Which Teams Take the Best Shots? | Syracusefan.com

Which Teams Take the Best Shots?

One has to question the methodology. According to current NCAA stats, SU is the 43rd best three-point shooting team ... and only six Power-5 Conference teams are better.

www.ncaa.com

NCAA College Men's Basketball DI current team Stats | NCAA.com

Discover the current NCAA Division I Men's Basketball leaders in every stats category, as well as historic leaders.
www.ncaa.com www.ncaa.com
 
cto said:
One has to question the methodology. According to current NCAA stats, SU is the 43rd best three-point shooting team ... and only six Power-5 Conference teams are better.

www.ncaa.com

NCAA College Men's Basketball DI current team Stats | NCAA.com

Discover the current NCAA Division I Men's Basketball leaders in every stats category, as well as historic leaders.
www.ncaa.com www.ncaa.com
Expand...
Exactly. What constitutes a "bad shot"?
 
cto said:
One has to question the methodology. According to current NCAA stats, SU is the 43rd best three-point shooting team ... and only six Power-5 Conference teams are better.

www.ncaa.com

NCAA College Men's Basketball DI current team Stats | NCAA.com

Discover the current NCAA Division I Men's Basketball leaders in every stats category, as well as historic leaders.
www.ncaa.com www.ncaa.com
Expand...

There is something wrong with the data. I would agree. We can't have really bad shot selection, and really bad shot making ability, and yet be 31st in the country in offensive efficiency per KP.

Someone could watch our team and critically argue we have bad shot selection. But this table also implies we are missing them at a very high rate -- which is not really the case.

The plotting of our team on that table would suggest we are the worst offence of the bunch. Not so.

The table also has one other flaw. It takes all the shots of the team (the "NCAA" group), and uses those results to determine what is good and bad shot selection for the "NCAA". But not all teams are made alike -- major flaw here.
 
Last edited:
No post game at all hurts shot selection.
The best shots are corner 3’s and drives to the rim.
 
jncuse said:
There is something wrong with the data. I would agree.

Someone could watch our team and critically argue we have bad shot selection. But this table also implies we are missing them at a very high rate -- which is not really the case - we have the 31st best offensive efficiency in the country per KP.

The plotting of our team on that table would suggest we are the worst offence of the bunch. But we are not that far from the middle of the pack (that table seems to only have good or decent teams_
Expand...

As far as I can tell, from looking at the chart, it's not including every game either. So perhaps some bad games were the ones they charted.
 
Alsacs said:
No post game at all hurts shot selection.
The best shots are corner 3’s and drives to the rim.
Expand...

Post game for sure, I read some more tweets, it counts all shots within 4 feet or so as the same, and obviously you have a higher expectation to make a shot right at the rim than 3 feet away.

Corner 3 is more of an NBA thing, no? College line is the same distance all the way around
 
To be fair I am sure the games they have scouted are the Brooklyn games and other poor games we played.

The offense has gotten better. We are solid Big from being a tournament team.
 
two3zone said:
Long 2s I'm assuming
Expand...
Long 2s have (thankfully) been essentially eliminated from our offense this year. They were a staple of our offense in the prior two years, unfortunately...

I'm having a hard time understanding the differentiation between good shots and bad shots in this analysis. And I'm skeptical as to whether this is accurate or meaningful in any way.

Compare Syracuse (bad shooters taking bad shots) to Villanova (good shooters taking good shots), for example (all stats courtesy of KenPom):
  • Syracuse takes 46.3% of their shots from 3-pt range (24th most in the country). Nova is one spot ahead of SU, taking 46.5% of their shots from 3-pt range.
  • Syracuse makes 36.9% of their 3-pt attempts (41st best in the country) whereas Nova makes only 34.5% of their 3-pt attempts on the year (106th best in D-1).
  • Syracuse makes 50.3% of their 2-pt attempts (128th best in the country) whereas Villanova makes 54.2% of their 2-pt attempts on the year (good for 28th best in D-1).
  • Syracuse has an Effective FG% of 52.7% (52nd best), Villanova is at 53.1% eFG (46th best).
Both teams look pretty equal to me - SU is a better 3-pt shooting team, Nova scores more effectively from 2-pt range - but their shot distributions and eFG% are almost identical. So how is one team "bad shooters taking bad shots" and the other "good shooters taking good shots"?
 
