Realistic Goal for the Season

[depthcharge623]

Ok here is my prediction. I consider this to be both a challenging goal that we very well
could fall short of, and also a realistic goal that this team has shown they are capable of achieving.

1. I think we win the rest of our non-con games to go undefeated in non-con games.

2. I think we go undefeated at home this year. We have shown we can grind out close ones away/neutral, I think the Mackey Advantage will be too much for even the best opponents.

3. I think we will lose 3 games on the road for the rest of the season, putting us at a 28-3 record before the B1G tournament. Honestly it could be anyone the way the B1G is when playing away, but my guesses are @Maryland, (as much as I hate to say this) @Indiana, and one more that might be @Minnesota/Wisconsin/Michigan State.

4. I think we are the outright regular season B1G Champs.

5. I think we end the season in the Top 5, probably not #1.

6. I think we lose in the B1G Tournament final, but it doesn’t really matter.

7. I think we get a #1 seed, but probably not the #1 overall. And we end up in Indy/Chicago (Im too lazy to look up where all the pod sites are this year but usually one or both of those are on it) and Louisville.

8. I think we will defeat at least one much lower seed that gives us a lot of trouble. But the experience of last year in guys like Edey, coupled with our proven ability to grind out close games this year, will be enough to meet the challenge.

9. I think we finally break through to the Final Four, where we will ultimately lose.

10. I think this post needs to end with a nice round number.

As I said these are intentionally optimistic, but I do believe we are capable of achieving it.

 

[DrEss]

Having freshmen guards one might think your goals are too far reaching, but I’m on board with you. This team is a little different, a little more resilient, especially these two starting guards. Yes, let’s see how they both endure and come out from the rugged B1G schedule, but I expect they will be fine. Let’s hope the team believes in themselves relating to these goals as well which I would assume this collection of kids do. BoilerUp

 

[BoilerDaddy]

I think that the goals for every season should be:

- Win the Big Ten regular season
- Win the BTT
- Make the NCAA Tournament
- Earn a #1 seed in the NCAA Tourney
- Make the Sweet 16
- Make the Final Four
- Win the NCAA Championship

I believe that all of the above are possible, but none should be taken for granted.

 

[proudopete]

I’m gonna say 5 losses and win outright championship

 

[Boiler Buck]

Ok here is my prediction. I consider this to be both a challenging goal that we very well
could fall short of, and also a realistic goal that this team has shown they are capable of achieving.

1. I think we win the rest of our non-con games to go undefeated in non-con games.

2. I think we go undefeated at home this year. We have shown we can grind out close ones away/neutral, I think the Mackey Advantage will be too much for even the best opponents.

3. I think we will lose 3 games on the road for the rest of the season, putting us at a 28-3 record before the B1G tournament. Honestly it could be anyone the way the B1G is when playing away, but my guesses are @Maryland, (as much as I hate to say this) @Indiana, and one more that might be @Minnesota/Wisconsin/Michigan State.

4. I think we are the outright regular season B1G Champs.

5. I think we end the season in the Top 5, probably not #1.

6. I think we lose in the B1G Tournament final, but it doesn’t really matter.

7. I think we get a #1 seed, but probably not the #1 overall. And we end up in Indy/Chicago (Im too lazy to look up where all the pod sites are this year but usually one or both of those are on it) and Louisville.

8. I think we will defeat at least one much lower seed that gives us a lot of trouble. But the experience of last year in guys like Edey, coupled with our proven ability to grind out close games this year, will be enough to meet the challenge.

9. I think we finally break through to the Final Four, where we will ultimately lose.

10. I think this post needs to end with a nice round number.

As I said these are intentionally optimistic, but I do believe we are capable of achieving it.

Close to my thoughts.
I thought #2 seed, top ten, as I think we lose 4-6 games. The freshman guards hitting a wall is a concern, but Smith is one tough hombre. #10 made me laugh, well done

If injury free... I think FF is in reach also, but perhaps even NC .....IF tourney games are called fairly. It's in reach as Edey is that much of a difference maker, and we are loaded with skill all around that should do nothing but improve between now and then. Alot of IFs, but it's my hope for this team.

 

[Dryfly88]

Fun post to think about. Never thought we'd even be thinking about having it at this point in the season so that is huge plus.

I predict that 5 losses wins the conference this year. So I will say we go undefeated non-con and 15-5 conference.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

Just for reference, 2023 NCAA Tournament pod sites (1st/2nd round games) are:

Albany, New York
Orlando, Florida
Des Moines, Iowa
Columbus, Ohio
Birmingham, Alabama
Greensboro, North Carolina (shocker, there!)
Denver Colorado
Sacramento, California

Regional Sites:

East (New York, New York - Madison Square Garden)

South (Louisville, Kentucky - KFC Yum! Center)

Midwest (Kansas City, Missouri - T-Mobile Center)

West (Las Vegas, Nevada - T-Mobile Arena)

National Finals:

Houston, Texas - NRG Stadium

This may surprise some of you - I have no real expectations for this young team, other than to continue to develop, play with energy and focus.......and poise. Hopefully, that will be the substantial majority of the time and they get a real opportunity to do something special for themselves and their team. Let the chips fall where they may.

