We should shoot 50 plus threes a game

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

There is no use having this discussion. Cal is going to plow. We aren't increasing tempo.

You keep shifting the conservation to pace.

You realize u don't have to shoot a ton of threes to play at a fast pace right?

Plus this lack of pace is a myth. Just as recent as 2017 our average possession length was 15.3 seconds. 17th FASTEST in the NCAAs.

 

[TortElvisII]

You keep shifting the conservation to pace.

You realize u don't have to shoot a ton of threes to play at a fast pace right?

Plus this lack of pace is a myth. Just as recent as 2017 our average possession length was 15.3 seconds. 17th FASTEST in the NCAAs.

You want to watch the K St game again?

 

[megablue]

On 03/27/10, we shot 32 threes and made only 4 against WVA in a 73-66 loss to end our season. I guess we should’ve taken 18 more, according to you. I would like to have seen us get the ball inside to Patterson (7 shots) and Cousins (11 shots). We had no business losing that game.

 

[TortElvisII]

On 03/27/10, we shot 32 threes and made only 4 against WVA in a 73-66 loss to end our season. I guess we should’ve taken 18 more, according to you. I would like to have seen us get the ball inside to Patterson and Cousins.

Read my first post. Then come back. West Virginia was not a cupcake.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

You want to watch the K St game again?

K-state ranked 302nd in pace that season.

The other team does have the ball half the time as well. If they want to slow it down, unless we are forcing turnovers, there's not a whole lot one can do about that.

We didn't lose because of the pace of that game tho...........we lost because PJ couldn't make a free throw.

 

[megablue]

Read my first post. Then come back. West Virginia was not a cupcake.

Of course not, they were 6th ranked in the country, but their starting point guard did not play in the game. My point was shooting 50 threes would have been foolish.

 

[kl40504_rivals]

High Point.

Top ranked class.

Trends.

Try to compute.

BTW, Villanova won 2/3 titles.

So

 

[TortElvisII]

Of course not, they were 6th ranked in the country, but their starting point guard did not play in the game. My point was shooting 50 threes would have been foolish.

I said cupcakes.

 

[megablue]

I said cupcakes.

Your opening post suggested shooting them every game, the way it was titled and the way I understood it. As some kind of experiment or to make a point, I guess you could shoot 50 against a weak opponent, but I’m not sure what it would prove. Some here might find shooting that many to be exciting basketball and the way to win games, but I’m not one of them.

 

[TortElvisII]

Your opening post suggested shooting them every game, the way it was titled and the way I understood it. As some kind of experiment or to make a point, I guess you could shoot 50 against a weak opponent, but I’m not sure what it would prove. Some here might find shooting that many to be exciting basketball and the way to win games, but I’m not one of them.

Try it against the cupcakes. Not every opponent.

Cal is what he is. We are playing 2005 basketball in 2018. It is not a recipe for post season success as of late. Other teams spread the floor and shoot thirty threes. Those teams play in the Final Four. Cal loses to IU and KSt while getting a bunch of guys, minus Fox and Bam, that don't care to the pro's. But we have a top recruiting class coming in so who cares. Pre-season favorites. Until November comes. This has become more about Cal's ego than UK.

 

[mjj_2K]

You keep shifting the conservation to pace.

You realize u don't have to shoot a ton of threes to play at a fast pace right?

Plus this lack of pace is a myth. Just as recent as 2017 our average possession length was 15.3 seconds. 17th FASTEST in the NCAAs.

And as you probably know, 16-17 was an outlier. That team ranked 18th in possessions per game, but last year was 181, 15-16 was 204, and the numbers prior to that were 224, 193, and 134.

Cal doesn't actively slow the game down the way that Virginia or Wisconsin (usually) does, but he also does nothing to really speed the game up, at least not against good opponents. And he gets really conservative in the tournament. Which might have a lot to do with avoiding major upsets, but also might have a lot to do with all the season-enders where UK couldn't seem to buy a bucket.

