College hoops is getting really hard to watch

[OrangeDW]

I just feel like this is something that people will always say as time goes on. That doesn't make it not true, but it's one of those things I hear and I am always immediately skeptical about.

I'm trying to think of ways we could test the hypothesis.

I've thought about that but to me, an easy way to test it is to watch 5 minutes of the old SU games they show on TWC. Lots of things jump out. It was a better game.

 

[Orangeyes]

To an extent, perhaps, but also I think the further away from the basket you are, the harder it is to shoot. Here are the percentages

at the rim: 64.5%
3-9 feet: 38.7%
10-15 feet: 42%
16-23 feet: 38%
23+: 35% (effective FG% of 54%)

To me, that's kind of what I would expect. You shoot the best at the rim, and the worst from 3, but you get the extra point from 3 so that makes it worth it. I am a little surprised that the 3-9 foot shot is about the same as the 16-23, and the 10-15 is better than either though. That seems to be consistent over the last few years.

What do you think people are going to shoot from midrange? I wouldn't expect them to shoot as well as they do at the rim, and I wouldn't expect them to shoot 54%, like the effective FG% on 3's is. I just don't think it's realistic to expect people to be able to shoot all that effectively from mid range. 2 guys in the league last year who took any kind of a serious number of shots from 16-23 feet made over 50% of them. Dirk and Al Horford (!). If the league shoots roughly 40%, could you work on it and bump it up to 42 or 43%? Maybe, maybe not. But that's still not anywhere near as efficient as the rim or behind the line. If the best guys in the league still can't shoot it as efficiently as they can from at the rim or from 3, I feel like that tells you what you need to know. There is always a place for mid range shots, and there are some guys who can make it worth it, but most of the time, they are lower percentage shots than the other spots on the floor.

I love your research numbers, what is your source?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Was this the play where he got a flagrant foul and earned a suspension?

If he played for Butler it would be a no call. They had a kid german suplex Kris Joseph right in front of the refs, with no call!

Yes. He got the FF and suspension because he took a poke at the kid. Up to that point though, he did nothing wrong in the eyes of the refs.

 

[OrangeDW]

Yes. He got the FF and suspension because he took a poke at the kid. Up to that point though, he did nothing wrong in the eyes of the refs.

The NBA definitely has it's issues and refereeing problems too. But I think it's a much cleaner, more fluid game played at a better tempo. More often than not, college hoops games are just a hard watch.

 

[Knicks411]

I love your research numbers, what is your source?

hoopdata.com. It's awesome

 

[Toga]

BTW, could someone please explain to me why the 3-second rule even exists? What is so important about making sure the offense doesn't have a player near the basket for too long? How is this improving the game?

What''s the difference? It's never called.

 

[PoppyHart]

Unless the talent is there, I think a 30 second clock is counter-productive to improving the product. Many teams struggle to get into their offensive sets in the current framework, and speeding up the game will only result in more rushed shots and pressure induced turnovers.

College kids are simply not as good as they used to be, because the good ones have already made the leap to the NBA.

FWIW, the 10 starters in the upcoming NBA ASG played a grand total of 9 collegiate seasons. The 24 players originally chosen (not counting Lopez, a replacement) played 34 seasons, or 1.41 seasons on average. 2 players (Duncan and David Lee) played 4 years, and 2 played 3 years (Noah and Harden). Wade was a Prop 48 his 1st year so I count him as 2 years.

 

[Knicks411]

Unless the talent is there, I think a 30 second clock is counter-productive to improving the product. Many teams struggle to get into their offensive sets in the current framework, and speeding up the game will only result in more rushed shots and pressure induced turnovers.

This was mentioned before, but I'm not sure I buy it. You see tons of teams running a dummy offense or just stalling for a lot of the shot clock before they get into a set. Shortening the clock should (emphasis on should) get rid of a lot of that.

College kids are simply not as good as they used to be, because the good ones have already made the leap to the NBA.

That's definitely true, but I can live with that. I just don't like seeing games where teams don't do a lot for much of the shot clock, and when there is a ton of contact. I can accept that with players leaving early the quality won't be what it once was (and also since I pretty much grew up in an era where guys went pro early, I don't really know what I'm missing) but I still think there are a lot of improvements that can be made.

 

[Bayside44]

Went to the Knicks-Wiz last night, the difference in person b/t the NBA and college is ridiculous.

Last night's game zipped on by, great pace, ball movement, shooting. The college games are grinding and tedious, ton's of time with no scoring done, moving screens, and tons of hacking. It' really becoming unwatchable...either a 3 point shot or someone bulling towards the tin and half the time some poorly coached sucker sliding under a guy driving looking to draw a charge. (n)

 

[IthacaMatt]

Wouldn't allowing more moving screens aid the offense though? Thought you said you hate the low scores? I think the moving screens are more a symptom allowing WAY too much contact and hand-checking on/off the ball - which we agree on. I think if you put more distance between the players and allow better freedom of movement then the scores will go way up. Another problem is the loss of the midrange game along with its apparent effect on FT shooting. FT shooting these days is horrendous. CJ shows us first hand how effective a midrange game can be, yet for some reason its been abandoned in college ball. I'm guessing its because these are still kids, growing up, trying to find their place, make a name ... to them acrobatic drives/dunks & "raining treys" are what's 'sexy'. Nobody ever got on Sportscenter for hitting a smooth 13 footer from the elbow.

