Why don’t we find some midrange shots

[husky429]

Outstanding post! When people talk about analytics favoring the three what they’re really talking about is the combination of point value and accuracy, but, as I know you know, there is much more to an analytical analysis than that. Credible three point shooting opens up the paint which allows that to be a higher percentage shot. Forcing people to guard you out to the arc opens up opportunities for a player to drive by his man. A big problem for AJ last year was his lack of a credible three point shot which allowed defenders to sag off of him, which interned took away his ability to drive to the basket. There’s a ying and the yang to it.

Anyway, reread my post and realize that it’s accurate. Last night we shot 30% from three and 50% from two. At those percentages the three pointer isn’t a better shot. I’m guessing that you are using season to date figures to come up with the 34%. At 34% vs 49% the three-point shot is more efficient. But giving you understand how to do this analysis, I’m guessing that you already know that. So, you’re trying to call me out by changing the numbers were talking about is a little disingenuous. You’re better than that. That said, excellent post with really interesting information.

It doesn't make sense to use the statistics from one game to begin with. Coach didn't know we were going to shoot 30% from 3 at the under 12 timeout. You have to use your historical data and keep fighting for the shots that have been best for your team historically.

 

[I Bleed Blue]

This has been a really interesting thread to follow lol

 

[NJHusky]

I don’t know if anyone watched the Villanova-Xavier game last night, but there’s a whole lot of suckage going on from behind the arc for many teams lately.

Xavier shot 6-23, including something like 0-15 in the 2nd half. Villanova shot 6-21. And that was a good shooting night for Villanova compared to their previous couple of games.

I guess my point is even “great” shooting teams can have multiple game stretches where they are bad shooting teams.

I expect at some point (hopefully soon of course!) Polley, Hawkins, and RJ are going to work out of their collective funks.

In the meantime, I really wish Jackson & Whaley would shoot more 3s. And more close range dunks, please.

Good points....and X was winning at the half when they shot 6-9 from 3....going 0 fer didn't help...hell, going 0-15 on a 6 point shot doesn't help. other than opening up the paint for better 2 pt shots, I don't understand how shooting a lot of 3's that don't go in helps the final tally. Nova was 1-10 in the first half and 5/11 in the second....so 3's do work....but only if they go in!

 

[CL82]

It doesn't make sense to use the statistics from one game to begin with. Coach didn't know we were going to shoot 30% from 3 at the under 12 timeout. You have to use your historical data and keep fighting for the shots that have been best for your team historically.

Fully agree, but that’s not what you said. You restated the narrow premise of my post to a broader one that was disprovable, and then disproved it. That’s a little dishonest. No worries, it really doesn’t bother me. I’m just letting you know I saw what you did. But again, I appreciate the work you did and the broader discussion.

As I’m sure you know, Hurley engages an analytics company, so he is getting far more nuanced information. But, as a fan, I will still say this is a team that will benefit from a higher percentage of mid range shots than the typical mix based upon our personnel. We are fast enough, athletic enough, and long enough to make that work. Would I rather be a better three-point shooting team? Absolutely, the math definitely favors that. But at this point, that’s not who we are. As we are seeing with Villanova this year, you have to adapt your identity to your personnel and even a good model won’t work if you don’t have the players to execute it.

 

[NJHusky]

RJ: 45% from 2 (45% efg), 32% form three (48% efg)... 45% of his shots are 3s.--favors the 3.

Tyrese: 58% from 2 (58%), 36% from 3 (54%), 26% of his shots are 3s.--favors the 2.

Andre: 51% from 2 (51%), 44% from 3 (66%), 24% of his shots are 3s.--favors the 3.

Akok: 45% from 2, 56% from 3 (85% efg), 37% of shots are 3s-- favors the 3.

Whaley: 56% from 2, 31% from 3 (46% efg), 24% of shots from 3--favors the 2.

Gaff: 38% from 2, 35% from 3 (53% efg), 42% of shots from 3--favors the 3.

Polley: 46% from 2, 30% from 3 (45%), 72% of shots from 3--favors the 2

Hawkins: 37% from 2, 33% from 3 (49% efg), 46% of shots from 3--favors the 3

TEAM: 49% from 2 (49% efg), 34% 3 FG (51% efg), 35% of our shots are from deep.

So... as a team, we are actually making a slightly better % effectively. Analytics DON'T actually favor the 2 point shot as you claim, but only slightly. You really should look up these numbers before unequivocally stating the numbers favor 2 point shots.

