Shooting

[5fouls]

1 minute ago, BGleas said:

I don’t know that I’d call that a spreadsheet. More like a simple chart you could make in Word. 

Word was open.  Excel was not.  

[Leathernecks]

22 minutes ago, BGleas said:

I guess you don’t want to have a discussion, you just want us to praise your spreadsheet?

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  Thanks for the cheap shot though.  Enjoy your night.

[BGleas]

1 minute ago, rico said:

That is what I was getting at.  We are an easy team to defend from the perimeter.

We really took the long road there didn’t we? That’s what I’ve been getting at too. Outside of Fitzner if I’m defending IU I’m having my guys pack in and we’ll live/adjust if someone gets unexpectedly hot from deep. 

[BGleas]

Just now, Leathernecks said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  Thanks for the cheap shot though.  Enjoy your night.

Sorry, but you’ve shown no interest in having a discussion. You just got mad because I had a different point and then never engaged in the discussion, just said I was spinning things and it’s why you don’t post anymore?

[rico]

5 minutes ago, BGleas said:

We really took the long road there didn’t we? That’s what I’ve been getting at too. Outside of Fitzner if I’m defending IU I’m having my guys pack in and we’ll live/adjust if someone gets unexpectedly hot from deep. 

It is kind of funny.  I played for a HoF coach.  Man, he was good at scouting.  I knew when we were gonna play a bad shooting team.  We practiced a zone all week!  His pregame "speech" would be...."Let them beat us from the outside".  He was always right.  We just packed that zone in tight where no pass entered the paint.  They would miss and we went flying the other way.  But I digress!  LOL

[BGleas]

9 minutes ago, rico said:

It is kind of funny.  I played for a HoF coach.  Man, he was good at scouting.  I knew when we were gonna play a bad shooting team.  We practiced a zone all week!  His pregame "speech" would be...."Let them beat us from the outside".  He was always right.  We just packed that zone in tight where no pass entered the paint.  They would miss and we went flying the other way.  But I digress!  LOL

We didn’t play a ton of zone in high school, but we had our regular man defense and then we had what we call our “2 sag” defense. “2 sag” was just for the guys on the other team that couldn’t shoot. Whenever those guys we designated as “sag” guys would get the ball, whoever was defending them would sag way back in the paint and our entire team would just yell “sag” over and over. You’ll never see more deer in headlights looks and bad shots in your life. 

[rico]

1 minute ago, BGleas said:

We didn’t play a ton of zone in high school, but we had our regular man defense and then we had what we call our “2 sag” defense. “2 sag” was just for the guys on the other team that couldn’t shoot. Whenever those guys we designated as “sag” guys would get the ball, whoever was defending them would sag way back in the paint and our entire team would just yell “sag” over and over. You don’t never see more deer in headlights looks and bad shots in your life. 

Once again.  Coach calls a TO.

Coach:  "Why are you shooting so much?"

Player:  "I am wide open."

Coach:  "Well there is a reason for that."

All I got.

[Leathernecks]

Just now, BGleas said:

Sorry, but you’ve shown no interest in having a discussion. You just got mad because I had a different point and then never engaged in the discussion, just said I was spinning things and it’s why you don’t post anymore?

I tried discussing last year's numbers and how those were concerning, and you kept bringing up this year's team not having shooters to dispute that.  I don't know what the in depth stats are like on this year's team.  Never pretended to, but I do know that we aren't a great shooting team this year.  Haven't looked into it enough to know further details on it though.  We only have a few returners who shoot much, and this few games into the season it isn't worth it to dig deeper into any stats like I did for last year.  The only time I ever brought up this year's team was that it was a concern that at some point I'd dig deeper into.  I was just trying to add some stats from last year's information for people who might enjoy looking at it so they can draw their own conclusions from it.  At some point I'll probably do a first half and second half comparison for this year.  Don't know what to expect from it, but just for some fun.  Might show great improvement, might get worse, who knows, but I'm a stat guy, so I enjoy getting into those things.  Thought I'd bring it to the board for anybody who might want to see it.

Your conclusion is that the decrease in percentages was the lack of shooters and the system change.  Fair enough.  My conclusion is that it is something that I find slightly concerning that I hope doesn't become a trend.  You kept trying to make it a discussion that we lack shooters this year, and that wasn't the discussion I was trying to have because admittedly I don't know enough about this year's team only 8 games into it with a lot of injuries.  We do lack shooters, but I hope to see some improvement with them from season to season.  Hopefully we'll see that from last year to this year, and into next year, but that's a discussion for another time when we aren't just 8 games into the season.

