Final Four - Big East and ACC are down; SEC is overrated. Just need the frosh get their reps in.
Realistic Goal for the Season
- Thread starter depthcharge623
- Start date
Loyer is crafty. He will get his shot because he won't hesitate to drive to the basket. The defender can't fully commit to guarding his 3 pt shot.
I understand what you are saying. A radio show doesn't allow the depth I would seek. Also, if I had Matt's time I would ask two things, 1) A clarification for understanding what his mother said to my nephew in watching my nephews father play (she was a fan) and her husband playing against him which I'm guessing is not Matt's father. 2) Since Purdue switches 1-4 what Matt sees as the advantages and disadvantages of a Match-up Zone in comparison or that the only reason is extra time since both are fundamentally similar.
I do not see Purdue running a lot of sets for a 3 pt shot. I see the meat or the main course inside the arc. The dessert is after the main course if it now makes sense? That is why all those things...timing...angles and ball placement I mentioned are to enhance the inside threat since that is where the real game is won even though "those specifics" are not recorded and the 3pt shot is...kinda like a O & D lineman in football? When a team quickly jacks 3s and hits them early...many times things came too easy and the team is really not into the grind of the game and sometimes doesn't get the MO back. Matt has also said many times to embrace the physicality which is everything but a 3 pt shot. Those thoughts are also why I want Purdue to win every game, but not neccessarily want blow outs...becasue Purdue is not good enough to blow out all the teams. It can learn to be successful against all teams by doing what is controls and being hungry. I think this team plays against the game "more" than last years team which seemed to play the opponent more. Still, it is quite common for people to take the easy way out and I worry a bit that this team could blow out teams and then the next game slack a bit and get beat...just becasue they are human
Obviously, you don't force a square peg in a similar size hole although you can do the opposite.
The 3 is the result of all the other things previously done well enough that it is a threat and if open...sure you shoot it, but not something you "scheme" for and if in a particular game the 3 was a horrible percent I would want the team getting more vertical than continuing to shoot the three and try to take advantage of the good FT shooting and put the D in more foul trouble perhaps...although I'm a bit concerned about Trey at the line. 
Both Loyer and Newman can get their own shots. I've seen them do in almost every game. They are both quick enough to juke their opponent and shoot an easy jumper or go in for a layup.
Yes…trying to be a realist about this years team. It’s been a fun start but they’ll probably be a point in the season where they struggle, I hope not but that’s probably reality.
Against Davidson we took (25) 3 pt shots. CMP was asked if they were good shots just not going in and he said "yes". No hesitation, he said they were good shots. Even with taking those 25 3 pt shots we still went to the ft line 37 times. Shooting a lot of 3's and getting to the line are not mutually exclusive. We got exactly what he was looking for easy 2's (Edey) and open 3 pt shots.I understand what you are saying. A radio show doesn't allow the depth I would seek. Also, if I had Matt's time I would ask two things, 1) A clarification for understanding what his mother said to my nephew in watching my nephews father play (she was a fan) and her husband playing against him which I'm guessing is not Matt's father. 2) Since Purdue switches 1-4 what Matt sees as the advantages and disadvantages of a Match-up Zone in comparison or that the only reason is extra time since both are fundamentally similar.
I do not see Purdue running a lot of sets for a 3 pt shot. I see the meat or the main course inside the arc. The dessert is after the main course if it now makes sense? That is why all those things...timing...angles and ball placement I mentioned are to enhance the inside threat since that is where the real game is won even though "those specifics" are not recorded and the 3pt shot is...kinda like a O & D lineman in football? When a team quickly jacks 3s and hits them early...many times things came too easy and the team is really not into the grind of the game and sometimes doesn't get the MO back. Matt has also said many times to embrace the physicality which is everything but a 3 pt shot. Those thoughts are also why I want Purdue to win every game, but not neccessarily want blow outs...becasue Purdue is not good enough to blow out all the teams. It can learn to be successful against all teams by doing what is controls and being hungry. I think this team plays against the game "more" than last years team which seemed to play the opponent more. Still, it is quite common for people to take the easy way out and I worry a bit that this team could blow out teams and then the next game slack a bit and get beat...just becasue they are human
Obviously, you don't force a square peg in a similar size hole although you can do the opposite.
I know from yours posts that you long for the days when there was no shot clock or 3 pt line. I sometimes do too. But with the rules of the game now, 3 pt shots are never going to be an afterthought or just a "by product" of doing something else. The 3 pt shot is an essential part of winning in this era of college basketball and CMP has recognized that, recruits for it and coaches it.
This is where I see TJ’s point. In the Purdue offense, threes are a generally a “by product” of the help defense that Edey draws. If a team is going to try to defend Edey one on one, Edey can make them pay and doesn’t need to kick the ball out. If teams are going to defend like Nebraska and Davidson did, Purdue might get multiple threes as a “by product” of the inside game. I am not sure that we are saying different things.
The football analogy that I would use is that in the current Purdue offense, the three point shot is like a play action pass where the “run” (Edey inside) sets up the “pass” (three point shots). If the safeties commit to stopping the run, the offense needs to make them pay with the pass.
I'm aware of those shots and had no trouble shooting 50 times at the FT line or more. Call me greedy.
Zach creates a lot of fouls on the opposition and overall has improved his touch so far. Still, I wish more of those FTs were shot by Braden, Mason, Brandon and many others when in bonus. I long for the days when there was no clock or a much longer clock since it allows more ways of playing and fixes everything. I think Matt's success has been more due to the 5 man than the 3 ball over the years along with the grind through effort. IMO Purdue's 3 pt shooting is the "by product" of the inside play. It is not schemed for, nor the inside play the by product of the 3 point shot. The only time I can recall in Matt's time of actually scheming for a 3 ball was with Carsen and Cline and no or little low post play (Haarms) where 5 might be out, much like many other teams that do in fact scheme for the 3 ball and use a dribble drive offense. Purdue's offense is an inside out, not an outside in and Matt wants the ball to find Zach almost everytime down the court since he is the main course.
That is why the last couple of games the team sold out to stop Zach. They knew they couldn't stop him and thought there was a greater shot the 3 ball wasn't going in than stopping Zach. They could have been wrong, but obviously the coaches thought that was their best chance of beating Purdue. Now another team that matches up better with Zach might not help off and keep a player closer to the perimeter if they assess their team different.
That said I have no idea if our differences are more semanics than our real differences...other than it is the shot clock I do not like...or wish it were longer since it takes away so much team play...
The other thing I would add that goes back to the three groups of numbers and the total average of all the data being different than each of the three groups individual average previously mentioned. Those groups could be different game data for the same player which gives a different picture than the total grouped together. Then if you grouped all the different players over the different games...THAT data may present a whole different picture...especially if outliers are removed. That is why I lean to believing a bad shooting game may not find it's average and it worthwhile to curb it a bit. Sometimes that would be right and sometimes it would be wrong, but if everyone used the numbers the same...there would be few upsets if the teams were somewhat close and even fewer if the teams were much different. How did the peacocks and boilers follow the data?
There are a LOT of sources of variation that go into the averages of the data for different offenses, different defenses, sickness, injury, mental distraction, girl friend troubles, studies, along with each coaches deliberate approach to the game, etcs. to assume that those differences don't show up in each individual data set making each a bit different and distort the grand average when lumped together or at least most certainly could if they existed.
Those are legit concerns in trying to dissect the numbers or would be for me. These may be dissected in some form, but to do so each grouping and the variables inside each grouping would not have enough "repeated variables" (unless some are lumped together again) to have an appropriate degrees for freedom to test for significance and use in the most effective manner.
Been a lot of years since 1985 when I was pretty good and forgot a lot and probably not vvery effective in illustrating what I hope to convey. Suppose I have 5 variables with each at a single value and and a single outcome. My model will have a perfect correlation since I have no error term. Now, if one of those variables had 2 readings and were different my correrlation will drop due to those two readings being different. If not different I probably don't have enough precision to detect. Anyway, to find significant effects I need repeated values to create an error term and not sure how many "repeated situations" there are in bball data without lumping some of the differences together than may be dissimilar. I said a couple of years ago I wanted to "learn" the inner workings of Kenpom and unfortunately haven't had the time to do. Perhaps if I did and understood their "assumptions" (and they must have them) I would find a bit more comfort in seeing the actual data groups as opposed to a thought that could and I believe exists...
Last night Edey didn't play a minute. We still shot (19) 3's. By my count we had exactly 2 mid range shots taken (both by Jenkins). The rest of our offense was easy 2's and free throws. You can keep saying that the 3 pt shot is nothing but a by product, but you will continue to be wrong. CMP absolutely schemes and plans on us taking a lot of 3's. Of course he would like a lay up every time but he knows that isn't going to happen. He counts on us taking and hopefully making a lot of 3's every game.I'm aware of those shots and had no trouble shooting 50 times at the FT line or more. Call me greedy.
I think Matt's success has been more due to the 5 man than the 3 ball over the years along with the grind through effort. IMO Purdue's 3 pt shooting is the "by product" of the inside play. It is not schemed for, nor the inside play the by product of the 3 point shot. The only time I can recall in Matt's time of actually scheming for a 3 ball was with Carsen and Cline and no or little low post play (Haarms) where 5 might be out, much like many other teams that do in fact scheme for the 3 ball and use a dribble drive offense. Purdue's offense is an inside out, not an outside in and Matt wants the ball to find Zach almost everytime down the court since he is the main course.
That is why the last couple of games the team sold out to stop Zach. They knew they couldn't stop him and thought there was a greater shot the 3 ball wasn't going in than stopping Zach. They could have been wrong, but obviously the coaches thought that was their best chance of beating Purdue. Now another team that matches up better with Zach might not help off and keep a player closer to the perimeter if they assess their team different.
That said I have no idea if our differences are more semanics than our real differences...other than it is the shot clock I do not like...or wish it were longer since it takes away so much team play...
You said that you could only remember CMP scheming for cline/edwards. What about Mathias and Sasha? He ran high screens for them a lot to get an open 3. They curl from the bottom and come off for a quick 3. He ran that a lot for both of those shooters. Both of those guys played with good 5 men I'd say.
CMP is 5 man centric, no argument there, but the 3 ball is a very important part of the game plan every night whether Edey is playing or not.
it would be nice to see purdue in the Final 4, but that is never something I'd predict. there are too many unknown factors, such as matchups, injuries and location of tournament games that cannot be predicted this early in the season.
I'm going with 20 wins and a sweet 16. that seems like a fairly safe goal. Goals should be realistic and attainable.
From previous history, Purdue usually has a dry spell where they hit a wall, and lose some games they shouldn't lose. Other teams will adjust. Some teams like Michigan have been losing lately, but are still a tough team to beat. Other teams will improve as well. Purdue currently has a target on it's back. Other teams will not be taking us for granted, and will try to find a way to stop us. the key to Purdue's success will be their ability to hit threes to take some of the pressure off Edey and to complement his game. Purdue's perimeter shooting has been somewhat inconsistent. they will need to improve that in the tourney as we have seen too many times, one three point shot can win a game.
Purdue has a chance at having a special season. But with their talent and their coach, they will always place themselves in a position for a special season. and sometimes Purdue fans become too demanding and place their expectations too high. Winning 20 games and a sweet 16 is actually a great season .
I'm going with 20 wins and a sweet 16. that seems like a fairly safe goal. Goals should be realistic and attainable.
From previous history, Purdue usually has a dry spell where they hit a wall, and lose some games they shouldn't lose. Other teams will adjust. Some teams like Michigan have been losing lately, but are still a tough team to beat. Other teams will improve as well. Purdue currently has a target on it's back. Other teams will not be taking us for granted, and will try to find a way to stop us. the key to Purdue's success will be their ability to hit threes to take some of the pressure off Edey and to complement his game. Purdue's perimeter shooting has been somewhat inconsistent. they will need to improve that in the tourney as we have seen too many times, one three point shot can win a game.
Purdue has a chance at having a special season. But with their talent and their coach, they will always place themselves in a position for a special season. and sometimes Purdue fans become too demanding and place their expectations too high. Winning 20 games and a sweet 16 is actually a great season .
Did you mean 20 wins total? We already have 12 so we are only going to win 8 more games? Assuming we beat Florida A&M that gives us 13. With 18 conference games you are saying we are only going to win 7 of them? Maybe I just misunderstood what you were saying.
I’m pragmatic by nature, so a Goal and a Projection are totally different animals to me.
The OP is more aligned with a goal or high end projection for this team.
