Why don’t we find some midrange shots | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Why don’t we find some midrange shots

Psolo12 said:
I’m not arguing for more 3’s. I’m arguing against more mid ranges.
Expand ...
Do you want to take another look at that chart?
 
Psolo12 said:
We don’t have outside shooters but we want to take more jump shots that are lower percentage? If you want to argue we should pound the ball inside more id agree but this mid range stuff is absurd.
Expand ...

I don't think anyone is saying take low percentage 18 footers here.

Cole and Hawkins have a pretty solid mid range game within ~10ft already. It's definitely a strength to their games. If guys like Akok and Jackson can add a little mid range game our offense would be improved.
 
CL82 said:
Do you want to take another look at that chart?
Expand ...
No successful basketball coach in college or the NBA schemes to take more mid range jumpers. If you want to go against proven basketball analytical data that’s your prerogative.
 
Psolo12 said:
No successful basketball coach in college or the NBA schemes to take more mid range jumpers. If you want to go against proven basketball analytical data that’s your prerogative.
Expand ...

Our current roster isn't built like modern NBA or top college teams. It's built like an old school Big East team.
 
Kolumbo said:
Mid ranges also lend themselves to more follow ups and different rebound situations. We can't go strictly by shooting percentages. With the height we have, that should favor us.
Expand ...
Is there statistics that prove that mid ranges lead to more offensive rebounds? I don’t think that’s true
 
.-.
I Bleed Blue said:
Our current roster isn't built like modern NBA or top college teams. It's built like an old school Big East team.
Expand ...
Then we should get more inside 2’s rather than mid range 2’s.
 
Psolo12 said:
No successful basketball coach in college or the NBA schemes to take more mid range jumpers. If you want to go against proven basketball analytical data that’s your prerogative.
Expand ...
In the era of three point shots, Our coach has managed to put together a team that can’t shoot them. Jackson plays the 2 or 3 and has some of the worst shot mechanics I’ve ever seen.
 
Psolo12 said:
I’m not arguing for more 3’s. I’m arguing against more mid ranges.
Expand ...
Mid ranges also lend themselves to more follow ups and different rebound situations. We can't go strictly by shooting percentages. With the height we have, that should favor us.

Does anyone have Donyell's shot chart available?
 
Psolo12 said:
Is there statistics that prove that mid ranges lead to more offensive rebounds? I don’t think that’s true
Expand ...
I don't have that data, but I'd like to see it.
 
Psolo12 said:
No successful basketball coach in college or the NBA schemes to take more mid range jumpers. If you want to go against proven basketball analytical data that’s your prerogative.
Expand ...
Thank you, I appreciate your permission.

Do you understand how analytics works? You apply the percentage of the shot to the value of the shot and it yields a value. But this particular team isn’t shooting well enough from three for the math to work.

The problem with your theory is you’re saying well as an average for all of NCAA basketball the three is a better shot. You’re not wrong as far as that goes, but unfortunately Hurley coaches this team and for this particular team, taking a high volume of shots from behind the arch isn’t a winning proposition.
 
.-.
navery12 said:
It may favor the 2, but not the mid-range 2
Expand ...
If you look at that chart, I actually suspect it may actually favor the mid range two, but I haven’t done the math. But I think the point is that we need to be judicious about the number of threes we take.
 
CL82 said:
Thank you, I appreciate your permission.

Do you understand how analytics works? You apply the percentage of the shot to the value of the shot and it yields a value. But this particular team isn’t shooting well enough from three for the math to work.

The problem with your theory is you’re saying well as an average for all of NCAA basketball the three is a better shot. You’re not wrong as far as that goes, but unfortunately Hurley coaches this team and for this particular team, taking a high volume of shots from behind the arch isn’t a winning proposition.
Expand ...
Not really a theory if it’s an approach that is proven and utilized by all good NBA and NCAA teams.
 
CL82 said:
If you look at that chart, I actually suspect it may actually favor the mid range two, but I haven’t done the math. But I think the point is that we need to be judicious about the number of threes we take.
Expand ...
We definitely need to stop taking so many 3's, especially contested ones. Not sure what we shoot on mid-range shots but we'd have to shoot 45% on 2's to get more points per possession than the 30% we shoot on 3's. Doesn't account for any rebounding stats so it's not a real answer, but a good judge
 
Psolo12 said:
Then we should get more inside 2’s rather than mid range 2’s.
Expand ...
I’ll go with the data that we saw today in which we scored more points than we have in the last 5 out of 6 games….between RJ and Martin floaters and stop and pull ups- that’s what won us the game and scored more points. Not threes nor Sanogo turning the ball over 3 times he had the ball in the paint.

