Post by: CHONGS on February 11, 2015, 01:44:17 PM
Is this really even the right statistics to be looking at? Taking a lot of 3's doesn't mean you are necessarily relying on 3's for points. You might be willing hoist up 3-balls because you know your team can o-rebound very well and get easy put backs. Maybe the real thing to look at is what percentage of your points come from 3's. If 50% of your points come from beyond the arc, is that too much? Is 10% too little? :ck:
Post by: michigancat on February 11, 2015, 01:44:48 PM
Post by: sys on February 11, 2015, 01:45:27 PM
Is it between 30 to 40%?
yes.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on February 11, 2015, 01:46:14 PM
Post by: Sandstone Outcropping on February 11, 2015, 01:50:19 PM
:bball:
Post by: kso_FAN on February 11, 2015, 01:50:31 PM
How good are your shooters?
How good are your offensive rebounders?
How good are your post scorers?
How good are you at getting to the line?
How good are you in transition defense?
There are others, but those 5 things are pretty important to look at when considering your offensive flow and how often you should shoot 3s.
JMHO.
Post by: CHONGS on February 11, 2015, 01:51:39 PM
depends on the teamProbably somewhat true, but there is probably an ideal "zone" for a generic team to be successful.
Post by: pissclams on February 11, 2015, 01:55:14 PM
What percentage of possessions should be given to alley-oop dunk attempts? Is there an ideal AODP%
:bball:
a shitload
Post by: michigancat on February 11, 2015, 01:57:06 PM
depends on the teamProbably somewhat true, but there is probably an ideal "zone" for a generic team to be successful.
How about this:
Shoot as many as you can while keeping your EFG from three above your EFG from 2. Hard to plan for a season that way, but I think you could run exercises/drills in practice that over time could give you enough data from your players to predict in-game 3FG%. 2FG% is a little trickier.
Post by: CHONGS on February 11, 2015, 01:59:10 PM
Lots of things to look at.These likely do matter, but I suspect the general strategy of how to take advantage of scoring 1.5 times a normal fg is important regardless of personnel.
How good are your shooters?
How good are your offensive rebounders?
How good are your post scorers?
How good are you at getting to the line?
How good are you in transition defense?
There are others, but those 5 things are pretty important to look at when considering your offensive flow and how often you should shoot 3s.
JMHO.
Post by: SdK on February 11, 2015, 01:59:32 PM
Lots of things to look at.Little League analysis. I, for one, coached a senior summer league basketball team to 21-1 record. We wore suits and told the players to "turn it up a notch" emeril style. Other teams hated us. Also coached a 3v3 girls team to a tourney championship. Also won the father/son 2v2 basketball tournament at Woolridge camp. I say 36.6%.
How good are your shooters?
How good are your offensive rebounders?
How good are your post scorers?
How good are you at getting to the line?
How good are you in transition defense?
There are others, but those 5 things are pretty important to look at when considering your offensive flow and how often you should shoot 3s.
JMHO.
#TheWesIsTheFuture
Post by: kso_FAN on February 11, 2015, 02:02:05 PM
Lots of things to look at.Little League analysis. I, for one, coached a senior summer league basketball team to 21-1 record. We wore suits and told the players to "turn it up a notch" emeril style. Other teams hated us. Also coached a 3v3 girls team to a tourney championship. Also won the father/son 2v2 basketball tournament at Woolridge camp. I say 36.6%.
How good are your shooters?
How good are your offensive rebounders?
How good are your post scorers?
How good are you at getting to the line?
How good are you in transition defense?
There are others, but those 5 things are pretty important to look at when considering your offensive flow and how often you should shoot 3s.
JMHO.
#TheWesIsTheFuture
Those seem like good strategies. Especially wearing suits in the summer.
Post by: I_have_purplewood on February 11, 2015, 02:07:22 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 11, 2015, 02:08:57 PM
Post by: SdK on February 11, 2015, 02:11:57 PM
Especially in that hot ass gym behind the 9th grade center. It was a lot of fun. I remember between games some parents would say that their son wasn't getting enough touches so we just came up with a new offense for their son for the next game. It was quite fun. It was all on the talent of the kids and not the coaching though. :DLots of things to look at.Little League analysis. I, for one, coached a senior summer league basketball team to 21-1 record. We wore suits and told the players to "turn it up a notch" emeril style. Other teams hated us. Also coached a 3v3 girls team to a tourney championship. Also won the father/son 2v2 basketball tournament at Woolridge camp. I say 36.6%.