 

[mman982]

So UConn in the East, Houston in the west, Purdue in the South, Kansas in the Midwest?I’m all for locking that in. The only downside is Houston in Houston.

 

[bunkF]

Ok here is my prediction. I consider this to be both a challenging goal that we very well
could fall short of, and also a realistic goal that this team has shown they are capable of achieving.

1. I think we win the rest of our non-con games to go undefeated in non-con games.

2. I think we go undefeated at home this year. We have shown we can grind out close ones away/neutral, I think the Mackey Advantage will be too much for even the best opponents.

3. I think we will lose 3 games on the road for the rest of the season, putting us at a 28-3 record before the B1G tournament. Honestly it could be anyone the way the B1G is when playing away, but my guesses are @Maryland, (as much as I hate to say this) @Indiana, and one more that might be @Minnesota/Wisconsin/Michigan State.

4. I think we are the outright regular season B1G Champs.

5. I think we end the season in the Top 5, probably not #1.

6. I think we lose in the B1G Tournament final, but it doesn’t really matter.

7. I think we get a #1 seed, but probably not the #1 overall. And we end up in Indy/Chicago (Im too lazy to look up where all the pod sites are this year but usually one or both of those are on it) and Louisville.

8. I think we will defeat at least one much lower seed that gives us a lot of trouble. But the experience of last year in guys like Edey, coupled with our proven ability to grind out close games this year, will be enough to meet the challenge.

9. I think we finally break through to the Final Four, where we will ultimately lose.

10. I think this post needs to end with a nice round number.

As I said these are intentionally optimistic, but I do believe we are capable of achieving it.

Although I'm a rabid I.U. fan, I feel compelled to extend kudos to your team and coach. Purdue is definitely on an upward trend. You keep knocking at the door, and eventually you are going to knock it down and advance to the ultimate prize in college basketball. I wish I could say the same for I.U I.U. has been on a downward trend for years, and I'm not sure that it is going to reverse course in my lifetime. As an Indiana resident I wish I could cheer for Purdue when Indiana is not playing, but I find that impossible. I have loyalty for one team, and I cannot cheer for anyone else. Nevertheless, I definitely have respect for both your team and your coach.

 

[BoilerAndy]

Although I'm a rabid I.U. fan, I feel compelled to extend kudos to your team and coach. Purdue is definitely on an upward trend. You keep knocking at the door, and eventually you are going to knock it down and advance to the ultimate prize in college basketball. I wish I could say the same for I.U I.U. has been on a downward trend for years, and I'm not sure that it is going to reverse course in my lifetime. As an Indiana resident I wish I could cheer for Purdue when Indiana is not playing, but I find that impossible. I have loyalty for one team, and I cannot cheer for anyone else. Nevertheless, I definitely have respect for both your team and your coach.

We completely understand your sentiments. And appreciate your congrats. Thanks.

 

[purduedavie]

Ok here is my prediction. I consider this to be both a challenging goal that we very well
could fall short of, and also a realistic goal that this team has shown they are capable of achieving.

1. I think we win the rest of our non-con games to go undefeated in non-con games.

2. I think we go undefeated at home this year. We have shown we can grind out close ones away/neutral, I think the Mackey Advantage will be too much for even the best opponents.

3. I think we will lose 3 games on the road for the rest of the season, putting us at a 28-3 record before the B1G tournament. Honestly it could be anyone the way the B1G is when playing away, but my guesses are @Maryland, (as much as I hate to say this) @Indiana, and one more that might be @Minnesota/Wisconsin/Michigan State.

4. I think we are the outright regular season B1G Champs.

5. I think we end the season in the Top 5, probably not #1.

6. I think we lose in the B1G Tournament final, but it doesn’t really matter.

7. I think we get a #1 seed, but probably not the #1 overall. And we end up in Indy/Chicago (Im too lazy to look up where all the pod sites are this year but usually one or both of those are on it) and Louisville.

8. I think we will defeat at least one much lower seed that gives us a lot of trouble. But the experience of last year in guys like Edey, coupled with our proven ability to grind out close games this year, will be enough to meet the challenge.

9. I think we finally break through to the Final Four, where we will ultimately lose.

10. I think this post needs to end with a nice round number.

As I said these are intentionally optimistic, but I do believe we are capable of achieving it.

That’s really optimistic, I see 6 losses and a two/three seed come selection Sunday.

 

[12375CAT]

P remains #1 & we are the

 

[PUQBMan.]

That’s really optimistic, I see 6 losses and a two/three seed come selection Sunday.

Before the season started, I pegged us as a 7-9 seed in the tourney. We’ve greatly outperformed my (our) initial expectations and had to adjust those. That being said, despite our #1 ranking we still have a lot of flaws that will be exploited throughout the B1G season. I agree with your assessment. I see us as a 5 loss team (+1 in the BTT) and a 2-3 seed in the dance. I just hope we are peaking around that time. The key will be making 3s consistently at that point. If we are, the sky is the limit.

