Shot Quality

[Huskyforlife]

But Dan can't coach. Right.

 

[husky429]

There's more to coaching than shot quality though. This is basically confirming that we take the right kind of shots generally. I thought we already knew that. Idk about anyone else but I've said we have a fairly decent balance of threes and twos at the rim before.

The major criticism with Hurley is game management... substitutions, calling TOs, unwilling to play fast, the stagnancy of our half court offense... etc. That isn't reflected here at all, and the fact that we take high effeciency shots doesn't change the fact that the structure of our offense is limiting how easy though effecient shots could be.

Anyone could tell a team to exclusively take catch and shoot 3s and be on the top of this list. But you certainly wouldn't win games because you wouldn't be getting guys in position to MAKE those shots.

Yeah, we take the right shots. That's a step in the right direction from a year ago no doubt. We've cut down on off the dribble pull ups and long 2s especially.

Your comment is kind of a non-sequitir though.

 

[Huskyforlife]

There's more to coaching than shot quality though. This is basically confirming that we take the right kind of shots generally. I thought we already knew that. Idk about anyone else but I've said we have a fairly decent balance of threes and twos at the rim before.

The major criticism with Hurley is game management... substitutions, calling TOs, unwilling to play fast, the stagnancy of our half court offense... etc. That isn't reflected here at all, and the fact that we take high effeciency shots doesn't change the fact that the structure of our offense is limiting how easy though effecient shots could be.

Anyone could tell a team to exclusively take catch and shoot 3s and be on the top of this list. But you certainly wouldn't win games because you wouldn't be getting guys in position to MAKE those shots.

Yeah, we take the right shots. That's a step in the right direction from a year ago no doubt. We've cut down on off the dribble pull ups and long 2s especially.

Your comment is kind of a non-sequitir though.

My point is people are too harsh on the in game coaching. I agree his rotations are sometimes questionable, he waits longer to call time outs sometimes than he should. But he's not some flagrantly bad Kevin Ollie level coach that people make him out to be after losses. We get good shots, the players play with heart and toughness, and our defense has been great. When it comes down to it on offense, the players need to make shots, or the quality of all that other stuff is masked by their shortcomings.

 

[auror]

For clarity for everyone, the list includes defensive shot quality as well as offensive. Not surprising that might help Hurley.

But the offense metric also includes more than just shot selection, it factors in openness, shooter, situation (off dribble, transition, etc).

What's been most maddening to me this season is that we're not just missing 3s, we're missing a ton of wide open 3s in rhythm.

 

[WestHartHusk]

The fact that none of those teams are relevant is a hint that whatever those stats are measuring is irrelevant.

 

[alexd]

"Shot quality"???

I thought this was another Vaccine thread. I'm dissapointed.

 

[BuffaloHusky]

I'm also a tad skeptical on our ranking for only one reason... we really are average in late game situations and it seems if we were that effective we would be better.

 

[Palatine]

There's more to coaching than shot quality though. This is basically confirming that we take the right kind of shots generally. I thought we already knew that. Idk about anyone else but I've said we have a fairly decent balance of threes and twos at the rim before.

The major criticism with Hurley is game management... substitutions, calling TOs, unwilling to play fast, the stagnancy of our half court offense... etc. That isn't reflected here at all, and the fact that we take high effeciency shots doesn't change the fact that the structure of our offense is limiting how easy though effecient shots could be.

Anyone could tell a team to exclusively take catch and shoot 3s and be on the top of this list. But you certainly wouldn't win games because you wouldn't be getting guys in position to MAKE those shots.

Yeah, we take the right shots. That's a step in the right direction from a year ago no doubt. We've cut down on off the dribble pull ups and long 2s especially.

Your comment is kind of a non-sequitir though.

How can UConn's half court offense produce quality shots if the half court offense is stagnant? Wouldn't a stagnant half court offense be easy to defend and therefore produce fewer quality shots?

That observation seems to contradict logic.

 

[CL82]

"Shot quality"???

I thought this was another Vaccine thread. I'm dissapointed.

I thought it was another booze thread.

 

[kemba]

The fact that none of those teams are relevant is a hint that whatever those stats are measuring is irrelevant.

#1 on the list is Gonzaga

 

[husky429]

How can UConn's half court offense produce quality shots if the half court offense is stagnant? Wouldn't a stagnant half court offense be easy to defend and therefore produce fewer quality shots?

That observation seems to contradict logic.

Like I said before... you could be #1 in these metrics by telling a bunch of 14 year olds to exclusively take 3s iff a catch. Is that a good shot technically? Yes. Is it gonna be stagnant offense? Most likely. They aren't gonna score mucj at all.

