[PaintTouches]Players saw little shooting improvement under Buzz

[PaintTouchesSays]

Players saw little shooting improvement under Buzz

In case you missed it, we came out of summer hibernation and posted a story yesterday on Marquette assistant coach Brett Nelson. Out of the 1000 or so words written, the most feedback we heard was on a quote three paragraphs from the end on everyone’s favorite player, Derrick Wilson. “He’s never shot like that in his […]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://pixel.wp.com/b.gif?host=painttouches.com&blog=28348875&post=11958&subd=painttouches&ref=&feed=1" width="1" height="1" />

Source: Players saw little shooting improvement under Buzz

[4everwarriors]

That's 'cuz Bumstead couldn't shoot either. Form resembled that of a hairy, wet cat.

[THRILLHO]

Had a brief discussion with Andrei on twitter about this, but just curious what people think of how you would measure shooting improvement?

I think efg% is the wrong way to go -- while optimizing this is a great goal it can be done by changing the ratios of 3's and 2's taken. That's valuable but not what I think people are talking about when they say guys didn't get better at shooting.

I also think 2pfg% is probably not a great measurement either because it conflates a lot of different shots. Again, it's great if it goes up (e.g., due to getting into the lane more), but that is not necessarily "getting better at shooting", it might be getting better shots.

So that leaves three pointers. I think there are two things to look at for improving three point shooting. First, a player who starts with very few 3 point attempts improving range and taking more, and a player who takes them his whole career but improves shooting percentage. The latter is probably the easiest to measure. It seems very limited, but that is the best statistic I can come up with that you'd want to look at to see if someone has improved as a shooter.

Any better ideas?

[Skatastrophy]

Any better ideas?

The eye test? If you're super good at watching basketball games (as some on this board have claimed to be) then you just *know* what's happening, no matter what anyone else says.

[GGGG]

Had a brief discussion with Andrei on twitter about this, but just curious what people think of how you would measure shooting improvement?

I think efg% is the wrong way to go -- while optimizing this is a great goal it can be done by changing the ratios of 3's and 2's taken. That's valuable but not what I think people are talking about when they say guys didn't get better at shooting.

I also think 2pfg% is probably not a great measurement either because it conflates a lot of different shots. Again, it's great if it goes up (e.g., due to getting into the lane more), but that is not necessarily "getting better at shooting", it might be getting better shots.

So that leaves three pointers. I think there are two things to look at for improving three point shooting. First, a player who starts with very few 3 point attempts improving range and taking more, and a player who takes them his whole career but improves shooting percentage. The latter is probably the easiest to measure. It seems very limited, but that is the best statistic I can come up with that you'd want to look at to see if someone has improved as a shooter.

Any better ideas?

It's probably something that can't be summed up in one statistic.  I think overall FG% is important - getting better shots is part of getting better at shooting.  And 3pt fg% is important (for those who take a significant number of these shots) because it shows distance.

The question I have is how much does this differ from the typical college basketball player?  Do players generally improve in both EFG%, FG% and 3FG% each year?  Even as their usage increases?

[mu03eng]

Had a brief discussion with Andrei on twitter about this, but just curious what people think of how you would measure shooting improvement?

I think efg% is the wrong way to go -- while optimizing this is a great goal it can be done by changing the ratios of 3's and 2's taken. That's valuable but not what I think people are talking about when they say guys didn't get better at shooting.

I also think 2pfg% is probably not a great measurement either because it conflates a lot of different shots. Again, it's great if it goes up (e.g., due to getting into the lane more), but that is not necessarily "getting better at shooting", it might be getting better shots.

So that leaves three pointers. I think there are two things to look at for improving three point shooting. First, a player who starts with very few 3 point attempts improving range and taking more, and a player who takes them his whole career but improves shooting percentage. The latter is probably the easiest to measure. It seems very limited, but that is the best statistic I can come up with that you'd want to look at to see if someone has improved as a shooter.

Any better ideas?

I don't think it's one statistic that you use, I think it's a series of metrics.  Similar to business, you can't just look at revenue to determine the health of a business, margin, COGS, EBITDA, etc all need to be part of the evaluation.

I think there are 4 metrics that determine shot improvement:  eFG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, and usage rate.

eFG% speaks to shot selection and capability with 2PT% and 3PT% telling me your strengths and weakness.  How much of the scoring you generate is also important, because you might increase the other three metrics but it could be because you are shooting very little, so are you a better shooter or just a very selective one.

[mu03eng]

Oh by the way.....thank god for actual basketball content to debate around here.  I haven't posted in like 2 weeks 

[THRILLHO]

Oh by the way.....thank paint touches for actual basketball content to debate around here.  I haven't posted in like 2 weeks 

FIFY 

[77ncaachamps]

Another season waiting on pins and needles for Derrick's "improved" jump shot?

He's a trooper and defensive stopper but NO MORE FALSE HOPES!

[MU82]

Vander's shooting certainly improved under Buzz. So did Butler's and Otule's. Probably a couple others, too.

Still, it's hard to argue with the OP's headline overall.

[GooooMarquette]

Vander's shooting certainly improved under Buzz. So did Butler's and Otule's. Probably a couple others, too.

Butler's FG% and 3pt% both went down from his junior to senior seasons.  As a matter of fact, his FG% as a senior was his lowest of his three seasons at MU.

[Warrior Code]

The eye test? If you're super good at watching basketball games (as some on this board have claimed to be) then you just *know* what's happening, no matter what anyone else says.

