Logan Duncomb (2021) commits to IU!

[btownqb]

9 minutes ago, go_iu_bb said:

The thing about analytics is they don't care how you, me, or anyone else feels. They're based on actual numbers from actual games played. The 12'-15' jump shot is about the worst shot you can take. It counts the same as a dunk, layup, or shot from 2' away but is hit at a much lower percentage. It might be hit at a higher percentage than a 3-pointer but not enough to compensate that the 3-pointer is also worth 50% more.

It was true "back in the day" and it's still true now that if you force a team to shoot a lot of long range 2-pointers you're more likely than not going to win the game.

It wasn't called "analytics" back then (at least not as a widely used term that normal fans knew) but Pitino's Kentucky teams were one of the first to employ this style of play or, at least, the most well known and successful with it. I remember watching the games and the announcers talking about how he wanted his team to either get dunks or shoot a 3. That was 30 years ago so it isn't a new thing to college basketball but is ubiquitous now and was uncommon then.

You're spot on.. expect.. the 18-20ft jump shot is the worst shot you can take, analytically speaking. 

I get pissed with my players in practice (not as much in a game, but still some) when they allow themselves to take "long 2s". 

To piggy back on this discussion.. I coach a 6'8 230lbs SO. He avged 11p 7r on the varsity this year. Shot 42% from 3, started to do some nice stuff on the block late in the year, but once we started to pick and pop him, it opened sooo many more options for us. Our 4 man.. 6'3 kid going to throw discus in college was our best post player, so we'd go pick and pop with the 6'8 kid and the PG, shooter in each corner, and the 6'3 on the weak block so if the PG turned the corner he was there to duck in if the opportunity was there. 

Obviously there was more details and such to this... but that was basically our entire offense, once we got that kid going from 3. We started 4 under classmen this year, so we struggled to find our groove a little bit early on, but still made the sectional championship. 

[Rev_AK]

While I’m not a proponent of the Point Forward, made famous by Jeremy Hollowell, one of the greatest weaknesses of our team this past season was when teams would pack the paint, and dare us to shoot. It was very effective in some blowout losses, as I recall. Having a big that can pull his defender out a little and stick a j opens the offense a little and makes it less congested inside. As much as I hate them, Wisconsin has used this time and again, and we must think that is something they had in mind when recruiting Logan.

 

ps.  After my post, I remembered what damage Jaden Smith did to us, hitting 3’s left and right. We had no answer and lost by 1 point in a game that winning would have made a huge difference 

Edited April 9, 2020 by Rev_AK

[go_iu_bb]

1 minute ago, btownqb said:

You're spot on.. expect.. the 18-20ft jump shot is the worst shot you can take, analytically speaking. 

Touche.

You are correct but my point stands that it is still not a good shot and certainly not the best shot. And I did say "about the worst." 😉

[Rev_AK]

10 minutes ago, Rev_AK said:

While I’m not a proponent of the Point Forward, made famous by Jeremy Hollowell, one of the greatest weaknesses of our team this past season was when teams would pack the paint, and dare us to shoot. It was very effective in some blowout losses, as I recall. Having a big that can pull his defender out a little and stick a j opens the offense a little and makes it less congested inside. As much as I hate them, Wisconsin has used this time and again, and we must think that is something they had in mind when recruiting Logan.

 

ps.  After my post, I remembered what damage Jaden Smith did to us, hitting 3’s left and right. We had no answer and lost by 1 point in a game that winning would have made a huge difference 

Jalen not Jaden lol

[IU Scott]

1 hour ago, BGleas said:

Honestly, it doesn't really matter what you or I like, the fact is the game has changed. For the most part, there are obviously always exceptions, the game has changed to where it's a benefit to have all 5 guys on the court be multi-skilled players that can play inside and out. Big men need to be able to defend the perimeter and shoot the ball off the pick and pop and spot ups. 

We all know you don't like that, but again it doesn't really matter, because it's the way the game has changed and will continue to change. We can whine and moan about it (not saying that's what you're doing, just mean as a collective) or IU can recruit and develop players that fit into the way the game is played today. 

I can't imagine watching the last 3 years of IU basketball and not wanting skilled bigs that can operate inside and out.  

I want everyone to be able to shoot the ball but that does not mean it all has to be 3 pointers as well.  Like I said we had plenty of big's who could knock down the 15-17 foot shots at a high rate and to me there Is no reason that the kids today could not do the same thing.  I would like TJD to be able to shoot outside as well but why does that mean being able to hit the 3.

[IU Scott]

1 hour ago, btownqb said:

Why should it work now if it worked then? There's about a billion things in the world that don't work now that used to work. They used to put butter on burns. 

Analytics have nothing to do with them shortening the shot clock. A midrange shot is easier to hit than a layup? What? 

