3s

Donate To GopherHole
USAF said:
Add in the piss poor defense, acting like they'd never seen a half court trap, giving up layups on in bounds plays, lack of an offense, etc etc etc.

That makes a horrible coach
Click to expand...
It seemed like we were playing against the old Princeton teams. Back door layups galore.
 


Iowa was more than happy to leave us open on the three with no passing, no cutting, no picks, they saved all their energy for the offensive end. Why Garcia should ever shoot another three, unless it’s a post pass back to him for three, is beyond me.
lazy offense and no worry that a player will get benched for throwing up three after three. The commentators can see the dysfunction why cant our coach?
 


Taurus Samuels Fan Club said:
Even more specifically, they have to figure out how to emphasize getting the ball inside to Garcia and JOJ or Payne (when they're able to stay on the court). I'm sure you know this, but there's a considerable difference in value between 2s at the rim and all other 2s. Via T-Rank I looked at the makes/attempts in each category (Close 2s, Far 2s, and 3s); in conference play the Gophers are getting 1.38 points per attempt at the rim (82 makes/119 attempts), 0.83 points per attempt on long 2s (39 makes/94 attempts), and 0.80 points per attempt on 3s (36 makes/135 attempts). So, they are getting almost the same value on long 2 attempts and 3 attempts.

Now, almost all really good teams these days get a good deal more points per shot value on their 3 attempts than their long 2s, but clearly the Gophers are going to have to adjust their emphasis in the process towards increasing their 3 point shot quality - it's not going to happen by just saying "keep letting it rain" like the past two games - and again I would suggest focusing particularly on getting the ball inside to those three guys (Garcia/JOJ/Payne have, as you'd probably guess, over 80% of the current amount of close 2 makes in conference).
Click to expand...
Yay! My guess is that there is a faction - perhaps the majority of GH'ers - who gave this the old TL;DR, but this is a strong diagnostic analysis. I just haven't seen this type of insight being acted on by this coaching staff - at least not yet. They don't seem to operate along these lines.
 








formerlybis said:
Yay! My guess is that there is a faction - perhaps the majority of GH'ers - who gave this the old TL;DR, but this is a strong diagnostic analysis. I just haven't seen this type of insight being acted on by this coaching staff - at least not yet. They don't seem to operate along these lines.
Click to expand...
Thanks! What I'd really like to be able to see, more detailed than the topline Close/Far/3s buckets, is breakdowns on how they're getting the rim 2s they get - I'm always interested in detail like that, but particularly with a team like this, much more efficient at the rim than anywhere else, I'd love to see info on their share and efficiency getting close 2s on things like:

- fastbreak lobs to JOJ
- Hawkins/Payne PnRs
- Garcia post isos
- Garcia-->Payne or Payne-->Garcia high/low actions

because I'd think some of those are more repeatable than others - for instance, I think it's difficult to say "Go get more transition JOJ dunks" without making a strategic effort to increase defensive ball pressure and hunt more steals, which isn't something I've ever felt like this staff is particularly likely to do.

I think more granular data like that is out there in some places, for a price; if the Gophers were a better program I'd probably be more likely to subscribe for data like that. I'd love to be able to ask the staff how much of that kind of stuff they track or think about, but yeah, I imagine I probably wouldn't like the answer.
 


The data is the data. If you think the interpretation is wrong, provide a compelling counter argument, supported by evidence. My mind can be changed when presented with new information.
 

formerlybis said:
The data is the data. If you think the interpretation is wrong, provide a compelling counter argument, supported by evidence. My mind can be changed when presented with new information.
Click to expand...
His point is that you have picked our 8 hardest games out of our schedule (getting rid of cupcake games) and come up with a percentage. THEN you compared it with the rest of the teams in the country against their full season stat - 340th in the country (including the cupcake games).

If you really want to make an attempt at a comparison then go through the other 350 teams and get the percentage of 3s from their hardest 8 games and you would compare it to our 8 hardest games - even then its not perfect. Nobody is going to defend our 3 point shooting right now but stats are easy to manipulate and even at best are a flawed method of defining our problems.
 



CPTMidnight said:
His point is that you have picked our 8 hardest games out of our schedule (getting rid of cupcake games) and come up with a percentage. THEN you compared it with the rest of the teams in the country against their full season stat - 340th in the country (including the cupcake games).

If you really want to make an attempt at a comparison then go through the other 350 teams and get the percentage of 3s from their hardest 8 games and you would compare it to our 8 hardest games - even then its not perfect. Nobody is going to defend our 3 point shooting right now but stats are easy to manipulate and even at best are a flawed method of defining our problems.
Click to expand...

