Author Topic: FT shooting in conf. play (Read 6275 times)

Powercat Posse · « **on:** February 04, 2011, 01:41:19 AM »

Amazing this has turned around ..... 73.5% (136-185)

JamSam has made 22 of his last 26
Sprads made his last 18 in a row
JO has made 14 of last 17 (8-9 in league play)

Irving/Myles/95 combined for 13-16 in league play

Pullen 76% and Gruds 63% need to up theirs in league play

Kelly has been the only one really struggling .... 9-19 since returning

***** Still kinda sad though that we are hitting our FTs and we still have only scored 70 or more once in 8 conf games

bigwillie20 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 04, 2011, 02:06:48 AM »

eff the free throws...go watch the videos from last year, I wanna see that JYC fun on the court again

CatsFan_58 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 04, 2011, 03:47:37 AM »

Quote from: bigwillie20 on February 04, 2011, 02:06:48 AM

eff the free throws...go watch the videos from last year, I wanna see that JYC fun on the court again

yuh

kso_FAN · « **Reply #3 on:** February 04, 2011, 07:22:05 AM »

FT rate is 42.6% in conference play, about the same as the season average, and above average overall. But last year in conference play it was a ridiculous 51.1% and for the season over 50%, which was top 5 in the country.

Overall this just indicates the main problem with this year's team; offensive efficiency is way down from last year. The only area we've maintained is offensive rebounding; shooting, turnovers, and getting the FT line have all dropped significantly.

sys · « **Reply #4 on:** February 04, 2011, 12:46:42 PM »

Quote from: ksu_FAN on February 04, 2011, 07:22:05 AM

Overall this just indicates the main problem with this year's team; offensive efficiency is way down from last year. The only area we've maintained is offensive rebounding; shooting, turnovers, and getting the FT line have all dropped significantly.

i detest the new offense.

i poo crabs · « **Reply #5 on:** February 04, 2011, 12:49:09 PM »

The players don't seem to like it either. They run it just to run it.

kso_FAN · « **Reply #6 on:** February 04, 2011, 01:18:32 PM »

Quote from: sys on February 04, 2011, 12:46:42 PM

Quote from: ksu_FAN on February 04, 2011, 07:22:05 AM
Overall this just indicates the main problem with this year's team; offensive efficiency is way down from last year. The only area we've maintained is offensive rebounding; shooting, turnovers, and getting the FT line have all dropped significantly.

i detest the new offense.

Why don't you like it?

I'd say it hasn't had a major impact either way, positively or negatively.

Kat Kid · « **Reply #7 on:** February 04, 2011, 01:21:55 PM »

Quote from: sys on February 04, 2011, 12:46:42 PM

Quote from: ksu_FAN on February 04, 2011, 07:22:05 AM
Overall this just indicates the main problem with this year's team; offensive efficiency is way down from last year. The only area we've maintained is offensive rebounding; shooting, turnovers, and getting the FT line have all dropped significantly.

i detest the new offense.

yes.

WillieWatanabe · « **Reply #8 on:** February 04, 2011, 01:23:21 PM »

Quote from: sys on February 04, 2011, 12:46:42 PM

Quote from: ksu_FAN on February 04, 2011, 07:22:05 AM
Overall this just indicates the main problem with this year's team; offensive efficiency is way down from last year. The only area we've maintained is offensive rebounding; shooting, turnovers, and getting the FT line have all dropped significantly.

i detest the new offense.

less open threes.

sys · « **Reply #9 on:** February 04, 2011, 01:33:40 PM »

Quote from: ksu_FAN on February 04, 2011, 01:18:32 PM

Why don't you like it?

I'd say it hasn't had a major impact either way, positively or negatively.

less open threes. and the threes that do open up are harder because the shooter is usually moving away from the basket and has to change momentum in order to shoot (pullen and irving can do that, spradling and mcgruder can't, or at least need another step of time in order to rebalance)

that and it's just hschooly. you make the same cuts on the same elaborate play with single screens. that isn't going to work against good teams with coaching staffs that actually scout you. so it's really nothing more than aimlessly running around until you either throw the ball into post or toss it back to pullen to drive with 5 on the clock.

the old offense had more variety, more ball screens and more multiple screens. all of which made it harder to defend, imo.

i do agree that it isn't a huge deal either way. good players will score in any offense, bad players won't, no matter what the offense.

kso_FAN · « **Reply #10 on:** February 04, 2011, 01:57:23 PM »

I think the "less open 3s" is debatable. There is nothing statistically to show that IMO. The drop we've had in 3PT% from overall games to conference games is pretty typical; right now we are shooting around 2.5% worse. We are actually generating more 3s per game, granted some of that is deceiving b/c we've been behind a couple games and just chucked the last couple minutes. But overall, I'd say we're getting about the same amount of decent shots.