And here's the percentage of FG attempts from 3 pt range for UK and it's peers the last 5 years: (13-14 through 17-18)

UK- 27.6, 27.1, 31.0, 31.5, 25.8
UNC- 21.1, 22.3, 26.8, 30.3, 35.1
Duke- 39.7, 33.4, 39.8, 38.3, 36.3
Kansas- 28.7, 28.4, 33.0, 35.9, 41.2
Villanova- 44.8, 42.9, 42.7, 43.3, 47.5

And here are the numbers for Cal's last 4 Memphis teams: 34.2, 35.2, 35.2, 31.3

Tell me that doesn't read like Cal has gotten more conservative while everyone else is trying to use the 3 as a weapon?

You can't name a certain number of any kind of shot, but I don't think it's unrealistic to have a formula for an efficient modern college offense. Average 55-65 total FG attempts per game, take 35-45% of those from 3, shoot 18-25 FT's per game. High and low ends depend on coaching preferences and team personnel.

Say 60 FG attempts, 9/24 from 3 (37.5%), 19/36 on 2 pointers (52.8%), 18/25 on FT's (72%). Those add up to 83, and seem like reasonable season goals. Also seems to match the way that Duke, Kansas, and Villanova are currently playing, and even UNC has been increasing the percentage of 3's they take. Cal seems like the one stuck in the mud.

 

[megablue]

And as you probably know, 16-17 was an outlier. That team ranked 18th in possessions per game, but last year was 181, 15-16 was 204, and the numbers prior to that were 224, 193, and 134.

Cal doesn't actively slow the game down the way that Virginia or Wisconsin (usually) does, but he also does nothing to really speed the game up, at least not against good opponents. And he gets really conservative in the tournament. Which might have a lot to do with avoiding major upsets, but also might have a lot to do with all the season-enders where UK couldn't seem to buy a bucket.

And here's the percentage of FG attempts from 3 pt range for UK and it's peers the last 5 years: (13-14 through 17-18)

UK- 27.6, 27.1, 31.0, 31.5, 25.8
UNC- 21.1, 22.3, 26.8, 30.3, 35.1
Duke- 39.7, 33.4, 39.8, 38.3, 36.3
Kansas- 28.7, 28.4, 33.0, 35.9, 41.2
Villanova- 44.8, 42.9, 42.7, 43.3, 47.5

And here are the numbers for Cal's last 4 Memphis teams: 34.2, 35.2, 35.2, 31.3

Tell me that doesn't read like Cal has gotten more conservative while everyone else is trying to use the 3 as a weapon?

You can't name a certain number of any kind of shot, but I don't think it's unrealistic to have a formula for an efficient modern college offense. Average 55-65 total FG attempts per game, take 35-45% of those from 3, shoot 18-25 FT's per game. High and low ends depend on coaching preferences and team personnel.

Say 60 FG attempts, 9/24 from 3 (37.5%), 19/36 on 2 pointers (52.8%), 18/25 on FT's (72%). Those add up to 83, and seem like reasonable season goals. Also seems to match the way that Duke, Kansas, and Villanova are currently playing, and even UNC has been increasing the percentage of 3's they take. Cal seems like the one stuck in the mud.

Good analysis and a reasonable approach to shot distribution. Free throws are important and it’s good that you included them. Do you think it reasonable to “expect” 25 free throws a game, when shooting 40% of your shots as 3-pointers? Unless your offense is three-or-drive hard to bucket, I’m not that sure you will get fouled as often. WMI shot 5 free throws yesterday, for example, and we played man defense. Just a thought ... I don’t pretend to know.

I will say that there should be more of an inclination to shoot threes when you have personnel that can consistently make them at a high percentage. However, and perhaps most importantly, what if high-percentage shooters are your weaker defenders? That makes a tough call, especially at the end of games.

 

[mjj_2K]

Good analysis and a reasonable approach to shot distribution. Free throws are important and it’s good that you included them. Do you think it reasonable to “expect” 25 free throws a game, when shooting 40% of your shots as 3-pointers? Unless your offense is three-or-drive hard to bucket, I’m not that sure you will get fouled as often. WMI shot 5 free throws yesterday, for example, and we played man defense. Just a thought ... I don’t pretend to know.