I only did it because those 8 games are against the worst competition in the country. And it's not like the 8 games I picked are even against good competition. Our first 6 B1G games and Missouri and SF, is hardly a good schedule on the whole.

My point is that we are more likely to replicate what we did against the "good" competition moving forward, as opposed to the collection of teams that is literally the easiest in the country. So yeah, IF we shoot better we may have beaten Iowa, but we can't count on shooting better when we've proven to be pretty terrible from 3 in games against teams with a pulse.
 

CPTMidnight said:
His point is that you have picked our 8 hardest games out of our schedule (getting rid of cupcake games) and come up with a percentage. THEN you compared it with the rest of the teams in the country against their full season stat - 340th in the country (including the cupcake games).

If you really want to make an attempt at a comparison then go through the other 350 teams and get the percentage of 3s from their hardest 8 games and you would compare it to our 8 hardest games - even then its not perfect. Nobody is going to defend our 3 point shooting right now but stats are easy to manipulate and even at best are a flawed method of defining our problems.
Click to expand...
7633 covered it, but I'll add this. Of course stats are manipulable. Choosing performance data against the non-cupcakes is not "flawed", it's a filter that's perfectly defensible from a logic standpoint. It's a lot of work then to compare that number to other teams against non-cupcakes (it can be done on Torvik by comparing only to Top 100, but it requires more work). The conclusion will be the same - they're bad against good teams from 3. Whether it's 340th or 270th doesn't really change the thesis.

You may not like the conclusion, but again, the data are the data. If you have an analysis that refutes the conclusion, present it.

ETA: I checked it - #284 on 3P% against top 100. People should not worry so much about perect analysis, and consider whether the conclusion is directionally correct.
 
Last edited:

formerlybis said:
7633 covered it, but I'll add this. Of course stats are manipulable. Choosing performance data against the non-cupcakes is not "flawed", it's a filter that's perfectly defensible from a logic standpoint. It's a lot of work then to compare that number to other teams against non-cupcakes (it can be done on Torvik by comparing only to Top 100, but it requires more work). The conclusion will be the same - they're bad against good teams from 3. Whether it's 340th or 270th doesn't really change the thesis.

You may not like the conclusion, but again, the data are the data. If you have an analysis that refutes the conclusion, present it.

ETA: I checked it - #284 on 3P% against top 100. People should not worry so much about perect analysis, and consider whether the conclusion is directionally correct.
Click to expand...
Sigh....

OK, I agree with you (who agreed with me - who was agreeing with Gopherbbdude, who disagreed with Gophers7633) that the data was skewed and is not perfect and can be manipulated.

...and I agree with you (who agreed with me, who agreed with Gopherbbdude, who was agreeing with Gophers7633) on the conclusion that better competition is negatively impacting our 3point shooting percentage regardless of how skewed the data is.

Does anyone else want to agree?
 

CPTMidnight said:
Sigh....

OK, I agree with you (who agreed with me - who was agreeing with Gopherbbdude, who disagreed with Gophers7633) that the data was skewed and is not perfect and can be manipulated.

...and I agree with you (who agreed with me, who agreed with Gopherbbdude, who was agreeing with Gophers7633) on the conclusion that better competition is negatively impacting our 3point shooting percentage regardless of how skewed the data is.

Does anyone else want to agree?
Click to expand...
I mean I want to agree but I am not sure at this point what I would be agreeing to....and we all know doing that can turn out badly..... :)
 

CPTMidnight said:
Sigh....

OK, I agree with you (who agreed with me - who was agreeing with Gopherbbdude, who disagreed with Gophers7633) that the data was skewed and is not perfect and can be manipulated.

...and I agree with you (who agreed with me, who agreed with Gopherbbdude, who was agreeing with Gophers7633) on the conclusion that better competition is negatively impacting our 3point shooting percentage regardless of how skewed the data is.

Does anyone else want to agree?
Click to expand...
I agree, I think, and I will submit that our remaining schedule is closer to the toughest 8 games (so far) vice our cupcake non conf schedule. I am concluding that if nothing changes then our 3pt% will most likely be closer to our recent struggles and not as ^ as our early season success from the arc.
 

The point of all of this is to take action on the information. The team is way better at 2s than 3s, especially against good competition. Adjust the O to get as much as you can at the rim. That's easier said than done, but that is what the coaches should be scheming for.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom