In order to make adjustments early in the first 10 minutes of the 1st half, how about the following for the next 4 minute segments:
1. Have Steivie and Ross takeover point guard duties
2. Start taking open midrange jumpers to improve scoring and improve overall confidence in shooting accuracy
3. Only take open threes after offensive rebound
4. Make further adjustments at each 4 min segments.
Just an idea
Throw it in to Caedin and let him go to work in the post.
Every offensive player touches the ball before a shot goes up.
#1 and #4 I can live with......
#2 and #3 are contrary to this coaching staff's approach and are not happening.
Quote from: MU 1971 on February 03, 2025, 02:12:45 PMIn order to make adjustments early in the first 10 minutes of the 1st half, how about the following for the next 4 minute segments:
1. Have Steivie and Ross takeover point guard duties
2. Start taking open midrange jumpers to improve scoring and improve overall confidence in shooting accuracy
3. Only take open threes after offensive rebound
4. Make further adjustments at each 4 min segments.
Just an idea
1. Not going to happen.
2. Not going to happen. And I have not sure how it will "improve scoring."
3. That would be unprecedented in a modern college basketball offense.
Must. Not. Do. It.
Outside of St. John's name another decent team thriving on midrange jumpers in college or the pros. The dirk, or gasol mid range isn't coming back.
If these suggestions are of the modest variety, I can't wait to hear the normal or even the extreme suggestions. I imagine it would be some combination of burn Sean/Josh/Al's redshirts and run full hockey style line changes.
To clarify these adjustmemts would only be for thr 4 min segment snd would return to SOP thereafter
Quote from: wadesworld on February 03, 2025, 02:14:10 PMThrow it in to Caedin and let him go to work in the post.
Every offensive player touches the ball before a shot goes up.
And tell Caedin to dunk instead of pivoting himself into a bad hook shot?
Quote from: MU 1971 on February 03, 2025, 02:12:45 PMIn order to make adjustments early in the first 10 minutes of the 1st half, how about the following for the next 4 minute segments:
1. Have Steivie and Ross takeover point guard duties
2. Start taking open midrange jumpers to improve scoring and improve overall confidence in shooting accuracy
3. Only take open threes after offensive rebound
4. Make further adjustments at each 4 min segments.
Just an idea
I am OK with 1. As a matter of fact, so is Shaka, as in most games there are possessions where Stevie and Chase initiate the offense.
As to 2, it would require different coaches. Nevada and Shaka's philosophy completely eschews the mid range. Shaka has said there is no better shot than an open 3. Now, next season, if Sean has a good tear drop, I can see them letting him use it, as 5'9 needs help in the trees. Other than that, 3's and point blanks.
3 assumes offensive rebounds. And yes, it seems most teams shoot 3s better off of O Rebounds when the defense is scrambling and trying to recover.
4. The staff makes generally good adjustments at halftime. Midrange jumpers are unlikely to make the list
Quote from: wadesworld on February 03, 2025, 02:14:10 PMThrow it in to Caedin and let him go to work in the post.
Every offensive player touches the ball before a shot goes up.
5 passes and an open cut before were allowed to shoot!
No threes until the ball has touched the paint!
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 03, 2025, 03:36:06 PMNo threes until the ball has touched the paint!
No. Let them play free. They are taking the right shots, just knock em the phuck down. Want to take the shots, don't just hope for them to go in.
Don't change the looks they're getting.
Thanks for your comments, Tower 912. And, yes, I am an old goat of some 76 years on this green earth.
The reason for suggesting using - only for 4 minutes - Open midrange shots is to boost the confidence of the shooters by having them see the ball go thru the hoop. The team will revert to the SOP strategy after this short term adjustment.
Successful shooters all demonstrate excellent, repeatable mechanics, which is about 85% of what it takes, leaving a little for allowances for fatigue. The rest is shooter confidence.
Just one man's opinion, recognizing I may very well be wrong.
Quote from: MU 1971 on February 03, 2025, 04:09:34 PMThanks for your comments, Tower 912. And, yes, I am an old goat of some 76 years on this green earth.
The reason for suggesting using - only for 4 minutes - Open midrange shots is to boost the confidence of the shooters by having them see the ball go thru the hoop. The team will revert to the SOP strategy after this short term adjustment.
Successful shooters all demonstrate excellent, repeatable mechanics, which is about 85% of what it takes, leaving a little for allowances for fatigue. The rest is shooter confidence.
Just one man's opinion, recognizing I may very well be wrong.
What if they miss all the midrange shots?
If we miss all the open midrange shots then we don't have a good team.
Shaka needs to bring this guy in and mandate no fewer than four passes before the team put up a shot
(https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-560w,f_auto,q_auto:best/newscms/2021_45/1800386/hoosiers-te-main-211108.jpg)
On a serious note, I would like to see odd-man fast breaks finished at the rim instead of pulling up from three. Nothing like a miss on a 3 on 1 when Kam or Chase could just dunk the ball and get the crowd going.
1971, I watch other teams. I love college basketball. I watched Seton Hall and DePaul last night. Both teams were notable for taking and missing mid range jumpers.
Because of my wife, I watch far too much IU basketball. IU has a traditional aircraft carrier big and runs sets to get mid range jumpers. Their fans are not happy.
Izzo will let his guards shoot pull up jumpers in the lane. His team also shoots erratically from 3, but balance that by having a 10-player rotation and hitting the boards hard.
Even in the NBA, the metrics have led to the mid range jumper being phased out.
I get the aesthetics. I, too, grew up in an era where coming off a down screen and shooting a 15 foot jumper was a good shot. But, with the advent of the 3 pt line and a shot clock in college basketball, it no longer the percentage shot.
Shaka and Nevada Smith take that to an extreme. But their logic and metrics say that the most efficient shots are the open 3 and the point blank shot. Unfortunately, sometimes the shots don't fall. But they are still the shots the coaches want.
5.Just put the ball in the basket. :P
Tower 912, you make a very persuasive argument for staying with the team's current strategy. I will keep my fingers crossed for our next game in the Garden.
BTW, I was a Junior when we went to the 1970 NIT, where we kept the nation's leading scorer - Pete Maravich to only 16 points. He was averaging over 40 pts or so. Dean was the MVP. We finished the year at 27 - 3. But, Al was wrong to pass on the NCAA's over a pique with Kentucky's Rupp. We were definately a final four team that year.