I think the balance we're striking is about right though. About 1/3 shots we're taking are 3s. Considering we are (disappointingly) unwilling to run in transition again at the rates we need to, this seems about right. Currently, we're 227 in pace. Considering the supposed emphasis on running... this isn't a good sign that coach is putting his money where his mouth is.

This doesn't account for the potential to draw fouls at all. The guys who are better shooters are generally gettinghigher volume (outside of the probable outliers like Jackson.) If anything we should be seeing a few more 3s from Rese, but he's so solid drawing fouls, it probably evens out... and obviously less volume from Polley at this point... he's a disaster.

We're cutting Polley's minutes in half, and a slight regression to the mean shooting it away from being a team that strongly, strongly favors the 3 point shot.

Don't worry @UConnStats , I've got your back, lol.

You're combining cupcakes and real games....go look at the 3 in the real games....especially those we lost. MSU...12%, WV 14%, PC 27% I don't know how you can win games taking high volume 3 when you are shooting 15%?

I think what some posters are saying is if the 3 isn't working there needs to be another plan other than chuck up more threes

 

[husky429]

Fully agree, but that’s not what you said. You restated the narrow premise of my post to a broader one that was disprovable, and then disproved it. That’s a little dishonest. No worries, it really doesn’t bother me. I’m just letting you know I saw what you did. But again, I appreciate the work you did and the broader discussion.

As I’m sure you know, Hurley engages an analytics company, so he is getting far more nuanced information. But, as a fan, I will still say this is a team that will benefit from a higher percentage of mid range shots than the typical mix based upon our personnel. We are fast enough, athletic enough, and long enough to make that work. Would I rather be a better three-point shooting team? Absolutely, the math definitely favors that. But at this point, that’s not who we are. As we are seeing with Villanova this year, you have to adapt your identity to your personnel and even a good model won’t work if you don’t have the players to execute it.

Wasn't intentional. The point you made was just so nonsensical I figured you were typing something wrong.

By your logic, if we don't hit a 3 in the first 4 minutes, we need to totally change our game plan... it doesn't make any sense. You were using data (50% and 30%) that literally didn't exist during the game... because no one knew what our shooting %s for the game would be until it was done. Duh.

50% from 2 point land and 30% from 3 (45% efg) is still essentially equal if we're talking about a 1 game sample. That's a couple points difference after the game. And the coach certainly isn't able to use data THAT DOESN'T EXIST to create a game plan mid-half. If historically, we've been a team that benefits from the 3 (and we did even more before yesterday's game with relatively poor shooting)... then you have to roll with that through halftime before making adjustments.

 

[CL82]

Wasn't intentional. The point you made was just so nonsensical I figured you were typing something wrong.

By your logic, if we don't hit a 3 in the first 4 minutes, we need to totally change our game plan... it doesn't make any sense. You were using data (50% and 30%) that literally didn't exist during the game... because no one knew what our shooting %s for the game would be until it was done. Duh.

Yeah, you’re throwing out strawman arguments again and then disapproving them. I will respectfully suggest you leave that silliness to the guys who have no idea what they’re talking about. But I sense that you’re a little sensitive on me spotting your manipulating the math in this so this will be my last post on this topic.

For what it’s worth, you are, in my opinion, one of the better and more knowledgeable posters on the board. I look forward to seeing what you have to say about most issues. So, from my perspective we’re good.

 

[UConnStats]

Post/ handle

When you’re hitting 50% from two and 30% from three analytics favor the two.

You can’t treat all twos the same. The average mid range shot’s probability of success is significantly lower than 50% and is actually closer to the average 3P%. You’re assuming nearly the same risk as a 3PA with 33% less of a reward. A shot close to the rim is a high probability shot in comparison. This is why the overwhelming majority of FGA should be close to the basket or from 3.

 

[Kolumbo]

And you’re doing the same exact thing you’re accusing me and the others of doing. We aren’t saying to draw up only mid range shots and not shoot 3s. You take the best percentage shot in the flow of the offense and sometimes that’s the mid range

Was Rip and the pistons dumb?

Never-still Rip Hamilton was deadly from two-point range for Detroit

Coming off screens and knocking down mid-range jumpers like it was his day job. Scratch that, it was his day job. I’m talking about Richard Hamilton, perhaps better known by his moniker of “Rip.” Recently, Hamilton told the Detroit Free Press that he thinks the Pistons of his era should have won...

www.vintagedetroit.com

During the Pistons’ six-season stretch of ECF appearances, the University of Connecticut product made 47.5 percent of his two-point shots while also shooting 46.3 percent from the field.

