Perspective 2025

[Scoop Snoop]

Jop signed with Texas. I view him like a transfer. He was not recruited to Marquette.

Since when do recruits choose a school to go to first rather than a coach they want to play for? He was a Shaka recruit and would have probably followed Shaka to any school he ended up at after leaving Texas. Viewing Jop "like a transfer" does not make any sense to me.

[mileskishnish72]

MU just had the most wins in a 4 year span since the McGuire era.  One day, Kam, Stevie, and Jop will be spoken of with the same reverence as the three amigos.   More tournament would be welcome, of course, but the same can be said of that now sepia tinted era. 
   

I'm with you on this one, Tower (despite Mr. Ball's objection), and I've thought about the comparisons as the season went on. There were a lot of similarities, particularly as relates to their senior seasons. Good start, top ten rankings, a bit of tailing off as the season wound down, a Senior Day bitter OT loss to a despised NY rival, and a round of 64 loss to a
higher-seeded team from out West.

It was tough to see Stevie and Kam go out with such suboptimal performances. Jolp ended with the same highs and lows we've come to expect from him. They weren't perfect, but they worked their asses off. Farewell, class of 2025, and thanks.

[Scoop Snoop]

I'm with you on this one, Tower (despite Mr. Ball's objection), and I've thought about the comparisons as the season went on. There were a lot of similarities, particularly as relates to their senior seasons. Good start, top ten rankings, a bit of tailing off as the season wound down, a Senior Day bitter OT loss to a despised NY rival, and a round of 64 loss to a
higher-seeded team from out West.

It was tough to see Stevie and Kam go out with such suboptimal performances. Jolp ended with the same highs and lows we've come to expect from him. They weren't perfect, but they worked their asses off. Farewell, class of 2025, and thanks.

Nice post, although I think "a bit of tailing off..." is an understatement. The SJU loss really stung.

My wife and I watched the end of the NM game very closely even after a W was simply not possible. Why? Just to see the seniors for a few more minutes in their last moments in Marquette uniforms. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Jop signed with Texas. I view him like a transfer. He was not recruited to Marquette.

Oh, come on.

[willie warrior]

Jop signed with Texas. I view him like a transfer. He was not recruited to Marquette.

Yes he was. he came with Shaka to Marquette.

[brewcity77]

I saw that according to Shot Quality, we should've won the New Mexico game. The same was the case for NMD, at St John's, at Creighton, & St John's at home (at a minimum).

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas, but if we win those 4 games, a 27-6 Marquette team would've been a 3-seed at worst and Friday's performance would've had us playing another game.

What this tells me is despite the shooting regression from Kam & Jop, the offense was working to get the looks we needed to win games. If those two shoot their career averages coming into the season from 3, we would've made 24 more shots from deep, improved our 3PFG% from 32.6% (#235) to 35.0% (#109). Our eFG% would improve from 52.0% (#116) to 53.7% (#61).

Nevada's system works, we just need our leading shooters to not regress next year. DeAndre Haynes has turned Zavier Simpson, Ant Cowan, Tyler Kolek, and Kam Jones into studs. He can do the same with the guys we'll have going forward. There's still a bright future here, even if it doesn't feel like it today.

[panda2.0]

I saw that according to Shot Quality, we should've won the New Mexico game. The same was the case for NMD, at St John's, at Creighton, & St John's at home (at a minimum).

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas, but if we win those 4 games, a 27-6 Marquette team would've been a 3-seed at worst and Friday's performance would've had us playing another game.

What this tells me is despite the shooting regression from Kam & Jop, the offense was working to get the looks we needed to win games. If those two shoot their career averages coming into the season from 3, we would've made 24 more shots from deep, improved our 3PFG% from 32.6% (#235) to 35.0% (#109). Our eFG% would improve from 52.0% (#116) to 53.7% (#61).

Nevada's system works, we just need our leading shooters to not regress next year. DeAndre Haynes has turned Zavier Simpson, Ant Cowan, Tyler Kolek, and Kam Jones into studs. He can do the same with the guys we'll have going forward. There's still a bright future here, even if it doesn't feel like it today.