How good are your shooters?
How good are your offensive rebounders?
How good are your post scorers?
How good are you at getting to the line?
How good are you in transition defense?
There are others, but those 5 things are pretty important to look at when considering your offensive flow and how often you should shoot 3s.
JMHO.
#TheWesIsTheFuture
Those seem like good strategies. Especially wearing suits in the summer.
#TheWesIsTheFuture
Post by: The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep on February 11, 2015, 02:14:19 PM
Post by: kso_FAN on February 11, 2015, 02:15:41 PM
Post by: CHONGS on February 11, 2015, 02:15:57 PM
Quote from: Steffy08
I think Self is just stating what is obvious to most people: relying so heavily on three point shooting is less likely to result in a national championship than a team that pounds it inside more. It would be different if we were talking about a league championship or a seven-game series. But the NCAA tournament is one and done.
Post by: CHONGS on February 11, 2015, 02:17:01 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg903%2F8729%2F4XgQDH.png&hash=3b333241916f357100b162ca5ff11d7386e16c3c)I actually wonder if 3PA% is not as interesting as the percent of points that come from 3. In this case we would really be talking about "reliance" on 3.
Post by: kso_FAN on February 11, 2015, 02:21:50 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 11, 2015, 02:27:27 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grinnell_System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grinnell_System)
:barf:
Post by: kso_FAN on February 11, 2015, 02:32:23 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grinnell_System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grinnell_System)
:barf:
http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer/gregg-doyel/24249089/not-easy-for-grinnell-gunner-to-score-100plus-till-coach-makes-it-so
http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer/gregg-doyel/24249295/you-never-know-who-the-voice-of-grinnell-college-hoops-is-these-days
Post by: TownieCat on February 11, 2015, 02:36:40 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg903%2F8729%2F4XgQDH.png&hash=3b333241916f357100b162ca5ff11d7386e16c3c)
Is there any way to add FTR on there too? That graph can be a bit deceiving because you lose a lot more 2PTA due to fouls than you do 3PTA.
The one that really sticks out is the 07 Florida team that also had a 43.8% FTR.
Post by: Skipper44 on February 11, 2015, 02:48:35 PM
Quote from: Steffy08
I think Self is just stating what is obvious to most people: relying so heavily on three point shooting is less likely to result in a national championship than a team that pounds it inside more. It would be different if we were talking about a league championship or a seven-game series. But the NCAA tournament is one and done.By and large, it is easier to find players and develop players that can shoot the 3 than it is to find guys that can score inside. Not only are those guys hard to find they are also the fastest to leave and Cal appears to be able to get 2 or 3 of the maybe 10 in a recruiting class to come to Kentucky. You really have to be a blue blood to think playing inside-out is the best way to win.
Post by: kso_FAN on February 11, 2015, 02:53:35 PM
Quote from: Steffy08I think Self is just stating what is obvious to most people: relying so heavily on three point shooting is less likely to result in a national championship than a team that pounds it inside more. It would be different if we were talking about a league championship or a seven-game series. But the NCAA tournament is one and done.By and large, it is easier to find players and develop players that can shoot the 3 than it is to find guys that can score inside. Not only are those guys hard to find they are also the fastest to leave and Cal appears to be able to get 2 or 3 of the maybe 10 in a recruiting class to come to Kentucky. You really have to be a blue blood to think playing inside-out is the best way to win.
Yes, getting big people who can really play, especially several big people that can really play, is a big point of separation in basketball. It is for football too, especially with defensive linemen.