Knicks411 said:
Post game for sure, I read some more tweets, it counts all shots within 4 feet or so as the same, and obviously you have a higher expectation to make a shot right at the rim than 3 feet away.

Corner 3 is more of an NBA thing, no? College line is the same distance all the way around
Expand...

There is now a slight difference (a little less than 6") in the corner since they moved the line out. See graphic below.


1579304619571.png
 
malpearl31 said:
Long 2s have (thankfully) been essentially eliminated from our offense this year. They were a staple of our offense in the prior two years, unfortunately...

I'm having a hard time understanding the differentiation between good shots and bad shots in this analysis. And I'm skeptical as to whether this is accurate or meaningful in any way.

Compare Syracuse (bad shooters taking bad shots) to Villanova (good shooters taking good shots), for example (all stats courtesy of KenPom):
  • Syracuse takes 46.3% of their shots from 3-pt range (24th most in the country). Nova is one spot ahead of SU, taking 46.5% of their shots from 3-pt range.
  • Syracuse makes 36.9% of their 3-pt attempts (41st best in the country) whereas Nova makes only 34.5% of their 3-pt attempts on the year (106th best in D-1).
  • Syracuse makes 50.3% of their 2-pt attempts (128th best in the country) whereas Villanova makes 54.2% of their 2-pt attempts on the year (good for 28th best in D-1).
  • Syracuse has an Effective FG% of 52.7% (52nd best), Villanova is at 53.1% eFG (46th best).
Both teams look pretty equal to me - SU is a better 3-pt shooting team, Nova scores more effectively from 2-pt range - but their shot distributions and eFG% are almost identical. So how is one team "bad shooters taking bad shots" and the other "good shooters taking good shots"?
Expand...


I think (think!!) a lot of it is coming from the sample. it sure doesn't look like they charted every game we've played, so it's possible the sample has some of the worse shooting/location games.

It also wouldn't surprise me if we don't get a ton of shots at the rim.
 
Cusefan0307 said:
Expand...

I was looking at their ken pom page, it's crazy how 3 point heavy our games are. We are 24th in the country in % of FGA that are 3's, and on defense, we are DFL, no team allows a higher % of FGA to be 3's. Additionally, we assist on 66% our made FG, which is 3rd, and on defense, we allow the highest % to be assisted. (somewhat makes sense, 3's are generally assisted)

Something else "funny" that I noticed, if you look at the last 6 years, where we've basically been bubble at best every year (last year we were a little better I guess), our two best years by offensive rating were 2017 (30th) and this year (32nd). And we're probably not going to make the tournament either year! (and yes, it's no surprise those were easily our two worst defensive seasons)
 
does this thing even compare contest shots to open shots or just make vs miss? we struggle with layups from our bigs but thats a far different type of shooting.

does it remove shots based on time/score of game?
 
upperdeck said:
does this thing even compare contest shots to open shots or just make vs miss? we struggle with layups from our bigs but thats a far different type of shooting.

does it remove shots based on time/score of game?
Expand...


From my very quick reading of it...no. It groups shots into buckets based on location on the floor. So the corner 3 pointer is worth say 1.08 points every time you take it, we score an average of 1.00, so we're 8 points per 100 shots worse on corner 3s. (I'm making all of these numbers up)

It's very very top level stuff. It shouldn't be taken as anything more than that. And its worth even less if it's not charting all of the games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MSOrange
    • Like
Candid Coaches: Which programs do you believe have the best NIL situations?
Replies
1
Views
980
themorey
themorey
FrancoPizza
Best street parking for games
Replies
2
Views
419
FrancoPizza
FrancoPizza
Crusty
    • Like
    • Wow
Disturbing trend
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
RyanCuse44
R
U
    • Like
the oline
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
AAM62
A

Forum statistics

Threads
169,819
Messages
4,855,254
Members
5,981
Latest member
SyraFreed

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
244
Guests online
1,374
Total visitors
1,618
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom