
-
It's a shame he couldn't factor in shots inside of 5 ft. I'd also like to see the data on getting points as a result of being fouled on shots. Pretty incomplete study and nothing at all revolutionary or interesting.
IMO
I'm guessing it's impossible to count shots where players are fouled since they don't count as field goal attempts unless they make them. (Unless he actually had someone watch 4000 games and chart 340,000 shots, which is extremely doubtful).
I think it is extremely useful and interesting, because it's quantifying hard data about shot selection to the public...I'm sure a lot of this is used on teams internally and has been conventional wisdom of HBBIQers, but nothing remotely comparable has been put out like this...ever.
Rusty, you know what I mean. We defended well for a possession and forced a tough shot, but let them extend the possession. That's why I put "" around stops. :)
WHATEVER. I did make note of a second a Damien James mid range jumper (THAT ATCHLEY OR ONE OF THOSE OTHER FRIGGIN 6-10 GUYS REBOUNDED) when KSU was in the zone and think, "hey that's a shot we want them taking".
-
It's a shame he couldn't factor in shots inside of 5 ft. I'd also like to see the data on getting points as a result of being fouled on shots. Pretty incomplete study and nothing at all revolutionary or interesting.
IMO
I'm guessing it's impossible to count shots where players are fouled since they don't count as field goal attempts unless they make them. (Unless he actually had someone watch 4000 games and chart 340,000 shots, which is extremely doubtful).
I think it is extremely useful and interesting, because it's quantifying hard data about shot selection to the public...I'm sure a lot of this is used on teams internally and has been conventional wisdom of HBBIQers, but nothing remotely comparable has been put out like this...ever.
I understand it's difficult to figure in points off foul shooting, but without it, it's just inconclusive and not a very legit indicator of good shot selection. It's common sense that a 20ft shot is better than a 16 ft shot, because you have about the same likelyhood of making the longer one that' s worth an extra point. However, once you get inside the paint, chances of getting fouled on shot go up ...but how much? and at what rate does the increase the closer you get in?
Also, he says he doesn't include shots inside of 5ft because it's impossible to tell whether or not those are fast break points. Well, how many of these jumpers are fast break points? Automatically assuming all shots outside of 5ft are in the half court is ridiculous.
A good study would be something showing points per shot attempt not FG%. You would have to include "shot attempts" that resulted in fouls and the resulting free throws made. He'd have to use the time on the shot clock to eliminate fastbreak points.
BTW, this graph does nothing at all to change the minds of the "mid range game traditionalists". Their whole point is that nobody can shoot the midrange shot anymore and that everybody just wants to take threes....which is exactly the only thing this graph proves to be true. A stronger argument would be made on a points per shot attempt study. This would show that even if a team made 50% of their long range 2s it's better to shoot 3s at the 38% shown on the graph.
Of course, when it's all said and done, good shot selection has a lot more to do with the individuals players taking shots they are comfortable with.