You're right - the moving screens create an overall impact of more physical play, because defenders are allowed to fight harder to get around the pick. So, no, moving picks don't help the offense, they increase the overall physicality of the game, leading to more fouls that don't get called and today's ugly version of the game.

 

[IthacaMatt]

You guys who keep talking about the beautiful play of the NBA need to go look at that Ron Artest video posted the other day and tell me exactly how that is different than college ball. Metta (who was on offense) literally hugged his man, pushed him in towards the basket so that he could get any offensive board, and then took a swing underneath. Please.

And they may allow for guys to move about on the outside, but there are fouls underneath on every play. I watch Celts games occasionally, and Garnett has his hands on the guy he is defending pushing him before the ball even crosses halfcourt.

I think it's just that the overall offensive capability of the players is greater. You have more guys who can make shots when they're open.

 

[PoppyHart]

This was mentioned before, but I'm not sure I buy it. You see tons of teams running a dummy offense or just stalling for a lot of the shot clock before they get into a set. Shortening the clock should (emphasis on should) get rid of a lot of that.



That's definitely true, but I can live with that. I just don't like seeing games where teams don't do a lot for much of the shot clock, and when there is a ton of contact. I can accept that with players leaving early the quality won't be what it once was (and also since I pretty much grew up in an era where guys went pro early, I don't really know what I'm missing) but I still think there are a lot of improvements that can be made.

Maybe they could shorten the "closely guarded" rule from 5 seconds to 3 or 4 seconds. Restart the countdown once the ball handler enters the 3 point arc. That would force teams to be more proactive.

 

[IthacaMatt]

But we'd need to go back and watch lots of games from 20 or 30 years ago to determine if it's any different.

In general, like I said, I'm always skeptical of any "it was better back in the day" argument. It doesn't mean it's not true, as I said, but people will be saying that stuff until the end of time. In 30 years we will be saying players don't have the fundamentals they did in 2013.

Well, it seems to me that it can't be completely subjective, and it's just fondness for the "good old days". The facts are right there. Teams used to score 20 or 30 points a game more 20 years ago, and that was without the 3 point shot, as someone else said. Where are all the great shooters? The Pete Maravich types? It's not just hype and it's not just rose colored glasses. The game has changed in measurable, demonstrable ways.

 

[Knicks411]

Well, it seems to me that it can't be completely subjective, and it's just fondness for the "good old days". The facts are right there. Teams used to score 20 or 30 points a game more 20 years ago, and that was without the 3 point shot, as someone else said. Where are all the great shooters? The Pete Maravich types? It's not just hype and it's not just rose colored glasses. The game has changed in measurable, demonstrable ways.

There's no question the game has changed. The quality of the game isn't what it was in the past, mainly because the good players are leaving college after a year or two. Wasn't disputing that. But I was talking more about the fundamentals, which of course when it comes right down to it is kind of a nebulous term that probably doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.

There are definitely great shooters out there. McDermott, Hulls, Stauskus. The biggest issue seems to be that teams just aren't getting as many shots off. One of my pet theories is that with more games on tv coaches want to constantly put their imprint on the game so they call more sets and slow the game down. I of course have no proof of this.

 

[4evaOrange]

If you think it's getting hard to watch, I hope you watched the IU - Ill game that just got won an under 1 second layup off an inbounds pass.

Your faith should have been restored after that!

 

[cusetown1]

If you think it's getting hard to watch, I hope you watched the IU - Ill game that just got won an under 1 second layup off an inbounds pass.

Your faith should have been restored after that!

It's been a crazy year I don't know why threads like this are made. It's fun to watch!

 

[4evaOrange]

It's been a crazy year I don't know why threads like this are made. It's fun to watch!

Indeed...whether it be a 40-38 game, yeah not as fun as a 87-85 game...but damn...This is way to fun!!!! I love this stuff!

 

[bevosu]

Ironically, I think the problem with the NBA is that the players just play too much basketball! It just looks like they're going the motions half the time. They concede way too many points, challenge so much less on defense, worry too much about injuries, and generally get far too comfortable using and playing against the same moves/strategies.

It's a characteristic of any/every complex system; run enough iterations and although the meta (patterns, strategies) will constantly change ... the entire system will tend to adhere to whatever is popular or effective at the time. It's like if the same 5 guys got together to play poker every day for years; strategies will constantly change amongst the players but over time they play so much and know each other so well that there is little emotion or surprise left in the game.

Sounds like you're describing a marriage.