(02-20-2018 08:35 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 10:35 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 12:53 PM)payday Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 10:17 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 09:55 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  National Champs

Kenpom O - Kenpom D

2017 UNC 9 - 11
2016 Nova 3 - 5
2015 Duke 3 - 11
2014 UConn 39 - 10
2013 Louisville 7 - 1
2012 Kentucky 2 - 7
2011 UConn - 15 - 19
2010 Duke 1 - 5
2009 UNC 1 - 18
2008 Kansas 2 - 1
2007 Florida 1 - 13
2006 Florida 3 - 7
2005 UNC 2 - 5

And how many of those teams built their statistical resume against the likes of USF, ECU, UCF, and Memphis in league play.

UC doesn't get a chance to play better competition night in and night out because of their league, and they don't have enough money to schedule better buy games at home - because of their league.

MSU this season...

Michigan State won the National Championship? Damn, missed it. Thanks. Is it Opening Day yet?

Michigan State isn't even a good comp. They've played 5 teams in the top 15 of the rankings and 5 other tournament caliber teams (Not even counting ND who was a Top 10 caliber team before Bonzi Colson's injury). We've played 3 teams ranked in the Top 25 (lost to all of them) and one other tournament caliber team.

Great point. This is where the advanced metrics begin to loose some of their predictive power. Especially when we've watched a team get very "tight" against some quality opponents, slowing down the game and failing to get into a consistent offensive flow. Is it the coaching or the talent on the floor?

(02-19-2018 12:35 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 09:55 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  National Champs

Kenpom O - Kenpom D

2017 UNC 9 - 11
2016 Nova 3 - 5
2015 Duke 3 - 11
2014 UConn 39 - 10
2013 Louisville 7 - 1
2012 Kentucky 2 - 7
2011 UConn - 15 - 19
2010 Duke 1 - 5
2009 UNC 1 - 18
2008 Kansas 2 - 1
2007 Florida 1 - 13
2006 Florida 3 - 7
2005 UNC 2 - 5

In only 3 of the past 13 years has a teams defense been better than its offense.

And the 2014 UConn team was a complete anomaly because they had a PG that could control and take over games. If your team has a perennial All-American PG that can control every aspect of the game offensively and defensively, can shoot from three, and get to the rim at will for layups or kickouts then the stats get thrown out the books and you can win at anytime.

I posted this in another thread, but it bares repeating. The kenpom era began in 2002. I looked at every final four team and ever champion from 2002 on and here is what I found:

Only 1 champion has had a kenpom adjusted defense outside the top 15, none outside the top 20. (that's 15/16 being top 15 kenpom defenses)

There have been only 3 champions with an adjusted offense outside the top 15 (2 of them are UConn in 2011 and 2014 with 2014 UConn finishing all the way down at 39).

75% (12/16) of our champions have been top 15 in both adjusted defense and adjusted offense. Balance

To add to that. The average final four team has an adj O of 18.5 and an adj D of 14.5.

54 out of 64 (84.3%) final four teams have had an adjusted defense of 25 or better. 46 of 64 (71.8%) have had an adjusted offense of 25 or better. 40 of those have had a top 25 adjusted offense and adjusted defense (62.5%).

Both are important... the numbers suggest Defense has been a little more important. Most great teams have both.

Reading through the thread and wanted to say KUDOS to Nacho and Mark for these facts/analysis.

(02-19-2018 10:11 PM)pvtlamb Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 07:54 PM)Bearcat01 Wrote:  We haven't played a team that could match our length or athleticism this year besides UCLA or FL. No way we should be getting punked by UH or WSU. Have learn switch it up Mick

Hmmm - seems like the stats would indicate WSU athleticism compares to Cincy?

I think WSU length was at least equal except for your huge 6'11" guy.

At one point on the floor for WSU was 6'4", 6'5", 6'8", 6'9", 6'8". And we had 6'10" Nurger off the bench.

None of your guys have wingspan of Scott, speed or quickness like Broome or vertical to match Evans. You guys didnt beat us off dribble not ONCE final 15min of game, our guys were making couple of WSU fall on our drives. WSU decent team nothing special though. Lottery pick Shamet couldn't even blow our BIGGEST player on team. What does stats have to do with athleticism anyway?