 

[Erock_94]

2 or 3 losses and at least a final four this team is going to flat wear opponents out. And bunkF thanks for stopping by and speaking your truth there is no rivalry anymore. There is a reason why IU sucks and it is sad.

 

[mathboy]

Regardless of our current ranking, I think we should end with a ranking of 5-7. That means an elite eight which isn’t bad considering where we started.

 

[SCBoiler1]

If you are rated #1, I don't know how your goal isn't to win the B1G, the B1G Tournament and the NCAA Tournament.

My prediction is that we will win the B1G, the B1G Tournament and get a 1 or 2 seed in the NCAA Tournament. Winning the B1G outright would be a huge accomplishment. For all of Painter's success we've only done it once in the last 25 years (tied twice). We have also only won the B1G Tournament 1 time its 24 year history. Purdue has only won both once in 24 years.

We'll win the first two games in the NCAA tournament but after that it's a crapshoot. We easily beat Kenpoms #10 and #14 teams on a neutral court but squeaked by against the #84 and #126 rated teams in the last couple weeks.

 

[Boiler Buck]

Although I'm a rabid I.U. fan, I feel compelled to extend kudos to your team and coach. Purdue is definitely on an upward trend. You keep knocking at the door, and eventually you are going to knock it down and advance to the ultimate prize in college basketball. I wish I could say the same for I.U I.U. has been on a downward trend for years, and I'm not sure that it is going to reverse course in my lifetime. As an Indiana resident I wish I could cheer for Purdue when Indiana is not playing, but I find that impossible. I have loyalty for one team, and I cannot cheer for anyone else. Nevertheless, I definitely have respect for both your team and your coach.

Sorry, that certainly is, has been for 2 decades & likely will continue to be a hard fan life. Just dreadful.

 

[BoilerFan#35]

Realistic goal 15-17 wins in Big Ten, win BTT (like hitting lottery with Purdue though), #1 seed, and a FF run. Don't think this team has shown anything that dispels themselves as a true contender. Expectations should be through the roof

 

[tjreese]

The key will be making 3s consistently at that point. If we are, the sky is the limit.

The key may very well be as you say, but I hope it isn't. I hope the 3 ball is more of a dessert or second dessert. I hope it is that element that widens the gap between Purdue and the opponent, but not the reason for winning. I hope Purdue is capable of winning without leaning on a good shooting night behind the arc. There are things a coach and player can do to enhance the effectiveness of making 3s, but even with those, a coach and player cannot control making 3s.

A player can control effort, can control focus, can control effort and focus on D. Does Purdue improve in dribble containment? A player can control effort and focus on rebounding...following the scouting report. A player can control timing in coming off screens...setting good screens and setting up the D to get the right angle to come off screens. A player can control timing and placement of a pass. Did he throw it at the knees or over his head other than a lob for a dunk? Can the team stay on the same page without wandering outside the team quite often?

As everyone knows there are things a player can do and should do rather than relying on making 3s. Continue to shoot them when not making them many times leaves points on the court by not getting to the FT line...rarely removes a player from the court due to fouls. Purdue had previous teams that were great when the 3 ball was falling, but loss when it didn't. I hope this team is different. I hope Brandon and Fletcher continue to take the inefficient 8-10 foot midrange shot as a viable option to hard closeouts. Although more controllable than making 3s, I hope Purdue shoots well from the FT line and Trey getting more comfortable there would be especially nice. Course gotta get to the line to make them.

3s may be the key as you stated, but there are a lot of reasons I "HOPE" it is not the key, but just part of the overall game that Purdue can win while shooting poor...AND shooting less when doing so....

 

[Boiler Buck]

Before the season started, I pegged us as a 7-9 seed in the tourney. We’ve greatly outperformed my (our) initial expectations and had to adjust those. That being said, despite our #1 ranking we still have a lot of flaws that will be exploited throughout the B1G season. I agree with your assessment. I see us as a 5 loss team (+1 in the BTT) and a 2-3 seed in the dance. I just hope we are peaking around that time. The key will be making 3s consistently at that point. If we are, the sky is the limit.

I expect our 3 pt shooting to gradually improve as the season continues. They would have to, one would think as right now they are CMPs worst shooting 3 pt team.....and they are too skilled for that.

 

[ImRonBurgandy?]

The goal every year at Purdue should be a natty.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

The key may very well be as you say, but I hope it isn't. I hope the 3 ball is more of a dessert or second dessert. I hope it is that element that widens the gap between Purdue and the opponent, but not the reason for winning. I hope Purdue is capable of winning without leaning on a good shooting night behind the arc. There are things a coach and player can do to enhance the effectiveness of making 3s, but even with those, a coach and player cannot control making 3s.

A player can control effort, can control focus, can control effort and focus on D. Does Purdue improve in dribble containment? A player can control effort and focus on rebounding...following the scouting report. A player can control timing in coming off screens...setting good screens and setting up the D to get the right angle to come off screens. A player can control timing and placement of a pass. Did he throw it at the knees or over his head other than a lob for a dunk? Can the team stay on the same page without wandering outside the team quite often?

