1/18 - MBB @ Florida State

[Root4GT]

Problems in the paint have been apparent all year. I warned about the need for a true 5 early in the year when it became apparent teams would out muscle us inside. I love Ndongo, but he can't do it alone. He is a great 4 and gives 100%.

Our answer to inside play seems to have left the team over a month ago.

 

[Tommy_Taylor_1972]

Make mid range cool again

Agree, if mid range is not already. That's all I was allowed to shoot back in the day. We had to shoot over 50% overall to win. Shots are shots. Points are points. Having more points equals a win. Bigs are better in the paint. Guards are better out side the circle. That is what they do most in practice. Defense can determine what shots are taken. It takes a certain team mix to operate in a system that focuses on one length shot over the other. Coaches have to plan for and do in-game adjustments for each opponent every game and the players they have on the floor. Adjustment in offensive sets/patterns are necessary. That is obvious to us all who follow the game.

Comparing our team this season to the top two D1 teams in shot distribution, planned or not.
GT - 63% 2 point attempts (50% made), 37% 3-point attempts (34% made), 380 FT attempts (67% FT made), 2 top 100 recruits
Auburn - 57% 2 point attempts (59% made), 42% 3 point attempts (38% made), 337 FT attempts (75% FT made), 2 top 100 recruits.
Duke - 53% 2 point attempts (58% made), 47% 3 point attempts (38% made), 330 FT attempts (76% FT made), 8 top 100 recruits.

My conclusion on shot distribution and shooting expertise is that we are a 2-point shooting team twice as much as 3 pointers. The top two teams are more equal in distribution of shots. Problem is we are not a good shooters in in any type shots, particularly in free throws, which is the basis of any shot and key in winning games. Opponents would you more if they know you cannot shoot free throws, as they do us. Duke's recruiting edge with more "high rated recruits" should do better all around. I think coaching at Auburn gives them the advantage. The idea of making 10 free throws in practice before you leave the gym still makes sense. And overwork in practice and not enough rest time still leads to injuries. Just my thoughts, but I don't get paid anymore for my thoughts.

 

[57jacket]

Agree, if mid range is not already. That's all I was allowed to shoot back in the day. We had to shoot over 50% overall to win. Shots are shots. Points are points. Having more points equals a win. Bigs are better in the paint. Guards are better out side the circle. That is what they do most in practice. Defense can determine what shots are taken. It takes a certain team mix to operate in a system that focuses on one length shot over the other. Coaches have to plan for and do in-game adjustments for each opponent every game and the players they have on the floor. Adjustment in offensive sets/patterns are necessary. That is obvious to us all who follow the game.

Comparing our team this season to the top two D1 teams in shot distribution, planned or not.
GT - 63% 2 point attempts (50% made), 37% 3-point attempts (34% made), 380 FT attempts (67% FT made), 2 top 100 recruits
Auburn - 57% 2 point attempts (59% made), 42% 3 point attempts (38% made), 337 FT attempts (75% FT made), 2 top 100 recruits.
Duke - 53% 2 point attempts (58% made), 47% 3 point attempts (38% made), 330 FT attempts (76% FT made), 8 top 100 recruits.

My conclusion on shot distribution and shooting expertise is that we are a 2-point shooting team twice as much as 3 pointers. The top two teams are more equal in distribution of shots. Problem is we are not a good shooters in in any type shots, particularly in free throws, which is the basis of any shot and key in winning games. Opponents would you more if they know you cannot shoot free throws, as they do us. Duke's recruiting edge with more "high rated recruits" should do better all around. I think coaching at Auburn gives them the advantage. The idea of making 10 free throws in practice before you leave the gym still makes sense. And overwork in practice and not enough rest time still leads to injuries. Just my thoughts, but I don't get paid anymore for my thoughts.

Good post as usual Tommy. Thanks. Hard to reach any dramatic conclusions from the data other than we are a poor shooting team relative to the highly rated teams. Points in the paint would be more damning I think.

 

[MtnWasp]

So much about scoring in team sport is finding the weak spot in the defense. You take what they give you.

At higher levels, defenses try to take away what you do best. The good teams can score in more than one way. One trick ponies tend to lose.

But maybe I am too simple minded.

