Back in early August, I shared some thoughts/projections on the team's offensive outlook for 2024-25. Just took a look back now as the season is almost complete.. I guess my biggest thing is it's a bummer we shot like crap from 3.
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=66301.msg1671605#msg1671605
Blue highlights are excerpts from my August 2024 post.
We finished #45 in raw offensive efficiency and #21 in KenPom offensive AE. I expect a drop in OE this season and perhaps the only reasonable path to improve would be insane (top 10 nationally) 3-point shooting.
Over the course of the season, I think our offense is down. It won't be bad – it'll be good. But, not flirting with elite. I'd probably be happy with something in the mid-30's, but would project more in the ballpark of the mid-40's.
As of now, we sit at #63 for raw OE and #35 in KenPom Adj OE. The only reasonable path to improve (insane 3-point shooting) didn't happen. That said, the turnover rate and OR% were both a bit stronger than expected, helping us to that mid-30's range that I said I'd be happy with.
Certainly the way we got there wasn't as pleasant – as we saw our Adj OE ranking dip as the year went on. But, overall this was a solid outcome vs. where I had them pegged (pawz).
FT rate – We were bad (#344). Gone is our top guy, Oso, who was at 42.9%. Tyler and his 26.8% are gone. Kam and Jop have room to improve (career highs of 16.2% and 20.2%, respectively, last season), but it's not enough. Chase, Zaide, Damarius... all guys who could (1) get more time and (2) get to the line a healthy amount.
Nonetheless, if we're giving big minutes to Kam, Jop, and Ben.. we're just not going to be a good FT rate team.
We are at #346 this season compared with #344 a year ago. In line with expectations. Jop showed improvement, but this team was just never going to be a good FT rate team.
OR% - We were weak at #285 nationally. Oso easily led the way with his 9.4%. I do think Royce is a guy who can do well on the o-boards immediately, and perhaps Ben can get near Oso... but here again, we are going to be a weak OR% team.
Royce at 8.0% was solid, but it was the team effort led by Stevie (7.0%) that enabled us to get to #179. Still probably deserves a 'weak' description with the #36 average height and #80 effective height team in the nation, but a bit better than I was projecting. Group effort, 'good job' vs. how the team was built. Wasn't ever going to be good, but could have been a lot worse.
TO% - Strong #30 ranking last year, turning it over at a rate of just 14.3%. Frankly, everyone was good... but when I look at what Kam will likely be doing this year, I'm not expecting a repeat of his excellent 10.7% rate. Not that I think it'll explode – just don't see it as repeatable.
We can still be a good team at TO%, but I have trouble projecting a scenario where we'll show marked improvement.
Kam finished at 11.1%, only slightly higher than last year's 10.7%. Based on how he was used, very pleased with that result. As a team, ranked #8 at 13.6%. Really strong performance in this factor for the team. Excellent. Downside is it's big area of concern for me as we look ahead to 2025-26. #COLE
eFG% - We're down to the most important factor as our only hope. We were great last season – 55.0%, good for #21 in the nation.. So, the problem is there isn't a ton of room to move up. A bigger problem is our 2FG% of 56.6% (#13).
Gone is Oso and his 58.0% 2FG%. Sure, Ben was at 75.8%, but those were limited attempts and a lot of dunks. Can he be a 60% guy? Certainly.
Stevie Mitchell's 63.1% would be tough to repeat. Kam's 59.6% 2FG% was great, and it's certainly possible he could wind up with something similar this year... but can't project dramatic improvement. Chase (47.6%) and the frosh may find a way to get it done... and Jop can be quite a bit better than his 50.0%.. but overall I'm not banking on improvement in 2FG% and expect it to be down a bit.
So, now we're onto 3FG%. We finished at a solid 35.2% for the season, including the NC State debacle caused by fraudulently-filled basketballs and crap rims. That was good for #106 in the country.
Once you're into the 37.2% range (a 2.0% improvement), you're sitting at about #20 nationally. If we dropped our 2FG% by 2.0% and improved 3FG% by 2.0% with last year's attempt mix, our eFG% would decline by 0.1%.
Welp. The 2FG% dropped to 54.7% from 56.6%, a 190 bps decline. Not unexpected. Ben's 75.8% turned into.. 60.0% exactly, with few attempts. Stevie's 63.1% fell to 52.1%. Kam's 59.6% with a similar 58.6% was solid, but still down. Chase improved on the 47.6% to 53.7% and JoLp grew his 50.0% to 55.0%. 2FG% looked a lot like what was projected both on a team and individual basis.
That brings us to 3FG%. It stunk. Kam and Jop both struggled for the season. Royce was a willing chucker, but didn't hit much. And that sealed it.
With the strong TO% and not awful OR%, we had a chance to be a better OE team.. but the 3's did us in. I certainly did not project the drop we saw and am not going to pin that on the coaching staff.. the reality is our Shot Quality says we could have been better.. maybe just an unlucky shooting year, hey?
We still finished the regular season record I projected (one more win in nonconf; one less in conf) and OE – while it dropped during the year – was in a solid/happy place for me vs. preseason projections. We were close, and I don't mind the roster construction we came into the year with at all. We could have been great.
Pray.
I expected a 6 seed. Got my hopes way too high early in the year.
All in all they just missed my expectations but not by much
Good post - thanks for sharing.
If you do the same thing for the 25-26 team this summer I fear it's going to cause a lot of anxiety with our normally level-headed audience here.
"C'mon man, we lost TKO and Oso. Fringe Top-25. 6-9 seed. Win our first round game."
Was my vote back in October, so the team under performed my expectations by not winning our first round game.