The points on the flaws offense are valid. I think Frank was intent on getting movement away from the ball and more passing b/c the guys were so stagant at times in the old offense. The main negative effect its probably had is slowing us down; we are playing nearly 3 possessions slower during league play than we have for the season. But then again, I'm not so sure that pace may not be better for this team.

I do like some of the things we get from the offense; it creates high-low lobs at times and penetration lanes at times that weren't there in the old offense. It also makes our posts much less back to the basket players and more involved in the offense (setting screens, cutting, even playing on the perimeter) which I think was another thing Frank was after.

Anotehr negative to me is an increased TO rate. We went up from 22.5% for the season to 24.9% in league play, which is essentually when we changed the offense. Part of that is probably increased competition, but last year's team was less than 1% worse in league play compared to overall.

FT rate is slightly better in league play, and OR% is slightly worse and eFG% is quite a bit worse. But again, some drop is normal in league play.

sys · « **Reply #11 on:** February 04, 2011, 02:39:17 PM »

great stat-based arguments, _fan. i have no counterarguments. i also agree w. you that the new offense is easier for the bigs than the old offense.

Stevesie60 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 04, 2011, 04:23:01 PM »

Could the increased TO% be because it is a new offense, not because of what the new offense is? There hasn't necessarily been a trend to indicate that this is the case because it is so dependent on our opponent, but it seems that if you only look at our TOs to medium-not good teams, it has been decreasing. Only 12 against Nubb, and I don't they're by any means a bad team. We had 14 against a worse Texas Tech.

SwiftCat · « **Reply #13 on:** February 04, 2011, 04:38:09 PM »

Quote from: Powercat Posse on February 04, 2011, 01:41:19 AM

JO has made 14 of last 17 (8-9 in league play

This is incredible.

Kat Kid · « **Reply #14 on:** February 04, 2011, 08:14:27 PM »

Quote from: ksu_FAN on February 04, 2011, 01:57:23 PM

I think the "less open 3s" is debatable. There is nothing statistically to show that IMO. The drop we've had in 3PT% from overall games to conference games is pretty typical; right now we are shooting around 2.5% worse. We are actually generating more 3s per game, granted some of that is deceiving b/c we've been behind a couple games and just chucked the last couple minutes. But overall, I'd say we're getting about the same amount of decent shots.

The points on the flaws offense are valid. I think Frank was intent on getting movement away from the ball and more passing b/c the guys were so stagant at times in the old offense. The main negative effect its probably had is slowing us down; we are playing nearly 3 possessions slower during league play than we have for the season. But then again, I'm not so sure that pace may not be better for this team.

I do like some of the things we get from the offense; it creates high-low lobs at times and penetration lanes at times that weren't there in the old offense. It also makes our posts much less back to the basket players and more involved in the offense (setting screens, cutting, even playing on the perimeter) which I think was another thing Frank was after.

Anotehr negative to me is an increased TO rate. We went up from 22.5% for the season to 24.9% in league play, which is essentually when we changed the offense. Part of that is probably increased competition, but last year's team was less than 1% worse in league play compared to overall.

FT rate is slightly better in league play, and OR% is slightly worse and eFG% is quite a bit worse. But again, some drop is normal in league play.

We almost never pass to the cutter, so it eliminates like half of the reason spacing the players all above the ft line. Also the OR/eFG is obvious because we are taking more jump shots with the lane cleared. How many more times has Curtis tried a ft line jumper? The only positive is Jake, and once in awhile tay, put the ball on the floor and drive. This offense would be really nice with 95 if we let him and jake drive the whole time. I fail to understand what southwell's purpose is out there on O (plays ok D).

Skipper44 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 04, 2011, 08:15:28 PM »

Seems a bit early and unfair to this years team to compare to last years numbers when they have played the two toughest games to-wise in @ku and @mu. My guess is turn overs will be down as teams like isu, nu and the like will happily let us pass it around the perimeter while we burn the shot clock without really putting much pressure on the defense. Both the fact that frank changed O and that he changed to this O make me concerned for his slthiness :sad:

gatoveintisiete · « **Reply #16 on:** February 04, 2011, 09:30:22 PM »

We need to continue the search for a new offense, I do like that they tried something new, it just happens to suck also. It could be poor execution, but I think it is a little of each.

kso_FAN · « **Reply #17 on:** February 04, 2011, 10:28:47 PM »

Quote from: Tortuga on February 04, 2011, 08:14:27 PM

We almost never pass to the cutter, so it eliminates like half of the reason spacing the players all above the ft line. Also the OR/eFG is obvious because we are taking more jump shots with the lane cleared. How many more times has Curtis tried a ft line jumper? The only positive is Jake, and once in awhile tay, put the ball on the floor and drive. This offense would be really nice with 95 if we let him and jake drive the whole time. I fail to understand what southwell's purpose is out there on O (plays ok D).