I will say that there should be more of an inclination to shoot threes when you have personnel that can consistently make them at a high percentage. However, and perhaps most importantly, what if high-percentage shooters are your weaker defenders? That makes a tougher call, especially at the end of games.

Good point. Villanova, the obvious most 3 dependent team I looked at, also had the lowest number of FT's. So maybe not, unless you have James Harden or someone like him who's a master at drawing fouls.

And honestly I think, in the modern game, you need most of your players to at least be willing to take 3's, and you can't look at it as a bad decision if a player takes a wide open 3, even if he's not a great shooter. If he's completely hopeless, or a pure big (Nick Richards) I guess it's not worth it, but most players should be willing to put up the shot if it's wide open. Because if they aren't, it causes all kinds of problems. You only get 30 seconds to shoot, so when a player passes up a wide open look there's not a lot of time to find something else, and absolutely no guarantee that anything better will open up in the next 20 seconds.

The defensive element is a big part of why the NBA is shifting how it evaluates talent. A player like Jaren Jackson has very little offensive game (yet), but he has ++ defensive potential AND has flashed potential as a shooter. That's good enough- he doesn't need to be a 25 ppg guy. He doesn't need to be a master of post play, or beat guys off the dribble, or any of that. If he can defend well, finish around the rim, and drop some 3's, he's highly valuable.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

And as you probably know, 16-17 was an outlier. That team ranked 18th in possessions per game, but last year was 181, 15-16 was 204, and the numbers prior to that were 224, 193, and 134.

Cal doesn't actively slow the game down the way that Virginia or Wisconsin (usually) does, but he also does nothing to really speed the game up, at least not against good opponents. And he gets really conservative in the tournament. Which might have a lot to do with avoiding major upsets, but also might have a lot to do with all the season-enders where UK couldn't seem to buy a bucket.

And here's the percentage of FG attempts from 3 pt range for UK and it's peers the last 5 years: (13-14 through 17-18)

UK- 27.6, 27.1, 31.0, 31.5, 25.8
UNC- 21.1, 22.3, 26.8, 30.3, 35.1
Duke- 39.7, 33.4, 39.8, 38.3, 36.3
Kansas- 28.7, 28.4, 33.0, 35.9, 41.2
Villanova- 44.8, 42.9, 42.7, 43.3, 47.5

And here are the numbers for Cal's last 4 Memphis teams: 34.2, 35.2, 35.2, 31.3

Tell me that doesn't read like Cal has gotten more conservative while everyone else is trying to use the 3 as a weapon?

You can't name a certain number of any kind of shot, but I don't think it's unrealistic to have a formula for an efficient modern college offense. Average 55-65 total FG attempts per game, take 35-45% of those from 3, shoot 18-25 FT's per game. High and low ends depend on coaching preferences and team personnel.

Say 60 FG attempts, 9/24 from 3 (37.5%), 19/36 on 2 pointers (52.8%), 18/25 on FT's (72%). Those add up to 83, and seem like reasonable season goals. Also seems to match the way that Duke, Kansas, and Villanova are currently playing, and even UNC has been increasing the percentage of 3's they take. Cal seems like the one stuck in the mud.

Using possessions per game is NOT a good way to access whether a team plays fast or not. We can't control what the other team does when they have the ball and most of the time it's the other team that's trying to slow down the pace.

If you look at our average possession length on offense:
2019 15.9 seconds (82nd)
2018 16.9 seconds (108th)
2017 15.3 seconds (17th)
2016 17.7 seconds (219th)
2015 17.7 seconds (98th)
2014 17.9 seconds (256th)

I also suspect those numbers are a bit high because we have good offensive rebounding teams that extend some of those possessions.

Conversely look at what teams do to us
2019 17.4 seconds (253rd)
2018 17.8 seconds (262nd)
2017 17.1 seconds (149th)
2016 17.3 seconds (195th)
2015 19.6 seconds (327th)
2014 18.5 seconds (272nd)

When you say:
"And he gets really conservative in the tournament. Which might have a lot to do with avoiding major upsets, but also might have a lot to do with all the season-enders where UK couldn't seem to buy a bucket."

