vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,329
|
Post by vv83 on Mar 2, 2020 20:02:30 GMT -5
Yurtseven's entire decision to come to Georgetown was a business decision. It should not be any surprise that he is playing to his own interests in dealing with his injury. I guess you can question his character, but it feels like he has been pretty up front about his priorities from the start - spend two years being coached up by Ewing and one year playing for him, to best prep him for pro basketball. Ewing made the decision to take him on under this understanding, so he (and the fans) have to deal with the consequences of taking on a player who was more focused on his own development for the pros over his immediate contribution to the Georgetown program.
Akinjo was another version of this same issue. Ewing took risks on these guys in order to pull in two highly rated recruits early in his coaching tenure. My guess is he now realizes that he needs to recruit only players who are all in on their college experience. They can still care about potential professional prospects, but not to the level that Akinjo and Yurtseven have. It is not always easy to judge this - all really good players have pro aspirations and consider this in their college choice. And Ewing's pro coaching experience is a strong point in his recruiting pitch. But coach needs to learn to better discern the guys who are so motivated by the future pro prospects that they end up not being the kind of team guys that a winning program needs.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Mar 2, 2020 20:18:27 GMT -5
I feel like this happens on this board a lot. You simply cannot look at offensive efficiency rating and ignore usage. They go hand in hand and the bar for efficiency on a low usage player should be much higher. Yurt7 has a 109 o-rating on 27.8 usage. Gill's rating of 114 is on 14% usage. It is very easy to have a high efficiency rating just being the roller on dunks and putting in tap ins. There's value to what Gill is doing but it's not the same. It would be much easier to ask Yurt7 to take on Gill's role in the SH offense than vice versa. Bart Torvik created his own stat (PRPG!) to try and contemplate this (I'm sure others have as well). I do not pretend his stat is perfect but it's a move in the right direction: Yurt7:3.9 Gill:2.3 You can talk about usage all you want but rewatch the head to head matchup on January 3rd when Gill dominated Yurt. www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/boxscore?gameId=401168394Yurt is a very good college basketball player. The question is would anyone here rather have him than Romero Gill or Tyrique Jones. Yurt feasted on smaller guys but once he was matched up with someone his size it was a wrap. Hell give me Paul Reed playing center on this team and Im good with it. I do tend to think Yurt being asked to do things he wasn't comfortable with hurt him. He has a very good midrange game but is not very good on the block. Someone gave him the advice to come to Georgetown to improve his draft stock. That turned out to be a mistake as he was taught how to play 80's center in 2020.
|
|
beenaround
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,475
|
Post by beenaround on Mar 2, 2020 23:17:37 GMT -5
Hmmm. Patrick coached in the nba until three yrs ago. Was he coaching nba players in 2016 , to play 80s style?
|
|
justsaying
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 709
|
Post by justsaying on Mar 2, 2020 23:22:17 GMT -5
Yurt is a very good college basketball player. The question is would anyone here rather have him than Romero Gill or Tyrique Jones. Yurt feasted on smaller guys but once he was matched up with someone his size it was a wrap. Hell give me Paul Reed playing center on this team and Im good with it. I do tend to think Yurt being asked to do things he wasn't comfortable with hurt him. He has a very good midrange game but is not very good on the block. Someone gave him the advice to come to Georgetown to improve his draft stock. That turned out to be a mistake as he was taught how to play 80's center in 2020. Confused, is being able to rebound against other bigs a mistake, are Xavier and Seton Hall centers making a mistake, the Wideman young man (was at Memphis projected to be top 2) with mostly an inside game at this point of his development a mistake. For Y7 (still developing) the league already know he has an excellent mid range game, they want to know if he can guard, rebound, be a presence on the court in whatever position he would be asked to play. Xavier's center with limited offensive game has a presence on the court. Subtraction will not advance you, you need addition. remember a young man named Govan, excellent offensive game, had a little trouble be a defensive presence, that is what limited his value for the league and that is what he is now trying to correct or work at. Mcgee with the Lakers, limited offensive game, getting paid handsomely to rebound, play defense, block shots, ... etc As the commentator mentioned on the air the other day, when pro scouts come to talk to the coach, there is one player on the team they always ask about first, they say that they believe he can "guard" multiple positions. His offensive game is still developing. Anytime you can add to your game increases your value. Now what a player do with opportunities and how they handle those opportunities is a different conversation. Y7 value in the league will greatly increase if he expands outside of his comfort zone. By the way his overall rebounding numbers are starting to look better. If he stayed another year (which he probably will not, no inside information here) he will probably would advance in needed areas and his value likely increase further than it is now. As someone mentioned above coach seen and coached against many of today's players and centers.