It is true that the cutters are not big threats, but I think the main key is it keeps everybody on the floor active and moving. One of Frank's biggest complaints was too much dribbling and not enough passing/movement from the old offense and this offense forces the players to be active, the bigs handle the ball, and everyone has to be a good screener.

I do like that we eventually create shots at the basket for our bigs on lobs over the top as the defense gets caught high with all the screen action. We are essentually generating as many shots at the basket for our bigs as we did before, but really they are much easier shots. Instead of having to rely on some back to the basket post move, the big simply has to catch and finish at the rim. I'll take 3 to 4 of those over 3 to 4 attempts to hit a big on the block from the wing or from the point, many of which ended in turnovers anyway. We also generate 3 to 4 cheap fouls per game on defensive players trying to fight through the many screens as they continually are funnelled through the lane. And with ball reversals, we still generate a few post up opportunities when bigs can seal their defenders backside.

eFG% drop is a fair complaint, but OR% is a minor drop, and still over 41% in league games so far.

Quote from: Skipper44 on February 04, 2011, 08:15:28 PM

Seems a bit early and unfair to this years team to compare to last years numbers when they have played the two toughest games to-wise in @ku and @mu. My guess is turn overs will be down as teams like isu, nu and the like will happily let us pass it around the perimeter while we burn the shot clock without really putting much pressure on the defense. Both the fact that frank changed O and that he changed to this O make me concerned for his slthiness :sad:

This is true, our numbers "should" even out a bit as the season goes along if we play better against the teams we should be able to compete well with/beat.

Kat Kid · « **Reply #18 on:** February 04, 2011, 10:39:45 PM »

I don't think our OR% is going to hold steady. But if it does I will be amazed. You don't drop your effective height, change your offense to remove oreb'rs and have it take a slight dip. But if it somehow isn't impacted thanks to JHR and McORebs I'll be happy.

kso_FAN · « **Reply #19 on:** February 04, 2011, 10:49:45 PM »

Quote from: Tortuga on February 04, 2011, 10:39:45 PM

I don't think our OR% is going to hold steady. But if it does I will be amazed. You don't drop your effective height, change your offense to remove oreb'rs and have it take a slight dip. But if it somehow isn't impacted thanks to JHR and McORebs I'll be happy.

Good point. We have been amazingly consistent there. Just looking at box score numbers, we haven't had a game all year with less than 12 offensive boards. Of course, it doesn't hurt that we miss plenty of shots. Plus I think Frank emphasizes it enough and we still have enough good oboarders that we should be okay there, I'd guess we'll stay at 40% or better in league play this season.

To me a key for us is to get the FT rate back up. Granted, the pace is a bit slower overall and much slower in league games, but we are shooting 5 less FTs per game (8% worse FT Rate overall) and nearly 7 less in league play than we did last year. Plus, last year in league play our FT rate actually went up. Of course, part of that is we give up a few opportunities to be fouled on possessions because we turn the ball over more, but yet our FGA #s are almost identical to last year's.

nicname · « **Reply #20 on:** February 04, 2011, 10:50:29 PM »

McGrudz is a phenomenal offensive rebounder. He made two or three boards against Nebraska that were damn near Rodman like. Just watching the ball go up, figuring where it would come off and then going and getting it (and by that I mean, running from across the floor and squeezing between other potential rebounders to get the ball). It is really a treat to watch. He is a special player.

sys · « **Reply #21 on:** February 04, 2011, 11:36:14 PM »

Quote from: nicname on February 04, 2011, 10:50:29 PM

It is really a treat to watch. He is a special player.

he's really fun to watch. on an ordinary team, he'd be the bouncy, silky apple of everyone's eye. but no one can compete with 95 for pure viewing enjoyment per minute.

sys · « **Reply #22 on:** February 04, 2011, 11:37:13 PM »

Quote from: Tortuga on February 04, 2011, 10:39:45 PM

I don't think our OR% is going to hold steady. But if it does I will be amazed. You don't drop your effective height, change your offense to remove oreb'rs and have it take a slight dip. But if it somehow isn't impacted thanks to JHR and McORebs I'll be happy.

i wanted to include this in my attack on the new offense, but the stats made me self censor.

kso_FAN · « **Reply #23 on:** February 05, 2011, 03:17:56 PM »

Glad we won. This would've been a big victory for the "FT% is a big deal" crowd. But also for the "FTAs is a bigger deal crowd". Dodged a couple bullets with this one.

sys · « **Reply #24 on:** February 05, 2011, 04:36:16 PM »

Quote from: ksu_FAN on February 05, 2011, 03:17:56 PM

Glad we won. This would've been a big victory for the "FT% is a big deal" crowd. But also for the "FTAs is a bigger deal crowd". Dodged a couple bullets with this one.

i looked at this and kinda had the impression that it's a shitty stat. mainly because of the adjustment for oef. but still, kstate is really low (and has a low oef).

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/2011-free-throw-plus-standings/