2023 Holiday Break - GT in the Diamond Head Classic

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,580
Abram is attempting 0.20 three point attempts per minuted played (84 minutes)
George is attempting 0.11 three point attempts per minute played (245 minutes)

The percentage may be similar, but Abram is attempting twice the three point shots per minute played than George. Big difference.

Also, George is shooting .391 from the floor in general compared to .265 from Abram. George is 37 assists to 18 turnovers (2:1) compared to Abrams 9 assists to 8 turnovers (1:1).

I was talking about specifically in the context of 3 point shooting. Overall George has clearly been the better player this year. Also, as a starter, Abram was at .1587 attempts per minute which is still higher than George but not as significantly higher. Regardless, that line was more just to throw in to avoid people thinking I was claiming those two were combining for nearly 6 attempts per game but rather its closer to "starting PG is shooting ~22.5 ish on 3 ish attempts per game".
 

MtnWasp

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
992
I think some are over-thinking this: When the ball moves, the offense looks good and we get open shots. When our players are stagnant on that end, everything looks worse and the stats show it.

None of this is special to GT.

The question is, why does the offense sometimes stagnate and sometimes not?

Is it the defense? Is it coaching/confusion?

I have stated my theory: we bog down on O when the guys have lost their legs playing intense man-to-man D. We came in looking deep, but in actuality, we are not that deep. Depth is okay at the wing with Kelly, Coleman and Reeves +/- Gapare. But, in the back court, Lance Terry is not playing and Abram isn't either. That is two key guys down. In The Front Court, we basically have Baye. Gapare is productive SOMETIMES. He can block shots but is not great on the boards or as a post scorer. He is more of a transition presence than a half-court player at this point. I am one who sees Claude largely over matched at the ACC level. Dowuona is limited and doesn't play in key situations. So, we are not so deep up front, either.

We play energy intense schemes on both ends. i think our legs get a bit heavy in the middle of halves. Then, when the opposition also gets a little gassed, we do better.

We are not a great half court team at this stage and we do better when teams allow us to get out in transition, even though we turn the ball over quite a bit in transition. But I think a big part is the legs.
 

YlJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,260
I would say it is not defensive energy but rather whether the point guard can get downhill into the paint. When George took over he was able to come around the high ball screen and get into the paint and kick. That led to hire probability shots from three. Last several games we have not gotten downhill and instead tried to pass the ball on the perimeter for open shots. Not as good result in my opinion.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,064
Not sure the point of your inclusion of the quote is. Yeah, the roster was poised to live by the three. The roster includes everyone, not just the returning players. And that shouldn't be a particular disputed statement. You can just look at what the players had done prior to this year to see that was the case.

In any case, no, Kelly isn't the only problem. No matter how convenient it would be if the only issue was him being on a cold shooting streak. He has a bad shooting %. He is joined by Gapare, Abram, and George in that aspect though which is a group that makes up over 21% of our total attempts. Kelly himself is at 28.8% of our 3 point attempts so that group can't be just ignored.

But the problem you want to pretend doesn't exist is the one of a lack of looks for the players who don't have bad %s (Sturdivant, Colman, and Reeves). Sturdy has always been about a 33% shooter from 3 basically being good enough to make it worth it to shoot a good look but not good enough to warrant trying to generate looks for and remains so this year, but his volume has decreased beyond what you would expect even with decreased playing time. That should be a fairly straightforward barometer of the point. But, our two best shooters have only combined for 33% of our teams total three point attempts. Even including Sturdivant that number goes up to just 41.3%. To compare, last year our two best three point shooters accounted for 46% of our three point attempts. In total 83% of our 3 point attempts last year were taken by players who shot 32% or better (comparable to the inclusion of Sturdy). So the question is why do are better shooters not get more looks if it's just Kelly cold shooting? To me it's pretty clear explanation is that Kelly is willing to take worse shots, which explains both his lower % and Reeves/Coleman/Sturdivant's lower volume.

Now, it's also worth reiterating that Coleman, outside of the GSU and ULM games is shooting just 27.8% (down 8.2%) and Reeves outside of the GSU and Duke games is shooting just 28.6% (down 9.4%). To compare, if you took away 5 of Kelly's best shooting games last year (Cuse, UL, FSU,UVA, and NE) he's be at 33.8% (down 4.1%). Obviously taking out the best performances of any player will hurt their overall numbers, but it is also fairly clear that those two games for each of them are having a significantly higher impact than a similar number, ratio obviously, of games did for Kelly last year. Those numbers also put them pretty square in line with what the overall story of our 3 point shooting has been.

