Can we finally agree that bigs are necessary in basketball?

[Tenspro2002]

What evidence do we have that it ruins spacing? I think putting 4 or 5 shooters on the perimeter ruins spacing.

As I have been saying since I was calling for Carlton and Whaley to play together, all of these three point shooters on the perimeter are getting in each other's way, and 3 point shooting percentages have been dropping for decades. Many basketball statisticians do not understand the concept of a marginal event. 30 years ago, the total NCAA 3FG% was 36.2%. In 2021, it was 33.9%. The number of 3's taken increased significantly. Assuming that 3 point shooting is consistent over the years (will get back to this later), those incremental shots are likely at much lower than 34% rate. Is an incremental 3 attempt that has a 25% or 20% chance of going in a better shot than a 2 point shot by a center that has a 50% or better chance of going in? Of course not. But that is exactly what coaches are doing, jacking up more 3's with offenses that are not creating that many good 3 attempts. If you want more good 3's, you need to pull the defenses in.

I would also argue that 3 point shooting ability is likely much better than it was and yet shooting percentages are down. I believe the reason for this is that teams are taking bad 3's. If you want to see evidence of this, look at the UConn backcourt and wings. Almost every one of them is having the worst shooting percentage year of their careers. These guys can shoot, but shooting out of an offense that is easy to defend on the perimeter leads to a low shooting percentage.

There is a lot more area on the perimeter than in the lane.

I understand your point about marginal benefit. I do not think we are in a regime where there is a marginal benefit to replacing a perimeter player with a big.

 

[jake14mw]

My source on the shooting percentages.

College Basketball Report: Three-Point Shooting is Mired in the Worst Two-Year Stretch in History

For just the second time ever, the Division-I-wide three-point percentage fell under 34% in 2020-21.

www.si.com

THIS is good, interesting information. Why you are posting it here with your argument about playing two bigs at once, I don't know.

I agree with the notion that the answer for most teams is not just to simply shoot more threes. To me, it has to be analyzing all of your players points per shot attempt from different areas on the court. And another part of this is when they miss, what is our chance of getting an offensive rebound? Andre Jackson is generally the second best rebounder for us on the court in most cases. So, if he is taking a three at 30.8%, that is .92 points per attempt, and he is out of rebounding position. That's a bad shot for us.

It's also about what are your alternatives? We have Sanogo and Clingan shooting 61% and 71% from 2. That's simple math. GET THEM THE BALL. I do believe that those percentages would go down if they played together. The next most effective shots for most teams are drives to the basket. High percentage layups. We don't have guys that do that, so that's not an alternative FOR US. For many teams with talented penetrators, that is a better PPA than fringe 3 pointers. And obviously, the whole picture is a lot more complicated than this simple math.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

This is a hilarious bad faith argument. The cause is literally in the article, and it's not "teams are playing too many people around the perimeter and not enough bigs."



Despite an increase in attempts, the shooting % was also going up before they shifted the line back. Plus a pandemic that took away practice and training time.

Let's look back to the old 3 point line to do apples to apples comparison.

1990-1991 - 36.2% from 3, 13.8 3 point attempts/game
2016-2017 - 35.2% from 3, 21.1 3 point attempts a game

Only 1 percentage point doesn't seem like a huge deal, right? Basically, a player would have to shoot about 33.3% (((.352*21.1)-(.362*13.8))/7.3) on those incremental 7.3 shots to get to 35.2%, not great, not terrible. Better PPP than an out of control drive to the basket, but probably not as good as a post up.

I mentioned I was going to circle back to 3 point shooting being consistent over the years. I would have to dig deeper into the stats, but I think most basketball experts would argue that 3 point shooting is much better now than it was 30 years ago. In the intervening 25 years from 1990-1991, virtually every aspect of basketball development, from coaching to training to conditioning has improved, and the coaching at the youth and high school level, especially for the top 1000+ players in each class, is way ahead of where it was in 1990. What if today's shooters could hit 38% on their first 14 shots. That would mean the teams were shooting under 30% on the extra shots.

For you to be right:

1) Players can not have improved their 3 point shooting at all in 30 years, and
2) All 3 point shots have exactly the same probability of success.

Are you jumping on that train?

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Wow. I guess we didn’t beat the dead horse on this one enough. Rather than put it to rest, let’s have us “experts” debate it for another month.

Are you inviting conflict or proposing an alliance w/Nelson?

 

[mauconnfan]

I was at the game. Did I miss when Clingan and Sanogo played together today to support this post?

No but I can point out games in which we didn't play them or at least try where teams with less size and were quicker and ate us up alive from in the paint 8-12 feet away. Not as easy to shoot over Adama, DC or even SJ now from what I'm thinking- compared to Newton, Joey, Diarra and Alleyne.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

This is a hilarious bad faith argument. The cause is literally in the article, and it's not "teams are playing too many people around the perimeter and not enough bigs."