Ball in hoop = good. Missed threes = bad. Going inside to Sanogo and him taking objectively horrible shots or turning the ball over = bad.

What got us the ball in the hoop the most tonight?
 
navery12 said:
We definitely need to stop taking so many 3's, especially contested ones. Not sure what we shoot on mid-range shots but we'd have to shoot 45% on 2's to get more points per possession than the 30% we shoot on 3's. Doesn't account for any rebounding stats so it's not a real answer, but a good judge
Expand ...
Tonight we let MU back in the game by missing 3's. Theory, approach, what have you. We missed and MU came back to within 1 freaking point.
 
BigFanCT said:
I’ll go with the data that we saw today in which we scored more points than we have in the last 5 out of 6 games….between RJ and Martin floaters and stop and pull ups- that’s what won us the game and scored more points. Not threes nor Sanogo turning the ball over 3 times he had the ball in the paint.

Ball in hoop = good. Missed threes = bad. Going inside to Sanogo and him taking objectively horrible shots or turning the ball over = bad.

What got us the ball in the hoop the most tonight?
Expand ...
Transition baskets which I’m all for and Tyrese and RJ being great. That’s what got the ball in the hoop most.
 
.-.
Psolo12 said:
Not really a theory if it’s an approach that is proven and utilized by all good NBA and NCAA teams.
Expand ...
You don’t understand math do you? At 30% the three is not a better shot.
 
McLovin said:
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.
Expand ...
When Sanogo isn’t in the game we have five players playing beyond the three point line. We have no inside threat. That needs to change, if it can. Otherwise we’re a transition only team.

But I agree with the midrange jumpers. I’d like to see some pick and pops. Seems like the only people who have shown who can hit a mid range jumper are Cole, Hawkins, Martin, Whaley. Possibly Sanogo but hasn’t taken many
 
uconnfan68 said:
Whaley passed from inside the arc, twice, in the same possession. Not sure why he doesn’t have a little jump hook yet.
Expand ...
Or anything offensively. His defense is very very good overall
 
JonnyRI said:
Strictly from an analytical standpoint, that is actually a good looking shot chart.

Everything basically either a three or in the paint.
Expand ...
Yep, until you look at the miss/made numbers. Then you see that the distribution is not efficient.
 
.-.
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.
 
s
CL82 said:
Yep, until you look at the miss/made numbers. Then you see that the distribution is not efficient.
Expand ...
to a degree. 30 percent from 3 equals 45 percent from two (vs the 50 percent from 2 we actually shot) but yea, I know you get foul shots more often from two.

If we can consistently hit 50 percent plus from 2, or if we actually aren’t a 38 percent 3 shooting team but actually are more like a 29 percent one, we need to get more shots in the paint and at the rim. Right now at least, that would seem to the the smart thing to do.
 
Chin Diesel said:
Some dork will chime in with analytics of why it's a bad shot to take and totally miss the point that made shots are better than missed shots.
Expand ...
That’s when you hit them with the Lemarcus Aldridge quote

“In this day and age, the mid-range is considered a bad shot, I guess. But I got 19,000 some-odd points off the mid-range so you tell me it’s a bad shot, I don’t believe you,” said Aldridge on his specialty. “We understand teams are going to give up certain things and my mid-range was one of those things tonight. It won’t be every night but it was tonight against Philly.”
 
CL82 said:
Post/ handle

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

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.
 
methodology said:
That’s when you hit them with the Lemarcus Aldridge quote

“In this day and age, the mid-range is considered a bad shot, I guess. But I got 19,000 some-odd points off the mid-range so you tell me it’s a bad shot, I don’t believe you,” said Aldridge on his specialty. “We understand teams are going to give up certain things and my mid-range was one of those things tonight. It won’t be every night but it was tonight against Philly.”
Expand ...

And he would've had 23,000 if he learned to shoot the 3 better.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,289
Messages
4,561,604
Members
10,455
Latest member
UConnGabby


Top Bottom