Shot Quality

[GloccaMorra]

There was an article floating around Twitter last night regarding shot quality and quantifying it. http://dribblehandoff.com/stories/shotq-quantifying-shot-quality.  This has been something that has intrigued me all year and for craps and giggles I just happened to track (in very rudimentary terms) the shot quality, or more accurately the possession quality of MU & GU during the second half last night.   For the purpose of this exercise I narrowed it down to the simplest of terms...Good Possession vs Bad Possession.  I'm not an advanced stats guy nor trying to be but the results of this very basic formula were interesting nonetheless.   

Good Possession = open jump shot by adequate shooter (Matt Heldt taking an open 3 would be a bad possession), a strong drive resulting in free throws, a close range shot opportunity with a high likelihood of success (think Hauser post up). 

Bad Possession = Turnover, forced shot with defender in strong position, reckless drive to basket resulting in high degree of difficulty/blocked shot/etc.

The results for the 2nd half were as follows:

Marquette - 16/32 good possessions (50%)
Georgetown - 20/33 good possessions (61%)

The fact that we made up a 6 point halftime deficit while having fewer "Good Possession" than Georgetown bears out what I had thought all year.  In order for us to win we have to make tough shots.  Our defense is giving up quality looks at an alarming rate and during the second half Georgetown just missed some open looks and we hit difficult ones.  Someone smarter than me can quantify this in a more advanced way but fun to look at.

[Its DJOver]

If a Sam post up is a good shot, then any Govan/Derrickson post up would have to be considered good as well.  That's about 75% of GU offense right there.  Think you might have oversimplified.  Also a good 3 can't carry the same weight as a good 2.  We had a lot of good 3's last night.

[GloccaMorra]

Govan/Derrickson post up's were considered good shots but yes, I understand this is very simplistic analysis.

[Its DJOver]

Govan/Derrickson post up's were considered good shots but yes, I understand this is very simplistic analysis.

Nothing wrong with the analysis, I actually think its a great stat to track, but personnel and style of play alter it quite a bit.  I agree with your overall point that we need to hit a lot of tough shots to win, but we have some of the best jump shooters in the conference. 

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Matt Heldt taking an open 3 would be a bad possession

Not when there is ice cream on the line

[CTWarrior]

This is an interesting topic.  I generally think to myself "bad shot" or 'good shot" for most shots we take.  I thought "bad shot" a lot against DePaul and not so much against Georgetown.  Now, of course, lots of times when I think "bad shot" it goes in and the reverse, too.  I don't know how to quantify it or even if there is a good metric, since it depends on not only where you and the defender are, but who you and the defender are, how you and the ball got there (are you squared up?  Did you catch the ball facing the hoop or were you dribbling in the opposite direction?), where the other people on the court are (is a better shot a pass away?), the time left on the clock, and even whether or not your teammates have a reasonable expectation that you'll take the shot to allow for offensive rebounding and rotating back on defense.  Much like art or porn, I know it a good shot when I see it.  I think Rowsey and Howard both take a lot of bad shots (like contested shots or not-squared-up threes early in the clock) and it seems like Hauser never does.

[rocket surgeon]

not arguing about the foul calls nor the ref'ing but we were 8/11 and georgetown was 24/29...hmmmm

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Better quality shots burn less going down.

[WayOfTheWarrior]

Interesting idea of an advanced stat like "Good Possession Percentage" or GPP. As already stated, difficult to nail down objectively, but I like it!

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Interesting idea to track. Hard to quantity though.

I thought "Bad Shot!!!" almost every time Katin shot it last year. But I'm pretty sure he made more of the "bad shots" than the "good shots". Thought the same thing about Buycks

[Its DJOver]

Interesting idea to track. Hard to quantity though.