[FKIM01]

39 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Here's a spreadsheet we can all agree with.

Purdue	=	Little Brother
Kentucky	=	Cheat
Pitino	=	STD
IU	=	College Cup
IU	Does Not Equal	Bowl Game

Line three, you can extend the equation with "= Haas"

[BGleas]

13 minutes ago, Leathernecks said:

I tried discussing last year's numbers and how those were concerning, and you kept bringing up this year's team not having shooters to dispute that.  I don't know what the in depth stats are like on this year's team.  Never pretended to, but I do know that we aren't a great shooting team this year.  Haven't looked into it enough to know further details on it though.  We only have a few returners who shoot much, and this few games into the season it isn't worth it to dig deeper into any stats like I did for last year.  The only time I ever brought up this year's team was that it was a concern that at some point I'd dig deeper into.  I was just trying to add some stats from last year's information for people who might enjoy looking at it so they can draw their own conclusions from it.  At some point I'll probably do a first half and second half comparison for this year.  Don't know what to expect from it, but just for some fun.  Might show great improvement, might get worse, who knows, but I'm a stat guy, so I enjoy getting into those things.  Thought I'd bring it to the board for anybody who might want to see it.

Your conclusion is that the decrease in percentages was the lack of shooters and the system change.  Fair enough.  My conclusion is that it is something that I find slightly concerning that I hope doesn't become a trend.  You kept trying to make it a discussion that we lack shooters this year, and that wasn't the discussion I was trying to have because admittedly I don't know enough about this year's team only 8 games into it with a lot of injuries.  We do lack shooters, but I hope to see some improvement with them from season to season.  Hopefully we'll see that from last year to this year, and into next year, but that's a discussion for another time when we aren't just 8 games into the season.

Appreciate the post and response .

I mentioned the team two years ago, the team last year, and the team this year. I mentioned all three teams. Two years ago (Crean’s last year) we had better shooters on the roster. We had a couple guys that could spread the floor, opening up open shots for more guys. Last year we didn’t have good shooters or playmakers, so the shooting was down. 

This year we have better playmakers, but the shooting talent hasn’t really increased much, a little, but not much. In my opinion the main reason the shooting was down last year was that we didn’t have good shooters, the secondary reasons were the drastic change in system from what Crean ran to a more disciplined and defensive approach. The shock value alone in that drastic change would probably cause a dip, but the dip was so significant because the shooting talent just wasn’t there. Put JBJ, Zeisloft and Yogi in last years team, even with the coaching change and the shooting numbers would be much better. 

The numbers are going to be down when you don’t have high level shooting talent on the roster. I am a little concerned about Archie’s recruiting in terms of just bringing in shooting talent. Otherwise I’m ecstatic with his recruiting. 

[rico]

I think at some point in time in this conversation we need to discuss the lost art of the mid range shot.

[FKIM01]

1 minute ago, rico said:

I think at some point in time in this conversation we need to discuss the lost art of the mid range shot.

That's one thing that seems to be a strength of Romeo's game.  I haven't charted it, but anecdotally, he seems to have a really strong midrange game.

[rico]

1 hour ago, FKIM01 said:

That's one thing that seems to be a strength of Romeo's game.  I haven't charted it, but anecdotally, he seems to have a really strong midrange game.

I have noticed that...and TBH, teams these days aren't prepared for that defensively.

[3Ballin]

@FWIUFan, im glad somebody finally acknowledged how amazing and thread appropriate that gif was!!!  Lol

[IU Scott]

10 hours ago, rico said:

The question is......do you really need shooters?

I would say yes since the object of the game is to get the ball into the bucket

[Billingsley99]

10 hours ago, rico said:

It is kind of funny.  I played for a HoF coach.  Man, he was good at scouting.  I knew when we were gonna play a bad shooting team.  We practiced a zone all week!  His pregame "speech" would be...."Let them beat us from the outside".  He was always right.  We just packed that zone in tight where no pass entered the paint.  They would miss and we went flying the other way.  But I digress!  LOL

I played for a soon to be HOF coach that happened to also coach the young man wearing #0 for us currently.  We had a 6'9 D1 recruit avg just under 30 a game and our offense ran exclusively through him. I tore my ACL 2 nights before season opener my Senior year. We were a top 10 team all year in single class. We destroyed our rival both times we played them. 1st night of sectional they decide to pack 5 guys in paint and dare our guys to shoot. We had decent shooters on kick outside and sets but everyone was afraid to miss. They held him to a season low defeated us and went on to semi state.

I learned a valuable lesson that if you are 1 dimensional most teams with time to prepare can find away to take it away or severely disrupt it.  

