Exposing Archie's outdated offensive ideology.

[IU Scott]

1 minute ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

Yes you did.  You said you wanted to shoot mid-range shots.  The game was better.  And you think better rebounds.  More points on less misses, etc etc etc.  You would argue with god himself i believe.

Must of mis understood me because I have always said that you need to be able to score from all three levels on the court.  what I don't want is all the shots being 3's or layups because to me that is not the best way to play because it makes you easier to guard.  Like I asked before why is scoring and shooting percentage down if this is the best way to run your offense.

[IU Scott]

I think some of you guys are trying to make basketball more complicated than it really is and trying to put to must emphasis on these new analytical stats.  Basketball is the same now as it was in the past because  the object of the game is get the best shots possible and make a high percentage of those shots.  The object of the game is to score more than your opponent on offense and play great defense to limit you opponents points.

[IowaHoosierFan]

9 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Actually the Big ten in 83 experimented with it and Wittman and Kitchel were the top two 3 point shooters in the league.  it was not until 87 that they implemented the 3 for everyone.  It was not like all of those shots taken back in 81 was post ups by the big's because most of their shots came form 12-18 feet away except for Tolbert.

So your post with stats from 1981 didn't really measure up then to a team with the 3 point, like say the 87 hoosiers?

[IowaHoosierFan]

3 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I think some of you guys are trying to make basketball more complicated than it really is and trying to put to must emphasis on these new analytical stats.  Basketball is the same now as it was in the past because  the object of the game is get the best shots possible and make a high percentage of those shots.  The object of the game is to score more than your opponent on offense and play great defense to limit you opponents points.

This is no true.  The only thing that is the same is trying to score more points than the other team.  The game has evolved.  Athletes have evolved, the NBA and the amount of money made has changed the game.  There is so much different from 1979 to 2019.  

[IU Scott]

15 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

This is no true.  The only thing that is the same is trying to score more points than the other team.  The game has evolved.  Athletes have evolved, the NBA and the amount of money made has changed the game.  There is so much different from 1979 to 2019.  

Maybe for you but to me it is the same objective.  Just because it has changed does not make it better or the way you should play the game.

[IU Scott]

19 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

So your post with stats from 1981 didn't really measure up then to a team with the 3 point, like say the 87 hoosiers?

All I cared about is that the 81 team in the first game of the tournament against a very good Maryland team scored 99 points without a shot clock and a 3 point line.  They took good shots and did not have to take contested or forced shots because of a 30 second shot clock.  This is not saying that they took 55 seconds on each possession to shot because most of that game we took a shot within 4 to 5 passes or less.  What was difference is that the players were not in a hurry and look like they were frazzled trying to get a good shot in 30 seconds.  In their mind they new there was no hurry and could just relax and look for the first good shot and not have to be worried about a clock.

They also moved the ball with the pass and not the dribble which makes your offense a lot more fluid and less congested.  I just don't know who or win people decided this  way of basketball was bad but whoever it was should be shot.  again you still have not answered my question why scoring and shooting percentage is done compared to back then.

[IowaHoosierFan]

7 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

All I cared about is that the 81 team in the first game of the tournament against a very good Maryland team scored 99 points without a shot clock and a 3 point line.  They took good shots and did not have to take contested or forced shots because of a 30 second shot clock.  This is not saying that they took 55 seconds on each possession to shot because most of that game we took a shot within 4 to 5 passes or less.  What was difference is that the players were not in a hurry and look like they were frazzled trying to get a good shot in 30 seconds.  In their mind they new there was no hurry and could just relax and look for the first good shot and not have to be worried about a clock.

They also moved the ball with the pass and not the dribble which makes your offense a lot more fluid and less congested.  I just don't know who or win people decided this  way of basketball was bad but whoever it was should be shot.  again you still have not answered my question why scoring and shooting percentage is done compared to back then.

You have an answer for everything IU Scott.  I bow to your wisdom and knowledge of all things basketball.  I wish i had a time machine when i could send you back to that glorious time.

