IS THE NEW 30 SECOND CLOCK THE TIPPING POINT FOR RADICAL TREY BALL?
@HighEliteMajor wants to amp up the trifectation probably to 30 3pta per game.
I have been hypothesizing that 80-90 percent 3ptas would make a good shooting team almost unbeatable with the old clock. I am now naming this approach the Radical Trey Offense (RTO).
It now stands to reason that cutting the shut clock to 30 seconds should make RTO even more sound stochastically.
Please god, let their be a coach out there somewhere in DI that embraces the RTO.
It will work.
I know it.
Yes 30 would be radical. Golden State led the NBA with 30.3 3pt attempts per game.
VailHawk last edited by
If that’s your real name! I’M completely on board! As I was first half of last year when you wanted 70 per game before bad ball caught your fancy.
Okay, then @HighEliteMajor’s brand will be Radical Trey Offense at 30 3ptas/game.
Mine will be XTReme Radical Trey Offense at 60 3ptas per game.
The crux of XRTO is that at team can shoot through a slump in a single game with 60+ three point attempts; this solves the only real problem with three point oriented offenses. Three point offenses are said to be feast or famine offenses, because if a team has an off shooting night, then it loses. But the beauty of XRTO is that by taking 60+ trey attempts it becomes a feast only offense. Why? Because the high number of trey attempts assures that even if the team misses 20 straight (i.e., has a slump), then it will still take 40 attempts and make probably 50-60% as a part of shooting to its 40% 3pta average. 40 attempts making 50% is 20 treys x 3, or 60 points. Add in 5-10 made FTs and that’s 65-70 points on the night you slump. Play Self defense on the other end, and you almost never lose even during your slump.
But the XTReme Beauty is that most nights you are NOT slumping. And on those nights imagine 60 3ptas and you average 40% makes; that is 24 treys. 24 x 3 is 72 ppg. Add 5-10 made FTs; that is 77 to 82 ppg. That dog hunts. And all it takes is three .40 percent trey ballers starting and two rotating. And if you find a stretch 4, or a stretch 5, that can trey ding at 40%, then you are basically unbeatable.
Screw the stacks.
You can play this way with sharp shooters.
The stacks never soak up all of the sharp shooters the way they do the footers. There are too many sharp shooters for a supply blockade.
@jaybate-1.0 OK, thought you were half way serious. Watching some OT now.
There was a coach back in New England somewhere at a small private school that won an enormously high percentage of games over a long period of years playing more or less this way. He was a math teacher if I recall correctly. Any way, the principle is very sound. Shoot only treys all the time. Shoot through the slumps and rely on the high rate of payback of three point baskets beat your opponent.
Texas Hawk 10 last edited by
@jaybate-1.0 Here’s a page to look at to get different numbers relevant to this hypothetical offense. http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/statistics/team/_/stat/3-points/sort/threePointFieldGoalsAttempted
Let’s do this on a per 100 possession baseline. The average team shot 48% on 2FGA last season. The average team would make approximately 25 FT’s per 100 possessions and we all know that 95%+ of FTA come off of 2FGA so let’s reduce 25 to 24. The average team would score approximately 120 points per 100 possessions give or take based on FT’s if a team shot exclusively 2FGA.
To average 120 points per 100 possessions shooting nothing but 3FGA would require a team to make approximately 40% of their 3FGA just to break even with 2FGA if they were an average 2FG shooting team and the 3FG% would just keep going up as the 2FG% goes up. There were only 14 teams that shot 40% or higher on their 3FGA and all of them were average or better 2FG% teams.
Looking at these numbers, I don’t think it’s a efficient enough strategy on offense to make 80-90% of the total FGA from 3 worth running because you would have to be an elite 3 point shooting team and below average 2 point shooting team that doesn’t get to the FT line on an average basis to make this a feasible strategy and elite 3 point shooting teams aren’t below average 2 point shooting teams.
drgnslayr last edited by drgnslayr
I’m a big fan of college going to 30 seconds. I’d even like to see them switch to a 24 second clock the last 5 minutes of every half. I hate seeing teams up by 7 with 5 minutes left going into a stall.