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,642
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Mar 3, 2020 5:37:24 GMT -5
I did find it odd that he took so many mid-range twos and so few threes. That’s not NBA style.
|
|
rhw485
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 743
|
Post by rhw485 on Mar 3, 2020 7:10:27 GMT -5
I feel like this happens on this board a lot. You simply cannot look at offensive efficiency rating and ignore usage. They go hand in hand and the bar for efficiency on a low usage player should be much higher. Yurt7 has a 109 o-rating on 27.8 usage. Gill's rating of 114 is on 14% usage. It is very easy to have a high efficiency rating just being the roller on dunks and putting in tap ins. There's value to what Gill is doing but it's not the same. It would be much easier to ask Yurt7 to take on Gill's role in the SH offense than vice versa. Bart Torvik created his own stat (PRPG!) to try and contemplate this (I'm sure others have as well). I do not pretend his stat is perfect but it's a move in the right direction: Yurt7:3.9 Gill:2.3 You can talk about usage all you want but rewatch the head to head matchup on January 3rd when Gill dominated Yurt. www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/boxscore?gameId=401168394So we're going to ignore the 2nd game? Yurt7: 19 points / 15 rebounds in 34 min Gill:6 points / 6 rebounds in 32 min I hate cherry picking individual games but if you're gonna do it on head to head matchups, the least you could do is include both. Yes Yurt7 had bad games in the big east, but this fanbase seems determined to ignore the good ones because they expected a lottery pick and they simply got an all big east first team center before injury instead blueandgray I respect your opinion and I understand you have inside knowledge of the team. I'm not going to comment on the business decision you're implying because I simply don't have knowledge of it.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 3, 2020 7:13:55 GMT -5
Yurt is a very good college basketball player. The question is would anyone here rather have him than Romero Gill or Tyrique Jones. Yurt feasted on smaller guys but once he was matched up with someone his size it was a wrap. Hell give me Paul Reed playing center on this team and Im good with it. I do tend to think Yurt being asked to do things he wasn't comfortable with hurt him. He has a very good midrange game but is not very good on the block. Someone gave him the advice to come to Georgetown to improve his draft stock. That turned out to be a mistake as he was taught how to play 80's center in 2020. Confused, is being able to rebound against other bigs a mistake, are Xavier and Seton Hall centers making a mistake, the Wideman young man (was at Memphis projected to be top 2) with mostly an inside game at this point of his development a mistake. For Y7 (still developing) the league already know he has an excellent mid range game, they want to know if he can guard, rebound, be a presence on the court in whatever position he would be asked to play. Xavier's center with limited offensive game has a presence on the court. Subtraction will not advance you, you need addition. remember a young man named Govan, excellent offensive game, had a little trouble be a defensive presence, that is what limited his value for the league and that is what he is now trying to correct or work at. Mcgee with the Lakers, limited offensive game, getting paid handsomely to rebound, play defense, block shots, ... etc As the commentator mentioned on the air the other day, when pro scouts come to talk to the coach, there is one player on the team they always ask about first, they say that they believe he can "guard" multiple positions. His offensive game is still developing. Anytime you can add to your game increases your value. Now what a player do with opportunities and how they handle those opportunities is a different conversation. Y7 value in the league will greatly increase if he expands outside of his comfort zone. By the way his overall rebounding numbers are starting to look better. If he stayed another year (which he probably will not, no inside information here) he will probably would advance in needed areas and his value likely increase further than it is now. As someone mentioned above coach seen and coached against many of today's players and centers. Javale McAgee has an enorumous 7-6 wingspan With The NBA, measureables, lengrh snd athleticism is what they look for. Those are really things you either have or you dont. Not sure why you are trying to knock our guys heart, brains etc for guys with freakish size like McGeee
|
|
justsaying
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 709
|
Post by justsaying on Mar 3, 2020 13:08:09 GMT -5