Secondly, Pistons fans will never forget the dynamic duo that he formed with fellow Pistons backcourt mate Chauncey Billups.

To no surprise, the three seasons when Rip proved to be the most efficient from two-point range (from 2005-06 until ‘07-08 when he shot no worse than 48.3 percent on his mid-range shots), his backcourt partner Billups put together the three finest seasons of his NBA career as a facilitator.

Rip Hamilton On MJ Teaching Him The Mid-Range Game: "That's The Hardest Play In The Game Of Basketball To Guard." | Fadeaway World

“That was a kid getting the opportunity to play with the GOAT, the guy you looked up to as a kid. One that sticks out for me is playing against him in practice. People look at my mid-range game and say I have one of the best of all time, but a lot of that came off of being in the practices with MJ. I remember one time I was playing against him and he took two hard dribbles to the basket and pulled up and he was like ‘Rip, add that to your game.’ That’s the hardest play in the game of basketball to guard. And I was like, why? And he was like, because as a defender they are backpedaling so he can’t jump to the highest point to block your shot. He’s always off-balance and you’re always on-balance. People all across the league kept hitting me up like, ‘How did you get your medium-range game so good?’ From the tools of Michael Jordan. From the opportunity to be around him for the two years I was in Washington.”

 

[Conndog]

Another factor in favor of the mid-range shot (sorry if stated before, I haven’t read all the posts) is that you are closer to basket and better able to get rebounds if the shot is missed. Plus, your made shot percentage should be higher the closer to the basket you are.

 

[Kolumbo]

You can’t treat all twos the same. The average mid range shot’s probability of success is significantly lower than 50% and is actually closer to the average 3P%. You’re assuming nearly the same risk as a 3PA with 33% less of a reward. A shot close to the rim is a high probability shot in comparison. This is why the overwhelming majority of FGA should be close to the basket or from 3.

Significantly lower? I was actually going to offer a similar opinion, in the opposite direction. The worst shot in basketball is taken 1 mm inside the 3-point line. That's a 2 but not a mid-range shot, of course. Take out long-range shots inside the 3 and the true mid-range percentage is higher. I think.

 

[HuskyHawk]

With guys struggling to score, you’d think we’d try to run some stuff to get open looks from 13-17 feet.

Get some of the shooters feeling it early.

Everything is either at the rim/paint or beyond the arc.

Shots at the rim are contested and shots beyond the arc we can’t hit right in an empty gym.

Watch for our (lack of) midrange game tonight.

Maybe this will be a positive jinx.

Well, we did. So it seems you were spot on. If the outside stuff isn't falling, move in. Except Polley, who has never been good from 2pt range.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Outstanding post! When people talk about analytics favoring the three what they’re really talking about is the combination of point value and accuracy, but, as I know you know, there is much more to an analytical analysis than that. Credible three point shooting opens up the paint which allows that to be a higher percentage shot. Forcing people to guard you out to the arc opens up opportunities for a player to drive by his man. A big problem for AJ last year was his lack of a credible three point shot which allowed defenders to sag off of him, which interned took away his ability to drive to the basket. There’s a ying and the yang to it.

Anyway, reread my post and realize that it’s accurate. Last night we shot 30% from three and 50% from two. At those percentages the three pointer isn’t a better shot. I’m guessing that you are using season to date figures to come up with the 34%. At 34% vs 49% the three-point shot is more efficient. But giving you understand how to do this analysis, I’m guessing that you already know that. So, you’re trying to call me out by changing the numbers were talking about is a little disingenuous. You’re better than that. That said, excellent post with really interesting information.

Yeah, and when they talk about the analytics of 3s and layups, well that is true if you have a team that can score that way. NBA teams are loaded with guys who seldom miss open 3s and who can score at the rim. College teams, not so much. This UConn team, definitely not a strength. We actually have several guys, Cole, Martin and Whaley who are quite solid with the short jumper when it is there. I'd rather Sanogo takes face up 12 footers rather than throwing blind hooks from way too far out.

 

[olehead]

And he would've had 23,000 if he learned to shoot the 3 better.

If is the key. If if was a 5th, we'd all be drunk.

LA shot the shot most effective for him and it worked. Ajax's effective 3 rate suggests a "balance" of 2s and 3s. No coach in their right mind should encourage this balance in a Big East game or any high stakes game. Why? This is not his shot.