What's the real issue? Is it pace or the simple fact that we couldn't buy a bucket? I feel like people are just ignoring the real issue here. We lost against WVU cause we couldn't buy a 3. We lost against K-state because PJ couldn't hit a free throw. That has nothing to do with pace and everything to do with just having a bad shooting night.

As far as Cal limiting the threes...........who on our team last season shot the 3 point shot with any reliability whatsoever? You guys want teams to shoot more threes without considering the fact we didn't have many three point shooters last season. That just doesn't make sense. Could SGA have taken more 3s? Yeah sure. But we just didn't really have the personnel to play the way you are advocating.

As far as our peers I'm getting different figures:
UNC has continued to rank in the 300s in 3 point FG attempts %. So they are definitely NOT following this philosophy.
Kansas as well has continued to rank towards the bottom in most years. Now last season KU DID take a bunch of threes...........they also had a team that made over 40% of them. This season tho.......back to 32.5% which is good for 294th ranked. Again the theory you take them based on who is on your team.

Self and Roy are NOT following the trend. Even Duke.........Duke takes an average amount of their shots from 3.

It's really just Nova.

Lastly you can continue to be of the opinion that Cal can't have an efficient offense the way he plays yet our offensive efficiency has been really good even post 2015.

What's really changed? Defensive efficiency.

Most of the years we have been way better on offense than defense.

 

[mjj_2K]

Using possessions per game is NOT a good way to access whether a team plays fast or not. We can't control what the other team does when they have the ball and most of the time it's the other team that's trying to slow down the pace.

If you look at our average possession length on offense:
2019 15.9 seconds (82nd)
2018 16.9 seconds (108th)
2017 15.3 seconds (17th)
2016 17.7 seconds (219th)
2015 17.7 seconds (98th)
2014 17.9 seconds (256th)

I also suspect those numbers are a bit high because we have good offensive rebounding teams that extend some of those possessions.

Conversely look at what teams do to us
2019 17.4 seconds (253rd)
2018 17.8 seconds (262nd)
2017 17.1 seconds (149th)
2016 17.3 seconds (195th)
2015 19.6 seconds (327th)
2014 18.5 seconds (272nd)

When you say:
"And he gets really conservative in the tournament. Which might have a lot to do with avoiding major upsets, but also might have a lot to do with all the season-enders where UK couldn't seem to buy a bucket."

What's the real issue? Is it pace or the simple fact that we couldn't buy a bucket? I feel like people are just ignoring the real issue here. We lost against WVU cause we couldn't buy a 3. We lost against K-state because PJ couldn't hit a free throw. That has nothing to do with pace and everything to do with just having a bad shooting night.

As far as Cal limiting the threes...........who on our team last season shot the 3 point shot with any reliability whatsoever? You guys want teams to shoot more threes without considering the fact we didn't have many three point shooters last season. That just doesn't make sense. Could SGA have taken more 3s? Yeah sure. But we just didn't really have the personnel to play the way you are advocating.

As far as our peers I'm getting different figures:
UNC has continued to rank in the 300s in 3 point FG attempts %. So they are definitely NOT following this philosophy.
Kansas as well has continued to rank towards the bottom in most years. Now last season KU DID take a bunch of threes...........they also had a team that made over 40% of them. This season tho.......back to 32.5% which is good for 294th ranked. Again the theory you take them based on who is on your team.

Self and Roy are NOT following the trend. Even Duke.........Duke takes an average amount of their shots from 3.

It's really just Nova.

Lastly you can continue to be of the opinion that Cal can't have an efficient offense the way he plays yet our offensive efficiency has been really good even post 2015.

What's really changed? Defensive efficiency.

Most of the years we have been way better on offense than defense.

It's not "just Nova".

UNC 5 years ago was shooting a very low % of shots from 3, but the trend is up, as it is with Kansas. Both teams took a higher percentage of their FG attempts as 3's last year than any team Cal has had at UK. That's come down this year, as UNC is at 28.2% and Kansas 32.5%, but A: it's early, and UNC has played cupcakes so far, and B: both are still higher than the 24.8% that UK is currently at. Those numbers are likely to go up for all 3 schools as the competition gets better and there are fewer easy 2's to be had.

And yes, defense reads as more of a problem the last 4 years (certainly this year), but maybe some of that is related to Cal being stuck in the last decade. Styles change, and coaches need to adapt. Krzyzewski always liked perimeter-oriented 4's and 5's, but he didn't really commit to the 3 pointer until the late 90's, at which point he went all-in on playing a 4 out, spread the floor style. Pitino's press at UK was very different than what he played at UL, because there were a lot more teams like South Carolina and Arizona circa 96-97, with multiple ballhandlers capable of shredding a press, 10 years later.

What is Cal doing differently now than he was 10 years ago?

One more set of numbers: Average 3 pt FG attempts in NCAA Tournament games the last 5 years.

UK- 13.9
UNC- 19.4 (and in their 2 finals runs, it was 21.8).
Kansas- 23.1

What other major program is trying to win by hardly taking any 3 point shots at all?

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

It's not "just Nova".

UNC 5 years ago was shooting a very low % of shots from 3, but the trend is up, as it is with Kansas. Both teams took a higher percentage of their FG attempts as 3's last year than any team Cal has had at UK. That's come down this year, as UNC is at 28.2% and Kansas 32.5%, but A: it's early, and UNC has played cupcakes so far, and B: both are still higher than the 24.8% that UK is currently at. Those numbers are likely to go up for all 3 schools as the competition gets better and there are fewer easy 2's to be had.

Yes the overall number is trending up for a team like UNC but relative to the rest of the league, they still rank towards the bottom. From 2016 to 2018, they raised it from 26.7 to 30.3 to 35.1.........but the overall trend is teams are taking more threes. So yeah.........35.1% but they still rank 240th. It's STILL not a big part of their offense relative to other teams. And they certainly aren't taking 50 3 pointers per game.

Until last season, we were trending in that very same direction. From 15 to 17 we went from, 27.1 to 31.0 to 31.6.

Both this season and last season, we haven't shot threes. And I do think we need to shoot more than what we have. Where I disagree is that we have to be like Villanova to have an efficient offense.
If you are making the argument not Villanova but be like UNC, be like Duke, be like KU.........well ok but that doesn't get us to 50 threes a game or even 40 or even 30. UNC hasn't hit 30 this year. Kansas hasn't hit 25 a game, Duke high mark has been 36.

The reason why UNC, Kansas and Duke will never rank up high in % from 3 is because they know what I've been saying. Too much variation in 3s. Even Nova went 4 for 24 against Texas Tech. Had Texas Tech not be equally horrible from 3 (5-20), Villanova doesn't make the final four.

It doesn't change the fact that if you look at the teams who shoot three's the most, only Villanova is a good team.

It doesn't change the fact that if you take more 3s and make that a focal point of your offense, you are introducing way more variation than if you relied on 2s. Never a good thing in a one and done tournament. Especially if you are the more talented team which UK most of the time is.

It also doesn't change the fact that we have been efficient on offense. We've put up 1.35 points per possession and 1.31 points per possession the past two games. Heck even Duke we reached 1.02.

There's more than one way to be efficient on offense. Sure you can be like Nova and have a great shooting team...........or if you don't have a great shooting team you can limit the turnovers on offense or rebound the ball on offense to lead to more attempts. Which is what we do well. We rebound the ball. That's Cal's offense in a nutshell. It's not pretty, but it is efficient on a possession basis. We also get to the line. It's been the two staples in Cal's offenses since he's gotten here.

I don't agree that it won't work in 2018-19. You can still be efficient on offense focusing on rebounding and getting to the line. It hasn't changed.

 

[know1]

What we should do is run, run and run some more. Make everything a fast break if possible. At least we'd be moving on offense.