[IU Scott]

1 minute ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

You have an answer for everything IU Scott.  I bow to your wisdom and knowledge of all things basketball.  I wish i had a time machine when i could send you back to that glorious time.

Nope, just wish you could have actually watched what good quality offense looked like and did not have to watch this dread.  If every team had a Curry or Thompson and Durant this offense would probably look good but especially in college you don't have that offensive talent to run this kind of offense.  For some reason the only thing I am really good at is remembering the history of college basketball but that does not get me far in life.  Also I can tell you who played in every championship game going back to 76 but I have a harder time telling you who played 3 years ago.  My long term mepry is a lot better than the short term and that is not good for a 48 year old.

[IowaHoosierFan]

14 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Nope, just wish you could have actually watched what good quality offense looked like and did not have to watch this dread.  If every team had a Curry or Thompson and Durant this offense would probably look good but especially in college you don't have that offensive talent to run this kind of offense.  For some reason the only thing I am really good at is remembering the history of college basketball but that does not get me far in life.  Also I can tell you who played in every championship game going back to 76 but I have a harder time telling you who played 3 years ago.  My long term mepry is a lot better than the short term and that is not good for a 48 year old.

I remember good basketball, i remember watching the 87 national title game.  But i know that isn't who we are anymore.  I know that things change and i can't live in the past.  I have to live with the s*** show we have currently.  And its not going to get any better anytime soon.  So prepare of 2 to 3 more years of mediocre basketball at Indiana University, one time Blue Blood

[IU Scott]

Just now, IowaHoosierFan said:

I remember good basketball, i remember watching the 87 national title game.  But i know that isn't who we are anymore.  I know that things change and i can't live in the past.  I have to live with the shit show we have currently.  And its not going to get any better anytime soon.  So prepare of 2 to 3 more years of mediocre basketball at Indiana University, one time Blue Blood

I am not just talking IU basketball but the all of college basketball because the product is just not as good.  I still will watch two or 3 games a night because I still love the game and I still ove the atmosphere of the college game but just wish the product could be better.  A lots of things go into that and one being is the game is to young and the players are to inexperience.  Imagine a time when a Zion Williamson stayed 3 or 4 years and where teams were able to be built over years and not just one.

[IowaHoosierFan]

Just now, IU Scott said:

I am not just talking IU basketball but the all of college basketball because the product is just not as good.  I still will watch two or 3 games a night because I still love the game and I still ove the atmosphere of the college game but just wish the product could be better.  A lots of things go into that and one being is the game is to young and the players are to inexperience.  Imagine a time when a Zion Williamson stayed 3 or 4 years and where teams were able to be built over years and not just one.

The biggest difference is the amount of money that the NBA now pays.  Who is going to stay when you can make a lifetimes worth of money, especially if you come from low income like alot of these kids

[IU Scott]

22 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

The biggest difference is the amount of money that the NBA now pays.  Who is going to stay when you can make a lifetimes worth of money, especially if you come from low income like alot of these kids

Good discussion and what is great about people on this site is that we can disagree and not make it personal.

[PoHoosier]

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

I think some of you guys are trying to make basketball more complicated than it really is and trying to put to must emphasis on these new analytical stats.  Basketball is the same now as it was in the past because  the object of the game is get the best shots possible and make a high percentage of those shots.  The object of the game is to score more than your opponent on offense and play great defense to limit you opponents points.

Do you play golf?  You take what is given to you.  If the analytics say the safe play is a 170 yard shot off the tee because 180 to 240 puts you in the water, that's the shot you likely take (unless you are a scratch golfer).  Analytics are no different.  You even mentioned "The object of the game is to get the best shots possible".  Analytics gives us EXACTLY what those shots are.  You cannot have it both ways, condemning analytics in that they take the fun out of the game then use them to say the game is the same as it was.

 

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

I just don't know who or win people decided this  way of basketball was bad but whoever it was should be shot.  again you still have not answered my question why scoring and shooting percentage is done compared to back then.