The ft rate has been poor in all of Shaka's years here.......it could be just a function of the players we've had.....or maybe our offense( although we certainly have attacked the rim quite a bit....especially in the Kolek/ Oso years) ?
Either way I hope Shaka and staff identify this as an area that needs to improve going forward......
Quote from: MuMark on March 25, 2025, 01:25:51 PMThe ft rate has been poor in all of Shaka's years here.......it could be just a function of the players we've had.....or maybe our offense( although we certainly have attacked the rim quite a bit....especially in the Kolek/ Oso years) ?
Either way I hope Shaka and staff identify this as an area that needs to improve going forward......
This has got to be bait
Ft rate is number of attempts, not percentage made. So, seek out contact when driving instead of trying to avoid it.
The offensive movement was terrible. Terrible picks being set. Terrible movement off any picks being set. Stagnant movement off of the ball. Guarding Marquette was very easy. Let them shoot and miss. They missed having a few big bodies in order to keep the paint honest.
No, they missed having the best passing college big man in some time as well as a pass first all American PG vs a shoot first all American PG who lost his shot.
I like the idea of our offense, but we don't have the personnel for it.
Also like golf, you need to have every club in the bag. Mid range shots may be inefficient over the course of a season, however you still need to be able to utilize it when needed.
But if a 3 wood is inefficient as hell, take it out of the bag.
Quote from: WolfganghisKhan on March 25, 2025, 02:59:30 PMAlso like golf, you need to have every club in the bag. Mid range shots may be inefficient over the course of a season, however you still need to be able to utilize it when needed.
No.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on March 25, 2025, 03:45:14 PMNo.
I'm with WG here. You have to have a guy or two that is capable of making shots from 12-18 feet. Preferably a guard. Oso and Kolek were good in that 12-15 foot range and it opened up the offense. You don't have to take them often or even more than once or twice per game, but the opponent at least has to guard you there. This year, only Jop could make those shots so teams could get by a lot easier.
TK's game winner over Kalk at CU and big shot against Colorado come to mind. If you're unwilling to take those shots you're a lot easier to guard.
Having a big that's a lob threat to keep the center closer to the rim to open up those floaters would help too. We didn't have that this year.
Quote from: BM1090 on March 25, 2025, 04:19:08 PMI'm with WG here. You have to have a guy or two that is capable of making shots from 12-18 feet. Preferably a guard. Oso and Kolek were good in that 12-15 foot range and it opened up the offense. You don't have to take them often or even more than once or twice per game, but the opponent at least has to guard you there. This year, only Jop could make those shots so teams could get by a lot easier.
TK's game winner over Kalk at CU and big shot against Colorado come to mind. If you're unwilling to take those shots you're a lot easier to guard.
Having a big that's a lob threat to keep the center closer to the rim to open up those floaters would help too. We didn't have that this year.
Oso's push shot in the lane was not a midrange shot. I don't consider anything in the paint a midrange shot.
Our offense struggled because our two-highest volume 3-point shooters shot well under their career averages.
Why is this board so hell bent on never ever ever taking a mid range? some players excel with it. Not our team this year I know. Expand the arsenal? Expand your scoring options? Am I missing the analytics suggesting taking a mid range in any situation is bad?
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on March 25, 2025, 04:22:14 PMOso's push shot in the lane was not a midrange shot. I don't consider anything in the paint a midrange shot.
Our offense struggled because our two-highest volume 3-point shooters shot well under their career averages.
That's certainly a huge part of it. If Kam and Jop hit their career averages this discussion looks different. But Oso's push shot did keep defenses honest. They always guarded him there, which opened up more at the hoop and the three point line. You don't have to take them, you just have to be a threat to take them. Oso took those floaters from the wide post too. If you have to guard those, the geometry changes. This year, teams didn't have to guard them much.
I am going to go out on a limb and say MU sees more mid-range shots next year. Not due to some huge change in offensive philosophy, but due to Sean being 5'10 and getting crushed going all of the way to the rim all of the time.
Quote from: tower912 on March 25, 2025, 04:27:34 PMI am going to go out on a limb and say MU sees more mid-range shots next year. Not due to some huge change in offensive philosophy, but due to Sean being 5'10 and getting crushed going all of the way to the rim all of the time.
Certainly should develop a floater.
Quote from: Johnny B on March 25, 2025, 04:23:11 PMWhy is this board so hell bent on never ever ever taking a mid range? some players excel with it. Not our team this year I know. Expand the arsenal? Expand your scoring options? Am I missing the analytics suggesting taking a mid range in any situation is bad?
Because they think basketball games are won on a spreadsheet thus that stupid shot quality W/L record getting posted here after every loss.
Quote from: WolfganghisKhan on March 25, 2025, 04:40:40 PMBecause they think basketball games are won on a spreadsheet thus that stupid shot quality W/L record getting posted here after every loss.
You do understand that the best coaches in the world believe in taking high quality shots and look at the same data that people talk about here........right?
Shot quality is not some fringe idea........it's main stream.......
With that being said I agree with BM......it helps to have guys capable of making mid range shots from time to time......because you aren't always going to be able to get layups, dunks or open 3s.
Options are good.
Quote from: MuMark on March 25, 2025, 05:04:37 PMYou do understand that the best coaches in the world believe in taking high quality shots and look at the same data that people talk about here........right?
Shot quality is not some fringe idea........it's main stream.......
With that being said I agree with BM......it helps to have guys capable of making mid range shots from time to time......because you aren't always going to be able to get layups, dunks or open 3s.
Options are good.
