I can forsee Albrecht and C. Edwards being the best high-minutes combo at the 1 and 2 this season. Spike is playing better at this stage of rehab than I anticipated. The team is shooting too many threes (maybe take a dribble inside the arc and shoot it?). Mathias can't make anything. On the plus side, Swanigan's playing well (other than shooting threes), and so are Haas (other than FT's) and V. Edwards (other than foul trouble).
halftime observations
- Thread starter nagemj02
- Start date
47-31. You can listen to it here: http://www.mainstreamnetwork.com/listen/player.asp?station=WYCM-FM#.WBkYp2dbNFw.twitter
Also, you can watch the GameTracker here: http://www.purduesports.com/gametra...ool=pur&sport=mbaskbl&camefrom=&startschool=&
Why would you want to take a dribble inside the arc and shoot it if the three available?
For most players, a rhythm 3 is a higher percentage shot than a pull-up 17 footer, plus it is worth 50% more points.
I'm not watching the game, but I assumed that they were rhythm threes since Purdue doesn't have many guys with poor shot selection.
I thought advanced stats have always said a long two point shot is the worse shot you can take. Expected point outcome lower than any other shot taken in the normal flow of an offense.
I have heard that about the long two many times but I disagree. This is an over simplification. The worst shot in basketball is the well-contested one. I would rather have a long two than a highly contested three even if you do have to make 50% more of them for the same result. I would rather have a great shooter attempt a long two than a poor shooter attempt a three. As an example, would you rather have Curry shoot an open long two or Shaq shoot a contested three?
Obviously, there are a lot of variables including time left on the shot. Nobody is saying that every 3 is better than every long two, but the analysis that I have seen shows that all things being equal, a long three is better than a long two, a catch and shoot shot is better than a pull-up, and an open shot is better than a contested shot. An open pull-up jumper may be a great shot in certain circumstances.
The moment I start to see Purdue players take a step in to shoot a slightly closer 2 instead of a 3 is the moment I write to MB to get rid of Painter
This is true from a "points per shot" perspective. Remember if I take a 100 3's, and make 30% that's 90 points. .9 points per shot. If I take 100 2's, I have to make 45% to match that "points per shot" metric. However, for a given shot, the 2 point shot is typically higher percentage. So if you have a guy shooting around 40% from 3, you pretty much always want them shooting 3's.
What most people on the advanced analytics train don't realize is that it has its limitations too, just as the old time strategy did. Yes, all else being equal an open 18 footer is a worse shot than an open 21 footer for expected points per shot. But to the point people start using these stats as gospel and without exception is when the advantage starts to swing the other way.
You see this in baseball where nobody knows how to handle a bat anymore, lay down a bunt, or hit the ball away from a shift because players are trained from early on to optimize launch angle and bat speed and only swing at certain pitches in certain areas of the strike zone. But the day will come when some smart organization decides to "moneyball" the moneyballers the old fashioned way. At some point, when that 21 footer is heavily contested the open 18 footer is looking pretty good to someone who has been practicing from that range.
Agree. Was impressed with spike and carsen looks to have a ton of potential. Dakota looks to be the same player he was last year and pj is what he is. Pj and Dakota are decent back up types but i think we'll have much of the same problems as last year if they're primarily running our back court.
everybody is different and what is a good shot for one is not for another. That said I think it is easy to rationalize with all things equal that some linear relationship between length of shot (court locations too, but that is another subject) taken and makes is an inverse relationship...as one gets bigger (farther) the other gets smaller (make percent). With that relationship...I assume somewhat linear and somewhat proportional it probably doesn't make sense that a few inches makes a 50% difference for a few inches longer...hence the reasoning behind the numbers.
Still contested shots, focus on the line and not in the flow..a whole host of things could changed the numbers, but again with all things equal...a few inches farther doesn't drop the % made by 50%
The reason I brought it up to begin with was not just solely for the purpose of suggesting that they shoot more long twos. I'm sure there will be opportunities where the team can create and pull up to shoot mid-range jumpers as well, as opposed to a three (or a well-contested drive to the basket as well).
The math is there to understand the value in being behind the line when already close. What is not there...what is hidden, is the lack of aggressiveness to get going towards the basket and punish the other team with fouls. Purdue can't settle on 3's and low post scoring...it has to mix in the inbetween game and slicing to the basket to be a well rounded offense. I think this team is capable of all that....