Scoring and shooting % is down for a number of reasons.  Subjectively, I can say that today's athletes are stronger, jump higher, and are faster.  Sure this helps a basketball player score, but it helps the defense arguably more.  Think isolation or clear outs, pick and roll, with help defense and the like.  Its more difficult to score in 1v5 or 2v5 situations, in that regard, the offense sometimes, plays in the defense's hands.  Defense has also changed.  You have chosen to place emphasis on the offense being down or scoring less while not looking at all what defenses are doing.

Going forward, I do believe offenses will trend upwards in the NBA and college will not be far behind.  The hand check foul change in recent years was just the beginning.  An increased emphasis on positionless basketball and every player being able to knock down the 3.  I could be wrong and defenses could keep pace, however, I do not see that happening.

To help this debate, clarification and understanding of some definitions may help set up some parameters.  When you say 'scoring at all 3 levels', that's obviously (1) at the rim/in the paint (2) behind the arc (3) mid range jumper.  Behind the arc is easy to comprehend as is at the rim.  Mid range jumper....  Is that 8 feet?  Is that 15 feet?  Personally, I get agitated seeing someone take a 14-18 foot jump shot.  What is your definition of the mid range jumper?  (The standard taken from Sportslingo.com is:  A mid-range jump shot in basketball is when a player takes a jumper outside of the key, but inside the three-point line. The result of a made mid-range jump shot is two points.)  I have no issue with someone taking the open 7-12 foot mid range shot.  The other part, for clarification, the ability to score at all 3 levels.  What is the breakdown to make it effective?  20-35% for each of the 3 levels? is it whatever the defense is giving you that night?

[FKIM01]

4 hours ago, IU Scott said:

I am not saying total FG % but form the mid range and 55% might be a little high but to me it is as efficient as shooting any other shot.  Especially in college and with the 30 second shot clock I think just shooting 3's or trying to drive for a layup is a terrible way of playing your offense.  When you drive to the basket you are bringing 2 to 3 defenders and a contested layup is not even a good shot.  I think if you are being guarded at the 3 all you need to do is up fake and go in for that easy 15 foot jumper instead of doing a step back 3.  I m just not into the analytics because it is taking a great part of the game away from basketball. With the 30 second clock if you can't get open with your first offensive set you are going to have to get your best player the ball on the top of the key and expect him to make a play.  Most of the time all you get is a contested shot at the end of the shot clock.

How about we agree on this...and I think we can...an open shot is more efficient than a highly contested shot.

[rico]

I don't know if this fits here but I thought I would post it for Scott.  

https://www.courant.com/sports/basketball/hc-jacobs-column-steitz-threepoint-0314-20170313-column.html

[IowaHoosierFan]

10 minutes ago, rico said:

I don't know if this fits here but I thought I would post it for Scott.  

https://www.courant.com/sports/basketball/hc-jacobs-column-steitz-threepoint-0314-20170313-column.html

good article

[IU Scott]

1 hour ago, PoHoosier said:

Do you play golf?  You take what is given to you.  If the analytics say the safe play is a 170 yard shot off the tee because 180 to 240 puts you in the water, that's the shot you likely take (unless you are a scratch golfer).  Analytics are no different.  You even mentioned "The object of the game is to get the best shots possible".  Analytics gives us EXACTLY what those shots are.  You cannot have it both ways, condemning analytics in that they take the fun out of the game then use them to say the game is the same as it was.

 

Scoring and shooting % is down for a number of reasons.  Subjectively, I can say that today's athletes are stronger, jump higher, and are faster.  Sure this helps a basketball player score, but it helps the defense arguably more.  Think isolation or clear outs, pick and roll, with help defense and the like.  Its more difficult to score in 1v5 or 2v5 situations, in that regard, the offense sometimes, plays in the defense's hands.  Defense has also changed.  You have chosen to place emphasis on the offense being down or scoring less while not looking at all what defenses are doing.