Confused, is being able to rebound against other bigs a mistake, are Xavier and Seton Hall centers making a mistake, the Wideman young man (was at Memphis projected to be top 2) with mostly an inside game at this point of his development a mistake. For Y7 (still developing) the league already know he has an excellent mid range game, they want to know if he can guard, rebound, be a presence on the court in whatever position he would be asked to play. Xavier's center with limited offensive game has a presence on the court. Subtraction will not advance you, you need addition. remember a young man named Govan, excellent offensive game, had a little trouble be a defensive presence, that is what limited his value for the league and that is what he is now trying to correct or work at. Mcgee with the Lakers, limited offensive game, getting paid handsomely to rebound, play defense, block shots, ... etc As the commentator mentioned on the air the other day, when pro scouts come to talk to the coach, there is one player on the team they always ask about first, they say that they believe he can "guard" multiple positions. His offensive game is still developing. Anytime you can add to your game increases your value. Now what a player do with opportunities and how they handle those opportunities is a different conversation. Y7 value in the league will greatly increase if he expands outside of his comfort zone. By the way his overall rebounding numbers are starting to look better. If he stayed another year (which he probably will not, no inside information here) he will probably would advance in needed areas and his value likely increase further than it is now. As someone mentioned above coach seen and coached against many of today's players and centers. Javale McAgee has an enorumous 7-6 wingspan With The NBA, measureables, lengrh snd athleticism is what they look for. Those are really things you either have or you dont. Not sure why you are trying to knock our guys heart, brains etc for guys with freakish size like McGeee Confused again. Please show within the post above where the hate of our current player was expressed. Please anyone show where hate (knock) was intended. The whole point was the NBA looks for more that just scoring from inside players. It does him well to expand his skills and move beyond his current comfort level. Comfort zone has nothing to do with heart. Please don't look for fish in a tree. Montrezi Harrell 6' 7" (plays center) does not have the scoring of Y7 (similar to T Jones) Marc Gasol 6' 11" Cody Zeller (starter) does not have the measureables of Y7 (7') nor the scoring. Meyers Leonard similar measureables - NBA roster Goga Bitadze Mitchell Robinson Thomas Bryant 6' 10" Ian Mahinmi 6' 11" was starting Many others on NBA rosters, that do not have the scoring of Y7 but is making NBA money and have similar measureables. For a given player to fit within a given roster scoring may not the magic bullet. And if you have the time go back as see the original post the above post was a response to. Someone suggested that you ever convinced Y7 to come to GU made have made a mistake because of his draft value ... etc.. etc. The response above was indicating that is not a mistake to train under one of the best. Thus you can find fish in lakes.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 3, 2020 13:19:32 GMT -5
Hmmm. Patrick coached in the nba until three yrs ago. Was he coaching nba players in 2016 , to play 80s style? This is actually why I find it confusing that our team takes so many long twos. In the NBA, it has largely become conventional that you either take three point shots, layups, or dunks. The mid-range game is basically extinct, and for good reason - it is the least efficient shot in basketball. Even post-ups are not really all that common anymore, for the same reason, which is that they aren't that good shots. Clearly, Ewing was exposed to these trends, and thus, I find it confusing that we do not play that way. Yurtseven's bread and butter all season was that baseline/mid-range jump shot. Against smaller competition, he made a lot of them, but he had trouble against better competition. Plus, even though he showed three point shooting competence at NC State, that part of his game was largely thrown aside this year. Ewing did not utilize Yurtseven the way a modern coach in the NBA would utilize a big, and I think that was to our team's detriment. The easiest way to coach this is to simply not allow the team to take long or midrange twos. It's what NBA teams do, and it's effective.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Mar 3, 2020 13:30:57 GMT -5
While I get your point, here is the problem - if the other team guards us at the arc, what do we do? We don't have guys who are effective getting to the rim. Pickett will turn it over, Blair and Allen can't finish strong so are left with wild off balance shots, Q and Tim are not yet able to score inside consistently. So sometimes the only available play is to shot fake the 3 to get the defender to fly by, then take a couple of steps inside the arc for an open 2. Not the most efficient statistically, but more efficient than a strongly contested 3.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 3, 2020 13:46:44 GMT -5