I'm convinced most people here don't actually watch any other basketball than Marquette which makes them clueless about how the game is played in this era and why and just blame nerds
Quote from: Uncle Rico on March 25, 2025, 05:20:31 PMI'm convinced most people here don't actually watch any other basketball than Marquette which makes them clueless about how the game is played in this era and why and just blame nerds
Id say it's the opposite. We had people in here thinking Ben Gold is a legit NBA player and Caedin Hamilton would play a legit role this year.
We run a Moreyball offense with people who can't shoot 3s. Genius level offense.
Quote from: Johnny B on March 25, 2025, 04:23:11 PMWhy is this board so hell bent on never ever ever taking a mid range? some players excel with it. Not our team this year I know. Expand the arsenal? Expand your scoring options? Am I missing the analytics suggesting taking a mid range in any situation is bad?
Math is hard for some people. Yourself included, I guess.
Quote from: WolfganghisKhan on March 25, 2025, 05:23:31 PMId say it's the opposite. We had people in here thinking Ben Gold is a legit NBA player and Caedin Hamilton would play a legit role this year.
We run a Moreyball offense with people who can't shoot 3s. Genius level offense.
I guess you're right. Watching the highest scoring levels of college basketball in years with an offense Marquette is running certainly proves Marquette wrong for running it. Marquette almost certainly would still be playing had they mixed in more mid-range.
Where's Lenny to tell me no one brings up mid-range?
And you also clearly didn't read what JB wrote
Quote from: WolfganghisKhan on March 25, 2025, 05:23:31 PMId say it's the opposite. We had people in here thinking Ben Gold is a legit NBA player and Caedin Hamilton would play a legit role this year.
I still think Gold plays in the NBA. Shaka was one of those who thought Caedin would play a legit role this year. Said so about a year ago when he said Caedin could have helped the 23-24 team.
Quote from: tower912 on March 25, 2025, 05:37:37 PMI still think Gold plays in the NBA. Shaka was one of those who thought Caedin would play a legit role this year. Said so about a year ago when he said Caedin could have helped the 23-24 team.
And you're both wrong.
Ben is still TBD.
Gold definitely still has the potential. I'm less certain than ever that he'll reach it, but it's there.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on March 25, 2025, 05:31:33 PMMath is hard for some people. Yourself included, I guess.
Where tf is the Math tough guy
Quote from: WolfganghisKhan on March 25, 2025, 05:23:31 PMId say it's the opposite. We had people in here thinking Ben Gold is a legit NBA player and Caedin Hamilton would play a legit role this year.
We run a Moreyball offense with people who can't shoot 3s. Genius level offense.
You mean that same offense that was 7th best in the country in 23 and 21st in 24?
The 2 main guys who struggled shooting 3s this year had proven they were good 3 point shooters in the first 3 years of their careers........it easy to bitch and whine when things don't turn out like we hope......that doesn't mean the strategy was wrong.....only that it didn't work.
Somebody doesn't always have to be to blame .........
Quote from: WolfganghisKhan on March 25, 2025, 05:23:31 PMId say it's the opposite. We had people in here thinking Ben Gold is a legit NBA player and Caedin Hamilton would play a legit role this year.
We run a Moreyball offense with people who can't shoot 3s. Genius level offense.
BTW, what is a 'Moreyball' offense. One that makes you say 'Amster-damn' after a miss? One that just doesn't eel right?
Our ft% needs to be better. I'd allot at least 30% out of practice time to practicing the granny shot bc that may work better for some.
The Keeyan boomerang will bring us back to the FF!
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 25, 2025, 05:57:28 PMOur ft% needs to be better. I'd allot at least 30% out of practice time to practicing the granny shot bc that may work better for some.
The Keeyan boomerang will bring us back to the FF!
Brilliant.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on March 25, 2025, 05:31:33 PMMath is hard for some people. Yourself included, I guess.
Is three truly greater than two if you miss around 70% of shots worth 3 points?
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 25, 2025, 06:48:31 PMIs three truly greater than two if you miss around 70% of shots worth 3 points?
Is a wild out of control layup that has zero chance of going in better than a floater or short jumper?
Quote from: tower912 on March 25, 2025, 05:45:48 PMBTW, what is a 'Moreyball' offense. One that makes you say 'Amster-damn' after a miss? One that just doesn't eel right?
https://www.theringer.com/2016/12/08/nba/under-the-influence-of-moreyball-1ea4ba34b85c
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on March 25, 2025, 06:53:11 PMIs a wild out of control layup that has zero chance of going in better than a floater or short jumper?
A lot of those wild uncontrolled layups from our offensive scheme came this year because teams know
1 - we can't shoot the 3
2 - we won't take a shot anywhere except at the rim.
The scheme is very easy to guard when you don't have great ball movement and perimeter shooting. We had neither this year which led to struggles at the rim.
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 25, 2025, 06:48:31 PMIs three truly greater than two if you miss around 70% of shots worth 3 points?
There is one variable missing in your math problem. If you provide that, we can tell you.
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 25, 2025, 07:04:09 PMA lot of those wild uncontrolled layups from our offensive scheme came this year because teams know
1 - we can't shoot the 3
2 - we won't take a shot anywhere except at the rim.
The scheme is very easy to guard when you don't have great ball movement and perimeter shooting. We had neither this year which led to struggles at the rim.
I was beating this drum months ago.
Quote from: MuMark on March 25, 2025, 05:04:37 PMbecause you aren't always going to be able to get layups, dunks or open 3s.
I really can't think of a game where we struggled to get layups, dunks, or open 3s. We just weren't making those open threes.
