tradeoff between guards who are good at shooting and guards good at zone?

[Millhouse]

i don't have the stats handy, i'm hoping we can get some help here, just thinking out loud

from 2004 to 2009, our kenpom rating somewhat follows the measure of our conference only 3 pt % minus opposing 3 pt %.

starting in 2010, our kenpom rating outperforms our 3pt% differential

i have a quick and dirty excel chart that's more hassle than it's worth (inverting the ken pom so the lines would go the same direction), just trust me that it's directionally right. there are a million little holes you could poke in it.

seems like 3 point shooting mattered a lot more when our guards were smaller, which makes sense.

i keep finding myself wishing we had guards that could shoot at all just because it's so ugly when we shoot 30% from 3 and they shoot 30% from three. but 2010 on, we end up much better than the 3pt differential would predict based on prior years. could be a feather in triche's cap, for those of you who are bigger fans of him than i am

my post title kinda sucks. it's more a trade off of 3 pt offense/defense and everything else

 

[orangenirvana]

So what you're saying is...it's better for Syracuse to have tall guards (6-2 to 6-5)who are great on defense but can't shoot than small guards (6-1 and under) who are not so good on defense but can shoot?

 

[Brooky03]

Let's get some tall guys who can shoot!

 

[CusefanATL]

Let's get some tall guys who can shoot!

andy rautins

 

[SUfanNC]

andy rautins

Exact one I was thinking when I saw post

 

[OrangeFoo]

So what you're saying is...it's better for Syracuse to have tall guards (6-2 to 6-5)who are great on defense but can't shoot than small guards (6-1 and under) who are not so good on defense but can shoot?

That's a really interesting theory... I'm too lazy to dig up the number of turnovers we've caused over that period but I would bet that we have generated more turnovers when we have tall guards who can't shoot than when we had short guards who could shoot. I bet we could reduce this down to some mathematical formula that takes into account the probability that a given event leads to points and the number of attempts... something like:

(90%)(# of steals)(2 points) + (35%)(# of threes)(3 points) + (40%)(# of drives to hoop)*(2 points) + (10%)*(free throw %)*(# of free throws)*(1 point)

If you run the numbers for small guards and big guards, my theory would be that big guards who cause lots of steals would perform much better than small guards who can shoot because of the % likelyhood of converting on steals and the free throws they can get, assuming they can actually shoot. The problem with this formula is that it ignores things like the rebounds our bigger guards get and the amount of turn overs we have given that our big guards seem to have some fundamental problems holding on to the ball.

At the end of the day the zone has proven to me this year that it works better with big guards and will enable us to beat 90% of the teams out there but it's never going to lead us to a championship by itself because eventually we will run into a team like Michigan who can hit enough shots or expose our rebounding enough to score more points than us. We simply need people who can put the ball in the bucket in a half-court set for when the pace of the game is slowed down to a crawl... whether they are big, small, guard, forward or center...

 

[Millhouse]

So what you're saying is...it's better for Syracuse to have tall guards (6-2 to 6-5)who are great on defense but can't shoot than small guards (6-1 and under) who are not so good on defense but can shoot?

i don't know what i'm saying. i don't want to believe that. get me some guys that can shoot already. i'm biased.

 

[moqui]

i don't know what i'm saying. i don't want to believe that. get me some guys that can shoot already. i'm biased.

maybe you can have your cake and eat it, too.

obviously his shooting didn't meet expectations, but I think Cooney will end up being a 38% or better shooter, and his defense is already solid. I am actually pretty excited about Cooney - he hustled like mad and did everything well except shoot, but the stroke is clearly there.

Silent G should be a disruptive top of the zone defender, too, and supposedly he has a good 3 pt shot.

There is going to be a lot of backcourt talent next year - the only question is whether there is going to be enough experience (two freshmen and two RS sophs). Our three great runs in the last four years have all featured a senior starter in the backcourt (Rautins, Scoop, Triche).

 

[CuseFaninVT]

i don't know what i'm saying. i don't want to believe that. get me some guys that can shoot already. i'm biased.

We had one in Eric " "evendorf. (see what I did there) He would likely throw the whole hypothesis off but only because he chose not to play defense. He was capable, just not willing.

 

[stuckinbig11]

OK, I get it. I thought you were asking about prison guards who are good at shooting and wondered why they would play zone.