I had an occassion to talk directly with Coach Al that morning in the Athletic Office, where he told us what happened and asked what
should he do. We three students said got to go to the NCAA's
"So much for democracy", said AL to us. And the rest is history.
Interesting stuff 71. Thanks for sharing
1971, thanks for the story. And my love of midrange jumpers was cemented by Vinnie Johnson on the Bad Boy Pistons. Listed at 6'2, closer to 5'11, when he got it going, it was awesome to watch.
The game has evolved.
Quote from: MU 1971 on February 03, 2025, 04:47:48 PMTower 912, you make a very persuasive argument for staying with the team's current strategy. I will keep my fingers crossed for our next game in the Garden.
BTW, I was a Junior when we went to the 1970 NIT, where we kept the nation's leading scorer - Pete Maravich to only 16 points. He was averaging over 40 pts or so. Dean was the MVP. We finished the year at 27 - 3. But, Al was wrong to pass on the NCAA's over a pique with Kentucky's Adolph Rupp. We were definitely a final four team that year
"So much for democracy", said AL to us.
Class of '70 here. Looks like you just joined. If you have been lurking, you would know from Lenny's replies to my posts on the matter that Al's choosing to go to the NIT and snub the NCAA was not only accepted but wildly popular with the team, students, and all other fans. It was a
great decision!
So what if we passed up a golden opportunity to make it to the National Championship game and face UCLA? Winning the NIT was
just as good, right?. ;D
Al's democracy comment reminded me of Lincoln asking 7 cabinet members to share their thoughts about the Emancipation Proclamation. They prearranged to talk it down and all 7 said it was a bad idea. Lincoln's response? "Seven nays and one aye. The ayes have it!"
So, to explain the weird encounter with Coach Al, I was on my way to a 9 o'clock class when I stopped into the Athletic Office to find out about our invitation to the NCAA's. But, there was nobody in the office, the door was open and there were two other students sitting in the receptionist area.
Only a minute after I arrived we could hear someone shouting loudly about something but we had no idea what was being said. Suddenly, Al appeared out of nowhere and asked the three of us ... "what the hell we were doing there". We all explained that we were on our way to class and just wanted to know about the NCAA's. We only wanted to ask the receptionist where we would be going.
Then, out of the blue, Al asked we three students about NCAA vs. NIT. None of us were personally known to Al, although my brother Gene was a manager on the team. We said go to the NCAA's.
Anyway, that's how it all came about.
Here's a quick statistical explainer on why the staff avoids mid-range jump shots. I went to Synergy and pulled the numbers for team scoring on shots at the rim, in short (<17 feet) jumpers, and long (17 feet to the arc) 2-point jumpers. Here are the results:
At The Rim- Best: Cornell, 1.433 ppp, 68.8 FG%
- Marquette, 1.234 ppp, 60.0 FG%, #136
- Median: Arkansas-Pine Bluff, 1.210 ppp, 59.1 FG%
- Worst: Chicago State, 0.963 ppp, 46.9 FG%
- Average: 1.230 ppp, 60.2 FG%
Short Midrange- Best: Oregon State, 1.038 ppp, 50.8 FG% (ATR equivalent: #354 New Orleans)
- Marquette, 0.681, 34.0 FG%, #307
- Median: San Diego, 0.779 ppp, 37.9 FG% (ATR equivalent: NONE)
- Worst: Kansas State, 0.455 ppp, 22.2 FG% (ATR equivalent: NONE)
- Average: 0.780 ppp, 38.5 FG% (ATR equivalent: NONE)
Long Midrange- Best: Denver, 1.048 ppp, 52.4 FG% (ATR equivalent: #353 Louisiana-Lafayette)
- Median: San Diego, 0.720 ppp, 36.0 FG% (ATR equivalent: NONE)
- Worst: Rhode Island, 0.341 ppp, 17.1 FG% (ATR equivalent: NONE)
- Average: 0.717 ppp, 35.6 FG% (ATR equivalent: NONE)
- Marquette: NOT RANKED (presumably no shots recorded in this area)
I will caveat the last one because it stood out. CBB Analytics had Marquette at 4/7 on long mid-range shots. Not sure why the discrepancy, but so far in the season they are very rare regardless. Also, the averages I used are not exact. I took the average ppp for teams as the baseline, but as team shot volume varies, that could be very different than the approximate ppp and FG%. However, as both were pretty close to the median, I think it's close enough to illustrate the point.
There are a couple takeaways I have from this data:
1: At The Rim is more efficient: Chicago State makes ATR look less efficient, but if you look at the #1 teams in short (OSU 1.038) and long (Denver 1.048) midrange points per possession, neither of them are as good in midrange as #353 Louisiana-Lafayette (1.050) is at the rim. The very best teams in midrange are about as efficient scoring the basketball from that part of the court as the very worst teams are at the rim.
2: Marquette is far better ATR: Our sample size is admittedly smaller because we prioritize getting to the rim, but our ATR scoring rate nearly doubles our midrange. Even if we use the 4/7 number for long midrange that CBB Analytics has, Marquette's 1.143 (57.1 FG%) is less efficient than our current ATR scoring, and as that 1.143 is 0.105 better than the best long midrange team in the country (and roughly equal to the difference between #1 Denver and #27 Lehigh) I'm going to consider those 7 shots to be the more likely statistical outlier.
We already know this staff has prioritized a modern offense with shots at the rim and from three since they came here. The data supports that even bad ATR teams are better at the rim than the best midrange teams are in midrange. And Marquette in particular is better in that regard. I don't think there's any chance we would change this philosophy considering how data-driven this staff is.
I sincerely hope this helps explain why they go with the philosophy they do. It leads to higher likelihood of scoring and better outcomes, even if it runs counter to what many of us grew up watching.
And bear in mind if you have a truly elite midrange shooter that hits 60+% (Curtis Jones from ISU, for instance), then those might be good shots even in our offense. But the only player on Marquette who makes over 50% on midrange is Stevie Mitchell, and that's on 4 attempts all year (3/4). It would go against all the coaching they've done for the past 4 years.
David Joplin would do well from the mid range. Also, when you completely eliminate mid range to the extent that we eschew mid range shots, it does make defending easier. Two dimensional instead of three.
I don't feel there's a need to deviate much at all from current strategy, however I also could see some benefit to running some screen action for Joplin to get elbow mid range shots - mixed in on occasion.