Also.. maybe a 15ft shot is easier to hit than a 3pt... but it isn't efficient. I hated shooting from the baseline especially from the range you mentioned, I would much rather shoot a three from between the wings. 

30 sec shot clocks don't allow you to "feed the post" at will. 

Good basketball players make shots regardless. 

Yes it is efficient if you hit those shots like a Henderson, Anderson and Cheaney and those team scored a lot more than we see in college basketball today.  If it is so much more efficient then why is scoring down all over college basketball compared to what it was when the shot clock was at 45 seconds.  The 81 team without the shot clock and the 3 was still able to score a lot more tan what we see today because they took good shots and for the most part were open shots.  The last time basketball was about getting the ball in the basket and it shouldn't matter what kind of shot that is.  As for your layups, it is easier if it is a wide open layup but today when the defense knows you are driving it is not a open layup and usually have 2 or 3 guys there at the basket to contest the shot so yes the 12-15 wide open shot is easier.

[IU Scott]

1 hour ago, go_iu_bb said:

Touche.

You are correct but my point stands that it is still not a good shot and certainly not the best shot. And I did say "about the worst." 😉

Any shot that goes in is a good shot, still show me how using these analytics has helped scoring because it hasn't

[btownqb]

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Yes it is efficient if you hit those shots like a Henderson, Anderson and Cheaney and those team scored a lot more than we see in college basketball today.  If it is so much more efficient then why is scoring down all over college basketball compared to what it was when the shot clock was at 45 seconds.  The 81 team without the shot clock and the 3 was still able to score a lot more tan what we see today because they took good shots and for the most part were open shots.  The last time basketball was about getting the ball in the basket and it shouldn't matter what kind of shot that is.  As for your layups, it is easier if it is a wide open layup but today when the defense knows you are driving it is not a open layup and usually have 2 or 3 guys there at the basket to contest the shot so yes the 12-15 wide open shot is easier.

Doesnt happen with 5 shooters 😂😂😂

[IU Scott]

1 minute ago, btownqb said:

Doesnt happen with 5 shooters 😂😂😂

I know you think things are more efficient today but why is shooting down and why is scoring down.  To me when you say more efficient it should mean you are shooting better and scoring at  a higher rate.

[BGleas]

18 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I want everyone to be able to shoot the ball but that does not mean it all has to be 3 pointers as well.  Like I said we had plenty of big's who could knock down the 15-17 foot shots at a high rate and to me there Is no reason that the kids today could not do the same thing.  I would like TJD to be able to shoot outside as well but why does that mean being able to hit the 3.

It's like you're having a discussion without reading what the people you're having a discussion with are saying. 

I've consistently said for going on 3 months now that I would like to see Race develop a consistent 3 point shot and TJD develop a consistent 10-15 ft jump shot. 

[milehiiu]

Butter on burns.  Sounds like some of our guys shooting three's last year.

[NCHoosier32]

2 hours ago, BGleas said:

Why is developing a perimeter game to the detriment of their college team? Villanova won a title with Omari Spellman and the guy on the Warriors now (can't remember his name) spotting up at the 3-point line while guys like Brunson and DiVencenzo penetrated and kicked. Wisconsin went to a National Title game with Frank Kaminsky playing inside as well as outside. You can argue that the UK 2012 team really took off (I realize they were great most of the yea) when Anthony Davis started knocking down mid range shot the latter part of the year. It made them almost unguardable. Maryland took off this year with Jalen Smith developing a 3-point shot. 

 

well, what i mean by that is if they are working on it and therefore taking them in games, but shooting a low percentage, it hurts the team.  it seems like those guys are always trying to prove they can hit those shots before they are ready and shoot bad shots at low percentages.  

[btownqb]

26 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I know you think things are more efficient today but why is shooting down and why is scoring down.  To me when you say more efficient it should mean you are shooting better and scoring at  a higher rate.

3pt% shooting is literally the best it's ever been. 

[milehiiu]

1 minute ago, btownqb said:

3pt% shooting is literally the best it's ever been. 

Except when the corner shooter steps out of bounds, due to the extended three point line last season.

[BGleas]

2 minutes ago, NCHoosier32 said:

well, what i mean by that is if they are working on it and therefore taking them in games, but shooting a low percentage, it hurts the team.  it seems like those guys are always trying to prove they can hit those shots before they are ready and shoot bad shots at low percentages.  

I hear you, but nobody has said to have our bigs just start firing 3's at a low percentage. We're saying to spend the summer developing that shot so that they can knock them down at an acceptable percentage. The bigs that have been mentioned (Garza, Vonleh, Thomas Bryant, Jalen Smith, Frank Kaminsky, Spellman, Paschal, etc.) all shot really good, to at least acceptable percentages from the perimeter. 

[IU Scott]

2 minutes ago, btownqb said:

3pt% shooting is literally the best it's ever been. 