I saw that as well. I vaguely understand shot quality stats so bear with me. Are we scoring higher in their metrics because we're getting our own good looks or is it because defenses allow us good looks because we're not a good shooting team?

[WolfganghisKhan]

We should've won had we hit open looks.

Hang the banner.

[bradforster]

I saw that according to Shot Quality, we should've won the New Mexico game. The same was the case for NMD, at St John's, at Creighton, & St John's at home (at a minimum).

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas, but if we win those 4 games, a 27-6 Marquette team would've been a 3-seed at worst and Friday's performance would've had us playing another game.

What this tells me is despite the shooting regression from Kam & Jop, the offense was working to get the looks we needed to win games. If those two shoot their career averages coming into the season from 3, we would've made 24 more shots from deep, improved our 3PFG% from 32.6% (#235) to 35.0% (#109). Our eFG% would improve from 52.0% (#116) to 53.7% (#61).

Nevada's system works, we just need our leading shooters to not regress next year. DeAndre Haynes has turned Zavier Simpson, Ant Cowan, Tyler Kolek, and Kam Jones into studs. He can do the same with the guys we'll have going forward. There's still a bright future here, even if it doesn't feel like it today.

When you suck at shooting the basketball you're going to lose several games you should win.  The analytics say threes over twos all day long.  Just look at the Boston Celtics approach to winning games.  They have shooters that support the concept.  The Golden Eagles simply don't have the accuracy  from deep.  Therefore, the strategy is flawed.  If you build a philosophy around the three point line, get some damn players that can deliver on it!

[bradforster]

When you suck at shooting the basketball you're going to lose several games you should win.  The analytics say threes over twos all day long.  Just look at the Boston Celtics approach to winning games.  They have shooters that support the concept.  The Golden Eagles simply don't have the accuracy from deep.  Therefore, the strategy is flawed.  If you build a philosophy around the three point line, get some damn players that can deliver on it!

[WolfganghisKhan]

Also NBA playoffs are best of 7 series which allows more room for variance. 1-and-done tournament style isn't kind to high variance styles.

[bradforster]

Also NBA playoffs are best of 7 series which allows more room for variance. 1-and-done tournament style isn't kind to high variance styles.

Agreed, but if you build a team that doesn't crash the boards and is lacking on the interior, you better be able to shoot.  Of course the margin for error decreases, but that's the game Shaka has chosen to play.

[Pakuni]

Sorry, I forgot that Joplin was a Shaka recruit, so that's another hit. But, I also forgot about Itejere, so that's another miss. Still 50/ 50 on Shaka recruits.

Also forgot Emarion Ellis.

[Nukem2]

Yes he was. he came with Shaka to Marquette.

He was given a release from Texas. He signed with Texas. Shaka may have encouraged Jop to follow him, but he originally recruited him to Texas.

[tower912]

I saw that according to Shot Quality, we should've won the New Mexico game. The same was the case for NMD, at St John's, at Creighton, & St John's at home (at a minimum).

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas, but if we win those 4 games, a 27-6 Marquette team would've been a 3-seed at worst and Friday's performance would've had us playing another game.

What this tells me is despite the shooting regression from Kam & Jop, the offense was working to get the looks we needed to win games. If those two shoot their career averages coming into the season from 3, we would've made 24 more shots from deep, improved our 3PFG% from 32.6% (#235) to 35.0% (#109). Our eFG% would improve from 52.0% (#116) to 53.7% (#61).

Nevada's system works, we just need our leading shooters to not regress next year. DeAndre Haynes has turned Zavier Simpson, Ant Cowan, Tyler Kolek, and Kam Jones into studs. He can do the same with the guys we'll have going forward. There's still a bright future here, even if it doesn't feel like it today.

Yes, the offense got the looks it is designed to.  MU'S best shooters did not make them at their historical averages. And, MU missed a lot of lay ups.