Elbow shots are not mid range.
How far does ATR extend, 10 feet?
Quote from: The Sultan on February 03, 2025, 07:00:26 PMElbow shots are not mid range.
What is a shot at the elbow then?
Kolek got quite good at floaters from 10-ish feet, and Oso had his famous push shot. So if a player can be efficient with shots not right at the rim, Shaka obviously is OK with those shots.
But most players aren't good at those. And 15-19-footers simply are not efficient - which is why most of today's good (and even not good) teams rarely take them.
Mo Lucas isn't walking through that door.
Quote from: The Sultan on February 03, 2025, 07:00:26 PMElbow shots are not mid range.
They are if you read brewcity's analysis.
If Jop has the ball and turns to face the basket from mid-range 12 ft, 15 ft, 17 ft, whatever you agree is midrange), and no one is guarding him, why not take that shot? Analytics aside, kicking it back out doesn't mean we'll hit the three. And driving to the hoop, often results in a contested shot. Shoot the gimme!
Quote from: Elonsmusk on February 03, 2025, 09:47:49 PMWhat is a shot at the elbow then?
In my experience, usually some variation of cortisone.
Midrange jumpers aren't going to work for players who are essentially set shooters.
Joplin is the only player in MU's rotation who shoots with the ball above his head so he could get off a 10-15 foot shot without getting it swatted back in his face. He occasionally does take midrange shots, often fading away.
MU could use some players who are true jump shooters that can elevate and shoot with the ball above their heads.
Quote from: romey on February 04, 2025, 12:58:44 AMThey are if you read brewcity's analysis.
If Jop has the ball and turns to face the basket from mid-range 12 ft, 15 ft, 17 ft, whatever you agree is midrange), and no one is guarding him, why not take that shot? Analytics aside, kicking it back out doesn't mean we'll hit the three. And driving to the hoop, often results in a contested shot. Shoot the gimme!
The reason they don't is because statistically, it's not a gimme. You are more likely to score at a higher rate on the layup or three. Nothing is guaranteed, but midrange is the part of the court likely to yield the fewest points on a shot attempt.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 04, 2025, 07:15:26 AMThe reason they don't is because statistically, it's not a gimme. You are more likely to score at a higher rate on the layup or three. Nothing is guaranteed, but midrange is the part of the court likely to yield the fewest points on a shot attempt.
In business terms, your ROI will be less on average.
Quote from: tower912 on February 03, 2025, 04:24:37 PM1971, I watch other teams. I love college basketball. I watched Seton Hall and DePaul last night. Both teams were notable for taking and missing mid range jumpers.
It's a good thing that game took place once Dry January ended. ;D
Quote from: tower912 on February 04, 2025, 05:24:24 AMIn my experience, usually some variation of cortisone.
A shot OF the elbow can result in 2 points for the opposing team when they shoot the FTs for a F1 or F2.
Funny how people sort of assume mid-range shots are automatic or high percentage. By the way MU has at least one long range mid-range shot made, last Saturday while foot on 3 pt line.
Quote from: Newsdreams on February 04, 2025, 09:02:41 AMFunny how people sort of assume mid-range shots are automatic or high percentage. By the way MU has at least one long range mid-range shot made, last Saturday while foot on 3 pt line.
Jim Chones never missed a mid-range jump shot
Fans wouldn't even think about mid range shots if the fellas that shoot the most 3s shot close to their career avg from 3.
I was floored when I saw that Ben has made the same amount of 3s as Kam on the season, that's absurd
Quote from: DoctorV on February 04, 2025, 11:05:55 AMFans wouldn't even think about mid range shots if the fellas that shoot the most 3s shot close to their career avg from 3.
I was floored when I saw that Ben has made the same amount of 3s as Kam on the season, that's absurd
You were floored, but I think Kam's ceiling is higher.
Quote from: Newsdreams on February 04, 2025, 09:02:41 AMFunny how people sort of assume mid-range shots are automatic or high percentage. By the way MU has at least one long range mid-range shot made, last Saturday while foot on 3 pt line.
Funny how people assume three pointers are automatic or high percentage. They have one long range shot made because they don't take them. In the flow of a game, a wide open shot from the free throw line is not a higher percentage than kicking it back out, running more time off the clock and possibly getting an uncontested three? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just having a conversation. I think this is what is tough to get our heads around - speaking for all the old school guys. Take what the defense gives you.
Yes. Because that is what they are practicing. They aren't practicing foul line jumpers. They are practicing drive and kick and open 3.
Quote from: romey on February 04, 2025, 11:20:52 AMFunny how people assume three pointers are automatic or high percentage. They have one long range shot made because they don't take them. In the flow of a game, a wide open shot from the free throw line is not a higher percentage than kicking it back out, running more time off the clock and possibly getting an uncontested three? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just having a conversation. I think this is what is tough to get our heads around - speaking for all the old school guys. Take what the defense gives you.
There's a reason the defense is giving it to you. Brew's post shows why. The mid range shots the best mid range shooting teams in the entire country get are less efficient than what Marquette is at the shots they are taking. Unless you think Marquette can be significantly better at shooting mid range shots than the best teams in the country are, Marquette is better off taking the shots they are currently taking.
So, going back to the DePaul game and the complaints about MU against the zone, DePaul made a choice, parallel to what UConn did, parallel to what Creighton does with Kalkbrenner in drop coverage ostensibly guarding Stevie. DePaul left their big under the basket and did not collapse their zone when the ball got passed to the foul line. Why? They know MU does not like that shot and were willing to take their chances if MU started shooting it.
Creighton makes a choice. Run opponents off the 3, let Kalkbrenner alter shots at the rim. If a team thinks they can beat Creighton shooting pull ups, so be it. Why? That is where the game of basketball, both at the college level and the NBA, is right now. On the rare occasion a team tries to win from the mid range, let them.
All about the metrics.
Count me in the old guys camp.
I get why you want your shots at the rim or behind the 3 point line. I'm going to have a lot of buts now.
But if you are not a good 3 point shooting team, the 3 point shot is not a good shot.
But if you are struggling to score at the rim due to a shot blocker or it's not your night. Why continue the absolute of I still want to take a shot at the rim every time.
Sometimes you need to adjust based on current outcomes. Sometimes a midrange shot might be a tool to help loosen up the 3 point shooting or getting better looks at the rim.
