|
Post by CallingBS on Apr 3, 2020 17:32:17 GMT -6
Hitting 54% in the mid range game is every bit as statistically efficient and valuable as hitting 36% threes. Whitford, despite his shortcomings, appears to know how the numbers work. I suspect that the issue with Kroft wasn't so much that he was a mid-range oriented player as much as that he wasn't all that good at it. Whitford may well have been right not to play Kroft very much, and also right to steer him away from an offensive style where he would never have been very valuable towards a offensive style where he MIGHT have been somewhat valuable
As I have already said, my issue with Whitford and Kroft is that he just wasn't that good of a recruit, and a real recruiter at BSU would never have had a scholarship to burn on him. Only the nuttiest jock-sniffers here were ever very excited about Kroft. Whitford probably did as well with Kroft after signing him as any coach could have, but the thing is that in college basketball good recruiting = success and poor recruiting = failure with only rare and extraordinary exceptions here and there to keep things somewhat interesting.
Recruiters recruit and recruiting has consequences.
The more I think about it, the more I believe any coaching search should involve soliciting the opinions of 17 year old boys. Ability to appeal to 30-65 year old administrators gets you hired, but doesn't do jack shit for making you a success. I think the 17-year-old boy test would have deep-sixed both the Taylor and Whitford hires and saved us all 13 years of shit results. Obviously you have to weigh other factors as well or you would end up hiring a succession of rap artists. In fact, the effective two-point percentage from three at 36% is indeed 54% (1.5 x 36% = 54%). I realize that's probably where you were going, but wanted to spell it out for some on here. This is a commonly-used stat by D1 coaches, but with as many threes that are shot in today's game I'm not sure it holds exactly the same meaning as it did 10-15+ years ago (haven't we discussed this on here before?). Intangibles aside, many games kinda come down to outshooting your opponent from three these days.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 3, 2020 17:49:09 GMT -6
Hitting 54% in the mid range game is every bit as statistically efficient and valuable as hitting 36% threes. Whitford, despite his shortcomings, appears to know how the numbers work. I suspect that the issue with Kroft wasn't so much that he was a mid-range oriented player as much as that he wasn't all that good at it. Whitford may well have been right not to play Kroft very much, and also right to steer him away from an offensive style where he would never have been very valuable towards a offensive style where he MIGHT have been somewhat valuable
As I have already said, my issue with Whitford and Kroft is that he just wasn't that good of a recruit, and a real recruiter at BSU would never have had a scholarship to burn on him. Only the nuttiest jock-sniffers here were ever very excited about Kroft. Whitford probably did as well with Kroft after signing him as any coach could have, but the thing is that in college basketball good recruiting = success and poor recruiting = failure with only rare and extraordinary exceptions here and there to keep things somewhat interesting.
Recruiters recruit and recruiting has consequences.
The more I think about it, the more I believe any coaching search should involve soliciting the opinions of 17 year old boys. Ability to appeal to 30-65 year old administrators gets you hired, but doesn't do jack shit for making you a success. I think the 17-year-old boy test would have deep-sixed both the Taylor and Whitford hires and saved us all 13 years of shit results. Obviously you have to weigh other factors as well or you would end up hiring a succession of rap artists. In fact, the effective two-point percentage from three at 36% is indeed 54% (1.5 x 36% = 54%). I realize that's probably where you were going, but wanted to spell it out for some on here. This is a commonly-used stat by D1 coaches, but with as many threes that are shot in today's game I'm not sure it holds exactly the same meaning as it did 10-15+ years ago (haven't we discussed this on here before?). Intangibles aside, many games kinda come down to outshooting your opponent from three these days. Yes, and you have to because you can’t trade 2’s for 3’s unless you can guard on the perimeter. We tend to not guard the 3 very hard.
|
|
|
Post by sag on Apr 3, 2020 19:40:52 GMT -6
But no one's hitting 54% from midrange, probably in the whole of the MAC. One guard, Kevin McKay, shoots above 54% from the field (the rest are bigs) while about 20 guys shoot 36% or above from 3. We'd need a total breakdown to really see the midrange percentage, but 54% is pretty rare.
I guess Kroft was a mistake, but do we really know that he wouldn't be a decent MAC player by junior year?