 

[Rzunz]

The ONLY good thing to say about last night was they didn't quit.Almost unbelievable that we got only THREE Fgs from our 2 bigs last night for the whole game.(Souare in the last 2 games in 48 mins of play has had ONE! FG) .Speaking of inside problems--they got 44 pts in the paint.
So we live and die by the 3 pt shot.Almost no way to win that way unless you have no TOs and lock-down DEF. Good luck with that.

Actually 2 FG’s + 1 FT

 

[alagold]

Tommy,
I'm actually amazed that the shooting stats are as close as you show.I've wondered about our recruiting in that regard and how Stoudamire seems to like "athletes" over pure shooters/scorers.(notice our 2 leading shooters/scorers are not his original recruits)Since 3 pters are are so huge these days , it seems you can't win unless you can shoot those well (and FTs) as you have said.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

That’s one of the primary effects of fatigue. Guys playing 37-38 mins, game after game, when they should be playing 28-30 (in most cases). Bad decision making / shot selection, bodies breakdown, execution drops, communication drops, frustration grows, etc.

I’ll leave it at that. I’m not willing to put it all on injuries, but two guys who were projected starters (and leaders) have missed half the season or more. That is not insignificant, and everyone just breezes past it like “Wacie only averaged 9ppg”. Yeah, but he was a clear leader, good defender, and always brought effort. Losing him has been tough.

I’ve been pretty consistent that I think there were/are energy/effort issues (seems to have improved albeit too late), and I think we have also had some chemistry issues to some extent in the locker room. Just a **** season, no two ways about it, but I don’t how you can judge Damon’s coaching ability based on this season.

But those of you with your pitchforks out, ya’ll go ahead and run him out of town so we can start back at square one, lose our recruits, and do this same thing again in 3-4 years.

I fully endorse this post.

A program like Tech doesn’t have a lot of margin for error. Stronger programs can absorb a recruit not panning out, a couple of injuries, someone leaving the program or players being slow to develop. We can’t. Our current lack of depth is straining the whole program.

My hope is that the players who are currently trying to gut it out through this very tough season will learn some things about themselves and about effort. If they do that they can be leaders next year when we bring some additional firepower onto the team.

 

[gte447f]

Statistically, if you can make 3 pointers at better than 2/3 the rate that you can make 2 pointers, then you will score more points shooting 3 pointers. If you can make 2 pointers at better than 1.5 times the rate that you can make 3 pointers, then you will score more points shooting 2 pointers. Of course this analysis neglects to consider all other context, like for example not all two pointers will be converted at the same rate, or the fact that if you restrict yourself to only one or two types of shots you might become easier to defend and therefore make those shots more difficult.

Interestingly, GT, Auburn, and Duke all make 2’s vs 3’s at roughly the brake even rate of 3:2 so that 2 point shots and 3 point shots are of equal value.

 

[Root4GT]

Agree, if mid range is not already. That's all I was allowed to shoot back in the day. We had to shoot over 50% overall to win. Shots are shots. Points are points. Having more points equals a win. Bigs are better in the paint. Guards are better out side the circle. That is what they do most in practice. Defense can determine what shots are taken. It takes a certain team mix to operate in a system that focuses on one length shot over the other. Coaches have to plan for and do in-game adjustments for each opponent every game and the players they have on the floor. Adjustment in offensive sets/patterns are necessary. That is obvious to us all who follow the game.

Comparing our team this season to the top two D1 teams in shot distribution, planned or not.
GT - 63% 2 point attempts (50% made), 37% 3-point attempts (34% made), 380 FT attempts (67% FT made), 2 top 100 recruits
Auburn - 57% 2 point attempts (59% made), 42% 3 point attempts (38% made), 337 FT attempts (75% FT made), 2 top 100 recruits.
Duke - 53% 2 point attempts (58% made), 47% 3 point attempts (38% made), 330 FT attempts (76% FT made), 8 top 100 recruits.

My conclusion on shot distribution and shooting expertise is that we are a 2-point shooting team twice as much as 3 pointers. The top two teams are more equal in distribution of shots. Problem is we are not a good shooters in in any type shots, particularly in free throws, which is the basis of any shot and key in winning games. Opponents would you more if they know you cannot shoot free throws, as they do us. Duke's recruiting edge with more "high rated recruits" should do better all around. I think coaching at Auburn gives them the advantage. The idea of making 10 free throws in practice before you leave the gym still makes sense. And overwork in practice and not enough rest time still leads to injuries. Just my thoughts, but I don't get paid anymore for my thoughts.