You rang?

[keefe]

Oh by the way.....thank god for actual basketball content to debate around here.  I haven't posted in like 2 weeks 

By the way, what brand shoes do you favor, Navy?

[mu03eng]

By the way, what brand shoes do you favor, Navy?

Anything brown

Actually it depends on what I'm doing.  Mizuno for running, Adidas for any other sport related event, Florsheim for dress and Onitsuka Tigers for casual.  I think that about covers it.

[MU82]

Butler's FG% and 3pt% both went down from his junior to senior seasons.  As a matter of fact, his FG% as a senior was his lowest of his three seasons at MU.

I have no stats to back it up, but wasn't Butler attempting more shots (and more difficult shots) as a senior? Maybe not. Believe me, I'm not trying to defend Buzz, just looking for facts.

[Silkk the Shaka]

I have no stats to back it up, but wasn't Butler attempting more shots (and more difficult shots) as a senior? Maybe not. Believe me, I'm not trying to defend Buzz, just looking for facts.

You are correct. His shot% went from 10.8% year 1, to 17.5% year 2, to 21.1% year 3.

[GooooMarquette]

You are correct. His shot% went from 10.8% year 1, to 17.5% year 2, to 21.1% year 3.

True...but I suspect a large number of players attempt more shots as they go from soph to junior to senior.  I think one could argue that his shooting was pretty consistent despite the declining FG%, but I'd hardly hold him up as an example of a player whose shooting improved.

[GGGG]

Again, does a player's shooting usually improve over the course of their college career?

[MU82]

True...but I suspect a large number of players attempt more shots as they go from soph to junior to senior.  I think one could argue that his shooting was pretty consistent despite the declining FG%, but I'd hardly hold him up as an example of a player whose shooting improved.

Again, I'm not trying to leap to Buzz's defense, but ...

Butler attempted considerably more shots and 3-pointers as a senior, and if memory serves he took many end-of-shot-clock attempts, which obviously affects the percentages. And yet he still shot a very good percentage as a senior. He shot almost the exact same number of FTs each year and had a better percentage as a senior (although not significantly better). And of course, he already had become a very good player - and shooter - under Buzz as a junior.

So while it probably isn't accurate to say Buzz "made" him a better shooter, Jimmy shot well under Buzz and got drafted because of the overall improvement he made under Buzz.

[Skatastrophy]

Again, does a player's shooting usually improve over the course of their college career?

Heh, that's actually a really solid question.

[Galway Eagle]

Again, I'm not trying to leap to Buzz's defense, but ...

Butler attempted considerably more shots and 3-pointers as a senior, and if memory serves he took many end-of-shot-clock attempts, which obviously affects the percentages. And yet he still shot a very good percentage as a senior. He shot almost the exact same number of FTs each year and had a better percentage as a senior (although not significantly better). And of course, he already had become a very good player - and shooter - under Buzz as a junior.

So while it probably isn't accurate to say Buzz "made" him a better shooter, Jimmy shot well under Buzz and got drafted because of the overall improvement he made under Buzz.

I recall one of the players saying that Jimmy was putting in tons of extra time going into his senior year because he blamed himself for the missed assignment on Quincy pondexter's buzzer beating drive in 2010.  So it's also possible jimmy not buzz was responsible for those improvements

[GGGG]

Heh, that's actually a really solid question.

Example:

Doug McDermott's FG% peaked as a sophomore and declined his last two years.  Same with his EFG%.  3FG% peaked as a junior.  

So what does that mean?  I don't know the answer, but I know that McDermott is a good player.  His dad is considered a good coach.  I just don't know how much players get shooting the ball in game time situations during their careers.

[MU82]

I recall one of the players saying that Jimmy was putting in tons of extra time going into his senior year because he blamed himself for the missed assignment on Quincy pondexter's buzzer beating drive in 2010.  So it's also possible jimmy not buzz was responsible for those improvements

Just so I have this clear ...

If a player we like improves and we don't like the coach, it was the player's doing and the coach had no part of it.

If a player we don't like gets worse and we like the coach, it was the player's fault and the coach is blameless.

If a player we like improves and we like the coach, they get equal credit.

If a player we don't like gets worse and we don't like the coach, they get equal blame.

Are there any combinations I'm missing?

[GGGG]

Just so I have this clear ...

If a player we like improves and we don't like the coach, it was the player's doing and the coach had no part of it.

If a player we don't like gets worse and we like the coach, it was the player's fault and the coach is blameless.

If a player we like improves and we like the coach, they get equal credit.

If a player we don't like gets worse and we don't like the coach, they get equal blame.

Are there any combinations I'm missing?

Yes...

When a coach leaves, everything negative that happened is his fault.

When a coach leaves, everything positive that happened someone else gets to take credit for.

[Galway Eagle]

Just so I have this clear ...

If a player we like improves and we don't like the coach, it was the player's doing and the coach had no part of it.

If a player we don't like gets worse and we like the coach, it was the player's fault and the coach is blameless.

If a player we like improves and we like the coach, they get equal credit.

If a player we don't like gets worse and we don't like the coach, they get equal blame.

Are there any combinations I'm missing?

If the coach isn't focusing on shooting and a player improves it's the player's work ethic.  If the player gets worse or stays the same in the same scenario then it's on the coach.  The coach's job is to motivate and develop which he'd be failing at.