Usage rate is not about being good or bad. A missed shot contributes as much as a made shot does. A missed FTs contributes as much as a made one. Fewer turnovers reduces your usage rate and is a good thing. Jose as a senior had a usage rate of 20.4%which was behind all three of Moses, Devoe, and Ush and similar to what Smith had this year. All that means is relatively speaking he didn't shoot that much, didn't take that many FTs, and didn't turn the ball over that much compared to how much he played. He was extremely good for us despite the low usage because he both facilitated the offense, leading in assist rate, was extremely efficient in his shooting opportunities, and being the extremely good defensively.
Moore was not a good offensive player for us. By any metric. His usage rate is not a cause of that but rather a result of it. The fact he played so much despite a low usage rate is a sign that he, like Jose, contributed in other ways. With that being said, he can be a useful piece in the right situation. I think that was us two years ago. I don't think that was us last year or this upcoming one, barring additions. Last year we had Mike and Ush being high usage players, but none of our options at the 1 or 5 were likely to be once Bubba got hurt. We really couldn't afford to have a third low usage player on the court and we tried to keep Moore in there but have Coleman/Kelly by going small. The problem is that by going small we mitigated the defensive impact of both Ush and Moore to some degree because they were defending out of position. Realistically you don't want to bench a senior who can contribute but by team composition Moore really shouldn't have been playing nearly as much as he did. Not because he wasn't able to contribute but because he couldn't contribute what the team needed.
FWIW Coleman had a similar usage rate to Moore. Not because he was bad offensively, he was actually really good offensively, but because he simply wasn't aggressive in either getting his shot off the dribble or through off ball movement. Where Moore didn't need a higher usage rate, Coleman did, and when put into context the usage rate gives a good picture of the issues both had.
So, Khalid was not the focus of our offense? That is essentially what this number says. Surprised?
No. And the vast majority of the time stats, when accurately understood and contextualized, shouldn't surprise.
To my way of looking at basketball this is a worthless number. It says more about how the coaches built the team than his ability.
Do you think ability isn't the primary factor in how a coach builds the team? Moore wasn't low usage by accident. You could argue that for someone like Coleman, where the difference between his offensive shooting numbers and his usage indicates an issue with his ability to generate opportunities which is fairly common for a freshman. But for Moore, his low usage was intentional, and it was based on the fact that he wasn't good at shooting, driving, or creating for others.