I think the 30 second shot clock favors us Hawk fans. Bill will be forced into being a little less philosopher and more of a hard core coach (like NBA) just trying to win games. He’ll have to start working his guys to create their own shots… FINALLY!
I love all the “team ball” but not to the point where it chokes off our team!
Eventually you have to have a “go to” guy and that guy has to be able to take his man. Mano e mano. Get the friggin’ job done. We’ve failed in March because we go 100% on team ball. But then we face a jacked up team that has our number and we just continue passing it around with no one open until the shot clock gets us.
I’m anxious to see a Jayhawk player be able to take another guy and score on him again!
I want to see another Langford at KU!
Thanks, I will. Good stuff.
Like all systems it will have trade offs.
Like all systems it will have to be what-iffed and linear programmed some to find an optimal trade-off between total attempts and a defensive strategy.
Though I agree with your of these numbers you present, one has to think through a lot of the assumptions about make rates on both teams and cascading effects of making this radical of a shift in shooting. For example, independent of my XRTO, the 30 second clock is expected to create more possessions but to reduce total scoring, because defenses will be reschemed to more matchup zones that crowd the offense up against the 30 second limit. If we take this dynamic and add the XRTO to the mix, and assume the XRTO team shoots ever trey at 5 seconds into the shot clock, several things cascade. The XRTO team’s shooting legs are much fresher on each shot so over a season their 3pt% is going to be higher. The number of possessions in the game will sharply increase and so will the number of treys taken at the higher percentage made. There will be many fewer injuries to the XRTO team and so this too will drive up their shooting percentages and FT percentages over the course of a season. Next, they will have more energy for defense and so their defense will hold the conventional opponent to a lower shooting percentage over the course of a season. And of course the more possessions there are in a game the more chances there are for the XRTO team’s defense to exploit the score constraining effects of the 30 second clock on a conventional team.
The above is just the simplest cascade that occurred to me without actually stopping to think it through; i.e., just typing off the top of my head. There will be many more positive effects. And there will be other negative consequences that I have not yet evaluated. But the point is that looking at the numbers you kindly found for me, and which I greatly appreciate, requires one to think through the cascades and arrive at new proportions and new percentages that should be reasonably expected in this XRTO strategy posed against a conventional team.
And, of course, I have not yet thought through what the cascades will be against another XRTO team.
So: thanks for giving it some thought.
New strategies need holes shot through them to get them to where they find (or fail to) some feasible fit with the likely processes and cascades that will result.
nuleafjhawk last edited by
I’d love to see an 8 second clock.
Kind of like they do in bull riding.
Eight seconds to throw up a trey, weave in for a quick layup and maybe a free throw. That would make for an exciting game.
And no time outs. Ever.
And no substitutions.
Now we got us a GAME.
And a bull on the floor the last 5 minutes!!!
I just want to win one ring with the XRTO, then have the NCAA outlaw it!
VailHawk last edited by VailHawk
“Here’s how I’d change basketball. You could make basketball a lot quicker. You know what you do? You have a two second shot clock. As soon as that ball is in bounds, get that son of a b**** up in the air. I didn’t come to watch a game of catch. I’m looking for a four or five hundred point ball game! I’m a fan! I want six overtimes and a thousand points on the board! Another thing I would do for basketball, at the center court line, for ten feet on either side of the center court line, I would have a gasoline fire.You talk about the fast break, you’d see the really fast break. Here’s another suggestion for basketball. I would allow twenty-five points for any ball that goes in the basket off another guy’s head. You’d see some good fights during those close games, I’ll tell you. And you’d increase the chance for serious injuries! That’s what I’m looking for, injuries! That’s what I like about sports! I don’t care who wins these games; if I want to see winners, I’ll watch the Academy Awards. I’m looking for injuries. Serious, lifelong, crippling, debilitating injuries. I’m an American! Give me a little violence and I’m a happy guy! Most people won’t admit that. Most people won’t admit that; they’ll say “Well, I like the competition.” Yeah, like Hiroshima, right? F*** the competition. I’m looking for a leg in two or three places.” George Carlin
justanotherfan last edited by
The other benefit of shooting a high number of threes is that three point attempts tend to lead to offensive rebounds at a much higher rate than shorter shots because the longer shot attempts lead to longer rebounds. Since defensive players usually have inside position, those long rebounds fall into an area where the offense has a better chance to get those second chance opportunities.