 

[mjj_2K]

Yes the overall number is trending up for a team like UNC but relative to the rest of the league, they still rank towards the bottom. From 2016 to 2018, they raised it from 26.7 to 30.3 to 35.1.........but the overall trend is teams are taking more threes. So yeah.........35.1% but they still rank 240th. It's STILL not a big part of their offense relative to other teams. And they certainly aren't taking 50 3 pointers per game.

Until last season, we were trending in that very same direction. From 15 to 17 we went from, 27.1 to 31.0 to 31.6.

Both this season and last season, we haven't shot threes. And I do think we need to shoot more than what we have. Where I disagree is that we have to be like Villanova to have an efficient offense.
If you are making the argument not Villanova but be like UNC, be like Duke, be like KU.........well ok but that doesn't get us to 50 threes a game or even 40 or even 30. UNC hasn't hit 30 this year. Kansas hasn't hit 25 a game, Duke high mark has been 36.

The reason why UNC, Kansas and Duke will never rank up high in % from 3 is because they know what I've been saying. Too much variation in 3s. Even Nova went 4 for 24 against Texas Tech. Had Texas Tech not be equally horrible from 3 (5-20), Villanova doesn't make the final four.

It doesn't change the fact that if you look at the teams who shoot three's the most, only Villanova is a good team.

It doesn't change the fact that if you take more 3s and make that a focal point of your offense, you are introducing way more variation than if you relied on 2s. Never a good thing in a one and done tournament. Especially if you are the more talented team which UK most of the time is.

It also doesn't change the fact that we have been efficient on offense. We've put up 1.35 points per possession and 1.31 points per possession the past two games. Heck even Duke we reached 1.02.

There's more than one way to be efficient on offense. Sure you can be like Nova and have a great shooting team...........or if you don't have a great shooting team you can limit the turnovers on offense or rebound the ball on offense to lead to more attempts. Which is what we do well. We rebound the ball. That's Cal's offense in a nutshell. It's not pretty, but it is efficient on a possession basis. We also get to the line. It's been the two staples in Cal's offenses since he's gotten here.

I don't agree that it won't work in 2018-19. You can still be efficient on offense focusing on rebounding and getting to the line. It hasn't changed.

We'll find out. It's certainly not necessary to take 30-40 a game, but that''s not really what I've been arguing. I'm more of the mind that only taking 14 per game in the tournament is akin to running a race in lead filled boots.

I think the math and the way the game has developed (and how players now develop) makes trying to be consistently efficient without taking many 3's a dicey proposition. There's a reason the NBA tracks shots so assiduously, and a reason that the average NBA team is now taking 35% of their shots from behind the 3 point line.

And yes, college isn't the NBA, but it isn't completely different. It's still basketball with a pretty tight shot clock and a 3 point shot.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

We'll find out. It's certainly not necessary to take 30-40 a game, but that''s not really what I've been arguing. I'm more of the mind that only taking 14 per game in the tournament is akin to running a race in lead filled boots.

I think the math and the way the game has developed (and how players now develop) makes trying to be consistently efficient without taking many 3's a dicey proposition. There's a reason the NBA tracks shots so assiduously, and a reason that the average NBA team is now taking 35% of their shots from behind the 3 point line.

And yes, college isn't the NBA, but it isn't completely different. It's still basketball with a pretty tight shot clock and a 3 point shot.

NBA has better shooters tho. That's why you got the GS Warriors. And teams can imitate that all they want but if they lack the shooters to do so, it's not going to be efficient offense.

But FWIW I think last season with us was an anomaly. Yeah this season we haven't started out taking many threes either but I'm willing to bet by the end of the year we aren't ranked as low as 344th either. A large part of the reason we were that low IMO was simply cause we didn't have the shooters.

In theory, this should be a good 3 point shooting team.

I don't think it's an issue of Cal not adapting, I think it's more he's playing to the strengths of whatever team we have. Right now, there is no Lamb. There is no Booker. Maybe Herro becomes that person. Maybe Baker comes back and becomes that person but right now I think he's just playing to the strengths.

With Travis, EJ, PJ, Richards......I mean this team is a beast on the boards and if we continue to rebound how we have and even shoot the ball halfway decent, our offense is gonna be efficient.