I thought "Bad Shot!!!" almost every time Katin shot it last year. But I'm pretty sure he made more of the "bad shots" than the "good shots". Thought the same thing about Buycks

I'm pretty sure Jerel had the phrase "no, no, no, yes" trademarked

[GB Warrior]

This is an interesting topic.  I generally think to myself "bad shot" or 'good shot" for most shots we take.  I thought "bad shot" a lot against DePaul and not so much against Georgetown.  Now, of course, lots of times when I think "bad shot" it goes in and the reverse, too.  I don't know how to quantify it or even if there is a good metric, since it depends on not only where you and the defender are, but who you and the defender are, how you and the ball got there (are you squared up?  Did you catch the ball facing the hoop or were you dribbling in the opposite direction?), where the other people on the court are (is a better shot a pass away?), the time left on the clock, and even whether or not your teammates have a reasonable expectation that you'll take the shot to allow for offensive rebounding and rotating back on defense.  Much like art or porn, I know it a good shot when I see it.  I think Rowsey and Howard both take a lot of bad shots (like contested shots or not-squared-up threes early in the clock) and it seems like Hauser never does.

I think this with every Sam mid-range. Seems like high complexity, but he makes it so frequently that it's hard to call it a bad shot.

[BM1090]

This is an interesting topic.  I generally think to myself "bad shot" or 'good shot" for most shots we take.  I thought "bad shot" a lot against DePaul and not so much against Georgetown.  Now, of course, lots of times when I think "bad shot" it goes in and the reverse, too.  I don't know how to quantify it or even if there is a good metric, since it depends on not only where you and the defender are, but who you and the defender are, how you and the ball got there (are you squared up?  Did you catch the ball facing the hoop or were you dribbling in the opposite direction?), where the other people on the court are (is a better shot a pass away?), the time left on the clock, and even whether or not your teammates have a reasonable expectation that you'll take the shot to allow for offensive rebounding and rotating back on defense.  Much like art or porn, I know it a good shot when I see it.  I think Rowsey and Howard both take a lot of bad shots (like contested shots or not-squared-up threes early in the clock) and it seems like Hauser never does.

Last night specifically, Rowsey had a tough pull up long two in the 2nd half and Howard's 3 for our first OT basketball were both shots that I thought "WTF are you doing" when they let the ball go and both went in.

I've been trying to watch us neutrally the past few weeks because it gives me a better idea of what we're good at and what we're bad at. I also have been trying to evaluate refs neutrally. Unfortunately, I fail more often than I succeed.

[Marcus92]

It doesn't matter so much whether you or I judge a shot attempt as a quality shot. The better question: how well does Marquette use its offensive possessions?

Despite our inconsistencies, KenPom.com ranks MU the 15th most efficient offense in the country. That's good for 3rd best in the Big East, behind Nova and Xavier.

And despite the ongoing frustrations with hero ball and turnovers, Rowsey and Howard are remarkably efficient players — more efficient than guards such as Marcus Foster, Kamar Baldwin, Khadeen Carrington or Kyron Cartwright. It's worth mentioning that Rowsey and Howard also have higher usage rates than all of the other players mentioned here.

Offense (in general) and shot selection (in particular) aren't the problem. And with 76% of our scoring returning in the fall, Marquette's offense should once again be one of the best in the Big East. Hopefully a little more well-rounded, not as dependent on the long ball.

But if we're going to compete for a top 3 conference finish, it's the defense that needs to improve significantly.

[AZMarqfan]

 Last night I was curious about our shooting by arena type. For instance in large or NBA arenas do we shoot better because it feels like home? In smaller, intimate, loud arenas do we perform worse? Do different site lines or volume levels impact shooting?

 Your thoughts are interesting. One thing I find amazing is how other teams go on runs against us hitting incredible off-balance shots time and time again. This all seemed to start out for the first time in the NCAA tournament against South Carolina where they made six or seven floaters on decently defended possessions.   Last night they turned several good defensive possessions into Georgetown points. The one where the ball rolled (off a foot?) out to a guy three-point line for a third shot, and he made it