My thinking is there are no absolutes. Yes we want to shoot 3s or at the rim. Doesn't mean you can't deviate and try something different when those options are not working.
Quote from: romey on February 04, 2025, 11:20:52 AMFunny how people assume three pointers are automatic or high percentage. They have one long range shot made because they don't take them. In the flow of a game, a wide open shot from the free throw line is not a higher percentage than kicking it back out, running more time off the clock and possibly getting an uncontested three? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just having a conversation. I think this is what is tough to get our heads around - speaking for all the old school guys. Take what the defense gives you.
Out of curiosity, how much better do you think the percentage is from mid-range than it is from three? Because I think you would be surprised to see that, while better, such shots are usually made less than 5% more often.
That's why the criticisms of the offense seem silly to me. It's generating the shots that it should.
Quote from: Big Papi on February 04, 2025, 11:35:48 AMCount me in the old guys camp.
I get why you want your shots at the rim or behind the 3 point line. I'm going to have a lot of buts now.
But if you are not a good 3 point shooting team, the 3 point shot is not a good shot.
But if you are struggling to score at the rim due to a shot blocker or it's not your night. Why continue the absolute of I still want to take a shot at the rim every time.
Sometimes you need to adjust based on current outcomes. Sometimes a midrange shot might be a tool to help loosen up the 3 point shooting or getting better looks at the rim.
My thinking is there are no absolutes. Yes we want to shoot 3s or at the rim. Doesn't mean you can't deviate and try something different when those options are not working.
But Kam Jones is a career 38% from 3.
But Chase Ross is a career 36% from 3.
But David Joplin is a career 35% from 3.
But Ben Gold is a career 35% from 3.
And Stevie is shooting better than all of them at 39% from 3 on the year.
Together they've made 722 3's at Marquette and even more importantly, won about 73% (or more depending on which class) of their games here with that strategy. Let em fly when they're open. Knock them down.
Quote from: Big Papi on February 04, 2025, 11:35:48 AMCount me in the old guys camp.
I get why you want your shots at the rim or behind the 3 point line. I'm going to have a lot of buts now.
But if you are not a good 3 point shooting team, the 3 point shot is not a good shot.
But somehow "not a good 3 point shooting team" is going to be a good long range 2 point shooting team???
C'mon...
Quote from: The Sultan on February 04, 2025, 11:46:07 AMBut somehow "not a good 3 point shooting team" is going to be a good long range 2 point shooting team???
C'mon...
I'm not saying to take long range shots.
I'm not saying to change our offense.
I'm saying sometimes try something else to loosen up the offense when you can't make a shot at the rim or from 3.
You guys and your absolutes.
Maybe if the 10-12 footer is open, you take it and see if it loosens up the defense. Oso hitting those 8-10 footer push shots did open things up around the rim. There is none of that now
Also sometimes when as a player to are shooting bricks, seeing a shot go in can turn it around.
Quote from: Big Papi on February 04, 2025, 11:51:55 AMI'm not saying to take long range shots.
I'm not saying to change our offense.
I'm saying sometimes try something else to loosen up the offense when you can't make a shot at the rim or from 3.
You guys and your absolutes.
Maybe if the 10-12 footer is open, you take it and see if it loosens up the defense. Oso hitting those 8-10 footer push shots did open things up around the rim. There is none of that now
Also sometimes when as a player to are shooting bricks, seeing a shot go in can turn it around.
As mentioned by others, Joplin is really the only one equipped. He's a good midrange shooter, but we don't want him taking loads of them. If he's doing it solely to open up lanes for himself it may not be the best strategy either, because when he drives to the hoop it's a 50/50 chance that he looks unstoppable to the basket or turns it over.
Quote from: Big Papi on February 04, 2025, 11:51:55 AMI'm not saying to take long range shots.
I'm not saying to change our offense.
I'm saying sometimes try something else to loosen up the offense when you can't make a shot at the rim or from 3.
You guys and your absolutes.
Maybe if the 10-12 footer is open, you take it and see if it loosens up the defense. Oso hitting those 8-10 footer push shots did open things up around the rim. There is none of that now
Also sometimes when as a player to are shooting bricks, seeing a shot go in can turn it around.
You aren't saying to change the offense?
LOL, that's exactly what you are saying. Again 10-12 foot shots are not made THAT much more often than three pointers. People are out here acting like they are layups or something.
Big Papi, I have said it earlier in this thread, I grew up with the mid range jump shot, I loved watching Vinnie Johnson microwaving defenses with it, I get the old guy aesthetic argument. But the data simply does not back it. Shooting 33% from 3 is the same as shooting 50% from the mid range and very few players shoot 50% pulling up from 12-20 feet. It is math, pure and simple. The math does not care about the unicorn Vinnie Johnsons of the basketball world. If they happen to get hot, so be it. The math still says 3 pt shooting and layups. Not the Jack Sikma, Larry Bird step backs.
I have a suspicion that we will see some next season with Sean. Career 29% shooter from 3, 41% shooter on 2's. Because of his speed and lack of size, I can picture him pulling up for tear drops instead of challenging shot blockers. Even though he did very little of that in his season and a half. We shall see. But if he does so and continues to shoot low 40's from 2, will he be criticized by scoopers? Because 29% from 3 is marginally more efficient than 41% from 2.
The only change in the offense people should be wanting is more ball movement to create catch-and-shoot 3's rather than off-the-dribble 3's.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 03, 2025, 06:20:33 PMLong Midrange
- Best: Denver, 1.048 ppp, 52.4 FG% (ATR equivalent: #353 Louisiana-Lafayette)
- Median: San Diego, 0.720 ppp, 36.0 FG% (ATR equivalent: NONE)
- Worst: Rhode Island, 0.341 ppp, 17.1 FG% (ATR equivalent: NONE)
- Average: 0.717 ppp, 35.6 FG% (ATR equivalent: NONE)
- Marquette: NOT RANKED (presumably no shots recorded in this area)
I will caveat the last one because it stood out. CBB Analytics had Marquette at 4/7 on long mid-range shots. Not sure why the discrepancy, but so far in the season they are very rare regardless. Also, the averages I used are not exact. I took the average ppp for teams as the baseline, but as team shot volume varies, that could be very different than the approximate ppp and FG%. However, as both were pretty close to the median, I think it's close enough to illustrate the point.