Thanks for the assist. That’s what I mean about cascading implications. I missed that in a first pass. But yes, definitely. And against footer stacks, its best to have the ball coming off long, when you do not have footer stacks yourself.
Texas Hawk 10 last edited by Red.Rooster
At the end of the day, I just don’t see this as a strategy that would ever win a national title. To even make this an workable offense to give yourself a chance at a tourney bid, a team would have to be probably 38% or above as a team and that was maybe 10% of D1 teams last year. You’d also have to sustain your average or better for 6 or 7 straight games in the NCAA tournament to win the title against at 4 top 25 caliber teams.
I think a good test for this would be to hire a coach a low major D1 team, put 5 shooters on the floor with at least one of them a stretch 4 and see what happens. It would probably take a full 4 year recruiting cycle to nail the system down so a school would have to be patient which is why some low major program with a long history of a lack of success would be ideal to try this out initially.
Thus is the kind of gimmicky offense that I don’t ever see being successful at a major conference school just because of the caliber of opposing defenses, but I could see this being a gimmick that’s effective at a low major program if given the time to develop properly.
This is pretty much what is being said by some about stacking footers; it just won’t work consistently for this or that reason.
It is also what was said about Luisetti’s jump shot. You’ll never find enough jump shooters to build an offense around it.
It is also what was said about Iba sloooooooooooowing the game down to a crawl and driving everything with defense. Basketball was about offensive attack.
Paul Westhead proved some aspects of what I am proposing at Loyola Marymount a long time ago, but he de-emphasized defense to get the increased number of trips, because he didn’t have a new 30 second shot clock to converge with stretching match-up zones to hamstring conventional offenses.
Now we have the 30 second clock and refs that will allow a lot of contact on defense again.
My argument is essentially this: if you take sharply more 3ptas and they take sharply more 2ptas, and you both play good defense, and you shoot enough 3ptas per game to shoot through slumps in a single game, then the percentages and rewards are always going to favor you. That does not mean you always win. You begin to always win by working and fine tuning the cascades to your advantage, the same way Iba/Edde/Self and Iba/Larry/Dean have done with the Carolina passing offense and the percentage of outside and inside shots, plus FTAs, plus trips needed to make the diversity of the offense your friend.
In my offense you have to do all the same things to make the specialization of the offense your friend. For instance, because one plays so little offense in shooting the trey in the first five seconds of shot clock, it might make sense to only play offense with 4 players, or even three and keep two players permanently in defensive positions enabling full court zone pressing EVERY possession. This would likely give my team a fantastic edge in defensive scoring percentage over the course of a season. Conventional opponents would make zero transition baskets. Conventional opponents would make far more turnovers and routinely start their eventual half court offenses five feet farther from the basket and this would make the 30 second clock a sharply greater constraint. And so on.
Also, the more you do anything, the better you get at doing it. A team shooting 60 3ptas per game would become sharply better at shooting 3ptas that would conventional teams. 3pt percentages would go up both because of the higher reps and because you are recruiting to always have a perimeter rotation that keeps 3 trey fingers on the floor 40 minutes per game, and maybe 4 or 5 trey dingers on the floor. But I respect your opinion and thank you for sharing it just the same.