Stagnancy has to do with the huge scoring droughts in the second half, little movement on offense, etc.... In close games our offense bogs down with little movement and too much iso and weave without looking to score--especially after a play breaks down. That weave which gets relied on way too much instead of finding other looks. It gets compounded with awful TO timing and putting in players for too many minutes when they're playing poorly at times.

I don't even think our offense is bad. By most metrics it's about even with our defense at this point despite abhorrent shooting in a few games. I just think this shot quality measure, while important, is a limited picture.

It's fantastic we're taking the right shots. We need a little more to take us to the next level. It's partly coaching and partly personnel. The fact that we're taking a lot more "good" shots is a huge step in the right direction, but taking the right shot isn't the ONLY thing that creates a successful team.

 

[NJHusky]

There's more to coaching than shot quality though. This is basically confirming that we take the right kind of shots generally. I thought we already knew that. Idk about anyone else but I've said we have a fairly decent balance of threes and twos at the rim before.

The major criticism with Hurley is game management... substitutions, calling TOs, unwilling to play fast, the stagnancy of our half court offense... etc. That isn't reflected here at all, and the fact that we take high effeciency shots doesn't change the fact that the structure of our offense is limiting how easy though effecient shots could be.

Anyone could tell a team to exclusively take catch and shoot 3s and be on the top of this list. But you certainly wouldn't win games because you wouldn't be getting guys in position to MAKE those shots.

Yeah, we take the right shots. That's a step in the right direction from a year ago no doubt. We've cut down on off the dribble pull ups and long 2s especially.

Your comment is kind of a non-sequitir though.

Question for you and those that follow this closely...I don't. How do they determine the quality of a shot in their definitions? I know a rim shot is easier to make (theoretically) but why is a cut for layup1.25 and the best shot while post up is .83 and one of the worst? why aren't they 1.28 an d .87?? Where do these #'s come from? Is this the author's opinion or is it based on every shot every taken? If it's his assumption, the entire premise is unfounded IMO.

I think this stuff matters, but not on a global basis...It matters on a player by player level. Last year, Reese was bad under the rim...doubt he was getting 1.25 PPP, but someone like Sanogo probably has a crazy high PPP at the rim. Just having an open 3 doesn't make it a good shot IMO if the guy taking it is shooting 18%. The player's skill set & shooting numbers should matter in this calculation. What is a good shot for player A might be a terrible shot for player B. I'd rather have Sanogo posting someone up (.83 PPP) than taking a open 3 (1.11 PPP), even though according to this chart it's a poorer quality shot

 

[husky429]

Question for you and those that follow this closely...I don't. How do they determine the quality of a shot in their definitions? I know a rim shot is easier to make (theoretically) but why is a cut for layup1.25 and the best shot while post up is .83 and one of the worst? why aren't they 1.28 an d .87?? Where do these #'s come from? Is this the author's opinion or is it based on every shot every taken? If it's his assumption, the entire premise is unfounded IMO.

I think this stuff matters, but not on a global basis...It matters on a player by player level. Last year, Reese was bad under the rim...doubt he was getting 1.25 PPP, but someone like Sanogo probably has a crazy high PPP at the rim. Just having an open 3 doesn't make it a good shot IMO if the guy taking it is shooting 18%. The player's skill set & shooting numbers should matter in this calculation. What is a good shot for player A might be a terrible shot for player B. I'd rather have Sanogo posting someone up (.83 PPP) than taking a open 3 (1.11 PPP), even though according to this chart it's a poorer quality shot

I have no idea what exactly goes into these measurements. I'm assuming it's based on historical averages across D1.

The shot quality company that Hurley pays is giving us way more data than this. I think the good news is that we've obviously improved the type of shots we're taking--Hurley is probably actually listening to these guys.

Getting to a place where the right guys are taking the right shots, our offense is getting them open in their scoring spots, and that we're executing in crunch time (both coaches and players) is what will take us from a top-50 ish offense to top-25 and consistently one of the top teams in America.

 

[WestHartHusk]

#1 on the list is Gonzaga

Didn’t see that…was going off the screenshot. Still, anything with Liberty as #2 is flawed/pointless.

 

[bendm]

i'd like to know what our 3 point shooting % is on wide open shots

 

[HuskyHawk]

i'd like to know what our 3 point shooting % is on wide open shots

It's not good. Hence why the metrics are not very predictive of actual scoring. I don't think anybody at WVU even guarded our guys in the first half and we still missed everything. It would have been funny if it wasn't UConn.

 

[CL82]

Question for you and those that follow this closely...I don't. How do they determine the quality of a shot in their definitions? I know a rim shot is easier to make (theoretically) but why is a cut for layup1.25 and the best shot while post up is .83 and one of the worst? why aren't they 1.28 an d .87?? Where do these #'s come from? Is this the author's opinion or is it based on every shot every taken? If it's his assumption, the entire premise is unfounded IMO.

