gt24
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 354
Last edited:
Shot Quality metrics
- Thread starter gt24
- Start date
gt24
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 354
think it is the opposite of that. it appears to be the difference between actual win % and what SQ predicts should be your win %. the SQ record column says we should expect to have 11.3 wins and 3.7 loses (so far) based on our SQ offense and SQ defense.
Deleted member 2897
Guest
Well we lost one game in 4 overtimes and lost at the very end against both Virginia and Duke on the road, and had a lot of 10-20 point wins.
SecretAgentBuzz
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 805
- Location
- ends of the earth
Looks pretty accurate to me. Miami is better than their record, VT and GT have been very good this year, and Clemson hasn't been as good as their record. There is always some variance through the season, though, and with all the COVID stuff, this season has had even more ups and downs. Sometimes it depends more on WHEN you play someone then WHO you are playing.
augustabuzz
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,412
I have no idea if Tech is on the chart.
forensicbuzz
21st Century Throwback Dad
- Messages
- 8,851
- Location
- North Shore, Chicago
Best shot ability, one of the worst shot selections. Interesting.
lv20gt
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,580
Something seems off about that. I wonder how they are calculating the good shot/bad shot.
RyanS12
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,084
- Location
- Flint Michigan
To me, this is one of the better shooting teams we’ve had under Pastner.
- Messages
- 11,491
This one explains a little better
against Pitt, I saw a lot of “1 or 2 feet inside the arc” shots taken that were nearly as risky as threes, and a lot of midrange shots.
Not having a traditional center/big man hurts us, here, I think, because we take shots 7 feet from the basket instead of having a physical advantage under the basket.
Having Banks this year would have been nice. We’d have more green under the basket.
against Pitt, I saw a lot of “1 or 2 feet inside the arc” shots taken that were nearly as risky as threes, and a lot of midrange shots.
Not having a traditional center/big man hurts us, here, I think, because we take shots 7 feet from the basket instead of having a physical advantage under the basket.
Having Banks this year would have been nice. We’d have more green under the basket.
- Messages
- 4,938
This is a metric, like TO's, that should be under a coach's control. Granted, I played before the 3 point line and a shot clock where anything outside the radius of the free throw line was considered a "bad shot" but I had a coach who would sit you (for a lengthy stretch of time) for taking bad shots. So, if you enjoyed playing and not just being on the team, you learned to abide by his expectations on taking care of the ball and shot selection. Nowadays, it seems to be a "let 'em play" mindset, not just with CJP but amongst all coaches. My thinking on issues such as this may be a bit outdated however.
For the record though we had glass backboards amd metal rims in my day. We were not shooting at peach baskets with the bottoms cut out.
For the record though we had glass backboards amd metal rims in my day. We were not shooting at peach baskets with the bottoms cut out.
gt24
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 354
Agree. I think the key here might be limited data. It mentions that the size of the logo correlates to the sample size of games they have charted so far. The GT logo is fairly small compared to many others. This newer graphic also contradicts the original post graphic (which indicates that GT has high quality shot selection this year and forces opponents into poor shot selection). My guess is this newer graphic represents/includes just a few games, and perhaps primarily games from early in the season. To my eye, our shot selection has improved significantly as the season has progressed. We are getting out in transition / secondary much more consistently, resulting in better shots. Our half court offense is much more fluid and efficient since starting ACC play as well. In December OOC games I saw a lot more low quality, stagnant possessions with perimeter and mid-range shots off the bounce; once coming back from the holiday break I saw clearly improved offensive rhythm/flow/efficiency with more shots at the rim and kickout catch-and-shoot 3s.
gt24
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 354
I agree regarding the metric being under a coach's control. And that is one of the reasons I found the original post graphic so interesting and shared it. I interpreted it as an indicator that Pastner has done well in terms of 1) designing offensive systems/strategies, and 2) teaching individual players their role in the system and what kinds of shots they should be seeking/taking.
As I mentioned in another post, beyond just being better at running our sets, I also think successful in-season teaching of individual players is clearly evident. I see better/smarter shot selection from several of our top 7, perhaps even all 7 of them. Still not perfect, but significant improvement. And crucially, that decision making improvement has not been at the expense of playing aggressive. All 7 still attacking on offense, just smarter decision making regarding when to shoot, when to move the ball, when to attack for self, when to attack to create for others.
BeeRBee
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 236
I agree that this must be part of the explanation. Here’s a chart posted Feb 2nd with GT detailed, only 5 games charted whereas Gonzaga had 15 charted.
gt24
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 354
thanks for posting all these. looks like a good twitter follow. i scrolled through the feed and found 4 of the 5 games charted for GT this year: Duke, Clemson (first matchup), Nebraska, Kentucky.
augustabuzz
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,412
Thanks, that explains it. That section to the right of WV was covered.
tsrich
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 787
ELI5. would our spot in the chart (good shooters, bad shots), indicate we're not running an offense that gets us good shots, or that the players aren't effectively executing the offense to get the good shots or ??
My gut feel has been that we often get and miss decent shots but I'll admit I remember missed open shots much more than others
My gut feel has been that we often get and miss decent shots but I'll admit I remember missed open shots much more than others
BeeRBee
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 236
In thinking about this more, I suspect these charts classify good shots/bad shots independent of the shooter. In an earlier chart posted by this Twitter account Moses was in a quadrant of “should shoot more 3 pointers”.
So part of it might be we have lineups whose range doesn’t extend to the 3 point line, and part of it might be settling for longer 2s instead of driving closer or passing out to the perimeter for what is considered a better shot.