Also, if the issue was just Kelly, and that we were getting good looks overall, you'd expect the games where he has fewer attempts would have a similar number of shots with the shots that Kelly normally gets going elsewhere. However, that hasn't really played out. Against Hawaii he shot just 3. The team shot just 17. Against Cinci he shot just 3, and again the team shot just 17 total. He shot 5 against Howard, the team shot 18. Against UMass he shot 6 and the team shot 17. Generally speaking when he doesn't shoot as much, those shots just aren't being taken. So he's taking shots that others are either incapable or unwilling to take. The one exception to that is against UML where he shot 6 and the team shot 30 (Deebo shot 9 and Abram shot 5 in 14 minutes). In the games I haven't yet mentioned we shot 29,27, 23, 27, 28, 22, and 26.

Lastly, if all else was the same, but Kelly was shooting 38% that would put us at 33.09% as a team good for 187th in the country. So yeah. It isn't just Kelly that is the problem.
There was zero expectation George was going to get significant minutes before the season so he does not count in your theory.

Abrams hasn’t seen any significant time in our last 5-6 games. He was expected to be productive and a good 3 point shooter. He has been to this point a disappointment. He fits your statement on preseason expectations.

Not having Terry matters. He was our best 3 point shooter. He was out of action well before the season. It was very clear at best he would be a late January addition to the team in any impactful way. Clearly a loss for 3 point shooting. He is not relevant to the conversation as he is out all year.

Gapare was never going to be any kind of volume 3 point shooter for GT. And he hadn’t been one for good reason.

So it’s really Kelly who gets major minutes who is really hurting us from 3 point range based on preseason expectations.

You are correct we are not a good 3 point shooting team. You say we don’t get goid looks. I disagree with. We miss a lot of wide open looks.

Wasp thinks it’s due to tired legs from defense. I have no stats on first half vs 2nd half 3 point shooting and it’s not worth the effort to tabulate that info, So that’s a theory without info to support/refute.

We simply disagree. Shocking on a College Spots Message Board :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

It will be interesting to see how we play rolling thru the ACC Schedule. Teams will have a lot of film on us and they will try and take away what we do well. George/Ndongo screen/roll action.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,580
So as a bit of an experiment I decided to go back and go through the Nevada game and look at all our 3 point attempts to see if it really was a bunch of good looks that we just didn't hit, or not. We shot 26 threes. Here we go.

1st - 19:40 - made shot Reeves. Not much movement by him prior to the shot. Went to the corner around 25ish left on the shotclock and stayed there for 10 seconds. Set up by Kelly faking a drive and Reeves' man leaving too much. Still able to contest. I'd consider this makable but wouldn't really say it was a good look. I'm sure some will disagree.

2nd - 18:58 - miss by Kelly. Little to no movement by Kelly, more or less staying in the spot he would shoot it from the entire possession. Bit of ball movement before hand but not enough to prevent a defender from contesting on the shot despite it being a couple steps beyond the line. He is capable of making that shot but it isn't a good look, especially as a first look for someone on a cold streak.

3rd - 18:07 - this one wasn't listed as a three by ESPN play by play, but looks like it was on watch. Transition three by Kelly with 28 seconds on the SC. Missed. It was a 5 on 3 break and Kelly just pulled up with no passes to shoot. Again a makeable look, but I don't think you can consider that a good look. To me it was just a bad shot.

4th - 17:19 - miss by George. 8 seconds left. Possession overall had almost no offball movement, and just some token passes at the top of the key. Shot was just a pull off the dribble by George off no movement or pass. Got a switch onto a big man but no real space created and still contested. That's a bad shot.

5th - 16:21 - made by reeves in the corner. Almost the same as the first one but without the drive action by Kelly. Early (21 seconds on the SC) contested shot off of no movement by Reeves, and no real ball movement. Obviously he made it and having already made one from the same spot I don't mind. Not really what I would call a good shot though unless you're the type to think any shot that goes in is a good one.

6th - 15:57 - made by Kelly. This was off an offensive rebound kick out where Kelly got to step into it and nobody was really around to contest. I'd call this one a good look.

7th - 12:56 - miss by Gapare. No movement by Gapare on that possession at all. Little bit of action to get the defense reacting, but not really effective. Still contested. To me that is a bad look. As an aside, that was a damn ugly form with his right foot rotating like it was trying to get back on defense mid shot.

