Edey I love him as a player but he does clog the lane I mean look at Ethan Morton in high school he looked like a nba player he gets to purdue not so much
Kanon Catchings...has anyone on staff or Kanon himself commented on the status of his commitment?
- Thread starter Abugabby
- Start date
I don't understand that point of view. We saw all season how much attention was given to keeping Zach away from the basket on pick and rolls and how that opened things up for Braden, Fletcher, etc. to get to the basket.
Does post up action clog the lane? Sure. Does Purdue always run post up action even when Zach is in the game? No. As there are more options on the floor who can get to the basket or hit pull ups can the attention given to Zach be used to open up driving lanes? Absolutely
I think coach is starting to understand he is bringing in more athletic guys kanon catchings is going to flourish at purdue so will myles Colvin and heide and berg if he can stay healthy
Guards couldn't score so Edey stayed in the post. Edey staying in the post didn't prevent the guards from scoring.
Be careful, you're going to short fuse some circuits here by suggesting that correlation is not equal to causation.
In fairness to the 'clog the lane' crowd, if you look back to a time when there were dominant bigs in the NBA it's clear that Kobe, D-Wade and Penny were not able to reach their full potential playing alongside Shaq.
FDU clogged the lane and dared us to make shots. We couldn’t move Edey to the wing because Painter doesn’t let him shoot from outside.
Who was driving to the lane in the game and trying to create?
I hate to break it to you but if you can't hit shots from the outside teams are going to clog the lane regardless of whether you're playing a back to the basket big.
Wouldn't you? Why would you let someone get to the basket if they can't hit outside shots.
You also don't have to live and die by the 3. You can drive for a mid-range jumper. That's exactly what Jalen Hood Schifino brought to IU and one of the key reasons they beat us twice this pas year. We didn't have anyone that could drive in the lane and do that against FDU. We were too busy jacking up 3s and missing.
Yes, completely agree. I'm not a schematic expert but this is where I tend to be critical of MP's 'playing the odds'.
At a macro level over a large sample size we know that your best offense is at the basket and from three, but it seems to me from admittedly unscientific observation that there are just games where you can't buy a basket from deep. At some point in those games do you start taking advantage of the sagging defense to get open 12 to 15 footers instead?
I guess you have to have guys who can knock those shots down but I'd think they'd have better odds from mid range than from 22 feet. Sacrilege to the Church of Analytics.
Totally agree with you.
Still irks me that we didn't have a game plan set up for FDU if we struggled from 3. It wasn't like it was the first game in which we struggled from 3. It was like watching a losing bettor chase bets.
Especially after we were chipping paint off the rim in the previous game…
Half the people on this board are in complete denial bro.
They would rather have Zach Edey than JaJaun Johnson.
One of those two was NPOY And likely will be again.
Well good for Zach Edey.
I want Purdue to win in March.
I would still rather have JaJaun Johnson.
He can do more.
Totally agree, we need worse players who can do more, I’ve been saying the same thing. They don’t really even have to be that good so long as they’re versatile.
Put me on ‘ignore’, please. It’s so tiresome to read your same dumb shit that has no logical support. The same dreary garbage, over and over.
Your trolling efforts aren’t even clever or entertaining, they’re just dumb.
I wondered aloud in that game, we are less than 20% from 3. Can edey getting a few looks from back there be worse?
This is exactly why this loss fell on the shooters/guards/wings shoulders. We depended on Zach all year and we were winning. To bash a guy that helped us in so many ways is just wrong. He was the most efficient player and we surrounded him with guys that weren't hitting shots when needed. Blame the guys not hitting shots....wouldn't that be more logical.
It was our inability to SHOOT THE BALL that doomed us.
Not Painters style.........
When we were hitting just an average % they were the #1 team in the country.
With Painters style......
Last edited:
Yes. Yes it would. Literally if we could have shot above 30% from 3, we lose 1 game.
Don’t forget the turnovers. Tons of those too
Well-stated.
I think over a large sample size, a typical team will have a higher “points-per-shot” on dunks and threes than mid range. I used to completely believe in Painter’s strategy of eliminating the lower PPS shots from a game plan, but I think that model could use an update. Removing half of the mid-range shots from a more typical game plan will probably result in a more efficient offense. Removing 95% of them might be more efficient yet, but is it optimal? What about 100% - as has been the case in several games?
If we agree that having some (even minuscule) mid-range presence helps throw off the the other team’s defense and gives scoring options, then there must be some diminishing returns to removing every last mid range shot from a game plan. IMHO the optimal number might be to remove 90% of mid range shots from a game plan compared to what a typical team would do. This still primarily focuses on the low post and 3’s. In games where there is some systemic reason for having a low team 3-pt%, like exhaustion or guards being beat up, then you could rely a little more on mid range because those tools would still be sharper than if they were always off the table.
Exactly. I don't have the data but I suspect that precisely as you stated, taking some level of mid range jumpers results in a worse expected outcome (points per possession over the course of the season) but also decreases the variability from game to game. Doesn't mean that you move away from points in the paint and threes as your primary focus but gives you another option when those things aren't working or are taken away.
I think that Painter is fine with less efficient shots late in the shot clock, but if you are getting high quality shots early in the shot clock, there is no reason to wait for those situations. You just need to make the quality shots.
Additionally, defenses are now adjusted to that thinking, so they are now designed to PREVENT threes and dunks, leaving wide open 12-15 footers.
Purdue needs more Haarms-style bigs, fewer Edeys.
Yes. JaJaun Johnson types would be fine, too.
I want to see Furst and Kaufman-Renn play
together next year. It could be dynamic.
I wish Gillis could play the 3 for Purdue.
Last edited:
Really? Wow, none of us realized that.
Probably something you’ve already said a thousand times on this board.
Maybe some groundbreaking analysis like, “Painter needs to recruit more NBA players!”
I think additionally to add to this. Shooting 3 point shots on average lead to longer rebounds, so adding in a more balanced mid range game also allows a top tier rebounding team like Purdue to have even more second chance points. So yes you may have a lower overall Points Per Shot, but your Points per Possession may actually go up.
Now obviously this is dependent on have a very good rebounding team, but Edey, Furst, and Gillis have excellent OReb percentages.
Not certain that I agree. If you hit 33% of your shots from 3, that’s 1 point per shot plus .67 rebound opportunities per shot. If you hit 50% from 2 (disregarding fouls) that’s 1 point per shot plus .5 rebound opportunities per shot.
So back to the topic at hand - is he still committed? Anyone have any insights?
But the further out the shot is taken, the further out the rebounds will "probably" be. SO, away from our talented O-rebounders, plus not giving the opp to put it right back.
Similar threads
