Wasting Another Good Trey Balling Game on a Cupcake...Random or Indicative of Something Significant
-
@Statmachine Absolutely!
But BG’s best spot on the floor is near the baseline to the free throw line extended…if he gets too far away a defender will likely collapse some.
Plus Jimmy Chipwood didn’t like being a decoy and I bet BG wouldn’t accept that role willingly either!
-
Shooting percentage is driven by:
1.) shooter comfort level (I.e., openness, distance, preferred angle, which distill to spot, and leg energy; and
2.) random variance around the shooter’s average.
Versus MSU, KU was battling a good defensive team and coach capable of using physical MUA at each perimeter position, especially height, to sharply reduce KU’s comfort level in most ways.
Further, KU’s prior sky high Trey percentage meant KU was likely to be shooting back to its average.
The two factors compounded to drive KU’s 3pt % down to 20%.
Against Chaminade, something nearly the reverse occurred–two factors compounded to drive it upward 50%.
Will the two factors always drive the same direction? No. Team development, oponent variations, and Complexity dynamics will combine to increasingly reduce frequency of this simultaneous driver direction. But the two drivers will always be at work.
Can Self anticipate their movement directions before games? Yes, with some probability.
Can he test his assumptions early in a game and achieve greater confidence in the two factors anticipated directions, once he knows what the other team will give him? Yes, with greater probability.
Could this process explain more Trey attempts against a bad team like Chaminade giving them the line? Yes.
Could it explain fewer Trey attempts against a good team like MSU able to guard the line and the paint? Yes.
It could also explain Self’s actions when he might have more mixed anticipations regarding these factors.
It does not mean it is the best process to follow.
Note: I found your analysis paralysis post incisive and wanted to take awhile digesting it before responding.
-
“I don’t think we have enough data right now to reach this conclusion – that we will shoot the three well vs. poor teams, but not against good teams.”
I’m still waiting for proof that we can shoot a high percentage from trey against a quality team that also plays decent defense.
Spot shooters disappear when they are guarded.
Same for rebounding.
-
I don’t remember a time that a Self team had 100+ points in 2 out of his first 3 games. I think we have the potential for a great offense, provided we don’t have a regulator on the engine.
-
@KUSTEVE KU is second in scoring and 3rd in 3pt % at this point of the season. I cant see it remaining like this but I am hopeful it will.
-
KU is getting major help from our bench. One of our starters is 9th in scoring? I bet know one knows who that might be?
-
I heard our guys are having fun over there.
-
KU is a team that happens to have a lot of average to above average three point shooters. I don’t know that this team has a great shooter other than the currently suspended BG, but not a single rotation perimeter guy is a flat out poor shooter. Left alone, any one of these guys could hit 3 or 4 threes in a game. In fact, other than Vick, every single KU perimeter player has, at some point in his career, hit at least 3 triples in a game. The shooters are very capable.
Chaminade and Northern Colorado were/are both overmatched in the interior. That means that when KU throws the ball inside, as they insist they must do, those teams were forced to double every single time. What happens when you double the post? Well, against a Bill Self team, the ball starts moving and, when you combine that with a group of average and up shooters, the ball is going to end up in the hands of someone who is:
- Wide Open
- Capable of knocking down a three
That’s a recipe for hitting a ton of threes. However, against a better team, they don’t have to double the post on every entry because they have capable interior defenders. As a result, when the ball is kicked back out, the quality of looks degrades considerably. Remember, this is a team of good shooters, not great ones. Good shooters with good looks are highly efficient. But if you don’t have to double and the defense isn’t scrambling, those good shooters aren’t wide open, so they aren’t hitting 50% of those shots because they have a hand in their face.
This could be remedied if KU starts attacking the basket off the dribble. This will allow them to collapse the defense and create the same scrambling effect that happens when team’s double the post. In all honesty, this KU team would benefit from running a variation of the dribble drive motion. We lack a post player that can dominate every night, but we have lots of decent ballhandlers and good shooters. Drive, kick, rinse, repeat. Eventually the defense gets bent the wrong way and somebody gets all the way to the rim or a shooter is left alone. The parts are there for an efficient offense. Just not an efficient high low offense.
-
Brannen Greene is perhaps the best spot shooter in college basketball and will hit an ubber high percentage when wide open. The problem is that he cannot shoot with someone guarding him closely and he just cannot create his own shot/get himself open. The Conference teams know this and have some one play him close and he is render ineffective.
-
@justanotherfan said:
This could be remedied if KU starts attacking the basket off the dribble.
Touching paint. This is exactly what this team needs. Whether it be Frank, Perry, Wayne or Graham (all capable), we need someone driving and dishing. Duke and UK are excellent at this and are very successful as a result. The last time we had such a player so capable AND so willing was Tyshawn Taylor. Nowadays, everytime someone drives, they think they need to put up a contested shot or try to draw a foul. When will they figure out that dishing out to the open man is a near unstoppable play? You are playing on the other team’s natural instinct to collapse and help when an opposing player has broken down the defense. This doesn’t guarantee the shot will be made, but I’d rather take a chance with an open 3 with our crop of shooter, then to see Perry try to muscle (yeah right) it up against 2 or 3 defenders. Or to see Wayne flail in trying to draw a foul.
-
@SoftballDad2011 Chitwood.
-
Bovaird said ‘our goal was to try to take away scoring from two, three feet from the basket and hope that they get cold outside’
Izzo, on the other hand, defended the 3pt line close enough to man up when the ball went out. Brannen didn’t get a shot off.