 

[Brooky03]

Has Andy created any male offspring yet? I just want to know how long we have to wait.

 

[jncuse]

Has Andy created any male offspring yet? I just want to know how long we have to wait.

Leo Rautins still thinks he is a player on the Toronto scene with the young ladies. Don't count out Leo yet.

 

[Millhouse]

maybe you can have your cake and eat it, too.

obviously his shooting didn't meet expectations, but I think Cooney will end up being a 38% or better shooter, and his defense is already solid. I am actually pretty excited about Cooney - he hustled like mad and did everything well except shoot, but the stroke is clearly there.

Silent G should be a disruptive top of the zone defender, too, and supposedly he has a good 3 pt shot.

There is going to be a lot of backcourt talent next year - the only question is whether there is going to be enough experience (two freshmen and two RS sophs). Our three great runs in the last four years have all featured a senior starter in the backcourt (Rautins, Scoop, Triche).

i am more impatient than you when it comes to guys who look like they should be able to shoot great but don't actually make baskets.

i'm not ruling anything out with cooney but he's starting from scratch just like anyone else they bring in in my mind

 

[Millhouse]

We had one in Eric " "evendorf. (see what I did there) He would likely throw the whole hypothesis off but only because he chose not to play defense. He was capable, just not willing.

devendorf played with some pretty short point guards

 

[Millhouse]

That's a really interesting theory... I'm too lazy to dig up the number of turnovers we've caused over that period but I would bet that we have generated more turnovers when we have tall guards who can't shoot than when we had short guards who could shoot. I bet we could reduce this down to some mathematical formula that takes into account the probability that a given event leads to points and the number of attempts... something like:

(90%)(# of steals)(2 points) + (35%)(# of threes)(3 points) + (40%)(# of drives to hoop)*(2 points) + (10%)*(free throw %)*(# of free throws)*(1 point)

If you run the numbers for small guards and big guards, my theory would be that big guards who cause lots of steals would perform much better than small guards who can shoot because of the % likelyhood of converting on steals and the free throws they can get, assuming they can actually shoot. The problem with this formula is that it ignores things like the rebounds our bigger guards get and the amount of turn overs we have given that our big guards seem to have some fundamental problems holding on to the ball.

At the end of the day the zone has proven to me this year that it works better with big guards and will enable us to beat 90% of the teams out there but it's never going to lead us to a championship by itself because eventually we will run into a team like Michigan who can hit enough shots or expose our rebounding enough to score more points than us. We simply need people who can put the ball in the bucket in a half-court set for when the pace of the game is slowed down to a crawl... whether they are big, small, guard, forward or center...

i wonder if the relying on the zone is like the Air Raid in football. easy to be pretty good, tougher to be great. it's really hard to have an Air Raid offense and a good defense. (the defense doesn't get to learn how to stop the run). maybe it's really hard to have a good offense with a zone defense because guards big enough for the zone aren't good enough on offense.

boeheim depends on spectacular small forwards to pick up the slack for big guards who can't score enough. fair was the next best thing but they were hesitant to go to him as much as they should've. fair averaged 11.5 shots per game. Not enough. i wish he'd gotten even more shots in the last game.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

i don't know what i'm saying. i don't want to believe that. get me some guys that can shoot already. i'm biased.

I think the staff was trying to address the problem for zone recruit guards in regards to ball handling. It is hard to get a good ball handler that is over 6'4". Even MCW had problems. One of the two from MG or Buss should emerge.

I don't know if there needs to be a tradeoff between zone D/height and shooting. We just need the right guys, like Andy. Unfortunately, I don't see many on the way. Cooney has set us back. Maybe he can get it together. Also, I think BJ may challenge if Cooney doesn't massively improve.

 

[CorduroyG]

wasnt mcw considered a good shooter coming out of hs?

 

[Millhouse]

I think the staff was trying to address the problem for zone recruit guards in regards to ball handling. It is hard to get a good ball handler that is over 6'4". Even MCW had problems. One of the two from MG or Buss should emerge.

I don't know if there needs to be a tradeoff between zone D/height and shooting. We just need the right guys, like Andy. Unfortunately, I don't see many on the way. Cooney has set us back. Maybe he can get it together. Also, I think BJ may challenge if Cooney doesn't massively improve.

it's hard to find those guys. the tall guys who can shoot play small forward. how many tall shooting ball handlers have we ever had? rautins and mcnamara get 2 out of 3

 

[Sgt Cuse]

it's hard to find those guys. the tall guys who can shoot play small forward. how many tall shooting ball handlers have we ever had? rautins and mcnamara get 2 out of 3

True, and those small forwards who can shoot, generally can not put the ball on the deck (see JS and even Wes).

