Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2018 23:43:43 GMT -8
I don't get your point about the % of shots being 3s are too high. - First, I'd expect them to work on how they plan to play anybody. Particularly with a size advantage, working on inside game against a small opponent probably isn't going to help much - 31% of shots from 3 is low for what I'd like to see (subject to their make % of course, but we have shooters). For instance, Kansas was at 38.5% last year and the national champ shot 46% of their shots from 3. If we make them decent clip (~38% or better), I'd argue we should be taking a lot more. Reference: bleacherreport.com/articles/2762158-the-3-point-revolution-has-taken-over-college-basketball-tooI've posted the stats previously... we are nop where near what Kansas shot and % considerably lower considering we were some 20%+ higher when we worked for higher % shots. This team went thru several scoring droughts per game of 4 min or more because certain players seem to need to shoot the ball. We rarely rewarded the bigs even with great positioning and that was with Drew there. This team has shown from the scoring droughts, lack of offensive movement (ball and player), and shooting % they are NOT a good team from three. Streaky? Yep. anywhere close to being able to live from three? Not a chance. This team needs to score in the paint far more than it has in the past or it will be same-o-same-o. Shot selection and creating shots from design rather than happenstance, that's how good teams win with three pointers. I wish to see that this year but I dont expect it.
|
|
bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,000
|
Post by bill82 on Oct 31, 2018 3:38:30 GMT -8
Our PAC-12 preview has a clip where the color commentator says we’re making 3s like free throws. I spit out my coffee. That seems to be the identity we want.
|
|
2ndGenBeaver
Sophomore
Posts: 1,803
Grad Year: 1991 (MS/CS) 1999 (PhD/CS)
|
Post by 2ndGenBeaver on Oct 31, 2018 5:32:28 GMT -8
Well, they finally posted a Box Score for the exhibition game. We shot the 3 and FTs better than I thought - 41% from 3pt land, 68% FTs. Out rebounded Tech 38-31 (I was of the opinion Tech got an inordinate number of boards, and I still believe that). Won the steals battle 16 - 6. The 4 bigs, over about 48 aggregate minutes of play, collectively took 10 of our 55 shots. 2 of those 10 shots were 3 pointers. I still saw a lot of dribbling around the perimeter without a plan, lack of in-the-paint entry passing or plays to the bigs, coaches kids ball hoggery, etc that left me a bit concerned. I think a lot of the 3 balling comes from not having worked the ball into a position for a better (closer in?) shot. So - consistent with our play last year, but hoping for positive changes over the season. Go Beavers!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 5:36:42 GMT -8
Well, they finally posted a Box Score for the exhibition game. We shot the 3 and FTs better than I thought - 41% from 3pt land, 68% FTs. Out rebounded Tech 38-31 (I was of the opinion Tech got an inordinate number of boards, and I still believe that). Won the steals battle 16 - 6. The 4 bigs, over about 48 aggregate minutes of play, collectively took 10 of our 55 shots. 2 of those 10 shots were 3 pointers. I still saw a lot of dribbling around the perimeter without a plan, lack of in-the-paint entry passing or plays to the bigs, coaches kids ball hoggery, etc that left me a bit concerned. I think a lot of the 3 balling comes from not having worked the ball into a position for a better (closer in?) shot. So - consistent with our play last year, but hoping for positive changes over the season. Go Beavers! coaches kids ball hoggery. A horribly constructed phrase that is crystal clear.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Oct 31, 2018 7:40:56 GMT -8
Well, they finally posted a Box Score for the exhibition game. We shot the 3 and FTs better than I thought - 41% from 3pt land, 68% FTs. Out rebounded Tech 38-31 (I was of the opinion Tech got an inordinate number of boards, and I still believe that). Won the steals battle 16 - 6. The 4 bigs, over about 48 aggregate minutes of play, collectively took 10 of our 55 shots. 2 of those 10 shots were 3 pointers. I still saw a lot of dribbling around the perimeter without a plan, lack of in-the-paint entry passing or plays to the bigs, coaches kids ball hoggery, etc that left me a bit concerned. I think a lot of the 3 balling comes from not having worked the ball into a position for a better (closer in?) shot. So - consistent with our play last year, but hoping for positive changes over the season. Go Beavers! coaches kids ball hoggery. A horribly constructed phrase that is crystal clear. 3 of our 5 starters are a coach's kid. even if all shots were perfectly equitable, 60% of all our shots would be taken by a "coach's kid". And reality is that Tres and Stevie are our best players by a long shot. It isn't like we are force feeding trash players here only because they are a coach kid! Take away names and think positions. If I tell you our SG, SF and PG take the most shots on the team, is your reaction really going to be surprise? I mean when Zach came in for Stevie, he took the bulk of the back up shots... and his is, surprise, a shooting guard! The only player that represented a significant scheme shift was when Kelly came in. It was the only time they really fed the ball inside and let all 7 feet of him work. You point at ANY team in NCAA basketball. ANY team, and the top players are fed the ball. It isn't unusual, or even bad strategy. You put the ball in your playmaker's hands.