Quote from: tower912 on March 25, 2025, 04:27:34 PMI am going to go out on a limb and say MU sees more mid-range shots next year. Not due to some huge change in offensive philosophy, but due to Sean being 5'10 and getting crushed going all of the way to the rim all of the time.
Wow, that screams MU basketball excitement.
Quote from: tower912 on March 25, 2025, 05:37:37 PMI still think Gold plays in the NBA.
Goose was big on the Gold-will-be-an-NBA-guy thesis. I said back then it was possible but unlikely ... and now, after 3 full seasons, I think it's even less likely.
Gold is slight like Novak. And like Novak, he plays smaller than his height. He would be a defensive liability whether matched up with a 5, 4 or 3 at the next level.
So Gold's only chance is if he proves he can be an ELITE shooter of the NBA-distance 3 - like Novak. Ben certainly hasn't shown that yet.
And I say this all as a guy believes Gold has had value as a college player. And also as a guy who won a bet that Sam Hauser would have an NBA career.
Hey, maybe we'll see Ben become very good next season. That would be fan-freakin-tastic!
Quote from: Hards Alumni on March 25, 2025, 05:31:33 PMMath is hard for some people. Yourself included, I guess.
Yeah, because missing 75% of our 3 pt shots is so much better than making 50% of mid range shots.
Quote from: PointWarrior on March 25, 2025, 10:15:22 PMYeah, because missing 75% of our 3 pt shots is so much better than making 50% of mid range shots.
Who makes 50% of their mid range shots?
Quote from: PointWarrior on March 25, 2025, 10:15:22 PMYeah, because missing 75% of our 3 pt shots is so much better than making 50% of mid range shots.
We shot 25% from 3? That's news to me.
You think as a team we'd shoot 50% from the mid range? Kadary Richmond is supposed to be a mid range savant. He shoots 47.1% from the mid range.
This is why people don't take you seriously.
Quote from: PointWarrior on March 25, 2025, 10:15:22 PMYeah, because missing 75% of our 3 pt shots is so much better than making 50% of mid range shots.
We missed 68.2% of our three pointers this season. The average NBA team misses about 56% of their mid-range.
If we shot 100 3Pers at 31.8%, we would score about 96 points.
If we shot 100 mid range shots at 44% we would score 88 points.
Given that we are a college team and not an NBA team, we would hit a lot less than 44% of our mid-range shots.
As Hards said, math is hard for some people.
The whole mid-range obsession here is just another flavor of backup QB syndrome. We didn't get the result we wanted, so we look for something we hadn't tried, a mid-range game (the proverbial backup QB).
People mistakenly think, "it couldn't possibly be worse, so let's try the backup qb." The problem is that it absolutely can get worse.
If we weren't good at making open threes, we certainly weren't going to be good at making open mid-range shots.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on March 25, 2025, 10:28:30 PMThe whole mid-range obsession here is just another flavor of backup QB syndrome. We didn't get the result we wanted, so we look for something we hadn't tried, a mid-range game (the proverbial backup QB).
People mistakenly think, "it couldn't possibly be worse, so let's try the backup qb." The problem is that it absolutely can get worse.
If we weren't good at making open threes, we certainly weren't going to be good at making open mid-range shots.
I am basketball dumb so help me out - making a 10ft shot is harder than making a 23ft shot?
It isn't more difficult. It is less efficient.
Quote from: PointWarrior on March 25, 2025, 11:45:24 PMI am basketball dumb so help me out - making a 10ft shot is harder than making a 23ft shot?
No. You have to make more 10ft shots to get to the value of a 23ft shot.
Quote from: tower912 on March 26, 2025, 04:40:22 AMIt isn't more difficult. It is less efficient.
Exactly. I'm not breaking new ground here. The math has been done.
Simply look at scoring charts. The further away from the basket a player is, the less efficient a shot is, until they get to the 3 point line where the efficiency goes back up because the shot is worth 1 additional point (1/3 more efficient).
College kids are also much worse shooters than NBA players... generally speaking.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on March 25, 2025, 10:21:26 PMWe missed 68.2% of our three pointers this season. The average NBA team misses about 56% of their mid-range.
If we shot 100 3Pers at 31.8%, we would score about 96 points.
If we shot 100 mid range shots at 44% we would score 88 points.
Given that we are a college team and not an NBA team, we would hit a lot less than 44% of our mid-range shots.
As Hards said, math is hard for some people.
Now do the difference between the shitty forced layup attempts that result in 0 points versus midrange attempts converted at whatever percent you choose.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on March 26, 2025, 06:29:41 AMNow do the difference between the shitty forced layup attempts that result in 0 points versus midrange attempts converted at whatever percent you choose.
Whenever I hear the "midrange" talk, I always just assumed people wanted more midrange shots instead of highly contested layup attempts. That is more nuanced from an analytics perspective. I thought it was obvious by now that all teams want to take as many open 3s as possible.
Quote from: CountryRoads on March 26, 2025, 06:44:31 AMWhenever I hear the "midrange" talk, I always just assumed people wanted more midrange shots instead of highly contested layup attempts. That is more nuanced from an analytics perspective. I thought it was obvious by now that all teams want to take as many open 3s as possible.
Exactly. And I get that it's hard to tell in the heat of the moment that the layup you are trying to take might not be a high quality shot...but that's where the mid-range should come in to play. There should be cues (defender is running full speed side by side with you, a gigantic mofo is standing there waiting for you, etc.) that a pull up is a higher probability outcome.
Quote from: PointWarrior on March 25, 2025, 11:45:24 PMI am basketball dumb so help me out - making a 10ft shot is harder than making a 23ft shot?
