Almost every other team has multiple good shooters

[DoctorBombay]

My theory: I have always said that JB is more of a baseball manager personality. He plays the percentages. This is why he sticks with the zone and why it works most of the time but can be burned at times when the percentages bite you and also why we are vulnerable in a one and done tournament setting.

Anyway, I think JB says: percentage wise, I don't really want Buss or TR out there shooting a ton of three's (he has said Buss hits them 2 days a week and can't hit the ocean the other days). Coach looks at it like this: why would have anyone but my top percentage 3 point shooter shooting 3's. There is undeniable logic in that, but the downside is that it puts insane pressure on that one guys (Cooney in this case) to hit those shots and it makes our team easy to defend.

None of this means that TR or Mike G or someone else won't ever shoot a three, but you know JB is not sending them out there telling them, "let's see if you can hit from deep today."

Anyway, this is my theory.

These are great points.
Moreover, its why it drives some of us crazy that he can stick to such a short bench. But I'm sure in his mind, he's just playing the percentages. Ie: Who gives us the best chance to win THIS game, TODAY...never-mind what's to come in March and April.
Its frustrating at times, but it is who he is...

 

[pfister1]

Anyway, I think JB says: percentage wise, I don't really want Buss or TR out there shooting a ton of three's (he has said Buss hits them 2 days a week and can't hit the ocean the other days). Coach looks at it like this: why would have anyone but my top percentage 3 point shooter shooting 3's. There is undeniable logic in that, but the downside is that it puts insane pressure on that one guys (Cooney in this case) to hit those shots and it makes our team easy to defend.

None of this means that TR or Mike G or someone else won't ever shoot a three, but you know JB is not sending them out there telling them, "let's see if you can hit from deep today."

Anyway, this is my theory.

I disagree with this. I don't think JB stops tries limit the 3s to his top percentage shooter. No question he wants his better shooters, shooting more of the shots...but that is very different than not having anyone bu your top percentage shooter shooting the shot. If you only allow Trevor to shoot 3s you become much easier to guard. You need other people shooting and hitting 3s to open up the inside and reduce the defensive pressure on Trevor.

Besides BJ very clearly has a green light from 3. He takes a fair number of them and he loses playing time over defensive lapses, not typically over shot selection.

 

[HoustonCuse]

I disagree with this. I don't think JB stops tries limit the 3s to his top percentage shooter. No question he wants his better shooters, shooting more of the shots...but that is very different than not having anyone bu your top percentage shooter shooting the shot. If you only allow Trevor to shoot 3s you become much easier to guard. You need other people shooting and hitting 3s to open up the inside and reduce the defensive pressure on Trevor.

Besides BJ very clearly has a green light from 3. He takes a fair number of them and he loses playing time over defensive lapses, not typically over shot selection.

I don't mean he tells them all not to shoot except Cooney, he just emphasizes playing to their strengths at all times. That would mean that the lion's share of the three balls are going to be shot by Cooney. BJ is classic example - he is out there gunning like crazy - so yes he has a green light right up until he shoots himself onto the bench. If BJ gets in there and starts trying to break people down off the dribble, he's getting benched even faster for that because the percentages say you are better off having him shoot. I just think JB sticks to this philosphy more than a lot of coaches out there. I'm not implying he's a slave to it, though. Other people will take some shots.

 

[Flacusian]

The emphasis at Syracuse is very heavily weighted toward defense. It seems that sometimes the young players are so overwhelmed with trying to fulfill the defensive duties of their position and that comes at the cost of diminished performance on the offensive end. To effectively play JB's Syracuse zone there are many subtle nuances which need to be learned. I believe that as the young guys become more comfortable assimilating the system to the point where it becomes instinctual for them, their offensive performance will improve. Also, it seems that oftentimes they don't run structured offensive sets as much as other teams do.

Good shooting begets more good shooting and conversely poor shooting often begets more poor shooting. The guys will come around. Getting Trevor going will be key or getting someone else who can become a reasonable threat from 3 for that matter.