8th - 12:18 - miss by Kelly. The best possessions that ended in a three so far by quite a bit. Good penetration by George to draw the defense including Kelly's man and should have lead to a great in rhythm 3 by Kelly in the corner. But Gapare drifted to the corner as well and intercepted the pass before handing it off for the shot. If it weren't for that bit this would have been a great look. The disjointedness of the actual end of it to me hurts. But this is the type of action we need more of sans the Gapare part.

9th - 11:35 - miss by Kyle. Pretty good possession where we got a switch off an Oreb that favored Ndongo early. Coleman passed it to Kyle as soon as the defender on Kyle went to try and switch back onto Ndongo. I'd call that a good look. Similar to the made shot by Kelly, it wasn't really off of the offense and more a product of the oreb scramble, but still a good look.

10th - 8:28. Made by Coleman. Other side of the court but it is basically the exact same as Reeves' second made shot. Early in the shot clock, defender contesting, no real movement by Coleman and not much movement by the ball to influence the defenders.

11th - 7:52 - miss by Gapare. A look what I found moment with a pass going right through Ndongo's hands to find Gapare alone on the wing. Absolutely wide open. For almost any player on the court I'd have considered that a good look. But it's still Gapare shooting with that weird rotation thing he has going on so I'm still not going to think that is a good look.

12th - 5:37 - miss by Coleman. Came with 8 seconds left in the shot clock. Came off of a bit of penetration by George but not effective. Several steps beyond the line, and contested. Airballed. I don't mind him shooting it in the context of the clock, but that is a bad look to me.

13th - 5:33 miss by kelly. More action than most of our half court looks have had. Sort of a double screen slip into a pop with Kelly and a roll by Claude. Like the design of that play, although it's a bit of an odd motion by Kelly to set himself for the shot. Good look.

That was the first half. So of the 13 attempts, I would consider 3 of those good looks, with 1 more should have been a good look. 2 of those were off of Orebs and 2 were off of good action by the offense. We had a couple others that I think people will say were good looks, but didnt have much movement by any of the ball, shooter, or defense. Maybe the first make by Reeves due to the kinda drive action by Kelly. So that would be 5 of the 13 shots and we went 2/5 on those and 2/8 on the others.

Second half.

14th - 18:16 - Miss by Reeves. Somewhat similar action as the last shot by Kelly to end the first half. Screen the screener situation with Reeves setting an up pick for Ndongo after a ball screen and the Reeves popping to the top of the key. But the action isn't really effective and Reeves doesn't go through the action with the same emphasis as Kelly. Kind of nonchalant about it. The defender is set defensively before Reeves ever begins his shot. It's a makable shot, but with 20 seconds left in the shot clock that is a bad look to me.

15th - 16:14 - miss by Kelly. This was with 20 seconds left in the shot clock. Was set up by decent penetration by George. Defender helped and recovered pretty well. In isolation this isn't a bad look. But Kelly is 1 of 5 by this point, and it's a quick shot off one pass. To me this is the type of shot that people are thinking is a good look that I'm disagreeing with. To a guy in rhythm having hit a couple? Sure, a good look. For a guy that is cold both on the season and the night, that's not a good look. It's a momentum three point attempt, but without the momentum.

16th - 14:11 - miss by Kelly. Off an OOB set. Kelly goes to his spot and doesn't have much movement. PnR action with Sturdy and Ndongo and Kelly's man hard helps to prevent the roll. Sturdy hits Kelly for the open three. Good look no doubt.

17th - 13:30 - make by Sturdivant. Basically same as the previous one, but Kyle shooting instead of Kelly. Not a lot of movement, but his defender helped off to stop Ndongo rolling, and George hit Sturdivant with a pass for an open 3. Good look.

18th - 12:06 - miss by George. No real movement by George on the possession. Ball does go into Ndongo and the defense collapses. Kind of a bail out pass out to Gapare who skips it to George for an open 3. Good look.

19th - 10:04 - Make by Coleman. No real movement by Coleman on the possession. Ball goes into Ndongo, who recognizes the double team and hits Coleman in the corner for an open 3. Good look.

20th - 8:06 - miss by Sturdivant. No real movement by Sturdy. Somewhat of a help by his man off a slip screen action by Ndongo, but his defender recovers to contest well. It's an okay look and he had some momentum the past couple of minutes so I don't mind him taking the shot. But I don't really consider it a good look because it was pretty well contested, and his defender didn't commit as hard to stopping Ndongo as on a couple of the earlier shots in this half. In fact Ndongo had good position down low and Kyle should have fed him the ball.