I still think JB would take a big time offensive guard if one were available, even at the detrement of the length of the zone. He did take Cooney. And you were kind above, saying Cooney gets to start from scratch. His season actually tallied up to be a somewhat negative out of me.

Unfortunately, I don't see this remedied anytime quickly with the future possibilities of Briscoe or Kaleb - both great players but not known for their outside shooting.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Can't say I'm surprised. MCW and BT aren't good shooters, but they found other ways to contribute and score. Overall I think they probably were better overall players than say Eric Devendorf and Johnny Flynn. Maybe it wasn't always pretty at times, but it was effective.

Eric Devendorf and Johnny Flynn are two guys who come to mind who could drop 30, and their opponents would score 35. I remember both of them combining for like 70 points at Providence one year and we still lost because neither of them played a lick of Defense.

I guess if you had to ask me I would take a backcourt of MCW and BT over Johnny Flynn and Eric devendorf 100 percent of the time.

 

[Millhouse]

Can't say I'm surprised. MCW and BT aren't good shooters, but they found other ways to contribute and score. Overall I think they probably were better overall players than say Eric Devendorf and Johnny Flynn. Maybe it wasn't always pretty at times, but it was effective.

Eric Devendorf and Johnny Flynn are two guys who come to mind who could drop 30, and their opponents would score 35. I remember both of them combining for like 70 points at Providence one year and we still lost because neither of them played a lick of Defense.

I guess if you had to ask me I would take a backcourt of MCW and BT over Johnny Flynn and Eric devendorf 100 percent of the time.

flynn and devendorf didn't have much to work with at small forward. nichols had a good year. donte greene - blah

triche and mcw had better small forwards to bail them out. i think flynn would've been just fine with wes johnson in syracuse. minnesota, not so much.

 

[Cusefan0307]

The forwards didn't have much to do with Flynn or Devendorf not playing defense. They were great offensively, but their lack of defense killed us at times. They didn't even try to contest shots at times. As a guard combination they were terrible defensively.

 

[orangenirvana]

flynn and devendorf didn't have much to work with at small forward. nichols had a good year. donte greene - blah

triche and mcw had better small forwards to bail them out. i think flynn would've been just fine with wes johnson in syracuse. minnesota, not so much.

You could put any small forward you want with Flynn and he would have still been terrible on (zone) defense.

 

[OrangeFoo]

i wonder if the relying on the zone is like the Air Raid in football. easy to be pretty good, tougher to be great. it's really hard to have an Air Raid offense and a good defense. (the defense doesn't get to learn how to stop the run). maybe it's really hard to have a good offense with a zone defense because guards big enough for the zone aren't good enough on offense.

boeheim depends on spectacular small forwards to pick up the slack for big guards who can't score enough. fair was the next best thing but they were hesitant to go to him as much as they should've. fair averaged 11.5 shots per game. Not enough. i wish he'd gotten even more shots in the last game.

For what it's worth I think our offensive struggles the last few years had much more to do with the non-development of our bigs than it had to do with our guards being too big or too small. Since Hakim left town we have had really one monster year of AO and one decent year of Ricky where we have had someone we could throw the ball into on the inside. The good thing has been that generally we've been able to cause enough turnovers and havoc with our zone that we get a ton of run outs and freebies. However teams have the book on how to beat us: on offense they dribble away the clock and try to get it inside and either dump it to a cutter or to the wing for a three and then crash the boards all while limiting turnovers, on defense because we have zero inside threats they cram the paint and dare us to shoot from the inside. Given that strategy we are good enough to beat 90% of the teams out there but not good enough to win a title unless we get lucky enough to get a big man who can command a double team inside.

 

[SBU72]

So what you're saying is...it's better for Syracuse to have tall guards (6-2 to 6-5)who are great on defense but can't shoot than small guards (6-1 and under) who are not so good on defense but can shoot?

Actually not to far fetched. The longer the folcrum (arm) the harder it is to have repeated control within needed parameters (shooting motion). Slight shifts of movements get exagerated by the length.