It is easier. But not so much easier that it makes up for the difference in value.
NBA teams shoot 44% from mid range and just under 36% from 3. So a mid range shot is 8% easier to make but worth 33% less points.
If you shoot 100 mid range shots at 44%, you score 88 points.
If you shoot 100 3Ps at 36%, you score 108 points.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on March 26, 2025, 06:55:41 AMExactly. And I get that it's hard to tell in the heat of the moment that the layup you are trying to take might not be a high quality shot...but that's where the mid-range should come in to play. There should be cues (defender is running full speed side by side with you, a gigantic mofo is standing there waiting for you, etc.) that a pull up is a higher probability outcome.
At that point, seek and finish through contact. That is a difference I see between MU guards and Sparty guards. As the Spartan guards go to the basket, they make sure they jump into the defender, drawing contact, trying to get the foul call in addition to the point blank shot. MU guards haven't done that consistently in a decade or more.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on March 26, 2025, 06:29:41 AMNow do the difference between the shitty forced layup attempts that result in 0 points versus midrange attempts converted at whatever percent you choose.
Youre asking to value something at 0 based on a result. Reality is that that no shot has a 0% possibility before it is shot, not even a Caedin 75 footer. Forced layups still likely have a higher efficiency than mid range shots especially given that their much more likely to result in fouls than a mid range shot.
The thing is, the math has been explained so many times, that those that do not get it are choosing to not get it and just want something to complain about. They understand it, they just want to point to a "smoking gun" that caused a loss, and have fixated on shot selection.
I'm a proponent of adding a five point shot from half court and essentially relegating the three point shot to the midrange category.
Quote from: Its DJOver on March 26, 2025, 07:05:07 AMThe thing is, the math has been explained so many times, that those that do not get it are choosing to not get it and just want something to complain about. They understand it, they just want to point to a "smoking gun" that caused a loss, and have fixated on shot selection.
Cognitive bias is very difficult for some people to overcome.
Quote from: PointWarrior on March 25, 2025, 11:45:24 PMI am basketball dumb so help me out - making a 10ft shot is harder than making a 23ft shot?
🙄
Quote from: Its DJOver on March 26, 2025, 07:05:07 AMThe thing is, the math has been explained so many times, that those that do not get it are choosing to not get it and just want something to complain about. They understand it, they just want to point to a "smoking gun" that caused a loss, and have fixated on shot selection.
I'm really not so sure they all actually understand it, sadly.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on March 26, 2025, 08:15:29 AMI'm really not so sure they all actually understand it, sadly.
https://youtu.be/eqs8wOiBLhc?si=w1oxUao5ZBa7_1Gs
Quote from: Uncle Rico on March 26, 2025, 08:28:40 AMhttps://youtu.be/eqs8wOiBLhc?si=w1oxUao5ZBa7_1Gs
Lemme help you, boomer
Quote from: Uncle Rico on March 26, 2025, 08:28:40 AMhttps://youtu.be/eqs8wOiBLhc?si=w1oxUao5ZBa7_1Gs
Someone needs to send this to Shaka and Nevada immediately.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on March 26, 2025, 08:45:37 AMLemme help you, boomer
I generally consider myself bad at basketball.
Whenever I see video like this, it makes me think I could have been legit back then.
Quote from: tower912 on March 26, 2025, 07:02:05 AMAt that point, seek and finish through contact. That is a difference I see between MU guards and Sparty guards. As the Spartan guards go to the basket, they make sure they jump into the defender, drawing contact, trying to get the foul call in addition to the point blank shot. MU guards haven't done that consistently in a decade or more.
Let me know when we start doing this. We have way too many supposedly good shots that are really just empty possessions.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on March 26, 2025, 10:02:10 AMLet me know when we start doing this. We have way too many supposedly good shots that are really just empty possessions.
We were 51st in the country (86th percentile) for 2P%. We really didn't have that many empty possessions inside the arc. Our issue on offense was 38th in the country for 3Ps taken but 236th in 3P%.
Is this a trick question????
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on March 26, 2025, 06:57:10 AMIt is easier. But not so much easier that it makes up for the difference in value.
NBA teams shoot 44% from mid range and just under 36% from 3. So a mid range shot is 8% easier to make but worth 33% less points.
If you shoot 100 mid range shots at 44%, you score 88 points.
If you shoot 100 3Ps at 36%, you score 108 points.
Understood, but when your team is 4/20 from 3 - Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on March 26, 2025, 06:57:10 AMIt is easier. But not so much easier that it makes up for the difference in value.
NBA teams shoot 44% from mid range and just under 36% from 3. So a mid range shot is 8% easier to make but worth 33% less points.
If you shoot 100 mid range shots at 44%, you score 88 points.
If you shoot 100 3Ps at 36%, you score 108 points.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on March 26, 2025, 06:57:10 AMIt is easier. But not so much easier that it makes up for the difference in value.
NBA teams shoot 44% from mid range and just under 36% from 3. So a mid range shot is 8% easier to make but worth 33% less points.
If you shoot 100 mid range shots at 44%, you score 88 points.
If you shoot 100 3Ps at 36%, you score 108 points.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on March 26, 2025, 06:57:10 AMIt is easier. But not so much easier that it makes up for the difference in value.
NBA teams shoot 44% from mid range and just under 36% from 3. So a mid range shot is 8% easier to make but worth 33% less points.
If you shoot 100 mid range shots at 44%, you score 88 points.
If you shoot 100 3Ps at 36%, you score 108 points.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on March 26, 2025, 06:57:10 AMIt is easier. But not so much easier that it makes up for the difference in value.
NBA teams shoot 44% from mid range and just under 36% from 3. So a mid range shot is 8% easier to make but worth 33% less points.
If you shoot 100 mid range shots at 44%, you score 88 points.
If you shoot 100 3Ps at 36%, you score 108 points.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on March 26, 2025, 06:57:10 AMIt is easier. But not so much easier that it makes up for the difference in value.
NBA teams shoot 44% from mid range and just under 36% from 3. So a mid range shot is 8% easier to make but worth 33% less points.
If you shoot 100 mid range shots at 44%, you score 88 points.
If you shoot 100 3Ps at 36%, you score 108 points.
This all makes sense except when your team often goes 4/20 from three.
Quote from: PointWarrior on March 26, 2025, 10:31:07 AMThis all makes sense except when your team often goes 4/20 from three.
Yes, a bad shooting night will make for a bad offensive performance more times than not. If you have a way of predicting if a shot is going in before it is launched, you should find a way to sell that
I've said this before, but one thing I think would help MU's offense is getting a few true jump shooters who can get shots off more quickly and with less separation from the defense than the set shooters the team had this year.
That would include being able to pull up and take a jump shot in the "midrange" when that opportunity presents itself.
As you watch the NCAA games note how many players there are (and they aren't all All Americans) that have this ability.
(https://c.tenor.com/2zSQBamFIsMAAAAd/tenor.gif)
Quote from: MU82 on March 25, 2025, 10:13:05 PMGoose was big on the Gold-will-be-an-NBA-guy thesis. I said back then it was possible but unlikely ... and now, after 3 full seasons, I think it's even less likely.
Gold is slight like Novak. And like Novak, he plays smaller than his height. He would be a defensive liability whether matched up with a 5, 4 or 3 at the next level.
So Gold's only chance is if he proves he can be an ELITE shooter of the NBA-distance 3 - like Novak. Ben certainly hasn't shown that yet.
And I say this all as a guy believes Gold has had value as a college player. And also as a guy who won a bet that Sam Hauser would have an NBA career.
Hey, maybe we'll see Ben become very good next season. That would be fan-freakin-tastic!
I don't believe that's his only path. He could also develop a solid post game and become a bit more diverse offensively. He's 6'11 and he does play small, but that's due to his attitude and preferences rather than lack of athleticism. He's 10x more athletic than Novak and laterally quicker.
We'll see. It starts with confidence with him. If he doesn't gain confidence in the post and off the bounce, then yes he'd need to be a sharpshooter. But the tools are there.
Dodds claimed Gold was as one of the team's top 4 most important players... heading into the season THREE YEARS AGO. lol
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on March 26, 2025, 10:11:43 AMWe were 51st in the country (86th percentile) for 2P%. We really didn't have that many empty possessions inside the arc. Our issue on offense was 38th in the country for 3Ps taken but 236th in 3P%.
The 2p numbers drop against top 50 opponents and would be even worse without Kam doing Kam things at the rim. We just didn't have the guys this year to score at the rim with the amount of traffic inside of the lane because teams packed inside with our poor outside shooting.
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 26, 2025, 03:22:02 PMThe 2p numbers drop against top 50 opponents and would be even worse without Kam doing Kam things at the rim. We just didn't have the guys this year to score at the rim with the amount of traffic inside of the lane because teams packed inside with our poor outside shooting.
I feel like we could say that about literally any team? I'm sure a large majority of teams 2p% goes down when you put them against the top 50 teams in the country, as well as removing said teams best player.
Quote from: MU82 on March 25, 2025, 10:13:05 PMGoose was big on the Gold-will-be-an-NBA-guy thesis. I said back then it was possible but unlikely ... and now, after 3 full seasons, I think it's even less likely.
Gold is slight like Novak. And like Novak, he plays smaller than his height. He would be a defensive liability whether matched up with a 5, 4 or 3 at the next level.
So Gold's only chance is if he proves he can be an ELITE shooter of the NBA-distance 3 - like Novak. Ben certainly hasn't shown that yet.
And I say this all as a guy believes Gold has had value as a college player. And also as a guy who won a bet that Sam Hauser would have an NBA career.
Hey, maybe we'll see Ben become very good next season. That would be fan-freakin-tastic!
If we could start with Ben shooting the ball more then zero times and collecting zero rebounds in a game.... I'd be pretty happy.
A stretch big who spaces the floor is pretty ineffective.... If he doesn't do the one thing hes supposed to do.
Quote from: #UnleashSean on March 26, 2025, 03:27:00 PMI feel like we could say that about literally any team? I'm sure a large majority of teams 2p% goes down when you put them against the top 50 teams in the country, as well as removing said teams best player.
Some teams go up and some teams go down. We went down against better teams. Facts are facts. Kam also helps our numbers a ton. Jop, Stevie and Chase are all around 50% which absolutely will not cut it when the team shoots as poorly as they did from behind the arc.
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 26, 2025, 03:47:25 PMSome teams go up and some teams go down. We went down against better teams. Facts are facts. Kam also helps our numbers a ton. Jop, Stevie and Chase are all around 50% which absolutely will not cut it when the team shoots as poorly as they did from behind the arc.
Care to site these numbers for teams that go up against better teams and that Marquette went down?
Quote from: wadesworld on March 26, 2025, 03:51:57 PMCare to site these numbers for teams that go up against better teams and that Marquette went down?
Torvik. Start with the landing page and then filter vs. top 50 teams.
SJU went up. Marquette went down. I'm sure there's more examples of both.