These are all likely intended 3-pt attempts that had a toe on the line!
Quote from: Its DJOver on February 04, 2025, 12:01:24 PMThe only change in the offense people should be wanting is more ball movement to create catch-and-shoot 3's rather than off-the-dribble 3's.
Do they take many of those? Maybe Joplin?
I know Ben and Stevie aren't taking many of those...probably few from Chase as well.
Quote from: Its DJOver on February 04, 2025, 12:01:24 PMThe only change in the offense people should be wanting is more ball movement to create catch-and-shoot 3's rather than off-the-dribble 3's.
Agree. A lot of the "kam drives into 3 people" had an outlet guy for a catch and shoot early in the season. And we hit those.
Same with Jop's drives--he should be looking for a clear path (which he's been finding) or looking for the outlet guy.
Chase...Chase can keep driving with violence. It tends to be a basket or a foul.
Only adjustment I would recommend is in transition: a few teams this year have, several times during the game, crashed 4 guys to the offensive boards. I would not mind seeing Chase ready to release in transition and take the team's guard to get an easy bucket.
I get we are not a great defensive rebounding team and Chase really helps. But a few times a game you need to make an offense pay for crashing so many guys on the offensive boards.
There's a difference between a wide open three and a contested three, or a three that goes up as the shot clock is expiring because we can't get an open three. Just as there is a differ3ence between a 10 - 15 foot shot wide open. I get it, Shaka prefers the three. Does he prefer a contested three to a wide open two? I guess so. It just seems extreme that we almost never take a 10-15 footer. Great conversation guys. Thanks for the dialogue. As 82 likes to say "We are Marquette."
Win any way we can.
There's too much shotgun in the NFL. Line up in the wing T and run it if the defense is gonna give it to you
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 04, 2025, 12:33:09 PMThere's too much shotgun in the NFL. Line up in the wing T and run it if the defense is gonna give it to you
The Packer sweep is due for a return to glory.
The wing T is quite popular at high schools around here. At the pro level, isn't that what Philly does on short yardage play? Wing T with all of the backs pushing the QB.
RIP Joe Lieberman
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 03, 2025, 06:20:33 PMHere's a quick statistical explainer on why the staff avoids mid-range jump shots. I went to Synergy and pulled the numbers for team scoring on shots at the rim, in short (<17 feet) jumpers, and long (17 feet to the arc) 2-point jumpers. Here are the results:
At The Rim
- Best: Cornell, 1.433 ppp, 68.8 FG%
- Marquette, 1.234 ppp, 60.0 FG%, #136
- Median: Arkansas-Pine Bluff, 1.210 ppp, 59.1 FG%
- Worst: Chicago State, 0.963 ppp, 46.9 FG%
- Average: 1.230 ppp, 60.2 FG%
Short Midrange
[/b]
- Best: Oregon State, 1.038 ppp, 50.8 FG% (ATR equivalent: #354 New Orleans)
- Marquette, 0.681, 34.0 FG%, #307
- Median: San Diego, 0.779 ppp, 37.9 FG% (ATR equivalent: NONE)
- Worst: Kansas State, 0.455 ppp, 22.2 FG% (ATR equivalent: NONE)
- Average: 0.780 ppp, 38.5 FG% (ATR equivalent: NONE)
Long Midrange
[/b][/b]
- Best: Denver, 1.048 ppp, 52.4 FG% (ATR equivalent: #353 Louisiana-Lafayette)
- Median: San Diego, 0.720 ppp, 36.0 FG% (ATR equivalent: NONE)
- Worst: Rhode Island, 0.341 ppp, 17.1 FG% (ATR equivalent: NONE)
- Average: 0.717 ppp, 35.6 FG% (ATR equivalent: NONE)
- Marquette: NOT RANKED (presumably no shots recorded in this area)
I will caveat the last one because it stood out. CBB Analytics had Marquette at 4/7 on long mid-range shots. Not sure why the discrepancy, but so far in the season they are very rare regardless. Also, the averages I used are not exact. I took the average ppp for teams as the baseline, but as team shot volume varies, that could be very different than the approximate ppp and FG%. However, as both were pretty close to the median, I think it's close enough to illustrate the point.
There are a couple takeaways I have from this data:
1: At The Rim is more efficient: Chicago State makes ATR look less efficient, but if you look at the #1 teams in short (OSU 1.038) and long (Denver 1.048) midrange points per possession, neither of them are as good in midrange as #353 Louisiana-Lafayette (1.050) is at the rim. The very best teams in midrange are about as efficient scoring the basketball from that part of the court as the very worst teams are at the rim.
2: Marquette is far better ATR: Our sample size is admittedly smaller because we prioritize getting to the rim, but our ATR scoring rate nearly doubles our midrange. Even if we use the 4/7 number for long midrange that CBB Analytics has, Marquette's 1.143 (57.1 FG%) is less efficient than our current ATR scoring, and as that 1.143 is 0.105 better than the best long midrange team in the country (and roughly equal to the difference between #1 Denver and #27 Lehigh) I'm going to consider those 7 shots to be the more likely statistical outlier.
We already know this staff has prioritized a modern offense with shots at the rim and from three since they came here. The data supports that even bad ATR teams are better at the rim than the best midrange teams are in midrange. And Marquette in particular is better in that regard. I don't think there's any chance we would change this philosophy considering how data-driven this staff is.
I sincerely hope this helps explain why they go with the philosophy they do. It leads to higher likelihood of scoring and better outcomes, even if it runs counter to what many of us grew up watching.
And bear in mind if you have a truly elite midrange shooter that hits 60+% (Curtis Jones from ISU, for instance), then those might be good shots even in our offense. But the only player on Marquette who makes over 50% on midrange is Stevie Mitchell, and that's on 4 attempts all year (3/4). It would go against all the coaching they've done for the past 4 years.
- The thing that stands out to me is the math. 35% from 3 is better than the best college teams at both short and long mid range jumpers.
Quote from: tower912 on February 04, 2025, 12:40:36 PM- The thing that stands out to me is the math. 35% from 3 is better than the best college teams at both short and long mid range jumpers.
Facts are dumb
I've got a modest suggestion. Make the halftime adjustments at the first TV timeout. Boom! Problem solved.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on February 04, 2025, 12:58:14 PMI've got a modest suggestion. Make the halftime adjustments at the first TV timeout. Boom! Problem solved.