I get that, but it seemed highly unlikely that more pull-up jumpers was the solution. That should not need to be the way that Purdue needs to beat a small school like Southern Indiana.
Now that I've watched most of the game, there was no need to go to pull-up jumpers. They just needed to be a little more patient in some cases and in other cases they just missed some shots that they'll normally make at a higher rate.
I agree that aggressively attacking the basket is important, but I don't think that means taking a lot of long two point jumpers. I'd much rather be getting to the rim, drawing fouls, and creating offensive rebound opportunities by drawing help defense. Where the long midrange game helps most is later in the shot clock.
Shots within 10' are a different story if you have a player who can convert those at a high rate. I think that Purdue has a few of those guys, with Biggie being one of them.
BTW, check out the field goal percentages of Purdue players on two point jumpers last season: http://www.hoop-math.com/Purdue2016.php
But nag specifically said "maybe take a dribble inside the arc and shoot it". You're not going to go from a contested 3 to an uncontested 2 by "taking a dribble". Clearly s/he meant that maybe a closer shot would be better. But as others pointed out, all else being equal shooting a 3 is better than shooting a long 2.
Actually you can get open that way. It's called using a shot-fake. Or the player might just be so poorly guarded that he still has the space to shoot a wide-open 2. The team shot too many threes on Tuesday night. I'm not changing my opinion on that. Also, why do you continue with the "he/she" stuff? That doesn't strengthen the value or credibility of your posts.
Right if you use a shot fake or are poorly guarded, it is bad strategy to step in for a long 2 vs taking the 3 because you would have to hit them at a 50% higher clip to score the same amount of points. What are the odds that a 30% 3-pt shooter is going to hit 45%+ of their long 2's? Not good.
The s/he stuff is not a shot, I don't know and don't want to assume.
Also it may be true that they shot too many 3's. But replacing them with long 2's is not the answer. Drives or post ups are.
Have you ever watched archived college basketball games (YouTube is a good source for it) (i.e. ones from the 1985-1986 season and prior)? There didn't use to be a 3-point shot nationally before the 1986-1987 season. Players used pull-up J's and long 2's quite often before and since the inception of the 3-point shot but it seems like the usage of a mid-range game (particularly with guards) has steadily become less prevalent over the last 20-25 years.
Many players and teams used to be quite efficient taking and making those types of shots. I think some fans and players are so far separated from that era (or have never seen it) that they don't understand what quality shots are anymore.
Last edited:
I haven't followed this thread that close, but was thinking the conversation was more directed to behind the arc and immediately in front of the arc and the reasoning was that being the close together and all things equal you got 50% behind the arc and that 50% is much greater than the percent decrease in a few inches.
I also understand what you are saying and agree that MANY good shots take place in the inbetween game..which was the staple for any good ball player years ago and what separates many today. Practice years ago might have included pairing up with a basketball and moving around the perimeter 16-17 feet away and catching and then shooting. When the rebounder caught the ball you would start your movement and do the same for a minute WITH intensity. Rotate positions for the other player for a minute. rotate again and now shot fake and one dribble to right or left and shoot (looking to move 5-6 ft with single dribble)...rebounder gets ball and start movement again...catch, shot fake, one hard dribble (what starts your shot and gets you going) and shoots ball and repeats this and rotates to next player. Then you might move into same mode but allow 2 dribbles after shot fake (moving 10 ft or so). Intensity in moving, planting feet, good 1-2 stop, square and follow through. All players needed to be able to shoot off the dribble, but this art has been lost due to the three....AND for some cases it does NOT make mathematical sense to do this if a 3 is available. However, I miss the beauty and purity of basketball in everything that went on away from the low post and out to 18 feet or so.
5's were expected to be able to catch a pass at the elbow, shot fake (course they had to be able to shoot to fake it
) and take ONE dribble and shoot a layup (15 feet coverage with one dribble). Personally, I can do without the 3 ball or would happily move it back, but the real killer of basketball variety IMO is the shot clock...particularly where it is today...maybe not so much when it was 45 seconds...but that is a whole another topic and I know some love it...it just takes away much of the game and makes it too one dimensional and I know it is here to stay due to fan support.I don't think that the shot clock inhibits shot variety. In Purdue's offense, variety increases the closer it gets to the shot clock expiring. The two factors have hurt the mid-range game are the shot clock and the influence of analytics on the game, IMO.I haven't followed this thread that close, but was thinking the conversation was more directed to behind the arc and immediately in front of the arc and the reasoning was that being the close together and all things equal you got 50% behind the arc and that 50% is much greater than the percent decrease in a few inches.