Despite an increase in attempts, the shooting % was also going up before they shifted the line back. Plus a pandemic that took away practice and training time.

It also doesn't help your argument that the 3 point shot has gotten harder.

 

[mauconnfan]

No because they make the open shot when we crowd the paint with two bigs and there isn’t a rebound. Just an inbounds with 2 seconds remaining and only three guards to try to make magic happen.

He missed an open shot badly so that's wrong. But the fact is probably that we don't get the rebound anyway because it was a dreadful carom straight down tougher for DC to get to. But Ndelfo may not be as confident with 7'2 stretched by the rim.

There really was no right or wrong on that ending, bad rebound and no box out with the players in the game. They lost that game well before the last play!

 

[87Xfer]

If only one center on an NFL team is good, clearly zero would be better.

 

[CTMike]

Nelson arguments invariably involve a red herring, an attempt to display superior intellect that backfires, culminating in personal insults.

 

[auror]

It also doesn't help your argument that the 3 point shot has gotten harder.

I haven't made an argument in this thread. All things are situational. I called for playing double bigs before the Providence game and Hurley actually did it that game. It went okay, but not great. Considering our talent, it can be a tool in our toolbox this year, but I do not think it's likely effective or sustainable enough to supplant the starting lineup.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

If only one center on an NFL team is good, clearly zero would be better.

The Cowboys tested that theory out on the last play last night.

 

[imno1]

I don’t know how the 2 bigs would work but those who point to last years lineup with Sanogo and Whaley may not realize in league play so far we are scoring about the same this year as last and giving up about 2 extra points. We are actually shooting at a lower % compared to last year conference play.

 

[caw]

If only 1 big is good, then no bigs must be better by your logic. How did Butler do with no frontcourt today?

Two bigs could work. To do it Hurley would need to have the team play some kind of zone though. I can't imagine Clingan and Sanogo together being a good thing in a man to man defense.

If you are asking Hurley to throw out lineups with the best players, then Jackson, Hawkins, Karaban, Sanogo and Clingan is the lineup you are asking for. Not sure that has enough spacing on offense to get anything going and it's super slow on defense.

 

[CheshireCat]

Are you inviting conflict or proposing an alliance w/Nelson

Neither. Nelson would be better served in an echo chamber listening to his own brilliancy.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I haven't made an argument in this thread. All things are situational. I called for playing double bigs before the Providence game and Hurley actually did it that game. It went okay, but not great. Considering our talent, it can be a tool in our toolbox this year, but I do not think it's likely effective or sustainable enough to supplant the starting lineup.

A coach has to build an offense around the players he has. Hurley needs to build an offense set or sets around Sanogo and Clingan being on the court at once for 5 or 10 minutes a game. He should have come up with this in the summer.

Also, I will ask the question again: When did Calhoun ever let the opposing coach dictate which players he would play?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Nelson arguments invariably involve a red herring, an attempt to display superior intellect that backfires, culminating in personal insults.

Not you again.

I have been asking you the same question for YEARS. Please show me what your best post looks like. I want to see your A game.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Also, I will ask the question again: When did Calhoun ever let the opposing coach dictate which players he would play?

That's not what's happening here.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Two bigs could work. To do it Hurley would need to have the team play some kind of zone though. I can't imagine Clingan and Sanogo together being a good thing in a man to man defense.

If you are asking Hurley to throw out lineups with the best players, then Jackson, Hawkins, Karaban, Sanogo and Clingan is the lineup you are asking for. Not sure that has enough spacing on offense to get anything going and it's super slow on defense.

That lineup would bludgeon teams on the boards and always have rim protection. Let the other team take pull-up 2’s. Those are lower expected value shots and a lot of players simply won’t take that shot.

 

[CheshireCat]

A coach has to build an offense around the players he has. Hurley needs to build an offense set or sets around Sanogo and Clingan being on the court at once for 5 or 10 minutes a game. He should have come up with this in the summer.

Also, I will ask the question again: When did Calhoun ever let the opposing coach dictate which players he would play?

So only do what’s astronomically more effective 12 to 20 percent of the time. Got it - it’s all starting to make sense now.

 

[Luna]

Good arguments on both sides…. Not sure playing two bigs would work or not… maybe we will find out

 

[dennismenace]

Do you think posts like this add anything to this board? What’s the point?

Not sure if they add anything but they are the essence of the BY.

 

[uconn_jack]

Neither. Nelson would be better served in an echo chamber listening to his own brilliancy.

Don't worry, he has one of those too.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Not sure if they add anything but they are the essence of the BY.

How dare someone talk basketball strategy on a basketball board.

 

[dennismenace]

Good arguments on both sides…. Not sure playing two bigs would work or not… maybe we will find out

Have you ever thought of going into politics?