(02-19-2018 10:28 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 10:11 PM)pvtlamb Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 07:54 PM)Bearcat01 Wrote:  We haven't played a team that could match our length or athleticism this year besides UCLA or FL. No way we should be getting punked by UH or WSU. Have learn switch it up Mick

Hmmm - seems like the stats would indicate WSU athleticism compares to Cincy?

I think WSU length was at least equal except for your huge 6'11" guy.

At one point on the floor for WSU was 6'4", 6'5", 6'8", 6'9", 6'8". And we had 6'10" Nurger off the bench.

Don't take him seriously

Cronin postgame DIDN'T mention NOTHING about computer rankings. What did he talk about? Defense and rebounding... In game thread who was ONLY person that argued we lost because of defense and rebounding? My basketball knowledge a run circles around you....

(02-20-2018 11:33 AM)Bearcat01 Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 10:28 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 10:11 PM)pvtlamb Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 07:54 PM)Bearcat01 Wrote:  We haven't played a team that could match our length or athleticism this year besides UCLA or FL. No way we should be getting punked by UH or WSU. Have learn switch it up Mick

Hmmm - seems like the stats would indicate WSU athleticism compares to Cincy?

I think WSU length was at least equal except for your huge 6'11" guy.

At one point on the floor for WSU was 6'4", 6'5", 6'8", 6'9", 6'8". And we had 6'10" Nurger off the bench.

Don't take him seriously

Cronin postgame DIDN'T mention NOTHING about computer rankings. What did he talk about? Defense and rebounding... In game thread who was ONLY person that argued we lost because of defense and rebounding? My basketball knowledge a run circles around you....

Didn't mention nothing...so it did mention something?

DIDN'T mention NOTHING?!?

All hail the mighty knowledge of UC’s finest!

Mick is holding the team back.

He needs to create more possessions not shorten the game.

He needs to cut Cane loose and play him 25-30 minutes a game.
If he makes a turnover or misses a shot LEAVE him out. He can't have him playing scared.

When he gets tired or in foul trouble then bring Jenifer or Trevor Moore in.
The days of Jenifer playing 20-25 minutes a game should be over.

Mick has talked for years now about how he wants to press and play uptempo.

He finally has the team to do it and he is coaching like he still has Ronald Allen and Sikes in his starting 5.

No reason the Cats shouldn't be pushing the ball with Cane, Cumberland and Evans.

Yet we see Jenifer walking the ball up the court and the Cats passing it around the perimeter bleeding clock

As far as the more possessions vs. less possessions things. UC's average offensive possession length continues to be almost exactly in the middle of other teams. I continue to stress... tempo is unimportant when it comes to team quality. The average final four team among the last 64 teams finished with an adjusted tempo of 165.77. Two years ago the National Champion finished 234 in adjusted tempo including 290 in offensive tempo. 3 years ago the runner up finished 345 (out of 351) in adjusted tempo including 350 in offensive tempo... they also were the best offense in college basketball. There are basically no trends when you look at how fast a team plays and how good they are. They don't exist. There are good teams that play fast and good teams that play slow....neither advances in March at a noticeably different rate. Tempo is a simplistic thing that every day people understand and complain about, but it is so overblown.

(02-20-2018 12:30 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  As far as the more possessions vs. less possessions things. UC's average offensive possession length continues to be almost exactly in the middle of other teams. I continue to stress... tempo is unimportant when it comes to team quality. The average final four team among the last 64 teams finished with an adjusted tempo of 165.77. Two years ago the National Champion finished 234 in adjusted tempo including 290 in offensive tempo. 3 years ago the runner up finished 345 (out of 351) in adjusted tempo including 350 in offensive tempo... they also were the best offense in college basketball. There are basically no trends when you look at how fast a team plays and how good they are. They don't exist. There are good teams that play fast and good teams that play slow....neither advances in March at a noticeably different rate. Tempo is a simplistic thing that every day people understand and complain about, but it is so overblown.

yeah a lot of time people confuse more points for better offense. it's all about efficiency.


however mick himself admits we struggle in half court offense. those teams you listed above were typically very efficient half court offenses.


we still need to take advantage of all the quick transition possessions when they present themselves. we got bogged down vs houston the last 30 minutes without trying to get out in transition at all. we went to that same offense the last 6 minutes vs wsu.


don't force a quick tempo, but at the same time when broome/evans/cumberland are out there, take advantage of the times you can run out. that plays to our strengths.



but even without a faster tempo, we can still run efficient stuff. we fall in love with the jake iso a little too much and we don't have much movement or passing for long stretches of time.