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 26, 2025, 03:56:48 PMTorvik. Start with the landing page and then filter vs. top 50 teams.
SJU went up. Texas Tech went up. Marquette went down. I'm sure there's more examples of both.
Fell all the way from 51st in the country in 2 point percentage in all games to 62nd overall against top 50 opponents in 2 point percentage ::) . And that includes 20 low major teams being ahead of us against top 50 opponents that had a 1 game sample size and 12 more that had a 2 or 3 game sample sizes.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 26, 2025, 04:05:12 PMFell all the way from 51st in the country in 2 point percentage in all games to 62nd overall against top 50 opponents in 2 point percentage ::) . And that includes 20 low major teams being ahead of us against top 50 opponents that had a 1 game sample size and 12 more that had a 2 game sample size.
Lol - Change the sample size
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 26, 2025, 04:06:40 PMLol - Change the sample size
...those teams only played 1 total game against top 50 teams all year (or 2 or 3 games for the teams that only had 2 or 3 games against top 50 opponents). That's the point. It's a tiny sample size that probably doesn't reflect what they would do against top 50 competition if they played 16 games against top 50 opponents like Marquette did.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 26, 2025, 04:13:42 PM...those teams only played 1 total game against top 50 teams all year (or 2 or 3 games for the teams that only had 2 or 3 games against top 50 opponents). That's the point. It's a tiny sample size that probably doesn't reflect what they would do against top 50 competition if they played 16 games against top 50 opponents like Marquette did.
Buddy - Change the min. games so it compares high major teams against high major teams. I'm not using Cornell as an example.
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 26, 2025, 04:15:40 PMBuddy - Change the min. games so it compares high major teams against high major teams. I'm not using Cornell as an example.
Okay, if we're completely changing what TAMU's claim was I'll do that.
We go from 23rd best P5 team in 2 point percentage in all games to 21st best P5 team in 2 point percentage against top 50 opponents. So, moved up. Like common sense would tell you, most teams will perform worse against better competition.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 26, 2025, 04:25:30 PMOkay, if we're completely changing what TAMU's claim was I'll do that.
We go from 23rd best P5 team in 2 point percentage in all games to 21st best P5 team in 2 point percentage against top 50 opponents. So, moved up. Like common sense would tell you, most teams will perform worse against better competition.
You may have bested me this time Wade's. But this doesnt take away from the fact most of the players on our team were average to below average finishing at the rim. And I believe a lot of that has to do with how our opponents schemed against us because we don't move the ball well and don't shoot the three well.
Take away Jordan and Pippen, and the '90s Bulls weren't very good, especially against the best dozen teams in the NBA.
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 26, 2025, 04:32:09 PMYou may have bested me this time Wade's. But this doesnt take away from the fact most of the players on our team were average to below average finishing at the rim. And I believe a lot of that has to do with how our opponents schemed against us because we don't move the ball well and don't shoot the three well.
Re-read the original post - specifically the section on eFG%. The answers are right there.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on March 26, 2025, 06:34:03 PMRe-read the original post - specifically the section on eFG%. The answers are right there.
If the answers are right there, why did we only beat one top 50 torvik team from 2/1 through the end of the season?
unfortunately, shooting as many threes and high efficiency shots as possible is not the panacea some here make it out to be.
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 26, 2025, 08:26:17 PMIf the answers are right there, why did we only beat one top 50 torvik team from 2/1 through the end of the season?
unfortunately, shooting as many threes and high efficiency shots as possible is not the panacea some here make it out to be.
So shooting poor efficiency shots is your solution? lol
Quote from: MuMark on March 26, 2025, 09:12:14 PMSo shooting poor efficiency shots is your solution? lol
No - but occasionally taking shots at different spots inside the perimeter forces teams to guard you differently than if you only shoot 3's (poorly) and shots at the rim.
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 26, 2025, 09:14:34 PMNo - but occasionally taking shots at different spots inside the perimeter forces teams to guard you differently than if you only shoot 3's (poorly) and shots at the rim.
Your assumption is that a team wouldn't shoot those shots poorly too.
Flawed
Quote from: jesmu84 on March 26, 2025, 09:38:05 PMYour assumption is that a team wouldn't shoot those shots poorly too.
Flawed
It's a huge hypothetical simply because it's been completely coached out of them. I can't say one way or another if any of them would have that skill 2-3 years into their college careers.
However, I do believe our personnel this year was woefully unfit for the system Shaka employs. I hope he's more flexible next year as I don't see much of an improvement from behind the arc.
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 26, 2025, 04:32:09 PMYou may have bested me this time Wade's. But this doesnt take away from the fact most of the players on our team were average to below average finishing at the rim.
Every rotation player on our team other than Caedin and Damarius shot 50% or higher on 2P FGs. We were plenty good at finishing at the rim. You are simply incorrect.
Our offensive problem was very simple. We took a ton of threes but weren't very good at making them. Given that the primary driver of that was Kam and Joplin shooting under 32% prior to the tournament, I don't think Shaka was unreasonable in thinking this offensive system would work. If Joplin and Kam shoot their career averages, we would have be a top 10 offense.
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 26, 2025, 09:44:36 PMIt's a huge hypothetical simply because it's been completely coached out of them. I can't say one way or another if any of them would have that skill 2-3 years into their college careers.
However, I do believe our personnel this year was woefully unfit for the system Shaka employs. I hope he's more flexible next year as I don't see much of an improvement from behind the arc.
Backup QB syndrome
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 26, 2025, 09:14:34 PMNo - but occasionally taking shots at different spots inside the perimeter forces teams to guard you differently than if you only shoot 3's (poorly) and shots at the rim.