Folks continue to go on about effective rate. Look at the damn game. What do you see? We have one guy on our team Right Now who most of us are comfortable with shooting the three in a clutch situation, and that's RJ. Not Polley, whose an ok player, but not clutch. Not Hawk, not yet. We are not constructed as a 3 point shooting team. Doesn't mean you don't scheme with spacing. But you don't continue to heave up shots you are not Prepared to make. It's stupid. It's why our offense lacks explosion. We should take wide-open 3s, layups obviously (when did this become a strategy by the way smh), and when mid-range is available, take it. Take the shots we can make. That simple. Put players in position to succeed. Simple.

Silly to compare Nova, Zags, NBA and teams that are constructed with balance. We are comparing our team with guys who can take and make threes and guys who can get all the way to the basket for layups. 3s and 2s. How many 3s did we have last night? How many layups/dunks?

 

[husky429]

If is the key. If if was a 5th, we'd all be drunk.

LA shot the shot most effective for him and it worked. Ajax's effective 3 rate suggests a "balance" of 2s and 3s. No coach in their right mind should encourage this balance in a Big East game or any high stakes game. Why? This is not his shot.

Folks continue to go on about effective rate. Look at the damn game. What do you see? We have one guy on our team Right Now who most of us are comfortable with shooting the three in a clutch situation, and that's RJ. Not Polley, whose an ok player, but not clutch. Not Hawk, not yet. We are not constructed as a 3 point shooting team. Doesn't mean you don't scheme with spacing. But you don't continue to heave up shots you are not Prepared to make. It's stupid. It's why our offense lacks explosion. We should take wide-open 3s, layups obviously (when did this become a strategy by the way smh), and when mid-range is available, take it. Take the shots we can make. That simple. Put players in position to succeed. Simple.

Silly to compare Nova, Zags, NBA and teams that are constructed with balance. We are comparing our team with guys who can take and make threes and guys who can get all the way to the basket for layups. 3s and 2s. How many 3s did we have last night? How many layups/dunks?

I don't think anyone is saying take more 3s. I think we're at a pretty reasonable balance right now. Maybe even a few less 3s if we start running more like Coach said we would. People are supporting more mid-range shots--that's the gripe.

 

[pj]

It may be helpful to compare UConn's shot chart with Marquette's:

Marquette's shots were in the modern style, mostly around the basket (where they hit 16 of 28 shots, 57%) or behind the arc (5 of 15, 33%), from 8 to 16 feet they were 3-9 (33%). For them, the best shots are around the basket (1.14 points per shot), second best are 3's (1.0 points per shot), mid-range is a poor bet (0.67 points per shot).

UConn took a lot of 3's (6 of 20, 30%) and a significant number of shots around the basket (12 of 23, 52%), but from 8 to 16 feet they were 10-13 (77%). So UConn was getting 1.04 points per shot near the basket, 0.90 points per shot on 3's, but 1.54 points per shot on mid-range.

Whether it's a matter of UConn having more mid-range skills than 3-point or in traffic skills, or whether Marquette was giving up the mid-range shots, coaches have to assess, but there are certainly going to be games like last night in which we lose the 3-point and layup battles but the mid-range game saves us.

Moreover, having more points per shot on mid-range than long or short shots indicates that we should be investing more shots, not fewer, in the mid-range game until we reach diminishing returns and the points per shots are equal with all three strategies.

 

[McLovin]

This has been a really interesting thread to follow lol

Haha yeah... I think my initial post got misinterpreted or blown out of proportion.

I am aware of how eFG% works and not suggesting we stop taking 3s. I was just suggesting that we get guys like Hawkins, Polley and Gaffney (and to a lesser extent Martin or Cole) an easy midrange jump shot or two early in the games to let them see the ball go through the rim. Then step back and start firing away from 3 with some confidence.

And I'm certainly not advocating for guys like Sanogo, Akok or Whaley to increase their midrange shooting.

As another poster pointed out, when calculating eFG% there is a relation between 3s and layups. If teams don't respect the 3 because you can't make them, they can clog the paint and also lower the FG% on the "easy" shots.

Even though we won last night, our shooters outside of Martin and Cole really struggled again. Just think the staff should explore other opportunities to get them some early confidence in their shots. We have seen for 2 months now that against real competition our shooters are not confident shooting the ball, even when they are wide open (and credit to the staff for designing an offense this year that gets us lots of open 3 point shots).