Post by: michigancat on February 11, 2015, 02:54:41 PM
Quote from: Steffy08I think Self is just stating what is obvious to most people: relying so heavily on three point shooting is less likely to result in a national championship than a team that pounds it inside more. It would be different if we were talking about a league championship or a seven-game series. But the NCAA tournament is one and done.By and large, it is easier to find players and develop players that can shoot the 3 than it is to find guys that can score inside. Not only are those guys hard to find they are also the fastest to leave and Cal appears to be able to get 2 or 3 of the maybe 10 in a recruiting class to come to Kentucky. You really have to be a blue blood to think playing inside-out is the best way to win.
this is a great point. Remember our discussion on the best KSU post players in modern history? They pretty much sucked, and in the Martin/Huggs era, only Beasley and maybe CK were reliable back-to-the basket scorers.
Quality post players are both rare, and I think there is growing evidence that post-up shots aren't terribly effective (see hints of it in this Brad Stevens interview I read a while back):
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/qa-coach-brad-stevens-on-his-surprising-celtics-and-the-new-jordan-crawford/
Quote
I mean, you’re near the top of the league in total post-ups.
And [Brandon] Bass is posting up three times as much as he has in the past. At the end of the day, we have to use all of our strengths.
Analytics folks say the post-up, or at least a post-up shot, is a low-efficiency play. But there’s a way to reconcile that, right?
There are two ways to get inside-out: driving or posting.
In other words: The post-up is more a vehicle for passing and other shots, rather than necessarily for a post-up shot itself?
It’s a vehicle for playing inside-out. That’s right.
Post by: Skipper44 on February 11, 2015, 03:04:23 PM
Post by: Shooter Jones on February 11, 2015, 03:18:28 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 11, 2015, 03:20:50 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grinnell_System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grinnell_System)
:barf:
http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer/gregg-doyel/24249089/not-easy-for-grinnell-gunner-to-score-100plus-till-coach-makes-it-so
http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer/gregg-doyel/24249295/you-never-know-who-the-voice-of-grinnell-college-hoops-is-these-days
I went to a Grinnell game last year , I can't say I have anything good to say about the system. I'm all for coaches doing something that gives them an edge whether traditional or not but it doesn't give an edge, its just a gimmick.
Post by: Mixed-Nutz on February 11, 2015, 03:22:21 PM
MIT stat nerds believe the best offense is shots at the rim and 3s, but that isn't alway practical because of the opposing defense and your teams personnel.
Post by: michigancat on February 11, 2015, 03:28:28 PM
It is about getting good shots and balance makes that easier. If you team is good at shooting 3s and defense are allowing you to shots good 3s noting wrong with taking 100% 3s. It is just not practical.
MIT stat nerds believe the best offense is shots at the rim and 3s, but that isn't alway practical because of the opposing defense and your teams personnel.
MIT stat nerds = insult
Post by: wetwillie on February 11, 2015, 06:19:24 PM
Post by: Sandstone Outcropping on February 11, 2015, 08:40:12 PM
If we played at a 65 possession pace and let Marcus take 65 threes and he made 40% of them we would have 78 points a game. That sounds like more fun than what we have today.
basketball should be fun to look at.
Post by: TownieCat on February 20, 2015, 05:05:52 PM
3PT shooting percentage doesn't seem to matter.
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2015, 05:10:14 PM
Our ideal 3PT rate is between 14-20%. Against P5 teams this year we are 6-3 when we're in that range. Below 14% we are 0-4 and above 20% we are 2-5.
3PT shooting percentage doesn't seem to matter.
not sure what you're calculating there
Post by: TownieCat on February 20, 2015, 05:20:18 PM
Our ideal 3PT rate is between 14-20%. Against P5 teams this year we are 6-3 when we're in that range. Below 14% we are 0-4 and above 20% we are 2-5.
3PT shooting percentage doesn't seem to matter.
not sure what you're calculating there
3PT attempts per game, adjusted for pace. I only included the games vs the P5 teams we've played this year.
Chucking up a bunch of 3s with Marcus and Tre sounds fun, but it's likely not the answer. However, I think playing them together to spread the floor could benefit the offense.
Post by: Mr Bread on February 20, 2015, 05:25:28 PM
Our ideal 3PT rate is between 14-20%. Against P5 teams this year we are 6-3 when we're in that range. Below 14% we are 0-4 and above 20% we are 2-5.