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Oct 31, 2018 7:45:38 GMT -8
coaches kids ball hoggery. A horribly constructed phrase that is crystal clear. 3 of our 5 starters are a coach's kid. even if all shots were perfectly equitable, 60% of all our shots would be taken by a "coach's kid". And reality is that Tres and Stevie are our best players by a long shot. It isn't like we are force feeding trash players here only because they are a coach kid! Take away names and think positions. If I tell you our SG, SF and PG take the most shots on the team, is your reaction really going to be surprise? I mean when Zach came in for Stevie, he took the bulk of the back up shots... and his is, surprise, a shooting guard! The only player that represented a significant scheme shift was when Kelly came in. It was the only time they really fed the ball inside and let all 7 feet of him work. You point at ANY team in NCAA basketball. ANY team, and the top players are fed the ball. It isn't unusual, or even bad strategy. You put the ball in your playmaker's hands. Perfectly stated.
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Oct 31, 2018 8:07:17 GMT -8
coaches kids ball hoggery. A horribly constructed phrase that is crystal clear. 3 of our 5 starters are a coach's kid. even if all shots were perfectly equitable, 60% of all our shots would be taken by a "coach's kid". And reality is that Tres and Stevie are our best players by a long shot. It isn't like we are force feeding trash players here only because they are a coach kid! Take away names and think positions. If I tell you our SG, SF and PG take the most shots on the team, is your reaction really going to be surprise? I mean when Zach came in for Stevie, he took the bulk of the back up shots... and his is, surprise, a shooting guard! The only player that represented a significant scheme shift was when Kelly came in. It was the only time they really fed the ball inside and let all 7 feet of him work. You point at ANY team in NCAA basketball. ANY team, and the top players are fed the ball. It isn't unusual, or even bad strategy. You put the ball in your playmaker's hands. and the 3 coach's kids combined to shoot 19-28 (3-7 from 3pt). HAL 9000 tells me that that's 67.8% from the field. Is this a good percentage? Seems goodish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 8:09:17 GMT -8
3 of our 5 starters are a coach's kid. even if all shots were perfectly equitable, 60% of all our shots would be taken by a "coach's kid". And reality is that Tres and Stevie are our best players by a long shot. It isn't like we are force feeding trash players here only because they are a coach kid! Take away names and think positions. If I tell you our SG, SF and PG take the most shots on the team, is your reaction really going to be surprise? I mean when Zach came in for Stevie, he took the bulk of the back up shots... and his is, surprise, a shooting guard! The only player that represented a significant scheme shift was when Kelly came in. It was the only time they really fed the ball inside and let all 7 feet of him work. You point at ANY team in NCAA basketball. ANY team, and the top players are fed the ball. It isn't unusual, or even bad strategy. You put the ball in your playmaker's hands. Perfectly stated. i didn't see the scrimmage so i don't know if this happened or not but when i hear ball hoggery i think of aimless dribbling, trying to go Iso, 4 guys watching. I agree sometimes that's a way to score points but none of our top three guys will break you down on the dribble. They aren't quick or slick like that. I hope to see less of that this year.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Oct 31, 2018 8:29:25 GMT -8
i didn't see the scrimmage so i don't know if this happened or not but when i hear ball hoggery i think of aimless dribbling, trying to go Iso, 4 guys watching. I agree sometimes that's a way to score points but none of our top three guys will break you down on the dribble. They aren't quick or slick like that. I hope to see less of that this year. Of our 22 assists, Coach's kids had 12 of them. Zach was the only other player dishing the ball well. He logged 5 assists in 20 minutes to go with his 4-6 shooting. (he done did pretty good, granted competition wasn't fierce)
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Oct 31, 2018 8:57:54 GMT -8