While I get your point, here is the problem - if the other team guards us at the arc, what do we do? We don't have guys who are effective getting to the rim. Pickett will turn it over, Blair and Allen can't finish strong so are left with wild off balance shots, Q and Tim are not yet able to score inside consistently. So sometimes the only available play is to shot fake the 3 to get the defender to fly by, then take a couple of steps inside the arc for an open 2. Not the most efficient statistically, but more efficient than a strongly contested 3.I think you are correct that our guys often resort to the long twos because nothing else is available, however, it reflects the fact that teams let us take those shots (we should be happy to let opponents do the same). If a guy has a wide open mid-range shot 10 feet from the basket, while I don't love it, I can see taking it. But, taking the shots a few feet inside the arc is just unacceptable because the shooting percentage on those shots is terrible and you only get two points. I do not have access to great shooting stats, but according to Haslametrics, we shoot 41.63% on mid-range shots. So, to put it in math terms, we are scoring 0.83 points per mid-range shot (including open and well-defended ones, of course). In contrast, we are shooting 37.18% on threes (again, including open and well-defended ones), which is 1.12 points per three point shot. Keep in mind, even contested threes go in sometimes. For this reason, I don't think the bolded part above is necessarily true. And, clearly, the three point shots are worth a lot more than our mid-range shots. In fact, according to Haslametrics, we are almost at the top of D-1 for taking the most mid-range shots, which reflects an antiquated offensive approach.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 3, 2020 14:08:53 GMT -5
Javale McAgee has an enorumous 7-6 wingspan With The NBA, measureables, lengrh snd athleticism is what they look for. Those are really things you either have or you dont. Not sure why you are trying to knock our guys heart, brains etc for guys with freakish size like McGeee Confused again. Please show within the post above where the hate of our current player was expressed. Please anyone show where hate (knock) was intended. The whole point was the NBA looks for more that just scoring from inside players. It does him well to expand his skills and move beyond his current comfort level. Comfort zone has nothing to do with heart. Please don't look for fish in a tree. Montrezi Harrell 6' 7" (plays center) does not have the scoring of Y7 (similar to T Jones) Marc Gasol 6' 11" Cody Zeller (starter) does not have the measureables of Y7 (7') nor the scoring. Meyers Leonard similar measureables - NBA roster Goga Bitadze Mitchell Robinson Thomas Bryant 6' 10" Ian Mahinmi 6' 11" was starting Many others on NBA rosters, that do not have the scoring of Y7 but is making NBA money and have similar measureables. For a given player to fit within a given roster scoring may not the magic bullet. And if you have the time go back as see the original post the above post was a response to. Someone suggested that you ever convinced Y7 to come to GU made have made a mistake because of his draft value ... etc.. etc. The response above was indicating that is not a mistake to train under one of the best. Thus you can find fish in lakes. Harrel has a 7-4 wingspan and is uber athletic. Once again you are conflating lack of measurables in guys like Govan with lack of desire and heart.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 3, 2020 14:20:11 GMT -5
While I get your point, here is the problem - if the other team guards us at the arc, what do we do? We don't have guys who are effective getting to the rim. Pickett will turn it over, Blair and Allen can't finish strong so are left with wild off balance shots, Q and Tim are not yet able to score inside consistently. So sometimes the only available play is to shot fake the 3 to get the defender to fly by, then take a couple of steps inside the arc for an open 2. Not the most efficient statistically, but more efficient than a strongly contested 3.I think you are correct that our guys often resort to the long twos because nothing else is available, however, it reflects the fact that teams let us take those shots (we should be happy to let opponents do the same). If a guy has a wide open mid-range shot 10 feet from the basket, while I don't love it, I can see taking it. But, taking the shots a few feet inside the arc is just unacceptable because the shooting percentage on those shots is terrible and you only get two points. I do not have access to great shooting stats, but according to Haslametrics, we shoot 41.63% on mid-range shots. So, to put it in math terms, we are scoring 0.83 points per mid-range shot (including open and well-defended ones, of course). In contrast, we are shooting 37.18% on threes (again, including open and well-defended ones), which is 1.12 points per three point shot. Keep in mind, even contested threes go in sometimes. For this reason, I don't think the bolded part above is necessarily true. And, clearly, the three point shots are worth a lot more than our mid-range shots. In fact, according to Haslametrics, we are almost at the top of D-1 for taking the most mid-range shots, which reflects an antiquated offensive approach. At the risk of derailing what is a thread on Yurt, I agree with 2003 here. Current 3pt shooting percentages aside, one big weakness of our current shorthanded roster as a whole is that they almost exclusively try to avoid contested 3s unless late in the shot clock. On one hand, I get it. Why take a mediocre/bad shot if you might be able to get a better one later in the possession has to be the thought