3PT shooting percentage doesn't seem to matter.
not sure what you're calculating there
3PT attempts per game, adjusted for pace. I only included the games vs the P5 teams we've played this year.
Chucking up a bunch of 3s with Marcus and Tre sounds fun, but it's likely not the answer. However, I think playing them together to spread the floor could benefit the offense.
Who were the 6-3 against? And the other ones too. Home-road-neutral? Your data could be very misleading. Correlation does not imply causation. Go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship. #chum
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2015, 05:31:59 PM
Our ideal 3PT rate is between 14-20%. Against P5 teams this year we are 6-3 when we're in that range. Below 14% we are 0-4 and above 20% we are 2-5.
3PT shooting percentage doesn't seem to matter.
not sure what you're calculating there
3PT attempts per game, adjusted for pace. I only included the games vs the P5 teams we've played this year.
Chucking up a bunch of 3s with Marcus and Tre sounds fun, but it's likely not the answer. However, I think playing them together to spread the floor could benefit the offense.
Yeah we were all talking as a ratio (3FGA/2FGA). Looks like you're calculating as a percentage of total shots.
And Bread's right, you've got basically no evidence of an ideal range (based on what you've presented).
Post by: CHONGS on February 20, 2015, 05:35:14 PM
(3 points attempted)/(total FGs attempted)
or better yet:
(points acquired by making a 3)/(total points)
Post by: CHONGS on February 20, 2015, 05:37:06 PM
no we're talking about 3FGA/(3FGA+2FGA)Our ideal 3PT rate is between 14-20%. Against P5 teams this year we are 6-3 when we're in that range. Below 14% we are 0-4 and above 20% we are 2-5.
3PT shooting percentage doesn't seem to matter.
not sure what you're calculating there
3PT attempts per game, adjusted for pace. I only included the games vs the P5 teams we've played this year.
Chucking up a bunch of 3s with Marcus and Tre sounds fun, but it's likely not the answer. However, I think playing them together to spread the floor could benefit the offense.
Yeah we were all talking as a ratio (3FGA/2FGA). Looks like you're calculating as a percentage of total shots.
And Bread's right, you've got basically no evidence of an ideal range (based on what you've presented).
Post by: TownieCat on February 20, 2015, 05:42:12 PM
Obviously there are too many factors in basketball to declare this the cause. But there obviously appears to be a correlation between wins and how many of our possessions end with a 3FGA.
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2015, 05:47:02 PM
no we're talking about 3FGA/(3FGA+2FGA)Our ideal 3PT rate is between 14-20%. Against P5 teams this year we are 6-3 when we're in that range. Below 14% we are 0-4 and above 20% we are 2-5.
3PT shooting percentage doesn't seem to matter.
not sure what you're calculating there
3PT attempts per game, adjusted for pace. I only included the games vs the P5 teams we've played this year.
Chucking up a bunch of 3s with Marcus and Tre sounds fun, but it's likely not the answer. However, I think playing them together to spread the floor could benefit the offense.
Yeah we were all talking as a ratio (3FGA/2FGA). Looks like you're calculating as a percentage of total shots.
And Bread's right, you've got basically no evidence of an ideal range (based on what you've presented).
jeez, what am I talking about
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2015, 05:48:23 PM
Post by: wetwillie on February 20, 2015, 06:18:36 PM
Post by: kso_FAN on February 20, 2015, 06:56:06 PM
Post by: Mixed-Nutz on February 20, 2015, 07:01:11 PM
I think we're about right with this team. It's not like oscar wants this low of 3PA%, his teams typically shoot a much higher rate than this year's. We do suck at 2s and defending 2s, but I'm not sure that chucking 35% 3PA would be beneficial to this team.One big question is if Nino's long 2s should be 3s.
Post by: TownieCat on February 20, 2015, 08:30:11 PM
Since Nino is such an effective long 2FG shooter and has hit 3/6 from 3FG it leads me to believe Nino should attempt more 3s.I think we're about right with this team. It's not like oscar wants this low of 3PA%, his teams typically shoot a much higher rate than this year's. We do suck at 2s and defending 2s, but I'm not sure that chucking 35% 3PA would be beneficial to this team.One big question is if Nino's long 2s should be 3s.