 

[JustbrewitMan]

Good points....and X was winning at the half when they shot 6-9 from 3....going 0 fer didn't help...hell, going 0-15 on a 6 point shot doesn't help. other than opening up the paint for better 2 pt shots, I don't understand how shooting a lot of 3's that don't go in helps the final tally. Nova was 1-10 in the first half and 5/11 in the second....so 3's do work....but only if they go in!

Had to have been something with that hoop (announcers were joking about this). Both teams combined to shoot 1-25 from 3 on that side, 11-20 from the other side.

Basketball can be bizarre.

 

[Kolumbo]

AJax to Martin to Whaley, starting around 5:24

 

[HuskyHawk]

It may be helpful to compare UConn's shot chart with Marquette's: View attachment 72010

Marquette's shots were in the modern style, mostly around the basket (where they hit 16 of 28 shots, 57%) or behind the arc (5 of 15, 33%), from 8 to 16 feet they were 3-9 (33%). For them, the best shots are around the basket (1.14 points per shot), second best are 3's (1.0 points per shot), mid-range is a poor bet (0.67 points per shot).

UConn took a lot of 3's (6 of 20, 30%) and a significant number of shots around the basket (12 of 23, 52%), but from 8 to 16 feet they were 10-13 (77%). So UConn was getting 1.04 points per shot near the basket, 0.90 points per shot on 3's, but 1.54 points per shot on mid-range.

Whether it's a matter of UConn having more mid-range skills than 3-point or in traffic skills, or whether Marquette was giving up the mid-range shots, coaches have to assess, but there are certainly going to be games like last night in which we lose the 3-point and layup battles but the mid-range game saves us.

Moreover, having more points per shot on mid-range than long or short shots indicates that we should be investing more shots, not fewer, in the mid-range game until we reach diminishing returns and the points per shots are equal with all three strategies.

The best shot is an open shot. Teams focus on taking away 3s and shots at the rim for the same reason teams focus on taking those shots. That leaves quite a bit of space in the midrange. Many of ours were wide open.

 

[NJHusky]

The best shot is an open shot. Teams focus on taking away 3s and shots at the rim for the same reason teams focus on taking those shots. That leaves quite a bit of space in the midrange. Many of ours were wide open.

I would argue the best shot is one that goes in 2 or 3

 

[ColchVEGAS]

Due to analytics the mid range is going to come back around. Defenses are drawn up to leave that shot available. If players are able to knock it down at a consistent rate they will begin to take that shot again. Open shots are and will always be the best shot, no matter where they are on the floor. You still have to make them for it to matter.

 

[olehead]

Please see post 95, 96, 97 and can I get an amen. My point exactly. Now what I see from some players is a skillset enabling them to get all the way to the basket. The best have it, whether bully ball, aka, JRandle, or deft like Kyrie, or wings who get there, think of DeRozen, Lebron, Kawhi. Many different ways to get the lay, which is one part of what some say is "modern" ball.

Who can get all the way to the basket for us and finish Consistently? Right now its Sanogo, Martin, Cole and AJax as a possible (lil spades reference. This is why we see tough two's, flailing weak axx inside shots by guys Unprepared to make twos inside. There's a big guy riding the pine right now who can score. We won't see his proficiency until he transfers out.

As I said earlier we are not a team of shooters which explains our three point proficiency. So b/c we are the way we are we lean heavy on D to O scores, DH is on the money here. In addition we have enough athleticism where we should be dynamic in transition and dunking the ball. We are lacking in this area. DH will shore this up, I'm certain and soon. His belief, dunks are a show of toughness and winning basketball.

Even when Sanogo is back we must force the run, utilize the length we have on the bench, i.e., Samson. DH has to emphasize skill work, ballhandling and the like, designed to break guys down and get to the basket for our guys. The guards unmentioned above could stand this work ad nauseam. Our athleticism is nothing to sneeze at and should be reliable enough to have us pushing sweet 16. Like I said about L. Aldridge (Nets) in a previous post in this thread. We must for the rest of the way lean heavy on what we do well. Dominant O & D rebounding, sound D and as presently constructed emphasize getting to the basket. Obviously this will be much easier once Sanogo rounds back into form.

 

[McLovin]

Polley's first shot was a 13 foot jumper today (which he made). Had his best offensive game in over a month. Not sure if getting him that early midrange look was by design or not, but his stroke looked confident all afternoon.

Seeing the ball go through the hoop on a high percentage jump shot is sometimes all it takes to get a shooter going. Loved it.