My realistic projections based on the range of play I’ve observed from this team is more like 5-6 losses pre BTT.
The thing that sticks in my mind is that, apart from one weekend where all cylinders were firing, this team hasn’t really played like a 1 seed. There was that weekend where it was a 1 seed and the rest of the year more like a 5 or 6 seed. I suspect when water finds its level it will be a 3 seed +/- 1, which is still quite an accomplishment.
The OP is more aligned with a goal or high end projection for this team.
My realistic projections based on the range of play I’ve observed from this team is more like 5-6 losses pre BTT.
The thing that sticks in my mind is that, apart from one weekend where all cylinders were firing, this team hasn’t really played like a 1 seed. There was that weekend where it was a 1 seed and the rest of the year more like a 5 or 6 seed. I suspect when water finds its level it will be a 3 seed +/- 1, which is still quite an accomplishment.
I get what you are saying and I agree that the level of play is down from Oregon, but the other way to look at it is that Purdue starts a freshman backcourt with a whole lot of room for growth still. Also, several guys are not shooting the ball like they are capable of. I can see this season playing out a lot of different ways, but there are real reasons for optimism.
FWIW I typically approach a game in teh future in shooting 18-22 3 pt shots. This should not be a number always met...depending on circumstances that I think should be adjusted for each game.
Before I get into last nights game it might be of value to understand "why" the 3 ball was implemented. It was to create a more equal playing field against those that have good size...like Purdue. The general population has many more players between 6' and 6'5" which are many times 1-3 positions and so to create a more fair playing field for many more teams that do NOT have the bigs or take a project and get the senior year out of him they give an extra point for those players to compete with size...likewise with the shot clock to create volume for those smaller players which make up "MOST TEAMS" and which also use a dribble drive offense and so it is common to see that and makes even more sense for those teams that don't have quality bigs. There are a lot good guards across the country (#1 last night was pretty good), but not a lot of good bigs...they are on the few really good teams...every year and after 4 years for those lesser teams to develop their bigs.
Last night Purdue shot 5/19 from the three for 26%. Last night for the 2pt it was 20/26 or 77%. Hidden inside that 2 pt shot was Purdue shooting 19/24 from the FT line. Purdue is a good FT shooting team and should have an advantage over most teams it plays at the line. Should getting to the line be some priority? Do you get to the FT line shooting 3s? Rarely does that happen and so not only did Purdue shoot 20/26 from the 2, but added to that with a 19/24 FT line and caused some foul trouble which is always great to do for the opposition. 59 out of the 74 points was directly attributed to the 2 point shot. That is almost 80% of the points scored directly related to inside the arc or the main course. However, the reality is that the play inside the arc was “also” really responsible for many of those 3 point shots. Was there a player that shot the three off a handoff or off a ball screen or off an “off-ball” screen…none that I can recall this game or most games. 3s shot were taken in a push up the court, a player becoming a threat and then kicking out or a post feed and kick out. The threes shot almost always are the result of another being a threat inside the arc.
The possible exception was Brandon looking for a shot when he took his first and Braden when he dribbled up on top and the D retreated down to cover the threats to the goal and left him for a step in three. So yeah…I probably see things different than many, but what above is not true? (rhetorical)
I didn't see you address the play running for Mathias and Sasha?? Did we or didn't we run plays for them to get open 3's? CMP hasn't done that for this team because I don't think Loyer is good at that yet. With this team feeding the post and kicking out is a better way to get open 3's.
We can agree to disagree and how much of an offense makes up the dessert. To me the dessert last night was a play like Newman made on defense to steal the ball and dunk it. Or the basket that Waddell made. Those are the little things that I think are "extra" that you don't expect or game plan for. Something that most games makes up 20-30% of your offense and occasionally more isn't what I would call the dessert. If you do, then I agree that the focus and number one goal is to get easy 2's and I think I have said that several times in this thread.
We can also agree to disagree on why the 3pt line and shot clock were implemented in the college game. I don't agree with your premise that teams like PU were dominating with their big men so they tried to level the playing field. Both were implemented to more closely mimic the pro game which was very popular at the time. It was to also increase scoring because teams would hold the ball (with good guards) and keep the scores low (boring to some).
Good discussion and I appreciate your points of view.
We can agree to disagree and how much of an offense makes up the dessert. To me the dessert last night was a play like Newman made on defense to steal the ball and dunk it. Or the basket that Waddell made. Those are the little things that I think are "extra" that you don't expect or game plan for. Something that most games makes up 20-30% of your offense and occasionally more isn't what I would call the dessert. If you do, then I agree that the focus and number one goal is to get easy 2's and I think I have said that several times in this thread.
We can also agree to disagree on why the 3pt line and shot clock were implemented in the college game. I don't agree with your premise that teams like PU were dominating with their big men so they tried to level the playing field. Both were implemented to more closely mimic the pro game which was very popular at the time. It was to also increase scoring because teams would hold the ball (with good guards) and keep the scores low (boring to some).
Good discussion and I appreciate your points of view.
Growth: There is a double edged sword whereby Painter had his team so well prepared Game 1 of the season that they might not progress during the season quite as much as some of the teams banded together during the offseason with transfers and talented freshmen. Neither true freshmen are playing like freshman out of the gate. Is there a higher ceiling for this year or is a wall just as likely?
Shooting: Returning to the mean is part of my projection. They aren’t winning the Big Ten and getting a 3 seed shooting 25% from 3.
I don't have a good enough memory to remember the specifics that ended up with Sasha and Dakota shooting the ball. I know Haas was a big factor for Dakota, but last year was a year of under achievement that was particularly frustrating for me to watch...and perhaps never put into recall as much. I still watched Purdue and like all of us wanted them to win, but the play was just not very smart a lot of the times and Sasha was a part of that at times. You may have a point with Sasha...I just don't know and would need to review the games to see what was going on inside the arc prior to Sasha shooting. You could have an example there with Sasha...I don't recall enough specifics. I do recall him letting it go when he shouldn't have but in all honesty I would really need to watch a bit again to be informed. Last year had to be a nightmare to coach for Matt even with all the success...to know soooooo much more could have happened.
Purdue didn't affect the 3 pt shot. The NCAA was trying to promote more competitive games. It wasn't Purdue as much as most teams are smaller just a fact of life and if they have a big...most are not very good or they would have went to the schools that get the good bigs. Over the years the Kansas, North Carolina, UCLA, Kentucky had their choice of Bigs over the years. The Bluebloods have their choice and take them quite often. Purdue and other "good" Big teams have them as well. The math alone says good bigs with size are very limited to the number of players smaller. What is a small school to do? Could there be more competitive games in the tourney and TV money as a result ? I'm unsure how upsets would go due to more competitive teams due to the 3, but less chance to make the game shorter due to clock?
The progression of jump balls after baskets to jump ball on every tie up at all three locations to one jump ball to start the game to alternating the possession rather than jumping the ball is another advantage given to less quality bigs typically to make the game more competitive...whether controlling the tip or winning the height battle for it. Personally, I would favor just giving the ball to the visitors to start and alternate from there because none of the refs know how to toss the ball or even recogize an illegal tip and do over which would probably be just as bad.
I can see merit in your thought of following the pro game, but question if that game was more popular than the college game prior to the 3 and clock...I don't know what that answer is. I know what it is for me though.
I'll also differ in what is a boring game. I believe boring games are when there is a large gap in points separating the teams, not the style of play. Others may disagree (and sure many do) and they don't have to share my opinion, but when there are decreased possessions there should overall be less of a gap in points between the winning and losing teams which I would think should make more games more interesting. Within the fewer possessions, each possession by nature is more crucial...which too should make the game more interesting for longer periods of the game.
Still, the other side of the coin is a clock speeds up the game and hinders the post feeds,reposts and overall teamwork which makes the game more individual which in turn promotes the smaller players of which there are more...as well as the arc helping the ball drivers to not get a charge which too aids the smaller players of which there are many more and more spread across more teams. Course if the interest is less to do with the game and more to do with individual motion then I understand.
Here are a couple of things Matt doesn't talk about a lot "or any" on one, but does all the time on the other. As verified and what I thought by Vince Edwards. Purdue does little (he said none, but I'm sure he missed some) individual D work, but pratices the shell everyday. The shell as you and I along with "many" readers is about protecting the lane. That protection comes about by proper help "distance" to help on play inside by a pass as well as trying to be in better position to be more effective against dribble penetration. It is a "team" thing to protect an area against passers. dribblers and cutters around the lane. It is a way of using the team to place indiviual defenders into a team defense to protect the lane primarily or make a shell to the outside.