As everyone knows there are things a player can do and should do rather than relying on making 3s. Continue to shoot them when not making them many times leaves points on the court by not getting to the FT line...rarely removes a player from the court due to fouls. Purdue had previous teams that were great when the 3 ball was falling, but loss when it didn't. I hope this team is different. I hope Brandon and Fletcher continue to take the inefficient 8-10 foot midrange shot as a viable option to hard closeouts. Although more controllable than making 3s, I hope Purdue shoots well from the FT line and Trey getting more comfortable there would be especially nice. Course gotta get to the line to make them.

3s may be the key as you stated, but there are a lot of reasons I "HOPE" it is not the key, but just part of the overall game that Purdue can win while shooting poor...AND shooting less when doing so....

I agree to an extent, but I don’t really think it’s likely to make a deep run in the NCAA tournament without at least the threat of the three point shot being a significant part of the equation. Painter’s best run was very much powered by hot three point shooting.

 

[depthcharge623]

Regarding 3 point shooting, I imagine some players will continue to slump, but I can’t see how the entire team will remain in a slump. Its statistically very unlikely, especially if we are winning games in other ways which takes the pressure off.

I don’t think 3 point shooting needs to be a key to winning, but some 3 point shooting will undoubtedly be a component.

I am just not sure how we can beat good teams without shooting the ball well if we can barely beat Nebraska and Davidson that way.

 

[Boiler Buck]

With our rebounding advantages , imo we just need to improve where we our consistent 33% from three. Consistency though is the key. To not have that consistency sends Purdue home early from the ncaat as well as leads to our eventual losses this year. That consistency is the improvement to look for this year to answer the questions in this thread.

 

[tjreese]

I agree to an extent, but I don’t really think it’s likely to make a deep run in the NCAA tournament without at least the threat of the three point shot being a significant part of the equation. Painter’s best run was very much powered by hot three point shooting.

Not my point. My point is that I want Purdue to be good in all the areas it can control and not "depend" on the 3 ball...with the 3 ball being the dessert not the main course. The team you reference had to shoot well and had Cline not had an out of body experience that team wouldn't have went any farther than the others. No time prior to that had Ryan shown such...same for Carsen the next game) Correlating an out of the body experience on the 3 ball is like previous thoughts that Purdue was only good when they had a really good 4 man(and there were some that thought the 4 man was absolutely critical SINCE prior teams with a good 4 man were good, but it was just 1 of 5 that needed to be good)...prior to that team's (Cline/Carsen) success or that Matt can't coach guards...all false (not that you stated such). Again, not directed to you, but people may see a press destroy a team and think that is key unaware of what it gives up...the advantages...disadvantages of such and what is needed to do such...along with the assumption it is effective against all levels of teams.

There is less control in making 3s than all the others and that is why Matt does NOT add stress to making them. He knows that is something not very controllable. What happens is Matt gets a TO and in the huddle talks about bonus and driving the ball to get in the bonus or feeding the post. He may not say quit shooting 3s, but instead talk about doing the other things. He doesn't say I'm sure...Purdue needs to shoot more 3s. The problem with missing the 3s is you do not get any fouls on the other team and most importantly looking pretty shooting 3s does NOT get the mind into a physical grind it out game of being more aggressive. If a team hits the 3 ball early and builds a quick lead...many times that team got there too easy and is not really into the physicality of the game and the other team catches up and Purdue has lost the MO and never got into the bonus or if it did...later than it should have. I want Brandon and Fletch to keep pulling up after hard close outs, but hitting the mid range shot. I know the math suggest it is less efficient, but the math also does NOT show the effect in softening a hard close out as well as enhancing the 3 pt percentage due to that driving effect along with more potential in drawing a foul. All connected and not operating in a vacuum...just like making shots prevents some transistion baskets and helps the D. Closer shots help with that as well...

No doubt Purdue will need to shoot the 3 well if going deep in the tourney. It can be a difference between a really, really deep run and not. However, I'm unsure that it is a huge priority to a final 8 and certainly not needed to make it to the sweet 16 (and I'm not saying to not shoot them, just not to have them be the focus which Purdue generally does a pretty good job with). My hope is that Purdue improves in the things it can control, embraces the physical part of the game and expects and looks forward to the grind where it imparts its will on the opponent and collectively as a team wears the other team down mentally and physically which it shoudl be capable for many teams.

Shooting the 3 should improve over the season just due to more reps on O and shooting. However, the key to me for a really good team are all the other things needed outside of the 3 ball. Doing all those things controllable I believe will lead to greater improvement and enhance however deep a run Purdue does. I really don't want Purdue beating too many teams bad, but want them to win. I like a team controlled somewhat to develop the things needed before turning the horses loose coming off the third turn if any of that makes sense.

 

[depthcharge623]

With our rebounding advantages , imo we just need to improve where we our consistent 33% from three. Consistency though is the key. To not have that consistency sends Purdue home early from the ncaat as well as leads to our eventual losses this year. That consistency is the improvement to look for this year to answer the questions in this thread.

