Talkin' Trey Doctrine: What If KU had shot all treys vs Temple?
jaybate 1.0 last edited by jaybate 1.0
KU didn’t shoot very well inside or out, but it shot a higher percentage outside.
I converted all the 2pta to 3pta.
I assumed they were made at the same .368 rate KU actually made treys for the game.
If I calculate right, KU wins by 1.
Even if I calculate a bit wrong, KU is in the game.
Modern artillery began the change of warfare from a man to man combat to a long range combat. Air power exponentially increased the change. Accuracy from digital targeting completed the transition.
The Trey is artillery.
It is now the decisive force.
The inside game is what you resort to after the opponent has been pulverized and separated from by long range force application.
Self gave up the artillery barrage too soon.
At half, KU was 10 down shooting treys at a high percentage.
It SEEMED logical to try something else–an inside game.
But you don’t give up the artillery barrage and air attacks until you have applied decisive long range force that so wrecks the enemy he cannot defend the coming ground attack.
Then you go inside on the ground, only if you have to.
Blown last edited by
If you convert your variables to all three point shots, there has to be an assumption that other variables would not hold constant-i.e., offensive & defensive rebounds off of those shots, which in-turn, disrupts your hypothesis, right?
nuleafjhawk last edited by
I don’t care what they do, 3 pt shots, layups, dunks or mid-range shots, but they need to do it with intensity.
jaybate 1.0 last edited by jaybate 1.0
You offer an argument that can to some degree or another validly refute all deductive reasoning and all nonparametric modeling, and so so it is always worth considering your argument in terms of the degree of appropriateness in any given case of applying some deduction. So: good for you for raising the issue.
Now that being said I am going to try to assert why I think my use of deduction here offers some useful anecdotal, rather than statistically significant insight.
The key to effective use of deductive reasoning and non parametric modeling (simulations) is always the degree of fit between the principle and the deductive logic used to animate the principle in order to yield a non parametrically significant inference that is argued to be a major driver of phenomena, and to recognize when such is not a major driver and so a misguided inference, even if internally valid.
At the same time, when using deductive reasoning, we must also not fall prey to the error of discrediting deduction and non parametric modeling because it is not statistically significant, parametrically arrived at induction: that is, we must not discredit deduction of the very reason that we turned to it in the first place.
The only real justification for using deduction and non parametric modelling, or even just rudimentary heuristics, is that a particular phenomenon we want to study/control/predict exists outside a realm where induction verified by statistically significant (i.e., parametric) hypothesis testing cannot be reliably performed without violating the assumptions of the parametric model.
In short, we deduce, non parametric model, and use heuristics, because we CAN’T validly use Induction.
For this reason, it is generally not sporting to discredit deduction because it is not induction, i.e., because all other things in the system being studied cannot be assumed to be accounted for and controlled so that we can induce with high confidence effects of variables we manipulate.
So: to my use of deduction in this case.
My deductive principle, more less my a priori assumptions are:
a.) shooting percentage determines to significant degree how much you score (a given);
b.) the kind of shot you shoot determines what percentage you make (a more complicated and shaky given);
c) your average on a given night for different shots taken would remain relatively constant regardless of how many you take of each type (this is an XTreme oversimplification that I make with full awareness that number of attempts can alter one’s percentage, but I make it because I figure the variation would not completely destroy the relevance of the logic as a driver of tendencies);
With the above assumptions, each of which may be viewed as variously compromised so as to prevent absolute confidence in the deduction, but on the other hand to reveal some relevant driver value, let us move to the mathematical calculation that animates the group of a priori principles above.
2PTA yield 2 points 32 percent of the time (what KU shot a relatively large number of N of)
3PTA yield 3 points 36% of the time (what KU shot for a relatively high N for a first half, thus I am extrapolating a relatively large N for a half to a relatively large N for a second half, which I realize has some likely variation, but which still seems to hold some relevant predictive utility.)
So far, so good, all is explicit, whether one fully buys in to the exact logics and exact mathematical calculus employed.
Then we get into the meat of your objection you raise: won’t this change many other variables and won’t that complex cascade of effects render your deductive inferences useless?
How I think about this is that yes this assumption would sharply alter some related activities that would have cascading effects, and cascading effects are always capable of triggering nonlinearities of change that are tough to forcast accurately. Also they might change a few things like FTA and FT makes that I have not explicitly accounted for, and which perhaps ought to be. But though you make get more fouls cramming it inside the second half , than shooting lots of treys the second half, when you do get fouled shooting treys the penalty is greater. And so, while this strategy may produce some net loss in FTs made, it would likely not completely wipe out the advantages of shooting way more treys the second half.