(02-20-2018 12:42 PM)CallMeSlim Wrote:  yeah a lot of time people confuse more points for better offense. it's all about efficiency.


however mick himself admits we struggle in half court offense. those teams you listed above were typically very efficient half court offenses.


we still need to take advantage of all the quick transition possessions when they present themselves. we got bogged down vs houston the last 30 minutes without trying to get out in transition at all. we went to that same offense the last 6 minutes vs wsu.


don't force a quick tempo, but at the same time when broome/evans/cumberland are out there, take advantage of the times you can run out. that plays to our strengths.



but even without a faster tempo, we can still run efficient stuff. we fall in love with the jake iso a little too much and we don't have much movement or passing for long stretches of time.

I don't disagree that our offense bogs down at times when it shouldn't. As far as tempo, I think we're pretty good at picking our spots and attacking when it makes sense. I agree too often we've been going to the Evans ISO when Mick thinks we need something. We have too much talent to play that way as often as we do. Evans isn't SK and doesn't need to be. My big disappointment the last two games is I think we should have leaned on Kyle more when we hit a drought. Kyle is the one guy that if you get him the ball in certain sports, he's virtually automatic. There are enough weapons around him that we can get him the ball in those spots. At times during our winning streak we really leaned on him in those situations, but I thought the last two games we went away from it.

I like the idea of Evans in ISO when you need to run some clock..or a couple key possessions when you're trying to slow it down, but I think we put too much on him unnecessarily when we run it as often as we have the last couple of games. UC has plenty of guys that can put the ball in the basket. Just run our stuff and we'll get good shots. We've mostly done that well throughout the year, but I think there is room to do it better.

However, my hope is all these reps Evans is getting in these situations will make us more prepared for one and done tournament play.

Since I've always been an advocate of speeding up UC's offensive tempo... I'll just use some stats.

I don't think UC looks enough for breaks or attacks the basket enough. Surely, too much of a good thing can lead to disaster, however, I still believe we don't look enough for outlet passes to fast break after a rebound, or attack the basket enough (with those who have a decent enough handle).

The UCLA break of the 60's and 70's was onto something. Wooden was a smart man.

For Cincinnati this year:

After a Defensive Rebound...

UC's effective FG% is 54% when they attempt a shot within the first 10 seconds of the shot clock.

UC's effective FG% is 47% when they attempt a shot after 11-30 seconds of the shot clock.

My take away is the earlier you attack on offense, the higher your FG%. You can still have offensive structure while pushing the ball, but it needs put in place pre-season.

After an Opponents Score...

UC's effective FG% is 50% after opponents score when our shot is taken within the first 10 seconds of the shot clock.

UC's effective FG% is 47% after opponents score when our shot is taken after 11-30 seconds of the shot clock.

Same take away.

The field goal percentages (within the same time frames) after a steal should be pretty self evident. Steals in and of themselves lend to more break away points.

http://www.hoop-math.com/Cincinnati2018.php

(02-20-2018 01:25 PM)Topkat Wrote:  Since I've always been an advocate of speeding up UC's offensive tempo... I'll just use some stats.

I don't think UC looks enough for breaks or attacks the basket enough. Surely, too much of a good thing can lead to disaster, however, I still believe we don't look enough for outlet passes to fast break after a rebound, or attack the basket enough (with those who have a decent enough handle).

The UCLA break of the 60's and 70's was onto something. Wooden was a smart man.

For Cincinnati this year:

After a Defensive Rebound...

UC's effective FG% is 54% when they attempt a shot within the first 10 seconds of the shot clock.

UC's effective FG% is 47% when they attempt a shot after 11-30 seconds of the shot clock.

My take away is the earlier you attack on offense, the higher your FG%. You can still have offensive structure while pushing the ball, but it needs put in place pre-season.

After an Opponents Score...

UC's effective FG% is 50% after opponents score when our shot is taken within the first 10 seconds of the shot clock.

UC's effective FG% is 47% after opponents score when our shot is taken after 11-30 seconds of the shot clock.

Same take away.

The field goal percentages (within the same time frames) after a steal should be pretty self evident. Steals in and of themselves lend to more break away points.

http://www.hoop-math.com/Cincinnati2018.php

Thanks for linking this website. Good stuff.

My biggest takeaway is their shooting percentage is higher on faster possessions because they are taking their shots at the rim. When a shot at the rim isn't there they slow it down.