21st - 5:00 - miss by Kelly. 5 second left in the shot clock. Little dribble handoff action, but it was a contested shot from a couple steps behind the arc from a guy who is 1-8. Badly missed. IMO bad shot, although he pretty much had to take it given the circumstance.

22nd - 3:37 - miss by Reeevs. Very similar to the last one. Token dribble hand off action. Contested shot from a couple steps beyond the arc. This one with 19 seconds left on the SC. Bad shot.

23rd - 3:24 - miss by Kelly. Bit of drive and kick action by George that got Kelly's man to bite. However, Reeevs' man rotated and it was another very contested three from a couple steps beyond the arc. Ironically, should have made the extra pass to Reeves in the corner because he was wide open. Bad shot.

24th - 3:17 - miss by Reeves. Quick contested shot off the Oreb with no movement and no action. This was very contested. Bad shot.

25th - 2:42 - miss by Kelly (meaning the one in the first half wasn't considered a 3). Early in the clock (about 20 seconds remaining. No real movement by Kelly. Good cross court find by George with Kelly's man sagging hard to prevent Ndongo inside. good look.

26th - 30 seconds left. - Miss by coleman. Down by 6 with 30 seconds forced the issue. It was a heavily contested three from the corner off no real movement of ball, player, or defense. Don't blame him for taking it, but bad look.

27th - 19.3 seconds - Miss by George. Basically same situation as above. Contested long shot. Had to take it. Bad look.

28th - 7 seconds - again not one in the play by play as a three. Clear 3 point attempt. Miss by Kelly. Blocked. same story as above. Bad look.

So second half 5 good looks out of 15 and went 2 of 5 on them and 0/10 on the others. For the game we were 4/10 by my count on the good looks, and 2/18 on the rest. Now not every shot that isn't a good look is a bad look. Sometimes you're going to get looks you don't mind taking but that you could get better than. If I counted right, there were 8 shots I'd say weren't good or bad and we went 2/8 on those. We were 0/10 on shots that I thought were bad looks.

The other thing that stood out to me was how few of the shots we took from 3 came off action clearly designed to generate a shot. Being generous I counted 4. The two to bookend halftime were the clearest. Then there was the weird Gapare interception one. Then one where we passed into Ndongo and he dribbled into the double and kicked it to Coleman in the opposite corner. That last one is a bit of a stretch to me, but w/e. Otherwise almost all of our other shots were with little movement by the shooter at all, and usually with only one pass in the lead up. Even most of our good looks were more opportunistic than intentional feeling and there didn't really seem to be a dedicated effort to getting in rhythm looks off any kind of motion really for anybody.
 

Connell62

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,092
So as a bit of an experiment I decided to go back and go through the Nevada game and look at all our 3 point attempts to see if it really was a bunch of good looks that we just didn't hit, or not. We shot 26 threes. Here we go.
SMH.... Just because you think its a bad shot doesn't mean that it was a bad shot.

The team is 8-4 (1-0 in the ACC) and playing relatively well for a young team with new pieces, and they're more exciting by any measure (except maybe yours).

Why all the bitching and moaning and hand-wringing??? I really don't know what point you are trying to prove?

You might want to start paying attention or you are going to miss a fun season.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,064
SMH.... Just because you think its a bad shot doesn't mean that it was a bad shot.

The team is 8-4 (1-0 in the ACC) and playing relatively well for a young team with new pieces, and they're more exciting by any measure (except maybe yours).

Why all the bitching and moaning and hand-wringing??? I really don't know what point you are trying to prove?

You might want to start paying attention or you are going to miss a fun season.
Iv30 doesn't like CDS it would seem. This team is fun to watch for sure. There are a lot of talented players on the roster. The roles are becoming defined and they appear very logical. Recruiting seems to be going very well. How anyone can't be excited about GT BB is rather amazing.
 

spdrama

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
551
Iv30 doesn't like CDS it would seem. This team is fun to watch for sure. There are a lot of talented players on the roster. The roles are becoming defined and they appear very logical. Recruiting seems to be going very well. How anyone can't be excited about GT BB is rather amazing.

It’s called the Dunning Kruger effect. Sometimes a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous as it can cause us to tunnel vision and ignore lots of other things that are going on. The end result of this is that we are “less good” at whatever task is being evaluated than we THINK we are because we aren’t considering the whole picture.