process. On the other hand, unfortunately we aren't getting that better shot later in the shot clock since we have so few go-to options. This actually makes the mediocre/somewhat tough 3 a better shot for us. If we are averaging 0.83 PPS on mid-ranges, then we really need to shoot 28% from 3 to break even. What kills me is when we are in situations like we were on Sunday where Pickett is being guarded by a 6'2 Tandy at the 3 point line. His inability to just rise up and shoot the 3 over him is really hurting us. No way Tandy should be able to block or even deter him. It's essentially the same matchup that guys like Bey and Tucker have over Mosely against us, but we can't capitalize similarly with our own size advantages. Instead, Pickett tries to go to the rim repeatedly resulting in turnovers and missed shots. 1 through 5, one of the focuses I hope we put in both recruiting and player development is coming up with players who can rise up over smaller defenders and hit "contested" shots that should actually be easier. The better teams have those types of guys and at this point we don't, and when you are playing against better teams that will challenge you defensively, that's the only way to avoid these prolonged scoring droughts that are killing us in conference.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Mar 3, 2020 15:20:44 GMT -5
A related problem is that we really don't have guys who have quick triggers. Jamarko, Jagan, even Terrell have to have a second to set themselves and shoot, making it harder to get relatively open 3's
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 3, 2020 17:16:28 GMT -5
A related problem is that we really don't have guys who have quick triggers. Jamarko, Jagan, even Terrell have to have a second to set themselves and shoot, making it harder to get relatively open 3's Yup exactly those 3 need to be wide open to hit their shots. This is why we can’t shoot that many 3s and have to settle for 2s sometimes. People act like we have Trey Young and Steph Curry and just aren’t using them right. The only one with a quick trigger is Blair but he’s inconsistent from 3.
|
|
justsaying
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 709
|
Post by justsaying on Mar 3, 2020 17:36:23 GMT -5
Confused again. Please show within the post above where the hate of our current player was expressed. Please anyone show where hate (knock) was intended. The whole point was the NBA looks for more that just scoring from inside players. It does him well to expand his skills and move beyond his current comfort level. Comfort zone has nothing to do with heart. Please don't look for fish in a tree. Montrezi Harrell 6' 7" (plays center) does not have the scoring of Y7 (similar to T Jones) Marc Gasol 6' 11" Cody Zeller (starter) does not have the measureables of Y7 (7') nor the scoring. Meyers Leonard similar measureables - NBA roster Goga Bitadze Mitchell Robinson Thomas Bryant 6' 10" Ian Mahinmi 6' 11" was starting Many others on NBA rosters, that do not have the scoring of Y7 but is making NBA money and have similar measureables. For a given player to fit within a given roster scoring may not the magic bullet. And if you have the time go back as see the original post the above post was a response to. Someone suggested that you ever convinced Y7 to come to GU made have made a mistake because of his draft value ... etc.. etc. The response above was indicating that is not a mistake to train under one of the best. Thus you can find fish in lakes. Harrel has a 7-4 wingspan and is uber athletic. Once again you are conflating lack of measurables in guys like Govan with lack of desire and heart. No where in the initial above said post were there "ever" a mention of desire and heart. No conflating there and please don't do a translation of said for the rest of the board. Those are your words that are being applied to said post. Conflation is by your standards. Measurables alone do not make you a player; measurables can be used by a player for their benefit. Govan was used as an example of an excellent offensive player that has pro potential that need other enhancements to his game, so what ever "other" thoughts you are trying to apply the above words to that young man is on you. Relive the post as it is stated. Govan and Y7 are both admirable young men and players.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 3, 2020 17:37:46 GMT -5
Harrel has a 7-4 wingspan and is uber athletic. Once again you are conflating lack of measurables in guys like Govan with lack of desire and heart. No where in the initial above said post were there "ever" a mention of desire and heart. No conflating there and please don't do a translation of said for the rest of the board. Those are your words that are being applied to said post. Conflation is by your standards. Measurables alone do not make you a player; measurables can be used by a player for their benefit. Govan was used as an example of an excellent offensive player that has pro potential that need other enhancements to his game, so what ever "other" thoughts you are trying to apply the above words to that young man is on you. Relive the post as it is stated. Govan and Y7 are both admirable young men and players. That’s not what you have been saying.