Our guards shoot FT between excellent - McCollum - 89%, good - George - 78% - average - Terry - 73%

Our Bigs are terrible at the FT line: Ndongo - 61% - Mutombo - 40% - Souare - 25% and Onwuchekwa - 20%

 

[gte447f]

Our guards shoot FT between excellent - McCollum - 89%, good - George - 78% - average - Terry - 73%

Our Bigs are terrible at the FT line: Ndongo - 61% - Mutombo - 40% - Souare - 25% and Onwuchekwa - 20%

Yes the bigs are bad to really bad/terrible. Onwuchekwa, the worst, is especially interesting because he was touted as possibly being able to shoot from outside. I think he did make a couple of 3’s but he also badly missed some. I would argue that a 20% FT shooter should be laughed out of the gym if they ever dare to attempt a 3, and not allowed to come back until they promise to never do it again.

 

[Backstreetbuzz]

Agree, if mid range is not already. That's all I was allowed to shoot back in the day. We had to shoot over 50% overall to win. Shots are shots. Points are points. Having more points equals a win. Bigs are better in the paint. Guards are better out side the circle. That is what they do most in practice. Defense can determine what shots are taken. It takes a certain team mix to operate in a system that focuses on one length shot over the other. Coaches have to plan for and do in-game adjustments for each opponent every game and the players they have on the floor. Adjustment in offensive sets/patterns are necessary. That is obvious to us all who follow the game.

Comparing our team this season to the top two D1 teams in shot distribution, planned or not.
GT - 63% 2 point attempts (50% made), 37% 3-point attempts (34% made), 380 FT attempts (67% FT made), 2 top 100 recruits
Auburn - 57% 2 point attempts (59% made), 42% 3 point attempts (38% made), 337 FT attempts (75% FT made), 2 top 100 recruits.
Duke - 53% 2 point attempts (58% made), 47% 3 point attempts (38% made), 330 FT attempts (76% FT made), 8 top 100 recruits.

My conclusion on shot distribution and shooting expertise is that we are a 2-point shooting team twice as much as 3 pointers. The top two teams are more equal in distribution of shots. Problem is we are not a good shooters in in any type shots, particularly in free throws, which is the basis of any shot and key in winning games. Opponents would you more if they know you cannot shoot free throws, as they do us. Duke's recruiting edge with more "high rated recruits" should do better all around. I think coaching at Auburn gives them the advantage. The idea of making 10 free throws in practice before you leave the gym still makes sense. And overwork in practice and not enough rest time still leads to injuries. Just my thoughts, but I don't get paid anymore for my thoughts.

So GT is making 50% from 2 and 34% from 3. That sounds like a wash, be we are probably making 90% of dunks and layups and about 25% from 3-15 feet, making 3s about twice as effective as 3-15 footers. Thus, good teams shoot 3s and layups.

 

[gte447f]

So GT is making 50% from 2 and 34% from 3. That sounds like a wash, be we are probably making 90% of dunks and layups and about 25% from 3-15 feet, making 3s about twice as effective as 3-15 footers. Thus, good teams shoot 3s and layups.

Nice try, but you didn’t provide any data to back up your assertions. And what about 15-21 footers? I assume, by your logic, these would be even worse than 3-15 footers, but you don’t even mention them. And how about all the bunnies that our players miss inside of 3 feet? I doubt we are 90% in there even if we should be. And what about if you restrict yourself to one or two types of shots you might become easier to defend and therefore make those shots more difficult? And how are we getting these dunks exactly, without going inside?

 

[MtnWasp]

I doubt the game lends itself to absolutes in offensive approach. It is more like a chess match.

Coaches want to maximize offensive efficiency - the most points per possession as possible. On defense you want stops.

If coaches find a way to maximize offensive efficiency against a defense, coaches will react dynamically to counter defensively. They will recruit players that can counter defensive weaknesses of a particular attack if possible.

So there will naturally be ebb and flows. Coaches will search for ways to exploit a defense. Coaches will work to take that away, which will lead to another way to attack the new defense. Coaches will recruit accordingly.