Exactly. The bar doesn’t need to be high, but we need to be able to reach it every game. And I think we can do this if we even have 1-2 good (not great) shooters per game (and they don’t even need to be the same ones every game).

 

[Dryfly88]

PU is going to "depend" on the 3 whether we like it or not. Teams are going to continue to double the post and dare us to make outside shots. While Loyer and Smith are decent drivers they aren't great at it yet. So that means the 3 ball is what is going to be open (and has been very open) the past 2 games. We just need to hit a reasonable % of those open 3's and we will maximize this team. Listening to CMP during pressers and his radio show, it is evident that he has bought into the analytics of the game. While he spends more time talking about what we are trying to do on defense (force the opponent into tough 2's) that obviously also applies to the offensive side. Get easy 2's (Edey) and hit open 3's. If any of the guys can get easy 2's obviously we take those, but pull-ups after driving are not easy 2's. Loyer is decent at it, but I'm pretty sure CMP would rather have the open 3 versus a tough pull-up off a drive. He says it often "you have to be able to take what the defense gives you". We are going to be given a lot of 3's and need to be able to depend on hitting them.

Of course we have to do the other things well also (defense, rebounding, effort) but hitting open 3's is not going to be the "dessert" against good teams. It's part of the main course. JMO

 

[Ashaath2016]

We are going to start hitting three’s. The moment that starts happening, the team is going to run other teams out of the gym.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Not my point. My point is that I want Purdue to be good in all the areas it can control and not "depend" on the 3 ball...with the 3 ball being the dessert not the main course. The team you reference had to shoot well and had Cline not had an out of body experience that team wouldn't have went any farther than the others. No time prior to that had Ryan shown such...same for Carsen the next game) Correlating an out of the body experience on the 3 ball is like previous thoughts that Purdue was only good when they had a really good 4 man(and there were some that thought the 4 man was absolutely critical SINCE prior teams with a good 4 man were good, but it was just 1 of 5 that needed to be good)...prior to that team's (Cline/Carsen) success or that Matt can't coach guards...all false (not that you stated such). Again, not directed to you, but people may see a press destroy a team and think that is key unaware of what it gives up...the advantages...disadvantages of such and what is needed to do such...along with the assumption it is effective against all levels of teams.

There is less control in making 3s than all the others and that is why Matt does NOT add stress to making them. He knows that is something not very controllable. What happens is Matt gets a TO and in the huddle talks about bonus and driving the ball to get in the bonus or feeding the post. He may not say quit shooting 3s, but instead talk about doing the other things. He doesn't say I'm sure...Purdue needs to shoot more 3s. The problem with missing the 3s is you do not get any fouls on the other team and most importantly looking pretty shooting 3s does NOT get the mind into a physical grind it out game of being more aggressive. If a team hits the 3 ball early and builds a quick lead...many times that team got there too easy and is not really into the physicality of the game and the other team catches up and Purdue has lost the MO and never got into the bonus or if it did...later than it should have. I want Brandon and Fletch to keep pulling up after hard close outs, but hitting the mid range shot. I know the math suggest it is less efficient, but the math also does NOT show the effect in softening a hard close out as well as enhancing the 3 pt percentage due to that driving effect along with more potential in drawing a foul. All connected and not operating in a vacuum...just like making shots prevents some transistion baskets and helps the D. Closer shots help with that as well...

No doubt Purdue will need to shoot the 3 well if going deep in the tourney. It can be a difference between a really, really deep run and not. However, I'm unsure that it is a huge priority to a final 8 and certainly not needed to make it to the sweet 16 (and I'm not saying to not shoot them, just not to have them be the focus which Purdue generally does a pretty good job with). My hope is that Purdue improves in the things it can control, embraces the physical part of the game and expects and looks forward to the grind where it imparts its will on the opponent and collectively as a team wears the other team down mentally and physically which it shoudl be capable for many teams.

Shooting the 3 should improve over the season just due to more reps on O and shooting. However, the key to me for a really good team are all the other things needed outside of the 3 ball. Doing all those things controllable I believe will lead to greater improvement and enhance however deep a run Purdue does. I really don't want Purdue beating too many teams bad, but want them to win. I like a team controlled somewhat to develop the things needed before turning the horses loose coming off the third turn if any of that makes sense.

I think we pretty much agree. Like you, I prefer getting the ball inside and getting high percentage shots and fouls, but the three point threat loosens the D and makes that possible.

It’s not just that Purdue team. It’s hard to make a tourney run without solid three point shooting being a significant factor. For example, Kansas hit at least 35% last year in 5 out of 6 NCAA Tournament games. As much as I don’t want to depend on the three, I think that inside-outside balance is key to most championship runs.

 

[BoilerAndy]

Before the season started, I pegged us as a 7-9 seed in the tourney. We’ve greatly outperformed my (our) initial expectations and had to adjust those. That being said, despite our #1 ranking we still have a lot of flaws that will be exploited throughout the B1G season. I agree with your assessment. I see us as a 5 loss team (+1 in the BTT) and a 2-3 seed in the dance. I just hope we are peaking around that time. The key will be making 3s consistently at that point. If we are, the sky is the limit.