Get ahead of the game!
Quote from: tower912 on February 04, 2025, 12:36:38 PMThe Packer sweep is due for a return to glory.
The wing T is quite popular at high schools around here. At the pro level, isn't that what Philly does on short yardage play? Wing T with all of the backs pushing the QB.
Not until they move the hash marks closer to the endlines like they were years ago.
Quote from: tower912 on February 04, 2025, 12:40:36 PM- The thing that stands out to me is the math. 35% from 3 is better than the best college teams at both short and long mid range jumpers.
Me thinks many didn't read the article and some who did, didn't understand.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on February 04, 2025, 12:58:14 PMI've got a modest suggestion. Make the halftime adjustments at the first TV timeout. Boom! Problem solved.
Better yet, make them in the locker room before the game. That will catch the opponents
completely by surprise.
Let's do this tonight. I think we should shoot nothing but midrange jumpers in the first half.
Hey, good idea. Kin
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 04, 2025, 12:33:09 PMThere's too much shotgun in the NFL. Line up in the wing T and run it if the defense is gonna give it to you
Kinda like Detroit once in a while throws out a wrinkle no one is prepared for.
Like maybe taking a wide open 15 footer once or twice a game.
Bit even the wrinkles get criticized when they don't work. And nobody wins emphasizing trick plays.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on February 04, 2025, 12:39:11 PMRIP Joe Lieberman
I guaranty you he was a fan of the mid-range game.
Quote from: tower912 on February 04, 2025, 12:40:36 PM- The thing that stands out to me is the math. 35% from 3 is better than the best college teams at both short and long mid range jumpers.
The thing that stands out to me is everything because of your use of bold font.
No one's going to admit there may be a couple times a game where it may make sense to shoot a 15-footer. Thanks for the conversation guys.
Let's start hitting our threes again and maybe we won't have to discuss this again.
We Are Marquette.
Quote from: romey on February 04, 2025, 02:50:50 PMNo one's going to admit there may be a couple times a game where it may make sense to shoot a 15-footer.
A couple times a game? Sure. I can buy that actually.
I'm all for Jop taking a few midrange shots. It seems to help him find his stroke and he's been plenty effective in that area.
I don't see anyone else on the team that I'd like to shoot midrange shots. None of the other starters have shown anything to indicate they'd be effective operating there.
Quote from: BM1090 on February 04, 2025, 03:04:26 PMI'm all for Jop taking a few midrange shots. It seems to help him find his stroke and he's been plenty effective in that area.
I don't see anyone else on the team that I'd like to shoot midrange shots. None of the other starters have shown anything to indicate they'd be effective operating there.
Agree, though I'd be okay with Ben. Like if he flashes to the FT line against a zone.
Nobody listens to Shaka. Like the 32 deflections goal, the team has a percentage goal for how many ATR's and 3's they want out of total shots. It isn't 100%.
Quote from: tower912 on February 04, 2025, 03:36:36 PMNobody listens to Shaka. Like the 32 deflections goal, the team has a percentage goal for how many ATR's and 3's they want out of total shots. It isn't 100%.
Sure, but assuming that was 100% of their shots at half, I doubt he'd suggest they take a few mid-range just to get the percentage down ;D The goal is a minimum. 100% is the maximum.
Quote from: Big Papi on February 04, 2025, 11:35:48 AMCount me in the old guys camp.
I get why you want your shots at the rim or behind the 3 point line. I'm going to have a lot of buts now.
But if you are not a good 3 point shooting team, the 3 point shot is not a good shot.
But if you are struggling to score at the rim due to a shot blocker or it's not your night. Why continue the absolute of I still want to take a shot at the rim every time.
Sometimes you need to adjust based on current outcomes. Sometimes a midrange shot might be a tool to help loosen up the 3 point shooting or getting better looks at the rim.
My thinking is there are no absolutes. Yes we want to shoot 3s or at the rim. Doesn't mean you can't deviate and try something different when those options are not working.
I agree. Perfectly stated.
Quote from: The Sultan on February 04, 2025, 11:57:51 AMYou aren't saying to change the offense?
LOL, that's exactly what you are saying. Again 10-12 foot shots are not made THAT much more often than three pointers. People are out here acting like they are layups or something.
A high major D-1 player should be able to shoot 50th percent in mid range. What's our team's free throw percentage? It's at least double our 3 point shooting percentage. So, a FT, 15 feet. Taking a shot out of rhythm. A shot on the road with the crowd actively heckling the shot attempt.
Select mid range shots at Ft line, elbow area are pretty easy shots, which I'm sure you know.
And to others points, if you want to loosen up a defense like the way Creighton defends, and others in drop coverage D, because they know you won't take the mid range shots- your percentage at the rim is going to go down.
Quote from: Elonsmusk on February 04, 2025, 03:50:08 PMA high major D-1 player should be able to shoot 50th percent in mid range. What's our team's free throw percentage? It's at least double our 3 point shooting percentage. So, a FT, 15 feet. Taking a shot out of rhythm. A shot on the road with the crowd actively heckling the shot attempt.
Select mid range shots at Ft line, elbow area are pretty easy shots, which I'm sure you know.
And to others points, if you want to loosen up a defense like the way Creighton defends, and others in drop coverage D, because they know you won't take the mid range shots- your percentage at the rim is going to go down.
As Brew's post shows, the absolute best team in the country at shooting short mid range jumpers shoots them at 50.8% and the absolute best team in the country at shooting long mid range jumpers shoots them at 52.4%. The median for short mid range jumpers is 37.9% and median for long mid range jumpers is 36%.
So the stats suggest a D1 player should be able to shoot mid range jumpers at 50% is just a crazy expectation.
And comparing a live ball free throw line jumper to a guy taking a free throw is absolutely crazy.
Quote from: Elonsmusk on February 04, 2025, 03:50:08 PMA high major D-1 player should be able to shoot 50th percent in mid range.
LOL. An average D1 player doesn't come close to that. According to the stats posted by brew, the median "short mid-range" team shoots 37.9%. "Long mid range" is 36%.
An average NBA player doesn't even come close to that.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on February 03, 2025, 02:24:07 PMOutside of St. John's name another decent team thriving on midrange jumpers in college or the pros. The dirk, or gasol mid range isn't coming back.