[panda2.0]

He was given a release from Texas. He signed with Texas. Shaka may have encouraged Jop to follow him, but he originally recruited him to Texas.

If only I could think of another adjective for when a coach encourages a potential player to join their team. Here's a hint, it starts with r and ends with uit

[tower912]

Red suit?
Rotten fruit?

[brewcity77]

When you suck at shooting the basketball you're going to lose several games you should win.  The analytics say threes over twos all day long.  Just look at the Boston Celtics approach to winning games.  They have shooters that support the concept.  The Golden Eagles simply don't have the accuracy  from deep.  Therefore, the strategy is flawed.  If you build a philosophy around the three point line, get some damn players that can deliver on it!

Did you read what you quoted? We had those players. Kam was a 38% shooter. Jop 36%. Those are the guys any program would want taking threes. But this year they didn't hit, and I'm pretty sure you can't "get some damn players" in February when the season is 3/4 done and the portal is long since closed.

[brewcity77]

I saw that as well. I vaguely understand shot quality stats so bear with me. Are we scoring higher in their metrics because we're getting our own good looks or is it because defenses allow us good looks because we're not a good shooting team?

Shot quality bases their scores on the looks you get and the players taking them.

So based on who got the shots, whether the defense was allowing it or we were creating it, we would've been expected to score X based on how the game played out.

Again, it's cold comfort at best when the season is over, but our five projected starters (Sean/Chase/Zaide/Royce/Ben) shot 34.1% from deep in their most recent played seasons. Mirror or slightly improve on that and we should be better off offensively, even with a lot of volume scoring lost.

Though I think that relies a lot on Sean being able to create looks for others.

[PointWarrior]

We should've won had we hit open looks.

Hang the banner.

The CoS believes metrics are far superior to eye-ball tests.

[tower912]

The eyeball test says we missed too many open looks and lay ups.  Same as the metrics.

[Big Papi]

Shot quality bases their scores on the looks you get and the players taking them.

So based on who got the shots, whether the defense was allowing it or we were creating it, we would've been expected to score X based on how the game played out.

What qualifies as a good look?

What qualifies as which players are better than others.

Here is what I hate about stats. You can manipulate them.

The question that should be asked is what changed between last year and this year that caused a decrease in 3 point percentage.

We lost Kolek and Kam's role changed.  He was not getting shot quality he had last year.

Next year, there is no Kam who played very well as a facilitator.  Will the players who are supposed to be good 3 point shooters get the looks they had this past year.  Hard to say if it will our won't be better next year.

[Big Papi]

The eyeball test says we missed too many open looks and lay ups.  Same as the metrics.

My eyeballs test said that as the season went on those layups attempts were getting more and more difficult so you can't expect the make percentage to be the same.

[panda2.0]

Shot quality bases their scores on the looks you get and the players taking them.

So based on who got the shots, whether the defense was allowing it or we were creating it, we would've been expected to score X based on how the game played out.

Again, it's cold comfort at best when the season is over, but our five projected starters (Sean/Chase/Zaide/Royce/Ben) shot 34.1% from deep in their most recent played seasons. Mirror or slightly improve on that and we should be better off offensively, even with a lot of volume scoring lost.

Though I think that relies a lot on Sean being able to create looks for others.

I'm not speaking directly to the Marquette sq outliers but overall, I've viewed sq as much more ambiguous than other advanced stat formulas. It's so difficult to quantify that type of defensive activity and can ultimately lead to misinformation.

The eye test constantly told me opponents were leaving the weak side wide open to over help on dribble penetration. A ball reversal would lead to what sq would consider a good look but teams constantly dared us to shoot because they knew we couldn't make it and couldn't attack the rim if we didn't shoot it.

[MDMU04]

Here's how I look at the shot quality metrics.

Our hitters worked good counts, got a lot of high quality pitches to hit, but either fouled them off or made soft contact resulting in outs.

The approach works, it's just up to the guys to execute. Either they do, or they don't.

In big situations this season, our guys didn't.