 

[moqui]

Small sample size alert, yada yada yada:


There are 351 Division 1 teams, and there are 116 guys who are currently shooting 40% or better from three while having made at least 2.5 threes per game (indeed, there are only 141 who are shooting better than Cooney's 33%). Last year, for the entire season, there were exactly 35 guys who shot 40% or better and just 73 who shot better than 34% (including Cooney). , so the claim that "almost every team has multiple good shooters" is patently false.

The current NCAA D1 average from three is 33%. Syracuse as a team is well below that, but our two true shooters are a combined .324 (12 for 37) and are one make away from being above average. And through the first four games, JB has been focusing on taking the ball inside - he's not yet featuring the three point game (SU ranks 309th in 3 point attempts per total FG attempts).

If this is successful, then the inside game will give the shooters better looks and with better looks there will be more attempts and more makes. Trust the process.

 

[Cuse'91]

Small sample size alert, yada yada yada:


There are 351 Division 1 teams, and there are 116 guys who are currently shooting 40% or better from three while having made at least 2.5 threes per game (indeed, there are only 141 who are shooting better than Cooney's 33%). Last year, for the entire season, there were exactly 35 guys who shot 40% or better and just 73 who shot better than 34% (including Cooney). , so the claim that "almost every team has multiple good shooters" is patently false.

The current NCAA D1 average from three is 33%. Syracuse as a team is well below that, but our two true shooters are a combined .324 (12 for 37) and are one make away from being above average. And through the first four games, JB has been focusing on taking the ball inside - he's not yet featuring the three point game (SU ranks 309th in 3 point attempts per total FG attempts).

If this is successful, then the inside game will give the shooters better looks and with better looks there will be more attempts and more makes. Trust the process.

The fact that you are using numbers from all 351 Div1 programs makes them meaningless to me. Any comparisons regarding our program should consist of top 50 teams. I have watched a dozen or more teams on TV the past couple of weeks, and all have superior shooting to us. And these are not exactly top 25 teams; teams like Kansas St, Cal, Purdue, BYU, have far superior shooting. And that should not happen any year, let alone year after year...

 

[moqui]

The fact that you are using numbers from all 351 Div1 programs makes them meaningless to me. Any comparisons regarding our program should consist of top 50 teams. I have watched a dozen or more teams on TV the past couple of weeks, and all have superior shooting to us. And these are not exactly top 25 teams; teams like Kansas St, Cal, Purdue, BYU, have far superior shooting. And that should not happen any year, let alone year after year...

don't be lazy with your objection . . . take a look at that list of 116 guys and see how many are from "top 50" teams. As for your specific objections: Kansas St and Purdue have one guy each on that list . . . Cal's Jabari Bird had a great game against SU going 4 for 5, but he's 2 for 7 against everyone else, so he doesn't qualify

The fact still remains - there are not "multiple good shooters" on "almost every (top 50) team" . . . rather, almost everyone has one guy who takes & makes at at least a semi-decent rate, and then one or two other guys who get hot on occasion. Sound like any team you might be familiar with?

 

[bevosu]

Shooting percentages in general are down the last decade or so. I see a lot of college basketball teams that can't shoot worth a damn. seems like a lost art.

We currently rank tied for 205th place in div 1 ...

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas.../stat/field-goals/sort/fieldGoalPct/count/201

 

[Cuse'91]

don't be lazy with your objection . . . take a look at that list of 116 guys and see how many are from "top 50" teams. The fact still remains - there are not "multiple good shooters" on "almost every (top 50) team"

Just because a shooter doesn't have the 2.5 makes per game this early in the season to make that list doesn't make them any less a quality shooter... Hey, we may have a good shooting team at some point in the year, who knows? But, I grew up with Syracuse basketball in the 80's-90's where even ONE quality shooter on the team would have meant Final 4. We rarely have more than ONE in a given year, let alone multiple quality shooting threats. The year we lost Matt Roe, the praying for Tony Scott to be our savior, so many of our teams lacked just 1 more shooter to be historic teams...