I am confident the mid-range game will eventually come back. Everything is cyclical. Its a shot you can get and if you can make it 55% of them time, it's one more thing the defense has to worry about and it will open up more of the 3's and layups.
Not saying we should start doing it, but it will come back. When I was playing ball a million years ago, the hardest guys to guard were the ones who were liable to pull and shoot from any distance.
Quote from: CTWarrior on February 04, 2025, 04:02:27 PMI am confident the mid-range game will eventually come back. Everything is cyclical. Its a shot you can get and if you can make it 55% of them time, it's one more thing the defense has to worry about and it will open up more of the 3's and layups.
It will not come back because the math doesn't work. The only way it comes back is if you make the three harder to make.
And who's shooting 55% from mid-range???? Again, NBA teams shoot less than 5% worse from 3 than they do from mid-range depending on the spot on the floor.
https://www.82games.com/locations.htm
There must be a perception out there that if you take a shot twice as long, that it becomes twice as hard to make. And that simply isn't the case. Players don't make twice as many of their 11' mid-range shots as they do their 22' three pointers.
That's the whole point of the offense!!!
Ban the 3 and the dunk and I bet the mid-range comes back. Ah, the good ol' days. Women didn't wear trousers and basketball was played the right way.
I thought a guy who could consistently get fouled and free throws would be extremely helpful for all of the offensive droughts and then Saturday happened...
This is hilarious, so many people don't understand statistics and math, thus don't know modern basketball. And anyone thinking 50% mid range made is normal?? LOL
Quote from: The Sultan on February 04, 2025, 04:06:26 PMIt will not come back because the math doesn't work. The only way it comes back is if you make the three harder to make.
And who's shooting 55% from mid-range???? Again, NBA teams shoot less than 5% worse from 3 than they do from mid-range depending on the spot on the floor.
https://www.82games.com/locations.htm
The 3P line will definitely be moved back soon, as there has been smoke coming out of the NBA that the product is being diluted by way too many 3P attempts.
It's just making the game uglier and more boring. Who wants to see lazy defense and 60 3P attempts per game to go along with a bunch of highlight reel dunks? Sure, the dunks are great, but the diversity and beauty of the game is taking a hit.
I'm not arguing the data, I'm just saying that they will move the line back in an attempt to get more team basketball and all over the court involvement.
Is there a thing about possible shrinking the quarter lengths to 10 minutes? My wife said she saw that on the ticker the other day but I haven't followed up on looking it up anywhere
Quote from: The Sultan on February 04, 2025, 04:11:53 PMThere must be a perception out there that if you take a shot twice as long, that it becomes twice as hard to make. And that simply isn't the case. Players don't make twice as many of their 11' mid-range shots as they do their 22' three pointers.
That's the whole point of the offense!!!
I don't think anyone here is advocating for a lot of long 2s (but maybe they are). Another example, Purdue is one of the "best" teams that I've found that still take a lot of "Far 2s"
https://barttorvik.com/team.php?team=Purdue&year=2025
Scroll to the bottom of the page for player stats. They've actually taken more "Far 2s" than "Close 2s". We'll ignore dunks.
Nonetheless hitting 46.7% of their 405 far 2s is good for 378 points for the year. Had those 405 attempts been for 3s instead, and they hit them at their 37.7% three point rate, it would have been 458 points.
So...that's why Shaka dislikes the math on long 2s.
edit: And Torvic's description of the stat, and why it's different than synergy type data: "Hi -- it is based on descriptions in the play by play data. So "layups" "tips" "dunks" (etc) are counted as rim attempts, and all other twos are counted as mid-range. Obviously this is far from an exact science, as it relies on scorekeeper descriptions and play-by-play fidelity ... but it's the best I can do, which is good enough for me."
To move the 3 pt line back, they will need to make the court wider. I understand all of the aesthetic arguments about the mid range jumpers. But it is all about numbers. The best teams barely top 50% from the midrange. Lots of teams shoot 33% from 3. Math.
Dr. V, I completely agree about NBA games. However, math is math. Nobody is running post ups anymore. Teams are willing to trade 2s for 3s. Math. Heck, Loyola Marymount was doing this under Paul Westhead in the late 80s. Now it is the norm.
Quote from: tower912 on February 04, 2025, 05:00:51 PMTo move the 3 pt line back, they will need to make the court wider.
Or eliminate the corner 3....
Quote from: DoctorV on February 04, 2025, 04:59:13 PMThe 3P line will definitely be moved back soon, as there has been smoke coming out of the NBA that the product is being diluted by way too many 3P attempts.
It's just making the game uglier and more boring. Who wants to see lazy defense and 60 3P attempts per game to go along with a bunch of highlight reel dunks? Sure, the dunks are great, but the diversity and beauty of the game is taking a hit.
I'm not arguing the data, I'm just saying that they will move the line back in an attempt to get more team basketball and all over the court involvement.
Is there a thing about possible shrinking the quarter lengths to 10 minutes? My wife said she saw that on the ticker the other day but I haven't followed up on looking it up anywhere
Do you think people watch the NBA want to see more mid range?
Quote from: DoctorV on February 04, 2025, 04:59:13 PMThe 3P line will definitely be moved back soon, as there has been smoke coming out of the NBA that the product is being diluted by way too many 3P attempts.
It's just making the game uglier and more boring. Who wants to see lazy defense and 60 3P attempts per game to go along with a bunch of highlight reel dunks? Sure, the dunks are great, but the diversity and beauty of the game is taking a hit.
I'm not arguing the data, I'm just saying that they will move the line back in an attempt to get more team basketball and all over the court involvement.
Is there a thing about possible shrinking the quarter lengths to 10 minutes? My wife said she saw that on the ticker the other day but I haven't followed up on looking it up anywhere
It will be the same, the first 30-35% of games in NBA will continue to be that way until crunch time after mid season.
Quote from: The Sultan on February 04, 2025, 04:01:41 PMLOL. An average D1 player doesn't come close to that. According to the stats posted by brew, the median "short mid-range" team shoots 37.9%. "Long mid range" is 36%.
An average NBA player doesn't even come close to that.
Who said "average" D1 player. I said high major. Brew's stats are great, but it's quite possible that many mid range shots are now of the desperation variety because of the analytics and "math" involved - and that they aren't intended outcomes from an offensive set.
Not all mid range shots have the same degree of difficulty either. I'm more advocating for elbow/FT line extended types is "mid range," not long mid range, and not necessarily "short" midrange, if short is considered anything outside of 4 feet.