No, it wouldn't.
One thing not mentioned, our offense didn't have nearly as many dunks this year as it had the previous two years.
2023
131 made dunks (95.6%)
2024
110 made dunks (89.4%)
2025
53 made dunks (88.3%)
Oso alone had 64 and 62 made dunks the previous two seasons. Marquette only had 60 dunk attempts total this year.
That's something this offense needs going forward. Someone to roll to the rim, catch lobs, or occupy the dunker spot. Turn some of those contested guard layup attempts into easy points.
Quote from: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on March 27, 2025, 09:20:51 AMOne thing not mentioned, our offense didn't have nearly as many dunks this year as it had the previous two years.
2023
131 made dunks (95.6%)
2024
110 made dunks (89.4%)
2025
53 made dunks (88.3%)
Oso alone had 64 and 62 made dunks the previous two seasons. Marquette only had 60 dunk attempts total this year.
That's something this offense needs going forward. Someone to roll to the rim, catch lobs, or occupy the dunker spot. Turn some of those contested guard layup attempts into easy points.
Josh Clark is probably a big hope in this regard. Obviously Ben is not in the same camp with Oso and Kur for dunks.
Quote from: Nukem2 on March 27, 2025, 09:22:28 AMJosh Clark is probably a big hope in this regard. Obviously Ben is not in the same camp with Oso and Kur for dunks.
But Oso and Kur weren't in his class from 3.
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 27, 2025, 09:52:42 AMYes it would
No, because you just let the opponent take those brain dead shots.
You're going to come around eventually when you figure out you're not always the smartest person in the room.
We had the offense that Panda wants in 2022.....Shaka's first year here......we took more mid range shots with Justin and Morsell as our 2 main scorers........we even shot the 3 ball better that season than we did in 2025.
Results ......2022 adjusted offensive efficiency 109.2 ranked 64th in the country
2025 117.5 adjusted offensive efficiency ranked 34th.
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 27, 2025, 09:52:42 AMYes it would
Considering it's already been objectively explained to you by others that they are less efficient shots resulting in less points I hardly think that's the case. But objective, logical information doesn't seem to register with you.
BTW, when is Sean entering the portal?
Quote from: MU82 on March 26, 2025, 06:16:50 PMTake away Jordan and Pippen, and the '90s Bulls weren't very good, especially against the best dozen teams in the NBA.
Wins the internet today.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on March 27, 2025, 09:58:34 AMNo, because you just let the opponent take those brain dead shots.
You're going to come around eventually when you figure out you're not always the smartest person in the room.
Teams played drop against us all season long. Nothing we could do about it because we are a zero threat in the midrange.
Alabama has made 2 mid-range shots - total - in their 3 NCAAT wins, averaging 94 points.
Oats is so stoopid.
Quote from: MU82 on March 27, 2025, 08:44:34 PMAlabama has made 2 mid-range shots - total - in their 3 NCAAT wins, averaging 94 points.
Oats is so stoopid.
He has guys on his team who can hit a three. Sweet point though
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 27, 2025, 08:46:10 PMHe has guys on his team who can hit a three. Sweet point though
It was a sweet point, yes.
Quote from: MU82 on March 27, 2025, 09:02:56 PMIt was a sweet point, yes.
It was definitely not. I'm surprised someone with such an elevated sense of humor could not detect the sarcasm.
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 27, 2025, 08:14:58 PMTeams played drop against us all season long. Nothing we could do about it because we are were a zero limited threat in the midrange from three.
FIFY
Quote from: panda2.0 on March 27, 2025, 08:46:10 PMHe has guys on his team who can hit a three. Sweet point though
Not sure if you were more wrong in the tennis thread or this one.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on March 28, 2025, 06:07:37 AMNot sure if you were more wrong in the tennis thread or this one.
?
I think it's not totally crazy to imagine someone like Joplin being able to add a few mid-range spots to his arsenal and be more efficient. To his credit, he did what the staff wanted and never took mid-range shots, and always tried to get to the layups. He was even relatively efficient at 55% on twos. But with his limited athleticism he got blocked or turned it over a lot while trying to force it. Given that he never really got good at recognizing and passing out of those spots, and given his overall bucket getting ability, I do wonder if he could've added something like an elbow jumper. The important questions are, 1) what do you think he would need to shoot from there to make it worth adding? Depends on what shots it replaces. 2) Can the coaching staff realistically only allow 1/15 players to take a certain shot? Or is it better to just outlaw it to avoid the fever catching?
Quote from: THRILLHO on March 28, 2025, 11:56:43 AMI think it's not totally crazy to imagine someone like Joplin being able to add a few mid-range spots to his arsenal and be more efficient. To his credit, he did what the staff wanted and never took mid-range shots, and always tried to get to the layups. He was even relatively efficient at 55% on twos. But with his limited athleticism he got blocked or turned it over a lot while trying to force it. Given that he never really got good at recognizing and passing out of those spots, and given his overall bucket getting ability, I do wonder if he could've added something like an elbow jumper. The important questions are, 1) what do you think he would need to shoot from there to make it worth adding? Depends on what shots it replaces. 2) Can the coaching staff realistically only allow 1/15 players to take a certain shot? Or is it better to just outlaw it to avoid the fever catching?
Jop was painfully slow at getting into his jump shooting position and release on threes. It actually seemed worse than earlier in his career. I point that out just because that works against him for a contested mid-range jumper. He's neither bouncy nor quick release....seems like a recipe to get blocked. When he was successful at jump shots around the rim it usually was because of his footwork losing his man on the pivot...