|
|
Post by lmills72 on Apr 5, 2020 10:35:29 GMT -6
I would disagree with the idea that a team should stop shooting threes in a particular game because they are shooting a low percentage early. Three point shooting is inherently variable. Randomness will dictate that there will be periods where the percentage is low. That does not mean the next period will also tend to be low percentage. Three point shooting is such a big part of the game these day and you would obviously find that any team tended to shoot worse in their losses. To bolster your case, you would want to show something like shooting a low % (relative to your team's normal %) in the first half is positively correlated with shooting a low % in the second half. I think that's probably not the case. This "hot hand/cold hand" concept at the team level is a very easy thing to statistically study, and I think if it was supported by the data, it would be widely known. Whether or not Whitford's teams shoot too many threes in general is a different argument. You seem to be arguing from the point that the only variable is what percentage we're shooting, which I understand since my previous post led you in that direction. But the deal is we don't shoot in a vacuum; there are other variables, other factors that determine how well we shoot and when those factors are in play (as they are in every game), it behooves a coach to evaluate what's going on and make adjustments. You think we just randomly had 2 crappy 3-point shooting nights against Bowling Green, or do you think maybe BG had us figured out? I guess you would advocate to just keep chucking them up instead of making an adjustment or 2? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 5, 2020 10:38:20 GMT -6
I don’t know, I’m with Mills. How bout getting the ball to Teague around the paint and tell him to go get buckets or rack up FT’s instead of just bombing away. Change it up a little. But that’s just me. But since we evidently do not believe in midrange jumpshots or guys who can hit those type of shots (I’m not talking about Kroft, I don’t think he was all that useful) I guess we’ll just continue to live and die (die pretty often) chucking 3’s. Why feature a all Mac first teamer on a regular basis, especially when we can’t buy a 3? We have no post up game. 3’s or drive, 3’s or drive. In a lot of those losses I’m not sure we drove much. At least not with any purpose. No kidding that shooting and missing a bunch was not the Plan. But what was the plan for when we were shooting and missing all those shots? The plan was to run the offense and hit the shots it produces. Most of the discussion here is about a bad offense mismatching players, and I think what we see when the offense doesn't work is something else. Surely it is partly that the 3 ball produces more variability than we as fans really like, we want scoring to be regular and consistent. Coaches "want" that too, but the reality is it is hard to do that if you want the 3 and you almost have to want the 3 with a shot clock and 3 point line.
Just giving the ball to Teague at the key won't work so well if they pack the lane. So you need to shoot the 3 to open up the lane.
If teams are guarding us outside, I think your theory has merit. But, when the offense was going well and the opponent did do that, we did a fair amount of giving it to Teague, usually closer to the basket and he could move freely when he got it and often did score.
If he is guarded well we need him looking inside out, or sometimes passing close to the basket. That is in the plan. Trying for mid range shots from close to the basket is not especially a good plan. If the defense is packed in, they can recover to the shooter.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 5, 2020 10:45:08 GMT -6
I don’t know, I’m with Mills. How bout getting the ball to Teague around the paint and tell him to go get buckets or rack up FT’s instead of just bombing away. Change it up a little. But that’s just me. But since we evidently do not believe in midrange jumpshots or guys who can hit those type of shots (I’m not talking about Kroft, I don’t think he was all that useful) I guess we’ll just continue to live and die (die pretty often) chucking 3’s. Why feature a all Mac first teamer on a regular basis, especially when we can’t buy a 3? We have no post up game. 3’s or drive, 3’s or drive. In a lot of those losses I’m not sure we drove much. At least not with any purpose. No kidding that shooting and missing a bunch was not the Plan. But what was the plan for when we were shooting and missing all those shots? I always felt that Teague was pretty bad about catching the ball in the post, putting it on the floor and going to the basket. He always seemed to struggle with dribbling in that area and maintaining possession. Maybe not physically strong enough to do  ? I don't know, just my opinion. I don’t disagree. Not a strength of his in traffic. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 5, 2020 10:49:20 GMT -6
I think a better question is why would you believe otherwise. There seem to be a few years of history to support my comment. That is a dodge. What history?
How does it apply? Is your theory that those two kids on the bench were ready to play? The history actually is that when we have first year players ready to play well they get their chance. Moses is the only one I remember ready to play a lot inside as a freshman.
|
|
|
|
Post by comet on Apr 5, 2020 12:32:18 GMT -6
I think a better question is why would you believe otherwise. There seem to be a few years of history to support my comment. Buddy of mine made a good point at a game this past year. Back when Majerus was the coach it was his norm to have tried to get just a few minutes for players like Huggins within like the last three minutes or so of the half just to give the regulars an extra break and to get those type of players some game experience. I can't say as I attended too many games back in those times, but this guy had. it makes sense. I mean if a guy like that is ever going to play he needs minutes and if he is going to kill you during that brief a period then you'd better be thinking about replacing him. OK, Huggins seems to have foul problems, but so what, get him a few minutes and if he fouls out in those brief periods, so be it and who cares I don't know, there just seemed to be moments when a kid that big, if he can walk and chew gum and the same time and it appears Huggins can at least do that, ehen what harm could it have done ?? It just didn't make any sense to this observer for him to hardly ever hit the floor. |
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Apr 5, 2020 12:37:08 GMT -6
Exactly there were minutes in most games where Huggins/Hendricks and Kroft could have played it just did not happen..