Well, they finally posted a Box Score for the exhibition game. We shot the 3 and FTs better than I thought - 41% from 3pt land, 68% FTs. Out rebounded Tech 38-31 (I was of the opinion Tech got an inordinate number of boards, and I still believe that). Won the steals battle 16 - 6. The 4 bigs, over about 48 aggregate minutes of play, collectively took 10 of our 55 shots. 2 of those 10 shots were 3 pointers. I still saw a lot of dribbling around the perimeter without a plan, lack of in-the-paint entry passing or plays to the bigs, coaches kids ball hoggery, etc that left me a bit concerned. I think a lot of the 3 balling comes from not having worked the ball into a position for a better (closer in?) shot. So - consistent with our play last year, but hoping for positive changes over the season. Go Beavers! We gave up some rebounds we should have got, but Tech was throwing up a lot of brick threes which have a tendency to bounce high off the rim and back out beyond the foul line - when your players are crashing the boards, it leaves the ball out there for the other team more often than not. Going to distort the end numbers. The number that you needed to watch was how long they stood at 40 something points while we extended our lead - was not a pretty sight for the guys from Montana, rebounds or not.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Oct 31, 2018 10:44:12 GMT -8
coaches kids ball hoggery. A horribly constructed phrase that is crystal clear. 3 of our 5 starters are a coach's kid. even if all shots were perfectly equitable, 60% of all our shots would be tak. en by a "coach's kid"And reality is that Tres and Stevie are our best players by a long shot. It isn't like we are force feeding trash players here only because they are a coach kid! Take away names and think positions. If I tell you our SG, SF and PG take the most shots on the team, is your reaction really going to be surprise? I mean when Zach came in for Stevie, he took the bulk of the back up shots... and his is, surprise, a shooting guard! The only player that represented a significant scheme shift was when Kelly came in. It was the only time they really fed the ball inside and let all 7 feet of him work. You point at ANY team in NCAA basketball. ANY team, and the top players are fed the ball. It isn't unusual, or even bad strategy. You put the ball in your playmaker's hands. Not there is some statistical hogwash!! So only 5 players are going to play each game? The only way 60% of shots should taken by three players is if they are actually getting shots in the flow of an offense. OSU has never demonstrated a scheme on any consistent basis. If a team has zero depth, and zero trust in the offensive capabilities of everyone other the the "big three" the ball usually does end in their hands... going one on one while four players watch. The overall percentage of shots taken isn't as much the issue as how the shots taken are coming. Watching WTs offense is like watching a bad NBA team... high weave, poor attempts at high pick/roll, occasional looks inside, and then as the shot clock runs down someone goes one on one. This was an exhibition vs a NAIA team... not much to glean from this game. However, cumulative stats are very clear. This team has/is: -NOT a good team from three overall... actually fairly poor from the line for a team dominated by G/Ws... -shoots about 20% higher when they actually move bodies and the ball and get two's... -feeding the post seems to be an afterthought... -can't seem to consistently run an offensive scheme for an entire game... by design or by lack of discipline... -multiple long scoring droughts... one thing you've been able to count on... -not overly athletic/or buy into playing D in several positions vs Pac12 quality opponents... -key team stats in the past point to being a top 4-6 team in league play... YET they are not... -recruit supposedly "true" PGs yet they seem limited minutes vs an NAIA team... -5th year in and still "converting" players to try to run the point... -still picked at 10th in a league that has been down overall nationally... There is nothing about this staff that doesn't scream, "I'll believe it when I actually see it"... like more than one game in a row. Folks always fall back on to the tourney team as the "proof" WT is the guy, and that the 5-27 was the anomaly. Well, what is it more the other way around? Recruiting and results (especially on the road) seems to show the tourney team was the anomaly.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Oct 31, 2018 11:26:56 GMT -8