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on what we think efficient is.  To me the best shot is an open shot and I don't care if it is from 1,5,10,15 or 20 feet.  To me what has killed offense in college basketball is going to 30 second shot clock because it does not give you time to run an offense. It does not allow time to move the defense side to side.  I also think going to more dribbling in the half court and the micro managing that coaches do today hurts the offense.  Also they need to start the offense right away but it seems like we see to many teams do the weave for 15 seconds before getting into their offense.  For me the object of the game is to put the ball in the basket and today's basketball just don't see that as much as we use to.  I would rather see a player who is reliable like Cheaney or Henderson shooting those 15-17 shots over players who can barely hit 35 % from 3

[IowaHoosierFan]

I would rather have guards and wings who can shoot and hit 3 pointers.  That would open the lane more than if we have 1 big who can occasionally shoot a 3.

[BGleas]

4 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

I would rather have guards and wings who can shoot and hit 3 pointers.  That would open the lane more than if we have 1 big who can occasionally shoot a 3.

Why are those things exclusive? It's not like we have to choose between guards and wings that can shoot OR a big that can shoot. It's possible to have both. 

How many times last season did Race, Brunk or TJD get the ball at the top of the key with the defense just remaining in the paint, basically shutting off all driving lanes. That action isn't changing in the offense, so a big that can knock that show down would pay huge dividends. 

[IU Scott]

2 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Why are those things exclusive? It's not like we have to choose between guards and wings that can shoot OR a big that can shoot. It's possible to have both. 

How many times last season did Race, Brunk or TJD get the ball at the top of the key with the defense just remaining in the paint, basically shutting off all driving lanes. That action isn't changing in the offense, so a big that can knock that show down would pay huge dividends. 

This is why I think we should just play TJD in the post and surround him by more perimeter players.  Until Race and Smith shows that they can hit the outside shot I would rather see us go smaller.

[The Daily Hoosier]

3 hours ago, 5fouls said:

Great job as always Mike.  Love your stuff and appreciate you bringing it to this board.

Thank you, I appreciate that very much.

[BGleas]

4 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

This is why I think we should just play TJD in the post and surround him by more perimeter players.  Until Race and Smith shows that they can hit the outside shot I would rather see us go smaller.

Regardless of the lineup, every player being able to shoot is beneficial. But, say TJD just doesn't or can't develop a shot, then I'm fine playing him predominantly in the post, he's effective there, but then we need a guy like Race to develop a shot. We are not going to have an effective offense with 3 guys on the court, and no bigs, that can shoot. 

[IowaHoosierFan]

7 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Why are those things exclusive? It's not like we have to choose between guards and wings that can shoot OR a big that can shoot. It's possible to have both. 

How many times last season did Race, Brunk or TJD get the ball at the top of the key with the defense just remaining in the paint, basically shutting off all driving lanes. That action isn't changing in the offense, so a big that can knock that show down would pay huge dividends. 

They aren't.  Just my opinion.  I like my big's shooting mid range shots with the ability to use both hands around the rim.  In my opinion, if you have guards and wings who can shoot 38%+ then you won't have anyone clogging up the lane, they have to respect your shooters, which leads to you big guy with more room to move around the rim. Along with wings having the ability to drive the baseline.  

[IU Scott]

1 minute ago, BGleas said:

Regardless of the lineup, every player being able to shoot is beneficial. But, say TJD just doesn't or can't develop a shot, then I'm fine playing him predominantly in the post, he's effective there, but then we need a guy like Race to develop a shot. We are not going to have an effective offense with 3 guys on the court, and no bigs, that can shoot. 

I guess my main complaint with how the game is played today is the lack of diversity in the game.  I hate that half the game has totally been taken away from the game and to me it is not for the better.  When I played all I was a really good outside shooter but the rest of my game was average at best and in the long run that was my downfall.  I love seeing great outside shooting as much as anyone but I just think the game relies on the 3 to much now.  I just hate seeing way to many bad contested shots at the end of the shot clock we do today.  With all of this free time and watching old games it was great seeing teams waiting to take great shots most of the time.  Did teams take bad shots, yes but it was by choice and not because the shot clock was running down.

[milehiiu]

23 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

I would rather have guards and wings who can shoot and hit 3 pointers.  That would open the lane more than if we have 1 big who can occasionally shoot a 3.

Bingo !

[IU Scott]

5 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

They aren't.  Just my opinion.  I like my big's shooting mid range shots with the ability to use both hands around the rim.  In my opinion, if you have guards and wings who can shoot 38%+ then you won't have anyone clogging up the lane, they have to respect your shooters, which leads to you big guy with more room to move around the rim. Along with wings having the ability to drive the baseline.  

One thing I noticed watching Duncomb highlights is that he does use his left hand quit well.  I think this off season that TJD really needs to learn to use his right hand around the basket.  TJD also needs to find a shot from 12-15 feet and make it a big part of his game.