HighEliteMajor last edited by HighEliteMajor
Ok, I think I have been slightly defamed. I recall Mr. @jaybate-1.0 advocating for the 30+ threes thing, but not yours truly. But if anyone is going to stretch my suggestions a bit, I’d want it to be @jaybate-1.0.
I suggested that the 2014-15 Jayhawks shoot appx. 20-25. I’m a high/low guy, definitely an inside/out guy. But, with this past team, and its skill set, and its lack of scoring at the rim, I liked the idea of a high rate of threes, and I liked the idea of an outside/in approach. I also think that a higher rate of threes can work playing inside/out. When we shot more threes, we were better this past season. Jesse Newell did an article showing that.
@Texas-Hawk-10 You mention hitting a certain % of threes in a 6 game NCAA tourney. Really, that is no different than missing close shots. We’ve had that happen too. Folks just seem to think that because it’s a three pointer, it’s somehow more risky. It’s just not. If you’re just gunning off balance threes, or threes in traffic, sure – but that’s very similar to the risk at any spot on the court (but with the benefit of a 50% higher point reward).
I harp on scheme – and despite the protests of a few here – scheme is the most important factor in offensive basketball. Your scheme can make three pointers less risky (meaning, creating good shots). And that’s why I like inside/out basketball. It creates better shots, in my opinion. But it’s not the only way.
Sorry to have mischaracterized your position on trifectation and Hi-Lo fealty. Thanks for clearing it up.
Alas, I will have to paddle down Paradigm Shift Creek without you.
Forgot to mention that you were right on about bunny slumps not being viewed the same as trey slumps.
The reason bunny slumps are infrequent and rarely last even a full game is that conventional offenses are geared to generate large numbers of close in shots. As a result, teams shoot their way out of bunny slumps, or more generally short shot slumps, within single games. And the same would of course happen with trey shooting were teams to take as many treys as they do short shots. Trey slumps would end during single games, rather than drag on for several games.
HighEliteMajor last edited by HighEliteMajor
@jaybate-1.0 No problem … that is about the most tame mischaracterization I’ve had over the years, to be honest. But I’m with you in spirit.
As a high/low proponent, I’ll always take what Self is after – that close, high percentage shots. But in many games, teams work real hard to take away “our stuff”, thus it doesn’t become quite as easy. And when you have the baloney we had at the basket last season, the trey becomes the better bet.
It’s much, much easier to take away a bunny, than to take away a three point shot.
And you’re right, not usually many team bunny slumps. They are the better bet – again with my caveat that you have to be able to do it effectively first.
I did see two astounding “at the rim” stats when I was looking. We’ve talked about how stunningly bad Selden was (as a 2 guard) at the rim last season - Selden was just 50.7%; compare to Travis Releford in 2012-13. An amazing 74.5% at the rim. EJ was an even more amazing at 76.2% as junior (at the two guard), but went in the tank as the point (50%).
Part of the reason for my positive vibes on Selden moving forward was that he was 69.1% his freshman season.
justanotherfan last edited by
I don’t think you would have to shoot nearly that high as a team. You would have to make shots, yes, but not at that rate.
If there are 80 possessions in a college game and you control your turnovers (i.e. less than 15 per game) you can get up 65 shots not counting offensive rebounds. If you lean heavily on the three using Pitino’s old Providence rules for taking them (open above the break, off a drive, off a post kick out or off a set piece) and you intend to take at least 25 a game, I think you can make an offense work off that.
Let’s say you shoot around 33% (8 made threes per game for 24 points). That’s 17 rebound chances. Long rebounds go to the offense about 40% of the time. That’s 7 more possessions. If you can shoot about 50% on your non-three offense (i.e. putbacks, in transition and other plays, that’s another 46 points). You should be able to get to the line between 8-14 times per game, and you should shoot at least 65% from there. That’s another 5-10 points there. That’s 75-80 points a game. If you play decent defense, that’s winning basketball.
The key is really to be able to play defense within the game play of shooting that many threes (and finding shooters that can play solid enough defense to keep you in a game during the stretches where you go cold for a bit) then you can win a title with that.