 

[orangefan13]

These other teams are playing against undersized opponents, and its early in the season defenses have all kind of mixups and missed assignments.

We have bj, gbinije cooney, roberson, mccullough patterson and kaleb.

 

[Cuse'91]

These other teams are playing against undersized opponents, and its early in the season defenses have all kind of mixups and missed assignments.

We have bj, gbinije cooney, roberson, mccullough patterson and kaleb.

Yes, but doesn't that apply to us too?

 

[mantonio]

Here's the GOOD NEWS:

Syracuse currently has superior talent vs. a majority of their opponents.

Most of those teams shoot a better percentage than this team right now, but most of those teams would still lose to Syracuse right now.

Based on percentages, those other teams' percentages will not improve much, because they are already near their ceiling. In addition, the Syracuse Zone will temper our opponents' shot percentages.

The BONUS is, Syracuse has the potential to improve their percentages by a wider margin throughout this season, further widening the win/loss gap.

Guys, this is a WIN/WIN baby !!!

 

[bevosu]

Here's the GOOD NEWS:

Syracuse currently has superior talent vs. a majority of their opponents.

Most of those teams shoot a better percentage than this team right now, but most of those teams would still lose to Syracuse right now.

Based on percentages, those other teams' percentages will not improve much, because they are already near their ceiling. In addition, the Syracuse Zone will temper our opponents' shot percentages.

The BONUS is, Syracuse has the potential to improve their percentages by a wider margin throughout this season, further widening the win/loss gap.

Guys, this is a WIN/WIN baby !!!

You could have a heck of a future in the used car business.

 

[Millhouse]

Start with true shooting percentage--that will help you avoid wheel re-inventing, and also stir up lots of measures to branch off onto from there.

how does true shooting percentage identify the best shooters? i think it's a good way of identifying effective scorers but not whether someone is good at shooting the ball

true shooting percentage is a good way to compare people who score in different ways

i'm assuming you're talking about some effective shooting percentage that takes into account free throws and points per shot?

 

[RF2044]

how does true shooting percentage identify the best shooters? i think it's a good way of identifying effective scorers but not whether someone is good at shooting the ball

true shooting percentage is a good way to compare people who score in different ways

i'm assuming you're talking about some effective shooting percentage that takes into account free throws and points per shot?

It sounds like you're misinterpreting.

Slammed today at work, but here is two seconds worth of google search:

TS%
True Shooting Percentage; the formula is PTS / (2 * TSA). True shooting percentage is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws.

In basketball, true shooting percentage is an APBRmetrics statistic that measures a player's efficiency at shooting the ball.[1] It is intended to more accurately calculate a player's shooting than field goal percentage, free throw percentage, and three-point field goal percentage taken individually.​

Effective shooting percentage is another good barometer, to normalize / compare the scoring of inside versus perimeter players. Great data, but I'm not sure that it would address what you were attempting to analyze in the post I responded to above.

eFG%
Effective Field Goal Percentage; the formula is (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA. This statistic adjusts for the fact that a 3-point field goal is worth one more point than a 2-point field goal. For example, suppose Player A goes 4 for 10 with 2 threes, while Player B goes 5 for 10 with 0 threes. Each player would have 10 points from field goals, and thus would have the same effective field goal percentage (50%).​

 

[Millhouse]

It sounds like you're misinterpreting.

Slammed today at work, but here is two seconds worth of google search:

TS%
True Shooting Percentage; the formula is PTS / (2 * TSA). True shooting percentage is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws.