3 of our 5 starters are a coach's kid. even if all shots were perfectly equitable, 60% of all our shots would be tak. en by a "coach's kid"And reality is that Tres and Stevie are our best players by a long shot. It isn't like we are force feeding trash players here only because they are a coach kid! Take away names and think positions. If I tell you our SG, SF and PG take the most shots on the team, is your reaction really going to be surprise? I mean when Zach came in for Stevie, he took the bulk of the back up shots... and his is, surprise, a shooting guard! The only player that represented a significant scheme shift was when Kelly came in. It was the only time they really fed the ball inside and let all 7 feet of him work. You point at ANY team in NCAA basketball. ANY team, and the top players are fed the ball. It isn't unusual, or even bad strategy. You put the ball in your playmaker's hands. Not there is some statistical hogwash!! So only 5 players are going to play each game? The only way 60% of shots should taken by three players is if they are actually getting shots in the flow of an offense. OSU has never demonstrated a scheme on any consistent basis. If a team has zero depth, and zero trust in the offensive capabilities of everyone other the the "big three" the ball usually does end in their hands... going one on one while four players watch. The overall percentage of shots taken isn't as much the issue as how the shots taken are coming. Watching WTs offense is like watching a bad NBA team... high weave, poor attempts at high pick/roll, occasional looks inside, and then as the shot clock runs down someone goes one on one. This was an exhibition vs a NAIA team... not much to glean from this game. However, cumulative stats are very clear. This team has/is: -NOT a good team from three overall... actually fairly poor from the line for a team dominated by G/Ws... -shoots about 20% higher when they actually move bodies and the ball and get two's... -feeding the post seems to be an afterthought... -can't seem to consistently run an offensive scheme for an entire game... by design or by lack of discipline... -multiple long scoring droughts... one thing you've been able to count on... -not overly athletic/or buy into playing D in several positions vs Pac12 quality opponents... -key team stats in the past point to being a top 4-6 team in league play... YET they are not... -recruit supposedly "true" PGs yet they seem limited minutes vs an NAIA team... -5th year in and still "converting" players to try to run the point... -still picked at 10th in a league that has been down overall nationally... There is nothing about this staff that doesn't scream, "I'll believe it when I actually see it"... like more than one game in a row. Folks always fall back on to the tourney team as the "proof" WT is the guy, and that the 5-27 was the anomaly. Well, what is it more the other way around? Recruiting and results (especially on the road) seems to show the tourney team was the anomaly. I was clearly just making a simple example about the starting players. Not exactly trying to produce a high level statistical analysis here. But... I would wager that it is more common that not, that among most NCAA basketball teams, your top 3 players own the lion's share of points, minutes and shots. That just is what it is. I am not trying to excuse away issues, but I am sick and tired of all things "coaches kids" it is a tired talking point. pick a random team from all 300 something NCAA teams and you will find similar usage among the top 3. Top kids shoot more, score more, play more. This isn't f%#*ing rocket surgery. This strange and bizarre bias that "coaches kids" are hogging the ball, or playing more, just because they are the coaches kids is utter nonsense. They are, literally, the better players. Now, THAT in its self, could be an issue, with recruiting and development and all that. But finding a team that has the top 3 players with a disproportionate share of stats is not that strange or unusual. I would argue the opposite is more rare. Finding teams so deep and talented that points and minutes are more widely spread out. You have to look at teams like Villanova, to find examples of lower total point shares among the starters. The reason is obvious. They are SUPER deep and talented.
|
|
2ndGenBeaver
Sophomore
Posts: 1,803
Grad Year: 1991 (MS/CS) 1999 (PhD/CS)
|
Post by 2ndGenBeaver on Oct 31, 2018 12:26:47 GMT -8
When I said "coaches kids ball hoggery" it was more short hand for "Thompson, Thompson and Tinkle" than their familial affiliation with the head coach and assistant coach. That said, as a long time Beaver fan and potentially biased observer with no demonstrated basketball expertise, I am of the opinion that the "coaches kids" are treated differently on this team. As a result, the players also (again, in my biased, humble no-basis in demonstrated basketball skill set opinion) behave slightly differently.