I also understand what you are saying and agree that MANY good shots take place in the inbetween game..which was the staple for any good ball player years ago and what separates many today. Practice years ago might have included pairing up with a basketball and moving around the perimeter 16-17 feet away and catching and then shooting. When the rebounder caught the ball you would start your movement and do the same for a minute WITH intensity. Rotate positions for the other player for a minute. rotate again and now shot fake and one dribble to right or left and shoot (looking to move 5-6 ft with single dribble)...rebounder gets ball and start movement again...catch, shot fake, one hard dribble (what starts your shot and gets you going) and shoots ball and repeats this and rotates to next player. Then you might move into same mode but allow 2 dribbles after shot fake (moving 10 ft or so). Intensity in moving, planting feet, good 1-2 stop, square and follow through. All players needed to be able to shoot off the dribble, but this art has been lost due to the three....AND for some cases it does NOT make mathematical sense to do this if a 3 is available. However, I miss the beauty and purity of basketball in everything that went on away from the low post and out to 18 feet or so.
5's were expected to be able to catch a pass at the elbow, shot fake (course they had to be able to shoot to fake it
There are teams, such as IU and Villanova, that take far fewer mid-range shots than Purdue.
Jay Wright lives and dies by the 3. His philosophy got him blown out early last season by Oklahoma when his team went ice cold from 3, but also led to last season's national championship, including a return blowout of Oklahoma.
Say what you want about Crean, but his offenses always do great in points per possession utilizing the spread and relying on threes and drives. It is very simple, but he recruits for it and it works for him, although it was pretty bad in 13-14, I believe, when he had poor shooters.
What I attempted to say was that the shtick clock took out much of the game and made it more one dimensional and reduces who might be recruited
didn't intend to suggest that particular shots are inhibited specifically as the clock expires
I think the rule emphasis helped IU a lot and made yogi much more effective than otherwise. We will see a different team in IU this year , but they will still push the ball. Crean does a good job in pushing the ball even without yogi. I believe in Matt's approach much more than creans...just wish purdue recruited better...
Thank you for that fascinating history lesson. Your original post still makes no sense in today's game.
Have you watched a college hoops game before the inception of the 3PT shot? If she/he/it Gemini does, you will better understand the benefits of shooting those open shots. I think it does, it's just that players don't work on their mid-range game as much anymore.
Hi folks, looking forward to a great game Monday. Good news for both of us, its early and doesn't mean a whole lot other than giving us a glimpse of what needs to improve, but it will be fun to watch and thank God the season is upon us!
This quote and sentiment that Jay lives and dies by the 3 is interesting. Unquestionably, that is the perception out there, but the reality is, Nova lived off its 2 pt field goal percentage. Here's a quick recap.
Nova played 40 games last year. They averaged 56 shots/game. 23 were 3's and converted 36.2%. They took 33 2's and shot the best % in the country at 56%.
Comparing Purdue... played 35 games, shot 56 shots/game of which 20 were 3's at 37% and 36 were 2's at 53%.
Purdue only shot 3 less 3's per game over the season.. and had a slightly higher %. Now, there were anomalies, the 4 /32 game VU had against Oklahoma in early December skewed it substantially, and as time went on during the season, Nova took better shots. It came down to Defense, 2 point field goal % (best in country), timely mad 3's and FT % (second best in country)... IMO.
Anyway, enjoy the game Monday, should be fun. Expect a tough environment for our Cats and honestly it will be good for them to have that environment as they will see it all year.
It's not a criticism, but Nova takes a high percentage of threes, ranking 7th, 22nd, and 31st (out of 351 teams) over the last 3 seasons in percentage of field goal attempts from 3.
As far as Nova's high field goal percentage from 2, this, in part, is a reflection of the relatively low percentage of 2 point jumpers that Nova took last season. Compared to other teams, statistically, Nova tends to get to the rim on a high percentage of their 2 point field goal attempts, which is an efficient approach.
You watch Villanova far more often than I do, but the stats tell a pretty compelling story. I'm interested if you agree.