Here is the percentage of shots they take at the rim if they are taking a shot within the first 10 seconds: 63.5% off a rebound, 65.2% of an opponent score, 75.4% off of a steal. That tells me when they are pushing they are looking for layups... if its not there they pull it out. If they started forcing more shots I doubt their percentages would hold.

(02-20-2018 12:54 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I don't disagree that our offense bogs down at times when it shouldn't. As far as tempo, I think we're pretty good at picking our spots and attacking when it makes sense. I agree too often we've been going to the Evans ISO when Mick thinks we need something. We have too much talent to play that way as often as we do. Evans isn't SK and doesn't need to be. My big disappointment the last two games is I think we should have leaned on Kyle more when we hit a drought. Kyle is the one guy that if you get him the ball in certain sports, he's virtually automatic. There are enough weapons around him that we can get him the ball in those spots. At times during our winning streak we really leaned on him in those situations, but I thought the last two games we went away from it.

I like the idea of Evans in ISO when you need to run some clock..or a couple key possessions when you're trying to slow it down, but I think we put too much on him unnecessarily when we run it as often as we have the last couple of games. UC has plenty of guys that can put the ball in the basket. Just run our stuff and we'll get good shots. We've mostly done that well throughout the year, but I think there is room to do it better.

However, my hope is all these reps Evans is getting in these situations will make us more prepared for one and done tournament play.

i 100% agree with everything you put here. we have the talent to run offense in close games, let them run it. it hurts jake and the offense to try to force him to be SK. he's not that type of guy.


as long as we use what we've learned from these 2 games to improve its going to be ok. better to find it out now, than in the tournament.



but we have to learn and grow from it.

(02-20-2018 01:39 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:25 PM)Topkat Wrote:  Since I've always been an advocate of speeding up UC's offensive tempo... I'll just use some stats.

I don't think UC looks enough for breaks or attacks the basket enough. Surely, too much of a good thing can lead to disaster, however, I still believe we don't look enough for outlet passes to fast break after a rebound, or attack the basket enough (with those who have a decent enough handle).

The UCLA break of the 60's and 70's was onto something. Wooden was a smart man.

For Cincinnati this year:

After a Defensive Rebound...

UC's effective FG% is 54% when they attempt a shot within the first 10 seconds of the shot clock.

UC's effective FG% is 47% when they attempt a shot after 11-30 seconds of the shot clock.

My take away is the earlier you attack on offense, the higher your FG%. You can still have offensive structure while pushing the ball, but it needs put in place pre-season.

After an Opponents Score...

UC's effective FG% is 50% after opponents score when our shot is taken within the first 10 seconds of the shot clock.

UC's effective FG% is 47% after opponents score when our shot is taken after 11-30 seconds of the shot clock.

Same take away.

The field goal percentages (within the same time frames) after a steal should be pretty self evident. Steals in and of themselves lend to more break away points.

http://www.hoop-math.com/Cincinnati2018.php

Thanks for linking this website. Good stuff.

My biggest takeaway is their shooting percentage is higher on faster possessions because they are taking their shots at the rim. When a shot at the rim isn't there they slow it down.

Here is the percentage of shots they take at the rim if they are taking a shot within the first 10 seconds: 63.5% off a rebound, 65.2% of an opponent score, 75.4% off of a steal. That tells me when they are pushing they are looking for layups... if its not there they pull it out. If they started forcing more shots I doubt their percentages would hold.

That is why I mentioned a structured fast break, where everyone knows where they are supposed to be.

It would be better than pulling the ball back out because you transition directly into an offense instead of the mindless dribbling above the key.

My counter to the "doubt the percentages would hold" argument is, I would be willing to bet the effective field goal percentage shown when holding the ball on offense from 11-30 seconds is a lot lower the closer you get to the shot clock expiring.

JJ has to play 15-20min every game. Its all "ISO" ball when he's not in game. Evans or Broome can't make entry passes. Clark and Evans suffer big time without him on court.

(02-20-2018 01:46 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:39 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:25 PM)Topkat Wrote:  Since I've always been an advocate of speeding up UC's offensive tempo... I'll just use some stats.

I don't think UC looks enough for breaks or attacks the basket enough. Surely, too much of a good thing can lead to disaster, however, I still believe we don't look enough for outlet passes to fast break after a rebound, or attack the basket enough (with those who have a decent enough handle).

