In light of the continued slide in offfensive output, it seems clear that this year's team will continue to struggle in scoring points. The Big East teams have made their adjustments to our offense and it is definately working for all of them (see recent Paint Touches analysis).
If ever there was a game to change things up it's our next game against Seton Hall.
So, here is my suggestion:
1. Allow all players to take any open shot whether a 2 or a 3 and focus on offensive rebounds when the shooter takes a mid-range 2.
I don't know that it will work but we do need to do something as the Big East has figured us out.
(https://i.gifer.com/fxl5.gif)
Quote from: MU 1971 on February 14, 2025, 12:32:29 PMIn light of the continued slide in offfensive output, it seems clear that this year's team will continue to struggle in scoring points. The Big East teams have made their adjustments to our offense and it is definately working for all of them (see recent Paint Touches analysis).
If ever there was a game to change things up it's our next game against Seton Hall.
So, here is my suggestion:
1. Allow all players to take any open shot whether a 2 or a 3 and focus on offensive rebounds when the shooter takes a mid-range 2.
I don't know that it will work but we do need to do something as the Big East has figured us out.
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/3o7aD4kZn5k0SEvPmo/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952vqgy3g3u727z7qpj3smsmh8whgjvniexhi7x3qd2&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)
Hire dis guy
Honestly, I simply would not shoot the ball and just pass until a shot clock violation occurs or you get fouled. Really shake things up
Figure out how to get Ben Gold involved!
These are the threads that make us willing to pay Premium Scoop subscription fees; thank you!
Quote from: Jay Bee on February 14, 2025, 01:06:21 PMThese are the threads that make us willing to pay Premium Scoop subscription fees; thank you!
I may have to pay up soon, I'm getting sick of the ads.
How come we haven't considered changing the offense to shoot more midrange jumpers? Maybe some 16-18 foot turnarounds and fadeaways. Use the backboard, that's why its there. We should be able to generate those type of shots early in the shot clock. Hopefully they're practicing them.
Just throwing it out there for your feedback, not sure I've seen it suggested on MUScoop yet.
I'm in.
Quote from: BCHoopster on February 14, 2025, 12:56:31 PMFigure out how to get Ben Gold involved!
Better yet, put him on the bench as he is virtually invisible while in.
Quote from: willie warrior on February 14, 2025, 02:01:42 PMBetter yet, put him on the bench as he is virtually invisible while in.
Thanks, Wingdings
Quote from: MU 1971 on February 14, 2025, 12:32:29 PMwe do need to do something as the Big East has figured us out.
McDermott said it well last season (I think) in an interview when he said-in so many words-that we
all have each other figured out. And why
wouldn't we? Two games per year plus maybe meet in the BET, year after year. ::)
Quote from: MDMU04 on February 14, 2025, 01:50:57 PMHow come we haven't considered changing the offense to shoot more midrange jumpers? Maybe some 16-18 foot turnarounds and fadeaways. Use the backboard, that's why its there. We should be able to generate those type of shots early in the shot clock. Hopefully they're practicing them.
Just throwing it out there for your feedback, not sure I've seen it suggested on MUScoop yet.
To do that, you need kids who have jump shots, not one on this team!
Must resist temptation to start Modest Suggestions Re-Revisited thread ...
Must resist temptation to start Modest Suggestions Re-Revisited thread ...
Must resist temptation to start Modest Suggestions Re-Revisited thread ...
Quote from: MU82 on February 14, 2025, 03:42:04 PMMust resist temptation to start Modest Suggestions Re-Revisited thread ...
Must resist temptation to start Modest Suggestions Re-Revisited thread ...
Must resist temptation to start Modest Suggestions Re-Revisited thread ...
Go the other way. Modest Suggestions Pre-Visted. Then you can be the first!
Quote from: BCHoopster on February 14, 2025, 02:26:31 PMTo do that, you need kids who have jump shots, not one on this team!
What!?!? Wonder if Shaka knows this???
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGEgaqlSOCK/?igsh=MTJkbm5hbzFsdXBiOQ==
This guy seems to have a good rebounding team, maybe he could help Shaka.
The players should have to hand write thank you notes to every person who wears a Marquette sweater vest to the 100 level seats. Would bring about some humility to this program and seeing those faces out of the corner of their eye would make their 3 pt percentage go up.
Quote from: MDMU04 on February 14, 2025, 01:50:57 PMHow come we haven't considered changing the offense to shoot more midrange jumpers? Maybe some 16-18 foot turnarounds and fadeaways. Use the backboard, that's why its there. We should be able to generate those type of shots early in the shot clock. Hopefully they're practicing them.
Just throwing it out there for your feedback, not sure I've seen it suggested on MUScoop yet.
Not sure anyone is saying that. We all love layups and threes. It is rather effective when layups and threes go through the net.
Here's what I said the last time. Midrange twos are not something the staff will pursue and this is why. Nothing in here has changed in a meaningful way:
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
- 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.
How did you come up with the revelation of shooting open looks?