Ask Pat Casey, about as good of a coach as there is in the coaching business, if he did not experience some issues around having his kids on the team. (Note - I took many undergraduate math classes from my math professor father at Montana Tech. I was banned from office hours or class-related home discussions in an attempt by him to remove any advantages I might otherwise gain, so my stance here might also be colored by that experience).
What I saw at the exhibition was our bigs flashing open and not getting an entry pass by a ball handler. As some statistical analysis in this thread has pointed out, the odds of the non-entry passer being a coaches kid is inordinately high. What I saw at the exhibition was the ball handler dribbling around semi-aimlessly, and then either driving with the shot clock running down, or taking a 3, reminiscent of seasons past, and seemingly ignoring the presence of the aforementioned 7 footers. Since the opponent was NAIA Div II Montana Tech, this strategy met with significant success that I doubt can be replicated against our normal opponents. As some statistical analysis in this thread has pointed out, the odds of the dribble driver/shot taker being a coaches kid is inordinately high. I also saw (again, opinionated, biased, unskilled me) a predilection amongst those three to pass among themselves. (insert statistical comment here as well).
That all would have been well and good, but what bugged me most was even against a lowly NAIA Div II team, I did not detect the execution of very many set plays. Pointing to the scoreboard at an exhibition game against an over matched opponent is folly, let's just hope trying to extrapolate whether we have cured some ills that have dogged us these past few seasons from a sample size of 1 is also folly. I am also spoiled watching WBB - comparing our MBB team to a top-10 and fantastically well coached WBB team is likely at this stage also folly.
The season is upon us, the proof, as they say, will be in the pudding soon enough. Go Beavers!
|
|
|
Post by albanianbeav on Oct 31, 2018 16:55:13 GMT -8
When I said "coaches kids ball hoggery" it was more short hand for "Thompson, Thompson and Tinkle" than their familial affiliation with the head coach and assistant coach. That said, as a long time Beaver fan and potentially biased observer with no demonstrated basketball expertise, I am of the opinion that the "coaches kids" are treated differently on this team. As a result, the players also (again, in my biased, humble no-basis in demonstrated basketball skill set opinion) behave slightly differently. Ask Pat Casey, about as good of a coach as there is in the coaching business, if he did not experience some issues around having his kids on the team. (Note - I took many undergraduate math classes from my math professor father at Montana Tech. I was banned from office hours or class-related home discussions in an attempt by him to remove any advantages I might otherwise gain, so my stance here might also be colored by that experience). What I saw at the exhibition was our bigs flashing open and not getting an entry pass by a ball handler. As some statistical analysis in this thread has pointed out, the odds of the non-entry passer being a coaches kid is inordinately high. What I saw at the exhibition was the ball handler dribbling around semi-aimlessly, and then either driving with the shot clock running down, or taking a 3, reminiscent of seasons past, and seemingly ignoring the presence of the aforementioned 7 footers. Since the opponent was NAIA Div II Montana Tech, this strategy met with significant success that I doubt can be replicated against our normal opponents. As some statistical analysis in this thread has pointed out, the odds of the dribble driver/shot taker being a coaches kid is inordinately high. I also saw (again, opinionated, biased, unskilled me) a predilection amongst those three to pass among themselves. (insert statistical comment here as well). That all would have been well and good, but what bugged me most was even against a lowly NAIA Div II team, I did not detect the execution of very many set plays. Pointing to the scoreboard at an exhibition game against an over matched opponent is folly, let's just hope trying to extrapolate whether we have cured some ills that have dogged us these past few seasons from a sample size of 1 is also folly. I am also spoiled watching WBB - comparing our MBB team to a top-10 and fantastically well coached WBB team is likely at this stage also folly. The season is upon us, the proof, as they say, will be in the pudding soon enough. Go Beavers! I saw it a bit differently, with the bigs struggling to get open. WT was getting pretty fired up yelling for Kelley & Wilson to post. Not too surprising for freshman. Also, say what you will, but Montana was playing scrappy d. If you were seeing flashes of posts being open, we will certainly benefit from developing our pgs, as we all know.
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Oct 31, 2018 18:51:32 GMT -8
I saw the same thing, albanianbeav.
|
|