In basketball, true shooting percentage is an APBRmetrics statistic that measures a player's efficiency at shooting the ball.[1] It is intended to more accurately calculate a player's shooting than field goal percentage, free throw percentage, and three-point field goal percentage taken individually.​

Effective shooting percentage is another good barometer, to normalize / compare the scoring of inside versus perimeter players.

eFG%
Effective Field Goal Percentage; the formula is (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA. This statistic adjusts for the fact that a 3-point field goal is worth one more point than a 2-point field goal. For example, suppose Player A goes 4 for 10 with 2 threes, while Player B goes 5 for 10 with 0 threes. Each player would have 10 points from field goals, and thus would have the same effective field goal percentage (50%).

Me: "i'm assuming you're talking about some effective shooting percentage that takes into account free throws and points per shot?"
You: "It sounds like you're misinterpreting...True shooting percentage is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws."

i don't think i misinterpreted at all

tim duncan is amazing in true shooting percentage but he's not a very good three point shooter. i would rather look at free throws as a proxy for how good someone is at making open 3 pointers.

 

[RF2044]

Me: "i'm assuming you're talking about some effective shooting percentage that takes into account free throws and points per shot?"
You: "It sounds like you're misinterpreting...True shooting percentage is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws."

i don't think i misinterpreted at all

tim duncan is amazing in true shooting percentage but he's not a very good three point shooter. i would rather look at free throws as a proxy for how good someone is at making open 3 pointers.

Oh Lord

Yes, you're misinterpreting. You want to correlate FT% to three point %, and try to make some interpretive assumptions about what the relationship implies.

I told you that there are already analytics that include both measures in a proven, meaningful way that are already generally accepted and in widespread use in basketball about how well players shoot, accounting for different types of shooting.

If you want to ignore them and reinvent the wheel, be my guest. But to say that TS% is "...a good way of identifying effective scorers but not whether someone is good at shooting the ball" isn't accurate, and is a misinterpretation of how the measure is utilized.

 

[Millhouse]

Oh Lord

Yes, you're misinterpreting. You want to correlate FT% to three point %, and try to make some interpretive assumptions about what the relationship implies.

I told you that there are already analytics that include both measures in a proven, meaningful way that are already generally accepted and in widespread use in basketball about how well players shoot, accounting for different types of shooting.

If you want to ignore them and reinvent the wheel, be my guest. But to say that TS% is "...a good way of identifying effective scorers but not whether someone is good at shooting the ball" isn't accurate, and is a misinterpretation of how the measure is utilized.

i described it the exact same way you did and explained why i don't think it's a good way to measure three point shooting. why would you ever include dunks in a measure of outside shooting?

 

[RF2044]

i described it the exact same way you did and explained why i don't think it's a good way to measure three point shooting. why would you ever include dunks in a measure of outside shooting?

Dunks aren't the only way to score two point field goals.

Instead of concentrating on an outlier who is almost entirely a post player like Tim Duncan, why don't you evaluate perimeter players, look at the data, and see what insight it yields instead of inventing your own statistic.

 

[Millhouse]

Dunks aren't the only way to score two point field goals.

Instead of concentrating on an outlier who is almost entirely a post player like Tim Duncan, why don't you evaluate perimeter players, look at the data, and see what insight it yields instead of inventing your own statistic.

basketball is moving that way - 3s and layups/dunks, one doesn't tell you much about the other. i think free throws tell you more

i'm not inventing anything. i'm saying look at your outside shooters free throw percentages to see if they're good at shooting the ball. if they are, something else is hurting their three point shooting. if they aren't they're probably not good shooters.

i suspect SU has a strangely low correlation between 3pt % and FT % and that it's more predictive at other schools. just a suspicion

 

[mantonio]

We got an Einstein on the board...

Let's give RF2044 an honorary doctorate from SFU... Syracuse Fan University

 

[RF2044]

We got an Einstein on the board...

Let's give RF2044 an honorary doctorate from SFU... Syracuse Fan University

I can put that right next to the honarary that my wife awarded me last year.

 

[moqui]

I can put that right next to the honarary that my wife awarded me last year.

that's an honorific? I thought they were issued with the marriage license.