The last thing on D that Matt does talk about and concerns himself is the concern for the opposing post player. Whether that offensive player is worthy of a double, Matt likes to double the post against everyone which leaves a person open in theory especially if the remaining players have ventured a bit out on distance from their shell. Matt likes the ball inside on offense and prefers it NOT inside on defense due to complete shell work and doubling the post. That area in both the offense and defense is a consistent, and strategic concern for Matt and Purdue it is the main course for Matt's teams on offense and defense
He has stated numerous times this year that PU defense is designed to give up difficult 2's (runners and pull ups). Eliminate easy 2's AND open 3's. Several pressers he's lamented how we didn't rotate properly and get out to the open 3 pt shooter.
I know what he has said and no doubt those areas are of concern and no doubt are adjusted from time to time in what the opposition is doing. Purdue wasn't quick enough last year (Zach) to stop Xavier Johnson with his mid range game. What Matt does do is try to get the ball out of the post because he knows the problem with ball in the lane and practice the shell to keep the ball out of the lane.
The inefficient shot is only inefficient if it misses at a very high rate and doesn't draw fouls or increase rebounding opportunities or cause any type of rotation. It starts out with the assumption that the farther away from the basket the less likley the make which may or may not be true for some teams or playes within a team until you get a 50% more points behind the arc.
All ball and/or player movement should cause rotation...some more distance than others. Still on hard closeouts what should a person do? On shot clocks winding down, what does a player do? You don't see Purdue defending a guy inside the arc with the ball and just letting him have looks like a game of horse...Purdue defends that shot for fear that he makes it, which if it were totally inefficient...don't you want him to shoot the shot and not guard him like you would do with someone behind the arc you want to shoot?
A player that can be efficient at all three areas of the half court is much more lethal than someone so limited that can't score against the trees and yet has a defender belly up on him at the arc. Do different 5s require different scoring opportunities? Can you drive to the rim on some and are you better to stop short of a rim protector to shoot when the 3ball is not dropping or defended tight enough that it is. I know what coaches say and sometimes you see with your own eyes their priorities.
That said I know exactly where your views originate and they are shared by many and are valid thoughts for many occurances in a game. There will be some that will share thoughts along with mine and all those different opinions are valid naturally based upon what is happening at the time...with different games validating each thought.
Nobody has expressed an interest in this continuing other than you and I. Nobody has asked a question to you or I and so I suggest that we hold our understandings as they are, of which I'm fine, and I'm sure you are as well, and stop the continuation of only you and I having an interest?
we dont need to hit a ton of 3 pointers but we do need to stay away from 3 for 25 and 3 for 19 nights. if they are not dropping then we need to take the ball inside for mid range or close in shots. unless edey can get the rebound on a good percentage of those misses, then we are in trouble.
I believe Purdue has earned these expectations as of late. Which is great, but also heartbreaking. I went to the elite 8 in Philly last year vs. St Pete's, and I was crushed when we loss. We made the sweet 16 and I wanted to smash everything in front of me when the clocks hit 0.0. Most teams are excited, but we've been there so many times, it felt like a normal ending. Granted it was a 15 seed, but still.
This team has a player nobody in the country can prepare for. Hell, not many NBA teams have a player who can guard Edey 1 on 1. He's too big and skilled. UConn has a couple 7fters, but they don't have his physicality. It's going to take a team to shoot the 3 ball well, Edey in foul trouble, and we shoot horrible to lose.
I think a lot of this comes down to whether a person thinks there exists reasons why good shooting and bad shooting nights exist and that each game is a separate population thrown together with other separate populations that may not represent the grand average percent. If you don't think there is an assignable cause for the disparity in shootings much different than average, then you can logically hold the view until the end that the misses will turn to more makes and the makes will turn to more misses as the game goes on.
Each view can be supported, but I'm one that thinks there are reasons for misses and those reasons might not be corrected in an existing game...especially mentally. Others disagree, but 3/25 is hardly efficient...
Last edited:
That is not going out on a limb much. Pretty much been the Purdue MO for the last 40 years.