But, being SO two dimensional as an offense seems to be causing a degree of challenge to our ability to finish at the rim too.
Quote from: Elonsmusk on February 04, 2025, 05:27:37 PMWho said "average" D1 player. I said high major. Brew's stats are great, but it's quite possible that many mid range shots are now of the desperation variety because of the analytics and "math" involved - and that they aren't intended outcomes from an offensive set.
Not all mid range shots have the same degree of difficulty either. I'm more advocating for elbow/FT line extended types is "mid range," not long mid range, and not necessarily "short" midrange, if short is considered anything outside of 4 feet.
But, being SO two dimensional as an offense seems to be causing a degree of challenge to our ability to finish at the rim too.
lol. Whatever it takes to justify your bad take. Even good high major players don't shoot 50% from mid range.
Kadary Richmond, lifetime 44% shooter from 2.
Ok. So never take a two point shot. Cuz math.
I stated earlier; No one seems to be willing to admit, once or twice a game, a two may be better than a three.
A guy cuts through traffic, his defender gets screened it falls down. Guy is wide open at the free throw line. Kick it back out because season stats say "no". Never mind in THAT situation that may be the best shot. I'm out.
This is one reason I don't post.
Quote from: romey on February 04, 2025, 06:44:57 PMOk. So never take a two point shot. Cuz math.
I stated earlier; No one seems to be willing to admit, once or twice a game, a two may be better than a three.
A guy cuts through traffic, his defender gets screened it falls down. Guy is wide open at the free throw line. Kick it back out because season stats say "no". Never mind in THAT situation that may be the best shot. I'm out.
This is one reason I don't post.
Gosh if you never posted, how could we be able to read your hyperbolic nonsense.
I DID admit that an occasional mid range shot is fine. And of course no one said "never take a two point shot."
Pitiful display of rebounding by us,size is the difference
Quote from: romey on February 04, 2025, 06:44:57 PMOk. So never take a two point shot. Cuz math.
I stated earlier; No one seems to be willing to admit, once or twice a game, a two may be better than a three.
A guy cuts through traffic, his defender gets screened it falls down. Guy is wide open at the free throw line. Kick it back out because season stats say "no". Never mind in THAT situation that may be the best shot. I'm out.
This is one reason I don't post.
I feel like you didn't read my post. Don't take "Far 2s", take "Close 2s".
Post more. Or don't...
Missed all mid range shots today
Gold....What 2 points over the last 3 games....
Joplin.....Pathetic defense and decision making....
Parham and Lowry to start...
They have earned it.....
There were two occasions last night when Joplin received a pass 2-3 feet inside the FT line and was open. I thought he could have risen and shot on both occasions, especially given that we weren't exactly lighting it up from deep (or from anywhere else on the court).
But those were the only two times I thought even remotely that we could have or should have taken a shot other than a 3 or something inside.
Quote from: MU82 on February 05, 2025, 10:08:12 AMThere were two occasions last night when Joplin received a pass 2-3 feet inside the FT line and was open. I thought he could have risen and shot on both occasions, especially given that we weren't exactly lighting it up from deep (or from anywhere else on the court).
But those were the only two times I thought even remotely that we could have or should have taken a shot other than a 3 or something inside.
That is a shot within the offensive scheme, was mind boggling to me why he didn't take them.
To me, a mid-range shot is preferable to a wild drive to the basket that has minimal chance of success. How many times per game do we drive wildly and off balance and throw up a weak shot that bounces off the backboard or gets blocked? Ten? In that scenario, wouldn't a floater or mid-range jumper be preferable to the out of control drive?
I'd rather have a shot at a few buckets that way than multiple out of control drives that basically count as a turnover and potentially a run out for the other team.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 05, 2025, 07:19:07 PMTo me, a mid-range shot is preferable to a wild drive to the basket that has minimal chance of success. How many times per game do we drive wildly and off balance and throw up a weak shot that bounces off the backboard or gets blocked? Ten? In that scenario, wouldn't a floater or mid-range jumper be preferable to the out of control drive?
I'd rather have a shot at a few buckets that way than multiple out of control drives that basically count as a turnover and potentially a run out for the other team.
Marquette is way better at the rim from the ppp perspective than a mid range shot.
10? Hyperbole much?
Quote from: tower912 on February 05, 2025, 07:21:49 PM10? Hyperbole much?
Well I'm not going to go back and watch again to count. Per the box score, St. John's had 5 blocks (going to assume those were at the rim) and I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that we had 5 bad/out of control drives during the course of the game.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 05, 2025, 07:30:18 PMWell I'm not going to go back and watch again to count. Per the box score, St. John's had 5 blocks (going to assume those were at the rim) and I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that we had 5 bad/out of control drives during the course of the game.
So MU had 8 blocks and? Guess??
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 05, 2025, 07:30:18 PMWell I'm not going to go back and watch again to count. Per the box score, St. John's had 5 blocks (going to assume those were at the rim) and I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that we had 5 bad/out of control drives during the course of the game.
We had a few "out of control drives" that resulted in fouls being called on St. John's and FTs for our heroes.
Quote from: MU82 on February 06, 2025, 03:36:08 PMWe had a few "out of control drives" that resulted in fouls being called on St. John's and FTs for our heroes.
Probably.
So I went to rewatch the game. ON OUR VERY FIRST POSSESSION Chase drove and tried to avoid contact and got his weak ass layup attempt swatted, which led to a runout for St. John's (who didn't score).
Are we now really questioning that we force a lot of drives that turn into difficult, low-probability-for-success layups? That seems to be a topic after most games, usually leading to discussions about how the refs screwed us yet again.
I'm fine with disagreeing that a floater or pull up jumper is a better attempt than these layup attempts, and the stats bear that out, but let's not just pretend that these attempts don't exist.
Edit: about four possessions later Stevie had a drive against Ejiofor that resulted in layup that just barely missed as he launched it over the top of the backboard. So our first 5 or 6 possessions had two layups (yay) that had no chance to go in (oops).
These are not good shot attempts and basically were turnovers even though they are the kind of shot we supposedly want. I'm going to have to revise my estimate of ten upwards based on this review.
Write a letter to Shaka then, I'm sure he'd love to hear from you. You can complain about it as much as you want, the offensive philosophy isn't changing as long as Shaka is here.