I'm not sure that the team has flaws that can be exploited. Certainly there are areas for improvement.

• Start hitting jump shots -- This team has excellent shooters. This will happen.
• Continue to improve defense -- They are listening, playing very hard, and playing well.
• Eliminate unforced turnovers -- Young team that hasn't yet jelled (which should be scary to opponents).

Defense and turnovers are much, much improved over last year's team. And this team is improving in those areas.

 

[icewind7]

I expect us to be in final 4, and knock off all the peacocks, rams, eagles and rocks on the way!

 

[tjreese]

PU is going to "depend" on the 3 whether we like it or not. Teams are going to continue to double the post and dare us to make outside shots. While Loyer and Smith are decent drivers they aren't great at it yet. So that means the 3 ball is what is going to be open (and has been very open) the past 2 games. We just need to hit a reasonable % of those open 3's and we will maximize this team. Listening to CMP during pressers and his radio show, it is evident that he has bought into the analytics of the game. While he spends more time talking about what we are trying to do on defense (force the opponent into tough 2's) that obviously also applies to the offensive side. Get easy 2's (Edey) and hit open 3's. If any of the guys can get easy 2's obviously we take those, but pull-ups after driving are not easy 2's. Loyer is decent at it, but I'm pretty sure CMP would rather have the open 3 versus a tough pull-up off a drive. He says it often "you have to be able to take what the defense gives you". We are going to be given a lot of 3's and need to be able to depend on hitting them.

Of course we have to do the other things well also (defense, rebounding, effort) but hitting open 3's is not going to be the "dessert" against good teams. It's part of the main course. JMO

Part of the reason why Purdue is better so far is a few mid-range shots. Teams need to defend all three areas to make it harder on them. Part of my previous comments was to show some factors "confounded" inside the data, meaning its effects are unmeasured and not truly known. Although not getting into bonus and removing opposition players is easy to see.

A little deeper that I have asked for the last two years when Purdue was upset is whether Matt should stay with the average over time. To date...nobody has stated his or her opinion. Staying so implies that the individual average is drawn from a single population rather than many individual game populations that might be significantly different, but gathered into one data set and that the actual game follows the potential inherent variation of each individual inside a considered homogenous data set (rather than different games being statistically different perhaps from each other and lumped into one population)...meaning that everyone should shoot close to average or 68% of the time with one standard deviation .

However, with the data being more discrete in reality...like three 3s or four 3s for an individual rather than enough shots in each game you may not approach very close to the average percentage that is based upon data to date. Totaling two dice thrown the average over many throws is 7, but 84% of the time a given throw will not produce a 7 total. Is the game being played an outlier or following the analytics previously computed and the really tough question is what should a coach do? 😉

One game a player goes 3 for 5 and the next 1 for 5 and on the average, it was 40%, but the 1/5 game may be enough to get you beat. So, although the averages will average out over time, they are a function of previous data and the inherent variation within that data and "may not" be a good predictor for a given game. Had Purdue continued to shoot 3s and missing them against a good team, Purdue would lose if the number approached 3/25. When a player shoots four 3s or three 3s…each shot weighs 25% to 33% respectively meaning in a given game several shooters will probably not get 40% or their average…many will be more or less, but the average over time will be good for the team “IF” the particular game is following the previous populations that data was gathered.

So, the major points that I'm trying to bring home is that some basketball important that leads to improvement in other areas is confounded and not extracted to understand its effect. Also, full adherence to assuming a given game follows the analytics may very well get you beat...or it could get you a win if that game follows the average of previous data and the opposition perhaps follows their average for a given game ...or that neither follow their averages or some combination depending. Sooooo, the question I posed the last two years is at what time do you believe the game being played is creating a data point farther from the previous averaged data than statistically desired? Some cases you win by holding on...and some cases you don't adapt or believe that the game being played is a bit different than the others that provided the numbers. Both correct at different times.

Yes, Purdue will need to shoot the 3 ball, but focusing on it or thinking it is crucial to a deep run takes a lot of variables away from things players can do that are staples to winning. A coach can’t say hit the threes and make it happen, but there are things that effort is needed, can be controlled and is important every game. Hitting 3s is the after effect of doing the previous things on O well as much as hopeful poor D. I would like the O to be a well-oiled machine that through proper screening, good timing, and ball placement…finding Zach at the right time is common and if they devote more than one to Zach then a player needs to hit the shot whether Zach dumping it back or hitting a shot in the “flow” whether a 3 or the mid-range and the shot clock may dictate the shot as well. There have been some teams beat Purdue when they know Purdue needs covered in only 2 of the three areas and devote an extra body to the 5 man and find that stationary shooter behind the arc. The 3 ball is here to stay, and its value is pretty large, but if Purdue does all the other things well on O and D…making the 3 ball will not carry as much weight as not doing those things you can control and I believe that the single population that creates an average has each games data which for many variables being different from game to game may very well be inaccurate for a given game since that average was generated by many averages dependent on different games and assuming the variables that led to the individual games are not different...which I think can quite often be in error IMO.