The UCLA break of the 60's and 70's was onto something. Wooden was a smart man.

For Cincinnati this year:

After a Defensive Rebound...

UC's effective FG% is 54% when they attempt a shot within the first 10 seconds of the shot clock.

UC's effective FG% is 47% when they attempt a shot after 11-30 seconds of the shot clock.

My take away is the earlier you attack on offense, the higher your FG%. You can still have offensive structure while pushing the ball, but it needs put in place pre-season.

After an Opponents Score...

UC's effective FG% is 50% after opponents score when our shot is taken within the first 10 seconds of the shot clock.

UC's effective FG% is 47% after opponents score when our shot is taken after 11-30 seconds of the shot clock.

Same take away.

The field goal percentages (within the same time frames) after a steal should be pretty self evident. Steals in and of themselves lend to more break away points.

http://www.hoop-math.com/Cincinnati2018.php

Thanks for linking this website. Good stuff.

My biggest takeaway is their shooting percentage is higher on faster possessions because they are taking their shots at the rim. When a shot at the rim isn't there they slow it down.

Here is the percentage of shots they take at the rim if they are taking a shot within the first 10 seconds: 63.5% off a rebound, 65.2% of an opponent score, 75.4% off of a steal. That tells me when they are pushing they are looking for layups... if its not there they pull it out. If they started forcing more shots I doubt their percentages would hold.

That is why I mentioned a structured fast break, where everyone knows where they are supposed to be.

It would be better than pulling the ball back out because you transition directly into an offense instead of the mindless dribbling above the key.

My counter to the "doubt the percentages would hold" argument is, I would be willing to bet the effective field goal percentage shown when holding the ball on offense from 11-30 seconds is a lot lower the closer you get to the shot clock expiring.

Every team runs "structured" fast breaks except old Mick teams. For most part guys running to their spots on court or run to where they about run offense from.

UC has pushed the ball against weaker competition.
I would love to see the stats in their losses

Mick puckers up against good competition and has Jenifer walk the ball up the court.

I can only imagine how good this team could be if they didn't wait until they got behind to start attacking the basket or getting out in transition.

This team has too much talent for Mick to use the same offense he has used the last 12 years of walking the ball up the court and passing it around the perimeter

(02-20-2018 02:06 PM)Bearcat01 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:46 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:39 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:25 PM)Topkat Wrote:  Since I've always been an advocate of speeding up UC's offensive tempo... I'll just use some stats.

I don't think UC looks enough for breaks or attacks the basket enough. Surely, too much of a good thing can lead to disaster, however, I still believe we don't look enough for outlet passes to fast break after a rebound, or attack the basket enough (with those who have a decent enough handle).

The UCLA break of the 60's and 70's was onto something. Wooden was a smart man.

For Cincinnati this year:

After a Defensive Rebound...

UC's effective FG% is 54% when they attempt a shot within the first 10 seconds of the shot clock.

UC's effective FG% is 47% when they attempt a shot after 11-30 seconds of the shot clock.

My take away is the earlier you attack on offense, the higher your FG%. You can still have offensive structure while pushing the ball, but it needs put in place pre-season.

After an Opponents Score...

UC's effective FG% is 50% after opponents score when our shot is taken within the first 10 seconds of the shot clock.

UC's effective FG% is 47% after opponents score when our shot is taken after 11-30 seconds of the shot clock.

Same take away.

The field goal percentages (within the same time frames) after a steal should be pretty self evident. Steals in and of themselves lend to more break away points.

http://www.hoop-math.com/Cincinnati2018.php

Thanks for linking this website. Good stuff.

My biggest takeaway is their shooting percentage is higher on faster possessions because they are taking their shots at the rim. When a shot at the rim isn't there they slow it down.

Here is the percentage of shots they take at the rim if they are taking a shot within the first 10 seconds: 63.5% off a rebound, 65.2% of an opponent score, 75.4% off of a steal. That tells me when they are pushing they are looking for layups... if its not there they pull it out. If they started forcing more shots I doubt their percentages would hold.

That is why I mentioned a structured fast break, where everyone knows where they are supposed to be.

It would be better than pulling the ball back out because you transition directly into an offense instead of the mindless dribbling above the key.

My counter to the "doubt the percentages would hold" argument is, I would be willing to bet the effective field goal percentage shown when holding the ball on offense from 11-30 seconds is a lot lower the closer you get to the shot clock expiring.