I expect UCLA to defend the 3 better today, especially against Svi. If you have to ‘pick your poison’ against Kansas, well, 50% of a 2pt shot (which is about what Perry shoots under the best of circumstances) is still only one point. 50% of a 3pt shot is, uh lemme see…
-
Svi has shown he can be just as good of a shooter as Greene. The issue is neither does anything else on either end of the floor, it’s their single attribute
-
And as you said too often we bail them out with an out of control drive, bad shot, bad pass…
-
@wrwlumpy thanks…my ears went bad before closed captioning came along…or it could be my memory, which went bad too, …I think
-
I feel it’s more than just the three. You see last year especially towards the end HCBS pulled in the reins on his outside shooters and decided everything was going in side. Well the results were horrendous as we all know.
It’s more about an old Legend realizing what once worked isn’t working as well anymore. The days for just forcing your will on somebody are few and far between. With the rule changes and at which the pace of the game is played. Everything is geared to score and score quickly. Okie ball/muscle ball has become in so many ways an ancient relic.
I could be wrong but feel that HCBS is having a hard time making the adjustment. Yet I see glimpses that he’s about to turn this thing upside down. In the MSU game HCBS regressed to muscle ball and it sent not only his team but Jayhawk nation into rage. Yet against Chaminade coach reverted back the WUG’s form and let his kids play.
Will there be nights when the shots aren’t falling? Sure. Will KU shoot worse against better teams.? Sure It only stands to reason when you play a better team that your numbers will go down. But in the end KU want be passing up a great 3 point shot to pass the ball inside to get a highly contested two pointer.
The bottom line is this team strengths is shooting the ball. Why would you want to take that part of the game from them? Why would you want to take away what they do best? It doesn’t make sense to me.
-
@DoubleDD a lot of folks here talk about Selfs love for Traylor. But after reading your post I wonder what his love affair with Ellis is?
Is he good? Yes Is he reliable? Until he gets knocked around. Can he change a game? No Can he take over a game? No.
And yet Self hangs his hat on Ellis to win games. He’s good don’t get me wrong and I have nothing against Perry just saying he’s not the power forward that Self sets him up to be.
-
You hit that one on the sweet spot.
-
“KU is a great 3 point shooting team as long as HCBS lets them play”
So far I would amend that to “…as long as Opposing Defense lets them play.”
-
@jaybate-1.0 I think that the defense thing is overstated. Now, you can attempt to take away three pointers by positioning five guys on the three point line. But no one does that over course.
The concept that a defense really can take it away defies the realities of the game given that you also have to defend the two point area, lobs, post feeds, give and goes, etc.
How many times to teams drain threes in the last second when the only thing that can tie the game is a three, when the opposition is hell bent to stop the three.
I can tell you this with confidence. If a coach is going to protect the basket, with roughly equal talent, I can scheme to get three point looks. Period. Obviously your fine D-1 coaches can do the same.
One thing Self will never say is, “I can’t scheme to get three point looks.” I have never heard him say that.
The idea that with KU’s talent, we are going to be dictated to — to the extent of believing we simply can’t get good three point looks and make three point shots— I would suggest, is very flawed.
If a team is going to make that vast of a commitment, then we should have a score-fest at the rim.
Here’s a link to Ken Pom wherein he demonstrates that the coaching impact on three pointers is not as significant as some might think, particularly on three point accuracy. Not definitive, of course, just some interesting info.
-
You are spot on!
-
Coaches can only take away parts of the court that their players have the skills and athleticism to take away. Izzo’s defensive players were recruited specifically to make it unlikely for opponents to get open, unchallenged looks. This forces them inside and take fewer outside shots than they otherwise would. The reality of the game is that parts of the court are taken away all the time. The reality of the game is that the opposing coach adjusts. The reality is that the original coach then counter adjusts. Over the course of the game, sooner, or later most times one coach find something to take away the other coach cannot counter adjust too very effectively without creating much greater vulnerability. So he is stuck in equilibrium strategy even though it may I very much doubt That KP’s statistics are yet tuned to track this interplay. One coach has only to find the weakness of another coach briefly to win the game. Self wins 82% of his games in large part because he has had good players sit in a ski conducive to adjustment and counter adjustment, and he is much better at playing this back-and-forth contest between coaches. Game theory has long exposed the critical dynamics of back and forth interplay in two player games, which basketball is on a team level. Each move has impacts that alter the opportunity set of the other player. Over time, equilibrium strategy sets in. The object of a player in a game is to use moves to bias. which equilibrium strategy emerges, so that it is more favorable to one player than another. Statisticians that are not game theorists rarely measure and so take into account dynamics of interplay.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I’ll find the quote, but Brannen Greene just a few months ago commented that he could create his own shot, or something like that … I’ll have to look. I don’t think I’m dreaming it. I agree, he’s not a “create your own look” guy. However, he has hit shots with guys in his face. All he needs is a system built to exploit him. And I think this system could exploit him, inside/out, step in and shoot. Just need the focus on that element. But if he’s going to run his mouth at the coach, it’s moot.
@jaybate-1.0 No argument from me there – mainly because you talk over my head. But as my small brain processes, I would agree that a large part of the game is scheming and adjustments.
-
@DoubleDD I find myself in disbelief that Self has let the guys gun treys like this in back to back games, even against inferior opponents. Can it be that change is a’comin…?
-
@ajvan It’s a strange trend indeed. Shoot a lot of treys, beat the crap out of your opponent. Hmmmmm.
It’ll all change when they start conference play. Automatic bench time for anybody shooting anything but a dunk or bunny.
-
@nuleafjhawk said Automatic bench time for anybody shooting anything but a dunk or bunny.
What’s this “dunk” thing you speak of?