Your post was logical concerning analytics, but I listed an alternative that may not be grasped or grasped in error due to confounding and assuming a homogenous population when only using metric numbers.

 

[tjreese]

I think we pretty much agree. Like you, I prefer getting the ball inside and getting high percentage shots and fouls, but the three point threat loosens the D and makes that possible.

It’s not just that Purdue team. It’s hard to make a tourney run without solid three point shooting being a significant factor. For example, Kansas hit at least 35% last year in 5 out of 6 NCAA Tournament games. As much as I don’t want to depend on the three, I think that inside-outside balance is key to most championship runs.

Of course "balance" is important...like running and passing in football. Is balance 50-50, 60-40, 75-25 and does proper balance change from game to game or team to team...rhetorical I know...

read my lengthy post to dryfly and see if I explained things a bit better there. FWIW, I like statistics and much of my adult life I've used them, but I know there is much importance in the sampling of data to create a population as well as things confounded inside the data that are there even if not seen. I've used in the past a correlation between foot size and intelligence to show how a high correlation may not be indicative of what is shown. Ive talked about the duck hunter that shot 3 feet in front of the duck and the next shot 3 feet behind the duck and on the average the duck should be dead, but wasn't even hit.

 

[rgarlitz]

I'm reluctant to post predictions because things never workout the way I think. Or, let's try this: Purdue will be unfocused and lose one of it's remaining home games. The Boilers will slog through the B1G season at 12-8, stumble through yet another disappointing B1G tournament, and bow out of the NCAA Tournament in the R32.

OK, now that I've said that Purdue is guaranteed to cut down the nets in April, right?

I will say this: I think Purdue will hit a rough patch somewhere in the B1G season. Teams will beat on Edey, and there will be nights where Purdue struggles to score. It hasn't cost Purdue yet, but it will. Nobody gets through the B1G season without a few bruises.

BUT... I still think this team has a high ceiling. It will be hard for a lot of teams to deal with Purdue in the NCAA Tournament. Loyer and Smith will have 30+ games under their belts by mid-March.

This team *could* go far when it really counts.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

A single loss makes this season an abject failure. If I’m Bobinski, tell Painter to hit the bricks and find a job selling used cars. Maybe Mitch and Murray are hiring for a new land deal.

TIC

 

[Dryfly88]

Part of the reason why Purdue is better so far is a few mid-range shots. Teams need to defend all three areas to make it harder on them. Part of my previous comments was to show some factors "confounded" inside the data, meaning its effects are unmeasured and not truly known. Although not getting into bonus and removing opposition players is easy to see.

A little deeper that I have asked for the last two years when Purdue was upset is whether Matt should stay with the average over time. To date...nobody has stated his or her opinion. Staying so implies that the individual average is drawn from a single population rather than many individual game populations that might be significantly different, but gathered into one data set and that the actual game follows the potential inherent variation of each individual inside a considered homogenous data set (rather than different games being statistically different perhaps from each other and lumped into one population)...meaning that everyone should shoot close to average or 68% of the time with one standard deviation .

However, with the data being more discrete in reality...like three 3s or four 3s for an individual rather than enough shots in each game you may not approach very close to the average percentage that is based upon data to date. Totaling two dice thrown the average over many throws is 7, but 84% of the time a given throw will not produce a 7 total. Is the game being played an outlier or following the analytics previously computed and the really tough question is what should a coach do? 😉

One game a player goes 3 for 5 and the next 1 for 5 and on the average, it was 40%, but the 1/5 game may be enough to get you beat. So, although the averages will average out over time, they are a function of previous data and the inherent variation within that data and "may not" be a good predictor for a given game. Had Purdue continued to shoot 3s and missing them against a good team, Purdue would lose if the number approached 3/25. When a player shoots four 3s or three 3s…each shot weighs 25% to 33% respectively meaning in a given game several shooters will probably not get 40% or their average…many will be more or less, but the average over time will be good for the team “IF” the particular game is following the previous populations that data was gathered.

So, the major points that I'm trying to bring home is that some basketball important that leads to improvement in other areas is confounded and not extracted to understand its effect. Also, full adherence to assuming a given game follows the analytics may very well get you beat...or it could get you a win if that game follows the average of previous data and the opposition perhaps follows their average for a given game ...or that neither follow their averages or some combination depending. Sooooo, the question I posed the last two years is at what time do you believe the game being played is creating a data point farther from the previous averaged data than statistically desired? Some cases you win by holding on...and some cases you don't adapt or believe that the game being played is a bit different than the others that provided the numbers. Both correct at different times.