Fans (short for fanaticals) complaining & whining about sporting events are usually neither professional athletes nor professional coaches.

They aren’t these things because they aren’t as good as the people they watch play. Why aren’t they as good? Because they don’t know anywhere near as much of the sport as they think they do. Lot’s of casual sports fans love this ignorance because it is easy to bloviate and have opinions with no real penalty for being wrong.

I think your take on a poster’s dislike is spot on. In one post he summed up CDS’s experience as a 77-79 record as head coach with never making the tournament & without any proven ability to coach at ACC level. Great research of CDS career as player & coach there. But he will find the time to rewatch a tape of one ballgame and count 3 point misses & attempts in order to opine on how many bad shots were taken.

I don’t know about everyone else here, but it has been many years since I have been this interested & excited about a GT basketball team, the season and the recruiting. Just wish I could attend more games in person. Not going to let anyone yuck my yum.
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,907
Location
Oriental, NC
So as a bit of an experiment I decided to go back and go through the Nevada game and look at all our 3 point attempts to see if it really was a bunch of good looks that we just didn't hit, or not. We shot 26 threes. Here we go.

1st - 19:40 - made shot Reeves. Not much movement by him prior to the shot. Went to the corner around 25ish left on the shotclock and stayed there for 10 seconds. Set up by Kelly faking a drive and Reeves' man leaving too much. Still able to contest. I'd consider this makable but wouldn't really say it was a good look. I'm sure some will disagree.
I have stayed out of this debate until now, but I believe you are so very wrong. Just look at the first shot by Reeves at 19:40. It was an option in the offense and he was about as open as you can expect against a good team. And he made the f'ing shot. You are basically an uniformed basketball fan. The rest of your list has a couple of good points, but is essentially off base on most of the shots. This is not H.O.R.S.E. where the other team watches while you line up your shot. They actually try to keep you from shooting. We are playing big boy hoops now and the other team in this case is damn good at it.
 
Last edited:

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,580
I have stayed out of this debate until now, but I believe you are so very wrong. Just look at the first shot by Reeves at 19:40. It was an option in the offense and he was about as open as you can expect against a good team. And he made the f'ing shot. You are basically an uniformed basketball fan. The rest of your list has a couple of good points, but is essentially off base on most of the shots. This is not H.O.R.S.E. where the other team watches while you line up your shot. They actually try to keep you from shooting. We are playing big boy hoops now and the other team in this case is damn good at it.

Kind of odd to point to one of the shots I ended up counting as a good look to make your point.

I don't consider it a good shot because there were none of the hallmarks of a good shot about it. There was no real movement by the shooter prior to the shot. There was no real ball movement prior to the shot to get the defense reacting (there was some token PnR action that looks like it was designed to get a switch onto Ndongo, before what amounts to a reset at the top of the key by Kelly). Hell, the reason I counted it in the group of good shots is that there was at least a little drive and kick action but not even a particularly strong action. Literally one foot inside the three point line then pass. The defender did cheat, but was able to recover to the point that Reeves still had to step away from the pass to create the space to shoot, and it was still contested. It's a shot you'll live with because you aren't always going to get good or great looks, but no, that isn't as open a shot as you can expect against a good team.

We've played 12 games, and we've shot over 30% just twice from 3, and one of those two was 30.4%. If you think that it's just every game we are generating good look after good look and every game we are just consistently missing those looks then you probably need to re-evaluate what you consider a good look.
 

forensicbuzz

21st Century Throwback Dad
Messages
8,851
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Kind of odd to point to one of the shots I ended up counting as a good look to make your point.

I don't consider it a good shot because there were none of the hallmarks of a good shot about it. There was no real movement by the shooter prior to the shot. There was no real ball movement prior to the shot to get the defense reacting (there was some token PnR action that looks like it was designed to get a switch onto Ndongo, before what amounts to a reset at the top of the key by Kelly). Hell, the reason I counted it in the group of good shots is that there was at least a little drive and kick action but not even a particularly strong action. Literally one foot inside the three point line then pass. The defender did cheat, but was able to recover to the point that Reeves still had to step away from the pass to create the space to shoot, and it was still contested. It's a shot you'll live with because you aren't always going to get good or great looks, but no, that isn't as open a shot as you can expect against a good team.