I think this stuff matters, but not on a global basis...It matters on a player by player level. Last year, Reese was bad under the rim...doubt he was getting 1.25 PPP, but someone like Sanogo probably has a crazy high PPP at the rim. Just having an open 3 doesn't make it a good shot IMO if the guy taking it is shooting 18%. The player's skill set & shooting numbers should matter in this calculation. What is a good shot for player A might be a terrible shot for player B. I'd rather have Sanogo posting someone up (.83 PPP) than taking a open 3 (1.11 PPP), even though according to this chart it's a poorer quality shot

Exactly. Randomly applying ‘metrics’ is one of those things that makes people feel smart but really isn’t particularly smart. You need to use those metrics within the context of your personnel and what they can actually do.

Hurley gets very detailed analytics that are team specific. It’s not just “taking a three“ it’s who is taking a three and where everyone else is at that time. If you watch our offense we get a lot of good shots that don’t end up going in. On any one of those misses you can say “well, that’s on the player“ but if you are consistently running plays for shots that aren’t going in, eventually that’s a matter of a flawed scheme. That’s just a general comment and not intended as a shot at our staff.

 

[bendm]

It's not good. Hence why the metrics are not very predictive of actual scoring.

agreed, but quality shots + an average fg% would be predictive of actual scoring. we take high quality shots which speaks more to good coaching, but don't make them which speaks more to lack of shooting talent. that's my takeaway from this.

If you watch our offense we get a lot of good shots that don’t end up going in. On any one of those misses you can say “well, that’s on the player“ but if you are consistently running plays for shots that aren’t going in, eventually that’s a matter of a flawed scheme. That’s just a general comment and not intended as a shot at our staff.

i gotta disagree. the most blatant example of this is hurley telling polley to shoot the wide open 3 every time he gets it. that's good coaching meeting poor execution. we have to live and die with what we have on the floor at a certain point. it's not all on hurley to scheme up easy basket after easy basket, the players have to pull their own weight too.

 

[CL82]

agreed, but quality shots + an average fg% would be predictive of actual scoring. we take high quality shots which speaks more to good coaching, but don't make them which speaks more to lack of shooting talent. that's my takeaway from this.

i gotta disagree. the most blatant example of this is hurley telling polley to shoot the wide open 3 every time he gets it. that's good coaching meeting poor execution. we have to live and die with what we have on the floor at a certain point. it's not all on hurley to scheme up easy basket after easy basket the players have to pull their own weight too.

Yep, I get what you’re saying, but at some point coaches will say player X is going through a cold spell, we’re going to get him less looks because we’ve got better opportunities the score. But, yeah, I’ll play that gets someone who is intended to be a three point shooter in open look and does just that is a good play.

 

[HuskyHawk]

agreed, but quality shots + an average fg% would be predictive of actual scoring. we take high quality shots which speaks more to good coaching, but don't make them which speaks more to lack of shooting talent. that's my takeaway from this.

i gotta disagree. the most blatant example of this is hurley telling polley to shoot the wide open 3 every time he gets it. that's good coaching meeting poor execution. we have to live and die with what we have on the floor at a certain point. it's not all on hurley to scheme up easy basket after easy basket the players have to pull their own weight too.

This is tricky. Is it talent? I watch guys who are poor shooters light it up against UConn. I watch guys who are historically good shooters crap the bed and miss wide open looks repeatedly for UConn. Is that talent? I have a couple of criticisms of Hurley. 1. I don't like the frequent use of the hard hedge and I dislike the fact that he has nothing else in the toolbox. No two minutes of zone as a change of pace 2. His teams play tight as hell. They are too afraid of mistakes and play hesitant. 3. his loyalty to some guys is simply not deserved and he is very slow to adjust to the actual contributions those players make. We've consistently had bad starts. We consistently shoot poorly. Hurley is there on the sideline, a giant overflowing cauldron of stress, and I think it impacts the team. It's no surprise that the one game we played as a real underdog, Auburn, we shot the hell out of the ball.

I think they love his energy, especially when he's fun with the chest bumps and "you're bad man" comments. But I can't escape thinking they seem to enter every single game tight enough to turn a coal suppository into a diamond.

 

[navery12]

This is tricky. Is it talent? I watch guys who are poor shooters light it up against UConn. I watch guys who are historically good shooters crap the bed and miss wide open looks repeatedly for UConn.

I think this is just a factor of watching UConn every game so having a biased view. When Akok and Martin knock down a few 3's what we view as good shooters doing what they should do, other teams view as low 30% shooters having the game of their life

 

[Squeeze]

i have no idea what kind of metrics are used to get these rankings, but just from watching this season, i can definitely say that we have good ball movement and are taking the right shots. they're just not landing.