|
|
justsaying
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 709
|
Post by justsaying on Mar 3, 2020 17:40:25 GMT -5
No where in the initial above said post were there "ever" a mention of desire and heart. No conflating there and please don't do a translation of said for the rest of the board. Those are your words that are being applied to said post. Conflation is by your standards. Measurables alone do not make you a player; measurables can be used by a player for their benefit. Govan was used as an example of an excellent offensive player that has pro potential that need other enhancements to his game, so what ever "other" thoughts you are trying to apply the above words to that young man is on you. Relive the post as it is stated. Govan and Y7 are both admirable young men and players. That’s not what you have been saying. Pull from that post "directly", "no translating", and show us all. Some how or other you see fish in that tree.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 3, 2020 18:02:52 GMT -5
A related problem is that we really don't have guys who have quick triggers. Jamarko, Jagan, even Terrell have to have a second to set themselves and shoot, making it harder to get relatively open 3's Yup exactly those 3 need to be wide open to hit their shots. This is why we can’t shoot that many 3s and have to settle for 2s sometimes. People act like we have Trey Young and Steph Curry and just aren’t using them right. The only one with a quick trigger is Blair but he’s inconsistent from 3. Agree we don't have the shooters. But if the alternative to a tough 3 is either a 2 that isn't going in anyways or worse, a turnover, I'll take the tough 3. You can try to rebound a tough 3 that's missed. You can't rebound a turnover and you're more likely to give up something on the other end in transition vs. off a missed shot. I would prefer Pickett go 4-17 with 0 turnovers than 4-11 with 6 turnovers.
|
|
vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,329
|
Post by vv83 on Mar 3, 2020 19:23:56 GMT -5
I think you are correct that our guys often resort to the long twos because nothing else is available, however, it reflects the fact that teams let us take those shots (we should be happy to let opponents do the same). If a guy has a wide open mid-range shot 10 feet from the basket, while I don't love it, I can see taking it. But, taking the shots a few feet inside the arc is just unacceptable because the shooting percentage on those shots is terrible and you only get two points. I do not have access to great shooting stats, but according to Haslametrics, we shoot 41.63% on mid-range shots. So, to put it in math terms, we are scoring 0.83 points per mid-range shot (including open and well-defended ones, of course). In contrast, we are shooting 37.18% on threes (again, including open and well-defended ones), which is 1.12 points per three point shot. Keep in mind, even contested threes go in sometimes. For this reason, I don't think the bolded part above is necessarily true. And, clearly, the three point shots are worth a lot more than our mid-range shots. In fact, according to Haslametrics, we are almost at the top of D-1 for taking the most mid-range shots, which reflects an antiquated offensive approach. At the risk of derailing what is a thread on Yurt, I agree with 2003 here. Current 3pt shooting percentages aside, one big weakness of our current shorthanded roster as a whole is that they almost exclusively try to avoid contested 3s unless late in the shot clock. On one hand, I get it. Why take a mediocre/bad shot if you might be able to get a better one later in the possession has to be the thought process. On the other hand, unfortunately we aren't getting that better shot later in the shot clock since we have so few go-to options. This actually makes the mediocre/somewhat tough 3 a better shot for us. If we are averaging 0.83 PPS on mid-ranges, then we really need to shoot 28% from 3 to break even. What kills me is when we are in situations like we were on Sunday where Pickett is being guarded by a 6'2 Tandy at the 3 point line. His inability to just rise up and shoot the 3 over him is really hurting us. No way Tandy should be able to block or even deter him. It's essentially the same matchup that guys like Bey and Tucker have over Mosely against us, but we can't capitalize similarly with our own size advantages. Instead, Pickett tries to go to the rim repeatedly resulting in turnovers and missed shots. 1 through 5, one of the focuses I hope we put in both recruiting and player development is coming up with players who can rise up over smaller defenders and hit "contested" shots that should actually be easier. The better teams have those types of guys and at this point we don't, and when you are playing against better teams that will challenge you defensively, that's the only way to avoid these prolonged scoring droughts that are killing us in conference. This is a good analysis. the thing I find frustrating - I just don't enjoy watching basketball game where both teams are taking a bunch of contested 3s, but succeeding because they can hit a little over 30% of them. When teams move the ball to get open 3s - that's fun to watch. But when teams pull up for contested threes as soon as they get a halfway decent look - that really compromises the aesthetic beauty of the game. But I am an old man who probably is just too resistant to change. I have been all in on the "spread the court, drive and kick, shoot lay-ups or open 3s" evolution of the game. But the current move to "take the first half decent contested 3 point look you get" is a lot harder for me to buy into. analytically it clearly makes sense, especially for teams that struggle to achieve the ball movement needed to get wide open shots because of overall talent limitations. But aesthetically - it's just not for me.
|
|