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 5, 2020 15:14:03 GMT -6
I always felt that Teague was pretty bad about catching the ball in the post, putting it on the floor and going to the basket. He always seemed to struggle with dribbling in that area and maintaining possession. Maybe not physically strong enough to do ? I don't know, just my opinion. I don’t disagree. Not a strength of his in traffic.e Even without a dribble he needed space to have room to take a step. When it was crowded he had trouble getting a shot. And he did get the ball knocked away a lot when he was doubled. |
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Apr 5, 2020 18:00:59 GMT -6
Exactly there were minutes in most games where Huggins/Hendricks and Kroft could have played it just did not happen.. I wonder if there was a point in the season where Whit had seen and heard enough of Kroft's parents that he made sure he transferred... |
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 5, 2020 18:03:32 GMT -6
Exactly there were minutes in most games where Huggins/Hendricks and Kroft could have played it just did not happen.. I wonder if there was a point in the season where Whit had seen and heard enough of Kroft's parents that he made sure he transferred... You might have a point. |
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Apr 5, 2020 19:33:08 GMT -6
Exactly there were minutes in most games where Huggins/Hendricks and Kroft could have played it just did not happen.. I wonder if there was a point in the season where Whit had seen and heard enough of Kroft's parents that he made sure he transferred... No one made a secret about anything with Kroft. They were done he and his parents were done so you may be right.. I will say it again though no one ever said Kroft was a bad kid or that he caused any problems |
|
|
|
Post by realitycheck on Apr 5, 2020 20:23:38 GMT -6
I think a better question is why would you believe otherwise. There seem to be a few years of history to support my comment. Buddy of mine made a good point at a game this past year. Back when Majerus was the coach it was his norm to have tried to get just a few minutes for players like Huggins within like the last three minutes or so of the half just to give the regulars an extra break and to get those type of players some game experience. I can't say as I attended too many games back in those times, but this guy had. it makes sense. I mean if a guy like that is ever going to play he needs minutes and if he is going to kill you during that brief a period then you'd better be thinking about replacing him. OK, Huggins seems to have foul problems, but so what, get him a few minutes and if he fouls out in those brief periods, so be it and who cares I don't know, there just seemed to be moments when a kid that big, if he can walk and chew gum and the same time and it appears Huggins can at least do that, ehen what harm could it have done ?? It just didn't make any sense to this observer for him to hardly ever hit the floor. The problem with this comparison is Majerus never recruited players like Huggins. Rick inherited a mediocre squad that had Derrick Wesley and sophomores Scott Nichols and Greg Miller and and not much else and somehow finished 14-14. The next year he promptly loaded the team with McCurdy, Kidd, Parrish, Butts, Stallings and Mueller and owned the league. He decided a two year rebuild was sufficient. I don’t recall him playing bench guys just to get them some minutes in the first half but keep in mind even if he did they would’ve been infinitely better than our typical bench player under Whitford. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 5, 2020 20:41:21 GMT -6
As you say Majerus played some weak bench players the first year mostly because all he had was weak bench players. Calhoun still has a point that Huggins and Hendricks might have played a few minutes more here and there. I'd say it would have been a very few minutes more. And I doubt it would make much difference one way or the other in their development.
I don't buy entirely the idea that it might not have had some downside. We played a lot of close games.
All we'd have to do is lose such a game. We'd probably then see some here ripping him for playing kids before they were ready and pointing out Majerus never did that. Or alternately complaining how we always lost a few points of precious lead in the last minute of the half and arguing we were poorly coached.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Apr 5, 2020 21:03:00 GMT -6
I do not think any one said put them in in a close game. T
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 5, 2020 21:33:32 GMT -6
I do not think any one said put them in in a close game. T That's partly why I don't think we'd have seen them much more anyway. Too many games close or could get close. I think a few more minutes was possible, though.
I don't think a few more mop up minutes more would help development much.
The game experience that counts is when you play with the regulars or with something on the line. |
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Apr 6, 2020 5:51:44 GMT -6
I do not think any one said put them in in a close game. T When is a game not close with our team? It felt like every game we’d get a 20 point lead and blow it. |
|
? I don't know, just my opinion.