Not having money guys on the perimeter could be very costly to the Hoosiers this year

[IU Scott]

9 hours ago, rico said:

I think at some point in time in this conversation we need to discuss the lost art of the mid range shot.

I saw evidence of the lack of the 12 foot jumper the other night watching Minnesota at OSU.  One of their big men had an easy 12 foot shot in the key but drove to the basket and tried to score over 2 OSU players and barely hit the rim.  Henderson and Anderson lived hitting those 12-15 foot jump shots but today kids won't take those open shots because analytics say they are bad shots.

[Hoosierhoopster]

9 hours ago, rico said:

I think at some point in time in this conversation we need to discuss the lost art of the mid range shot.

The stats guys will say it's a lower efficiency shot than the outside shot. The stats back that up.

The old school guys / eye-test guys will say you need mid-range shots / shooters to help diversify the offense, it also adds space. That's true.

I think both are correct, or neither is wrong, however you want to look at it. You do need good outside shooters in today's game. It is a more efficient shot generally. But a guy who can get you the mid-range consistently absolutely helps open up lanes, helps further spread the floor, opens up outside shooters, and allows you to get a bucket when you need it. Whether it's a shot from the elbow or a floater (a la Romeo's key basket at the end of the NWU game), whether or not you really call that a mid-range, ANY consistent scoring player helps.

[5fouls]

13 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

The stats guys will say it's a lower efficiency shot than the outside shot. The stats back that up.

The old school guys / eye-test guys will say you need mid-range shots / shooters to help diversify the offense, it also adds space. That's true.

I think both are correct, or neither is wrong, however you want to look at it. You do need good outside shooters in today's game. It is a more efficient shot generally. But a guy who can get you the mid-range consistently absolutely helps open up lanes, helps further spread the floor, opens up outside shooters, and allows you to get a bucket when you need it. Whether it's a shot from the elbow or a floater (a la Romeo's key basket at the end of the NWU game), whether or not you really call that a mid-range, ANY consistent scoring player helps.

In 4 of IU's championships, they did not hit a single 3 pointer.  

[rico]

16 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I saw evidence of the lack of the 12 foot jumper the other night watching Minnesota at OSU.  One of their big men had an easy 12 foot shot in the key but drove to the basket and tried to score over 2 OSU players and barely hit the rim.  Henderson and Anderson lived hitting those 12-15 foot jump shots but today kids won't take those open shots because analytics say they are bad shots.

I don't think analytics have anything to do with it.  I just don't think they can hit the shot.  From what I see, players either want to shoot the 3 or take it to the rim.

[rico]

1 minute ago, 5fouls said:

In 4 of IU's championships, they did not hit a single 3 pointer.  

But the 1, it played a big part in it.

[StLHoosier]

11 hours ago, Brass Cannon said:

True they have the margin of error for it. 

But what consists of your margin of error?  Are they more talented?  Do they play better defense?  Do they commit less turnovers?  Do they shoot threes more efficiently (more points scored)?  I haven't looked it up, but I'm assuming they do some of those better than us at this point in time.  I think that we can all agree that the free throw shooting does need to improve to some degree, but I believe that there are more important variables that go into winning than free throw shooting.  For instance, if we just cut down on our turnovers say by four a game, which imo is easier than raising your free throw percentage, that's potentially anywhere from 8-12 more points a game.  In the Duke game, if we cut our turnovers in half (10 in stead of 20), that's a completely different game.

[IU Scott]

1 minute ago, rico said:

I don't think analytics have anything to do with it.  I just don't think they can hit the shot.  From what I see, players either want to shoot the 3 or take it to the rim.

We have been told many times how analytics say that the mid range jump shot is the worst shot in basketball and all I have to say to that is LOL!

[rico]

Just now, IU Scott said:

We have been told many times how analytics say that the mid range jump shot is the worst shot in basketball and all I have to say to that is LOL!

Because very few can hit it!!!!!!!  LOL

[Brass Cannon]

2 minutes ago, StLHoosier said:

But what consists of your margin of error?  Are they more talented?  Do they play better defense?  Do they commit less turnovers?  Do they shoot threes more efficiently (more points scored)?  I haven't looked it up, but I'm assuming they do some of those better than us at this point in time.  I think that we can all agree that the free throw shooting does need to improve to some degree, but I believe that there are more important variables that go into winning than free throw shooting.  For instance, if we just cut down on our turnovers say by four a game, which imo is easier than raising your free throw percentage, that's potentially anywhere from 8-12 more points a game.  In the Duke game, if we cut our turnovers in half (10 in stead of 20), that's a completely different game.

I think they do all of those things better than us