We've played 12 games, and we've shot over 30% just twice from 3, and one of those two was 30.4%. If you think that it's just every game we are generating good look after good look and every game we are just consistently missing those looks then you probably need to re-evaluate what you consider a good look.
A good shot is a shot that is 1) open, 2) a high percentage opportunity for the shooter based on his/her skills, and 3) has teammates around the basket for potential offensive rebounding. #1 and #2 are imperative, always. #3 depends on the flow of the game. Movement (ball and player) are designed to get achieve #1 and #2. If you can achieve #1 and #2 without movement, that's okay. It's still a good shot.
 

GT33

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,180
As well as we played in Hawaii, I hope tomorrow’s game warrants 16 pages of arguing about it. We’ll be in pretty damn good shape to pull off an upset.
 

forensicbuzz

21st Century Throwback Dad
Messages
8,851
Location
North Shore, Chicago
As well as we played in Hawaii, I hope tomorrow’s game warrants 16 pages of arguing about it. We’ll be in pretty damn good shape to pull off an upset.
I don't consider FSU an upset. They have worse losses than we do and not as good wins.

They lost to uga! South Florida, SMU, Lipscomb. Lipscomb lost to Belmont. Isn't that an expensive school for singing? Lipscomb lost to Drake. Isn't he a singer too? Here's a shocker, they lost to Wichita State!
 

forensicbuzz

21st Century Throwback Dad
Messages
8,851
Location
North Shore, Chicago
It’s called the Dunning Kruger effect. Sometimes a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous as it can cause us to tunnel vision and ignore lots of other things that are going on. The end result of this is that we are “less good” at whatever task is being evaluated than we THINK we are because we aren’t considering the whole picture.

Fans (short for fanaticals) complaining & whining about sporting events are usually neither professional athletes nor professional coaches.

They aren’t these things because they aren’t as good as the people they watch play. Why aren’t they as good? Because they don’t know anywhere near as much of the sport as they think they do. Lot’s of casual sports fans love this ignorance because it is easy to bloviate and have opinions with no real penalty for being wrong.

I think your take on a poster’s dislike is spot on. In one post he summed up CDS’s experience as a 77-79 record as head coach with never making the tournament & without any proven ability to coach at ACC level. Great research of CDS career as player & coach there. But he will find the time to rewatch a tape of one ballgame and count 3 point misses & attempts in order to opine on how many bad shots were taken.

I don’t know about everyone else here, but it has been many years since I have been this interested & excited about a GT basketball team, the season and the recruiting. Just wish I could attend more games in person. Not going to let anyone yuck my yum.
I have a fun version of the D-K curve. Most fans live at the top of the first peak.

Dunning Kruger Effect.JPG
 

MtnWasp

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
992
Damn folks - we’re WINNING. Can’t we enjoy it
I enjoyed the hell out of that Duke win, I'll say that. That was one for the books. The MissSt win was sweet also. The new staff has lit a match under the Acme Rocket of recruiting also.

The team is a work in progress, but totally capable of exciting and winning basketball.
 

MtnWasp

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
992
I think it is an unfortunate thing to employ psycho-jargon to belittle posters and to label unpopular opinions as ignorant. We can disagree with opinions and interpretation of observations without resorting to saying that they are too ignorant to participate in the discussion, especially in instances where the poster is making a solid effort to back-up his point of view.

Not sure anyone here is such a genius that they should feel entitled to tell others that they are too ignorant to participate.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,580
A good shot is a shot that is 1) open, 2) a high percentage opportunity for the shooter based on his/her skills, and 3) has teammates around the basket for potential offensive rebounding. #1 and #2 are imperative, always. #3 depends on the flow of the game. Movement (ball and player) are designed to get achieve #1 and #2. If you can achieve #1 and #2 without movement, that's okay. It's still a good shot.

Movement is also designed to get a shooter into a rhythm prior to the shot and allow them to step into the shot as well as, often, getting the defender to contest on the side opposite from the shooters shooting hand. But even disregarding that point, I agree if the shot is actually an open one, and an example of that would be the 9th shot by Kyle. Two more examples are the 16th and 17th shots. The difference, to me, is that on Reeves' first shot the defender was still able to contest and Reeves had to step away from the pass to create the space to shoot. Even so, I still counted it as among the good looks. But the problem is those are typically the best threes we are getting.

But to you're #2 point. Nevada was the 11th poor three point shooting game in a row. Does that not indicate that the quality of shots we are generating for who we have shooting them is an issue to you? Do you really believe it's just 11 straight games of getting good looks and just shooting poorly?
 
Top