Yes, Purdue will need to shoot the 3 ball, but focusing on it or thinking it is crucial to a deep run takes a lot of variables away from things players can do that are staples to winning. A coach can’t say hit the threes and make it happen, but there are things that effort is needed, can be controlled and is important every game. Hitting 3s is the after effect of doing the previous things on O well as much as hopeful poor D. I would like the O to be a well-oiled machine that through proper screening, good timing, and ball placement…finding Zach at the right time is common and if they devote more than one to Zach then a player needs to hit the shot whether Zach dumping it back or hitting a shot in the “flow” whether a 3 or the mid-range and the shot clock may dictate the shot as well. There have been some teams beat Purdue when they know Purdue needs covered in only 2 of the three areas and devote an extra body to the 5 man and find that stationary shooter behind the arc. The 3 ball is here to stay, and its value is pretty large, but if Purdue does all the other things well on O and D…making the 3 ball will not carry as much weight as not doing those things you can control and I believe that the single population that creates an average has each games data which for many variables being different from game to game may very well be inaccurate for a given game since that average was generated by many averages dependent on different games and assuming the variables that led to the individual games are not different...which I think can quite often be in error IMO.

Your post was logical concerning analytics, but I listed an alternative that may not be grasped or grasped in error due to confounding and assuming a homogenous population when only using metric numbers.

Bottom line: Analytics say you take easy 2's and 3's and avoid the mid-range 2. On defense you try to force the other team into tough 2's. Matt has stated it multiple times already this year. He has bought into it and that is what I was saying. You have an alternative that may not be "grasped" or "grasped in error" by CMP and all the other coaches that use analytics.

 

[tjreese]

Bottom line: Analytics say you take easy 2's and 3's and avoid the mid-range 2. On defense you try to force the other team into tough 2's. Matt has stated it multiple times already this year. He has bought into it and that is what I was saying. You have an alternative that may not be "grasped" or "grasped in error" by CMP and all the other coaches that use analytics.

well maybe...perhaps there are combined stats that give a good picture I don't know that are used. Statistically, what I said exists as a real possibility. It is no different than studying a mold with different cavities. If you lump all the cavities together into one population and the cavities are different the inherent populations of each cavity if only considering means and not variation present provide a different picture. Here prove it to yourself. to save typing repeat each number 5 times for game or mold whatever is easiest. Calculate the mean and std dev for all three groups and compare that data to the total mean and std dev.

1,2,3,4,5 do this for for 3,4,5,6,7 and for 8,9,10,11, 12

Without the all the math for std dev you can see the mean for the first group is 3, 5 for second and 10 for third and the overall mean is 3+5+10 or 18/3 or 6. 6 is not even part of the data in the first group or the third group and so the mean doesn't represent 2 out of the 3 groups. What I said is true (lumping populations together as well as confounded data)...what I don't know is if there are more advanced data I'm not privy. What makes analytics useable or typically efficient is the shot clock and having very close possessions from team to team

 

[Gman544]

I don't see a go to guy with the athleticism to get his own shot against superior athletes in the NCAA tournament. That is the missing link when the great teams take Edey away. Yes they beat high ranked Gonzonga and Duke, but those teams were overrated and Purdue snuck up...no one knew they would be this good. Purdue will tie for the regular season title, lose the semi in the BTT and make it to the sweet sixteen, but lose in the elite eight.

 

[BoilerFan#35]

I don't see a go to guy with the athleticism to get his own shot against superior athletes in the NCAA tournament. That is the missing link when the great teams take Edey away. Yes they beat high ranked Gonzonga and Duke, but those teams were overrated and Purdue snuck up...no one knew they would be this good. Purdue will tie for the regular season title, lose the semi in the BTT and make it to the sweet sixteen, but lose in the elite eight.

Gonzaga is not overrated. Duke might be. Fletcher has proven he can get his shot off. I don't understand why people underestimate this kid continuously. Braden is athletic enough to get by anyone as well. These two will continue to get better everyday

 

[Dryfly88]

well maybe...perhaps there are combined stats that give a good picture I don't know that are used. Statistically, what I said exists as a real possibility. It is no different than studying a mold with different cavities. If you lump all the cavities together into one population and the cavities are different the inherent populations of each cavity if only considering means and not variation present provide a different picture. Here prove it to yourself. to save typing repeat each number 5 times for game or mold whatever is easiest. Calculate the mean and std dev for all three groups and compare that data to the total mean and std dev.

1,2,3,4,5 do this for for 3,4,5,6,7 and for 8,9,10,11, 12

Without the all the math for std dev you can see the mean for the first group is 3, 5 for second and 10 for third and the overall mean is 3+5+10 or 18/3 or 6. 6 is not even part of the data in the first group or the third group and so the mean doesn't represent 2 out of the 3 groups. What I said is true (lumping populations together as well as confounded data)...what I don't know is if there are more advanced data I'm not privy. What makes analytics useable or typically efficient is the shot clock and having very close possessions from team to team

TJ, not really sure who you are trying to prove your point to?? I've simply been stating what CMP has said multiple times in his pressers and his radio show. If you don't think he has thought through all of the possibilities including yours, give him a call and explain it to him.

It started when you said you would prefer if the 3 ball was "dessert" not the main course. I simply pointed out what CMP has said and the 3 ball isn't dessert. It's critical to this teams success. I would argue that in today's game you will be hard pressed to find any team contending for the title that doesn't have the 3 ball as a main part of their attack. It's not icing on the cake, it's a huge part of the cake.