So: lets explore these resulting variations further. When I thought about it, here is what I thought those effects might tend toward.
Lots more long rebounds, which KU has traditionally done much better on than short rebounds. It is short inside and so rebounding short rebounds is tough with our short bigs. But KU is long on the perimeter, plus it has Mason, who has a knack for long rebounding. So: I thought the long rebounding would actually favor KU and contribute even more to KU getting more second shots, and so more trifectas and so create even more likelihood of being in the game at the end.
Many fewer KU Turnovers would result, because there would be less passing into congested areas and more safe perimeter passing and passing to players coming off actions to free them, so with fewer KU Turnovers there would be more 3ptas and more 3pt makes and so KU would again tend to get back into the game sooner and stay in it longer.
With more outside shooting, and more scoring, and fewer blocks and alterations of the short KU bigs, they would be less de-moralized (more confident) when they came down the floor to play defense and so would have more energy and enthusiasm to get more stops by guarding harder and with more exploding out of position to make defensive plays that lead to stops and strips. This I reasoned would lead to allowing much less scoring by Temple, which combined with the increased scoring by KU described above, would result in a faster reduction in the deficit and a closer game sooner that would greatly energize the KU players.
So: while I think many variables would be changed by the deductive logic I proposed I thought the cascade would almost certainly dramatically favor us, if 3pt% of 36.8% were merely sustained. And there was always the possibility that a good outside shooting team like KU seems to be might have shot up to its average the second half.
And what was the down side?
The downside was that our 3pt% might have declined. But since we shot only 32% or less from 2pta during the game, it seems like even if our 3pt% had fallen to 32% our effective percentage would have been better than what we shot relying so heavily on 2pta.
So: when I analyse this, it almost seems like a slam dunk that we should have continued our trey ball assault, even though it left us 10 down the first half, because middling case scenario, it would have left us ten down the second half, instead of 25 down.
And best case, as I said, we probably would have ended the game neck and neck, and maybe have so demoralized them in coming back with the 36.8% trifectation, that we might have gotten a W.
And had we heated up from trey, we would have kicked their butts even on a night when our intensity and focus were not very good.
Artillery is superior to man to man combat.
Only fight man2man when you clearly have superiority in man2man combat.
KU will never have clear superiority in m2m combat this season because of its small bigs with limited scoring and rebounding abilities against long and strongs.
Use artillery on offense.
Use help in zone and man2man in half court, so that you are never relying on one man on another man inside; that is deadly for KU. And press in a zone so as to engage the superior enemy inside in regions of the floor where their size is not a strength.
drgnslayr last edited by
I like the idea.
And after half a season goes by, and Perry is averaging 3 ppg (hitting one trey per game) and Cliff is averaging 2 ppg (making one put back per game), those guys will realize their draft stock is plummeting, and might want to work a bit harder in the post to start earning some interior shot attempts.
Careful you last edited by
@jaybate-1.0 I read the whole thing twice and I swear I felt my IQ rise by 10 points. And I’m now a little better looking, too! Thanks a bunch!!
Blown last edited by
Thanks, I enjoyed the response. I agree the season hinges on outside shooting. I’m not seeing them make up any ground in transition 0 either and I would have anticipated this team would excel at transition scoring.
jaybate 1.0 last edited by
And reading your response did the same for me.
Let’s keep this up and pretty soon we’ll both be too smart and pretty for persons not to believe to us.
jaybate 1.0 last edited by
Transition scoring is tough without dominant rebounding to start the breaks. Self is having to scheme to rebound with his PG and Wings, so he really can only release one guy at the most for transition.
Clearly Self hoped the team would be an accomplished defensive team that could strip and force TOs, but that has not happened.
This is a tough nut for Self to crack.
But he keeps working the problem and I still think he will find an identity for this team that works.
KUSTEVE last edited by
@jaybate-1.0 I think we need Devonte for a whole slew of reasons. He’s one of our few shots at transition with his quick hands. We are a better defensive team with Devonte on the floor - he plays with a poise and confidence that belies his age. He doesn’t speed himself up when we get behind and start repeatedly turning the ball over, like others do on the team. He doesn’t blindly force offense, and he is real good at feeding his teammates. I don’t think Temple’s guards run roughshod over us if he’s healthy, and playing major minutes.
@KUSTEVE I agreed. As you said in other post, Devonte makes Frank a better player. I also think that Devonte makes Frank a better PG. When a true PG is doing his things, a good ball handling G likes Frank can sure feed on those things.
Crimsonorblue22 last edited by
@jaybate-1.0 also tough to start w/our pt getting a lot of boards underneath.