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Apr 3, 2020 20:13:48 GMT -6
But no one's hitting 54% from midrange, probably in the whole of the MAC. One guard, Kevin McKay, shoots above 54% from the field (the rest are bigs) while about 20 guys shoot 36% or above from 3. We'd need a total breakdown to really see the midrange percentage, but 54% is pretty rare. Agree that it is more rare to find a player who is efficient from midrange, and easier to find players who can be reasonably efficient from three. But just how rare? Every Mac team shoots between 32% and 37% from three ( except EMU who shot 27% from three, and I can tell you because I actually saw the BSU/EMU game, that EMU was a God awful offensive team). So if a player shot in the at 50% or better mid-range they might have some value on some teams. I think the stats you cite are for TOTAL FG% which might be depressed somewhat due to including threes. For example McKay shot 58% overall but if you take out his threes he shot 64%. But then some of those are lay ups and dunks. So what did he shoot on mid-range shots? F--- if I know, So anyway, to know what players are actually efficient at mid-range shots, you would have to track that % separately without point blank shots, and I have no idea where to find stats on that. It may be that efficient midrange players are not as rare as you think. We can see that a certain mediocre coach currently treading water at the mid-major level is pushing the no-mid-range-shot thing pretty hard, so maybe that's an indication the pendulum is way out on one side and may soon swing back.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 3, 2020 20:17:06 GMT -6
But no one's hitting 54% from midrange, probably in the whole of the MAC. One guard, Kevin McKay, shoots above 54% from the field (the rest are bigs) while about 20 guys shoot 36% or above from 3. We'd need a total breakdown to really see the midrange percentage, but 54% is pretty rare. I guess Kroft was a mistake, but do we really know that he wouldn't be a decent MAC player by junior year? IF you have that guy who is a good shooter, whether he hits that percentage will depend on getting him shots in that range. WITHOUT having to take away from other scoring opportunities for other people, and WITHOUT allowing D to adjust to prevent that shot.
For example getting Persons those shots meant putting the ball in his hands too much. We did not get play making, did not get post play all so he could play P&R. Ultimately he killed our offense some of the time, and some of the times defenses could stop him from getting the shots.
The reason the 3pfg was invented was to prevent teams from packing in, the theory was partially that it would give more room in mid range. What they found out is that the math was too favorable to take more 3's and neglect the 2pfg mid range.
Running lots of screens was one way to beat those defenses, but the shot clock took away the chance to run offense using screens long enough to eventually get that good shot for a good shooter.
Whitford is right about today's game.
If Kroft got enough minutes by playing as they want, ironically he would get some mid range shots and no doubt be happier. BUT that is the tail wagging the dog if you start out trying to make the offense revolve around his idea of his most useful talent.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Apr 3, 2020 21:28:00 GMT -6
I see lots of words from today and I do not think I want to read them all so if this has been said Im sorry..
Bottom line Whit missed on Kroft he might be a role player on a mac team but I feel like the MAC is to much for him. Id bet he ends up at a lower level. This makes me ponder another question.. We have a had a slew of whits favorite Indiana all stars and no matter how many we have our results are the same. So are the voters voting the wrong kids in for Indiana All Stars or is the level of play in Indiana trending down
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Apr 3, 2020 21:42:01 GMT -6
Guys it all just comes down to playing a style of ball that makes the best use of your players.
Even today with the shot clock and the 3-point line, a team of mid-range jump shooters actually shooting mid-range jump shots is going to perform better than a team of mid-range jump shooters taking 3s.
If you have rigid ideas of how to run an offense, you'd better recruit to the skill sets you need. If you can't recruit to that and you're more flexible, you'll likely get more out of the talent you have.
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Apr 3, 2020 21:55:30 GMT -6
I see lots of words from today and I do not think I want to read them all so if this has been said Im sorry.. Bottom line Whit missed on Kroft he might be a role player on a mac team but I feel like the MAC is to much for him. Id bet he ends up at a lower level. This makes me ponder another question.. We have a had a slew of whits favorite Indiana all stars and no matter how many we have our results are the same. So are the voters voting the wrong kids in for Indiana All Stars or is the level of play in Indiana trending down Not all all-stars are created equal, never have been, and it does vary year to year. We've recruited all-stars but definitely the lower-level ones. 8 of last year's all-star team went to the big boys. Purdue got 3, Indiana 2, Butler, Clemson and Ohio States (football). 7 were slated to go to lower-level schools: Indiana State, Ball State, UIndy, Boston U, Akron, Ga. State, SIU-Edwardsville.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 4, 2020 8:22:16 GMT -6
Guys it all just comes down to playing a style of ball that makes the best use of your players. Even today with the shot clock and the 3-point line, a team of mid-range jump shooters actually shooting mid-range jump shots is going to perform better than a team of mid-range jump shooters taking 3s. If you have rigid ideas of how to run an offense, you'd better recruit to the skill sets you need. If you can't recruit to that and you're more flexible, you'll likely get more out of the talent you have. That’s really what I’ve been trying to say. Whitford is tied to “the data” and is rigid (stubborn?) in what he wants to run. If a piece doesn’t fit but he wants the piece out there anyway it doesn’t go well. Same as with the opposite, when he for whatever reason doesn’t want to use a player who does fit the scheme it holds us back. We don’t seem to have a variety of options to go to or adjustments to make— we just play how we play for the most part and when it’s not working it’s brutal.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Apr 4, 2020 8:48:28 GMT -6
I don't see that there has been much untapped talent sitting on BSU's bench recently. I don't believe that Whitford could have won significantly more games, and certainly not a championship, by being less rigid or utilizing one or more players in a different way. Maybe he could have done marginally better, and maybe there is some issue with rigidity, but this is a side issue.