The problem is that most teams that employ this strategy do so as a gimmick because they do not have the talent to win a title to begin with (see Pitino’s Providence teams). But you can do that. Heck, KU could have done that last year had they abandoned attempting to put a traditional lineup on the floor and spread the floor with the four out attack. Mason, Graham, Selden, Oubre, Greene, Svi on the perimeter with Ellis sometimes on the perimeter, sometimes inside and then Lucas and Traylor inside. The tough part is not getting destroyed on defense with just one strong big man inside.
But it’s workable.
@DoubleClutch 30 3pta’s in College ball would be radical. It is almost the norm in the NBA.
@VailHawk dammit, I didnt mean to flag that. I meant to post that George Carlin was one of the funniest dudes on the planet.
drgnslayr last edited by drgnslayr
Surely some of you in here watched Game 1 of the NBA Finals last night.
GS was cold for most of the game. They never really caught fire. But they took it to Cleveland in OT for the win. They were giving up dunks under the basket for 3-pt attempts.
Bogut must be the biggest NBA scoring dud in the post I’ve ever seen. And I think that ends up being one of his qualifications for playing on this team. He’s the starting center… then they have the bench post guys that can score… so if they want to go smaller and have an offensive threat from all 5 spots, they put in Speights or Ezeli. Or they play real small without a 5.
This is a team built INVERSELY from Self ball. And there is nothing “fools gold” about these guys. Even Self has praised Curry’s talent.
@drgnslayr GS score a lot of points shooting 3s. They win by playing defense. The Warriors have always been able to score however they didn’t use the 3 as much. The difference between the days before Jackson and Kerr became the coaches and today is that they now play defense. Cleveland got a lot out of James and Irving on offense but they got nada from they rest of the team. They also have a much better bench than they or others have had in the past. A lot of what happened in overtime Thursday was due to the number of people that they threw against the Cavs best players throughout the game. James and Irving both played ridiculous minutes. Both Curry and Thompson were able to spend a lot more time on the bench.
As for Bogut, a lot of their offense goes through him when he is on the floor. He doesn’t score a lot but he is one of the best passing big man in the league. He is also the rim protector. If you watch a lot of Warriors games, when he is on the floor the other team tries to take it to the basket less than when he is on the bench. He is much better than Ezeli at doing that. If you want someone with absolutely no offensive skills other than dunking try Andre Jordan. If he isn’t close enough to touch the basket, he can’t do a thing.
The Warriors obviously shoot a lot more 3s than does KU; however, the key thing stressed by both Kerr and Self is the necessity that the ball doesn’t stick. When they are playing well, which wasn’t the case in the first quarter Thursday, they shoot, drive, or pass very quickly after getting the ball. Just to make HEM mad you will even see them running an outside weave a couple of times each game. The horror!!
drgnslayr last edited by
Good call on GS ball.
I agree that their defense is sticky enough to give most teams fits. And their bench is deep and under-rated. They kept throwing bodies at Cleveland and it really caught up to the Cavs in OT, when they were wasted and had lost Irving.
Talk about a bad rookie coaching error… I thought Blatt really blew it by over-using Irving. Now he’s gone for the playoffs and so are the Cavs hopes. No way they can do it with just LeBron. Blatt should have saved Irving, and if necessary concede the first two games in Oakland. Take a real shot at them in either Game 5 or 7. The focus should have been to save Irving for timely moments to go in turbo mode.
HighEliteMajor last edited by
@sfbahawk Ah, very funny … come on, I love the weave. Particularly with Chalmers and Collins on one particular night in 2008. But just not as your “offense.” Here and there, excellent change-up.
@drgnslayr Yeah, Blatt was going for the early KO, instead should have played “rope a dope” Warriors are too deep and talented to KO early.
@HighEliteMajor Speaking of that KU 08 team we all love. How many here think That team would have beaten the tar out of any Duke or UK footer stack team?