Why don’t we find some midrange shots

[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, Dan Hurley 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. Dan Hurley 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. Dan Hurley 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.