Going forward, I do believe offenses will trend upwards in the NBA and college will not be far behind.  The hand check foul change in recent years was just the beginning.  An increased emphasis on positionless basketball and every player being able to knock down the 3.  I could be wrong and defenses could keep pace, however, I do not see that happening.

To help this debate, clarification and understanding of some definitions may help set up some parameters.  When you say 'scoring at all 3 levels', that's obviously (1) at the rim/in the paint (2) behind the arc (3) mid range jumper.  Behind the arc is easy to comprehend as is at the rim.  Mid range jumper....  Is that 8 feet?  Is that 15 feet?  Personally, I get agitated seeing someone take a 14-18 foot jump shot.  What is your definition of the mid range jumper?  (The standard taken from Sportslingo.com is:  A mid-range jump shot in basketball is when a player takes a jumper outside of the key, but inside the three-point line. The result of a made mid-range jump shot is two points.)  I have no issue with someone taking the open 7-12 foot mid range shot.  The other part, for clarification, the ability to score at all 3 levels.  What is the breakdown to make it effective?  20-35% for each of the 3 levels? is it whatever the defense is giving you that night?

12-15 feet is mid range to me and I would rather players taking this shot who are comfortable shooting that shot rather than the same person shooting and missing a 3 because they are not 3 point shooters like Smith.

[rico]

6 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

good article

It was after that '87 natty...can't remember exactly what show.  But Knight talked about the 3 and how it had changed his philosophy.  And Bobby utilized it to the max once it was adopted.

[IU Scott]

2 hours ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

So your post with stats from 1981 didn't really measure up then to a team with the 3 point, like say the 87 hoosiers?

So here is the stats from the 87 team

FG% 51% 903-1759

3FG% 51% 130-256

Inviduals

Alford 47% 199-370 3's 53% 107-202

Thomas 54% 3's 0-0

Garrett 54% 3's 0-0

Smart 52% 3's 36% 12-33

Eyle 65% 3's 0-0

Hillman 48% 3's 20% 1-5

So Alford shot 202 of IU's 256 3's so it was not like the 87 team used the 3 point shot.

[IU Scott]

5 minutes ago, rico said:

It was after that '87 natty...can't remember exactly what show.  But Knight talked about the 3 and how it had changed his philosophy.  And Bobby utilized it to the max once it was adopted.

they had it is 87 and IU shot 256 3's for the hole year with Alford shooting 202 of them

[rico]

5 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

they had it is 87 and IU shot 256 3's for the hole year with Alford shooting 202 of them

Go look up '89, '90, '91, '92, '93..................................Heck, go look up '83.

[IU Scott]

21 minutes ago, rico said:

Go look up '89, '90, '91, '92, '93..................................Heck, go look up '83.

83 29-50 with Wittman 8-18 and Kitchel 21-32 with no one taking a 3

91 34 games 120-294

92 34 games 162-384

93 35 games 197-464

94 30 games 182-401

I guess I don't know what your point is because none of those years we never shot more than 20 a game so it was not like he was throwing up 30+ plus a game. 

 

[rico]

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

83 29-50 with Wittman 8-18 and Kitchel 21-32 with no one taking a 3

91 34 games 120-294

92 34 games 162-384

93 35 games 197-464

94 30 games 182-401

I guess I don't know what your point is because none of those years we never shot more than 20 a game so it was not like he was throwing up 30+ plus a game. 

 

So now the mark is 30?  Anything under that is ok?  That makes it old school?

[IU Scott]

Just now, rico said:

So now the mark is 30?  Anything under that is ok?  That makes it old school?

What started this was about teams today only shooting 3's or layups and shouldn't shoot anything else which I disagreed.  I said I want teams to utilize it but not live or die with it and those ears I showed that RMK did not depend on the 3 to win.

[rico]

4 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

What started this was about teams today only shooting 3's or layups and shouldn't shoot anything else which I disagreed.  I said I want teams to utilize it but not live or die with it and those ears I showed that RMK did not depend on the 3 to win.

He shot them all the time.....there are other variables, such as how many FTs they took and made.