Every team runs "structured" fast breaks except old Mick teams. For most part guys running to their spots on court or run to where they about run offense from.

Maybe add some color to the statement, I'm not sure what you are saying.

(02-20-2018 02:30 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 02:06 PM)Bearcat01 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:46 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:39 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:25 PM)Topkat Wrote:  Since I've always been an advocate of speeding up UC's offensive tempo... I'll just use some stats.

I don't think UC looks enough for breaks or attacks the basket enough. Surely, too much of a good thing can lead to disaster, however, I still believe we don't look enough for outlet passes to fast break after a rebound, or attack the basket enough (with those who have a decent enough handle).

The UCLA break of the 60's and 70's was onto something. Wooden was a smart man.

For Cincinnati this year:

After a Defensive Rebound...

UC's effective FG% is 54% when they attempt a shot within the first 10 seconds of the shot clock.

UC's effective FG% is 47% when they attempt a shot after 11-30 seconds of the shot clock.

My take away is the earlier you attack on offense, the higher your FG%. You can still have offensive structure while pushing the ball, but it needs put in place pre-season.

After an Opponents Score...

UC's effective FG% is 50% after opponents score when our shot is taken within the first 10 seconds of the shot clock.

UC's effective FG% is 47% after opponents score when our shot is taken after 11-30 seconds of the shot clock.

Same take away.

The field goal percentages (within the same time frames) after a steal should be pretty self evident. Steals in and of themselves lend to more break away points.

http://www.hoop-math.com/Cincinnati2018.php

Thanks for linking this website. Good stuff.

My biggest takeaway is their shooting percentage is higher on faster possessions because they are taking their shots at the rim. When a shot at the rim isn't there they slow it down.

Here is the percentage of shots they take at the rim if they are taking a shot within the first 10 seconds: 63.5% off a rebound, 65.2% of an opponent score, 75.4% off of a steal. That tells me when they are pushing they are looking for layups... if its not there they pull it out. If they started forcing more shots I doubt their percentages would hold.

That is why I mentioned a structured fast break, where everyone knows where they are supposed to be.

It would be better than pulling the ball back out because you transition directly into an offense instead of the mindless dribbling above the key.

My counter to the "doubt the percentages would hold" argument is, I would be willing to bet the effective field goal percentage shown when holding the ball on offense from 11-30 seconds is a lot lower the closer you get to the shot clock expiring.

Every team runs "structured" fast breaks except old Mick teams. For most part guys running to their spots on court or run to where they about run offense from.

Maybe add some color to the statement, I'm not sure what you are saying.

Go play a little YMCA basketball. Maybe you'll learn something... I can't take you serious if you just believe players run fast breaks like chicken with their heads cut off...

(02-20-2018 02:42 PM)Bearcat01 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 02:30 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 02:06 PM)Bearcat01 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:46 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:39 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Thanks for linking this website. Good stuff.

My biggest takeaway is their shooting percentage is higher on faster possessions because they are taking their shots at the rim. When a shot at the rim isn't there they slow it down.

Here is the percentage of shots they take at the rim if they are taking a shot within the first 10 seconds: 63.5% off a rebound, 65.2% of an opponent score, 75.4% off of a steal. That tells me when they are pushing they are looking for layups... if its not there they pull it out. If they started forcing more shots I doubt their percentages would hold.

That is why I mentioned a structured fast break, where everyone knows where they are supposed to be.

It would be better than pulling the ball back out because you transition directly into an offense instead of the mindless dribbling above the key.

My counter to the "doubt the percentages would hold" argument is, I would be willing to bet the effective field goal percentage shown when holding the ball on offense from 11-30 seconds is a lot lower the closer you get to the shot clock expiring.

Every team runs "structured" fast breaks except old Mick teams. For most part guys running to their spots on court or run to where they about run offense from.

Maybe add some color to the statement, I'm not sure what you are saying.

Go play a little YMCA basketball. Maybe you'll learn something... I can't take you serious if you just believe players run fast breaks like chicken with their heads cut off...

Well now, you didn't have to go and try and insult someone. I'm not sure why the anger?

I played through high school on a Division 1 basketball team in Ohio. A taste of varsity ball my Sophomore year. Junior and Senior years on varsity.

Like most things in life, that probably means I played more ball than some, less than others.

What does that have to do with anything? It's all opinions.