Whitford's biggest shortcoming....by far....is recruiting. Kroft is one example of this. His problem was not that he was a good mid-range scorer wasted by the inflexible Whitford. His problem is that he's not that good. I think this will eventually be proven by his lack of future impact at the D1 level.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 4, 2020 9:48:34 GMT -6
It does all come down to recruiting. Whitford is limited by that. It is a problem that he doesn’t have guys on the bench who can come in and light it up, lock an opponent down. And his starters are inconsistent producers, as has been mentioned many times.
Where I think he fails with the top talent he does have is he finds ways to lose them. To allow them to be forgotten in stretches. Like a Teague. First team all Mac player with POY potential and we don’t just keep feeding him and take advantage of guys who couldn’t guard him? He’d have dominant streaks and then we’d go away from him and start jacking 3’s. He needed to touch the ball more regularly. And Whit didn’t demand it happen. Those are the kinds of things that really bother me.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 4, 2020 10:16:30 GMT -6
It does all come down to recruiting. Whitford is limited by that. It is a problem that he doesn’t have guys on the bench who can come in and light it up, lock an opponent down. And his starters are inconsistent producers, as has been mentioned many times. Where I think he fails with the top talent he does have is he finds ways to lose them. To allow them to be forgotten in stretches. Like a Teague. First team all Mac player with POY potential and we don’t just keep feeding him and take advantage of guys who couldn’t guard him? He’d have dominant streaks and then we’d go away from him and start jacking 3’s. He needed to touch the ball more regularly. And Whit didn’t demand it happen. Those are the kinds of things that really bother me. Teague disappearing was for 3 years a function of Teague much more than anything else.
This year it was far more that other teams were actually working hard to prevent him getting the ball. And swarming him when he did so he couldn't move.
When Teague had a stretch where he was getting it done, defenses left 3 point shooters open. We had shooters who were good enough to take those shots. Even if they missed. That is 20-20 hindsight to say not to take the shot.
The other reason you have to take those shots is if you do not you are going to find teams packing in around Teague even more. Teague to score inside and to beat those guys had to have room, he scored inside best when he had space. Either by cutting to the basket or by moving after he got the ball. Rarely was he so big or able to get such good position that he could count on scoring when guarded, usually by a bigger guy.
I am sure we had some shooters miss shots and I am sure we didn't always look to make sure Teague wasn't open, but that was not as big a problem as it might have seemed to you.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 4, 2020 10:23:00 GMT -6
I don't see that there has been much untapped talent sitting on BSU's bench recently. I don't believe that Whitford could have won significantly more games, and certainly not a championship, by being less rigid or utilizing one or more players in a different way. Maybe he could have done marginally better, and maybe there is some issue with rigidity, but this is a side issue. Whitford's biggest shortcoming....by far....is recruiting. Kroft is one example of this. His problem was not that he was a good mid-range scorer wasted by the inflexible Whitford. His problem is that he's not that good. I think this will eventually be proven by his lack of future impact at the D1 level. Especially as a freshman who was not a great defender. He needed to learn to play college basketball. It was not that the team needed to learn how to maximize HIS ability to increase his productivity this year, or in the future.
I think he was in a pretty good spot here. He had good chances to take some of Mallers minutes next year. Of course he had to play as the coaches wanted him to. That appears to be the problem more than talent. He had the talent to be a MAC player down the line. A starter if he developed. Probably not the main cog and standout he wanted to be, but you don't expect that with most recruits.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Apr 4, 2020 15:51:55 GMT -6
He had the talent to be a MAC player down the line. A starter if he developed.
On a mediocre-to-bad MAC team, yes, you are probably right. And you would know...you are the guru and expert on all things having to do with mediocre to bad MAC programs. However, on a championship level MAC program, the coach would have effortlessly recruited right over his head.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Apr 4, 2020 16:17:18 GMT -6
He had the talent to be a MAC player down the line. A starter if he developed.
On a mediocre-to-bad MAC team, yes, you are probably right. And you would know...you are the guru and expert on all things having to do with mediocre to bad MAC programs. However, on a championship level MAC program, the coach would have effortlessly recruited right over his head. I think I am going to have to agree with sherm on this one.. Nothing I saw from kroft would lead me to believe he would ever be more than a deep bench player on any good team. Its to early to say that for certain though.. Im sure in a couple years someone will dig up this thread and prove someone wrong
|
|