Why I Think La Salle Should Shoot More Threes

[JoeFedorowicz]

I've decided to break down the period I mentioned in the SJU post game because I think it was obvious what happened in that game, even though I am clearly in the minority. I've been clamoring that the team needs to shoot more threes for over a week now. That belief isn't based on me thinking the team is full of good three-point shooters, but instead that if they are going to win anything this year it will come by getting more shots up that are worth more points.

I'm not going to go through a full roster breakdown, but La Salle's best playmakers in Brickus and Brantley are too short to effectively beat teams inside the paint. We have years of evidence of this. They can do it at points, but it is not something that is sustainable especially not against the best teams in the league that have much taller, much more athletic defenders.

Anwar Gill has the body to bang inside, but just cannot finish well enough to make that an offensive threat. Shepherd can jump over guys, but asking him to put the ball on the floor is currently asking too much. The rest of the team? They're jump shooters. Jocius gets pushed off his spot so easily and resorts to some kind of sky hook too often.

I say all of this to bring it back to my point. I think this team needs open looks that count for more points. Too often, they're taking a contested 8-12 footer which doesn't make any sense mathematically. Is it easier to make an open 10-footer than an open 22-footer? For sure. But you have to consider the fact that few of the 10-footers they're getting are actually open.

So I rewatched the whole game, but decided to focus on the timeframe where I think they started to clam up and resort to either a) what is being coached or b) what they are all comfortable doing. I want to be completely clear that I am not blaming any players for their play here. They are who they are and they're trying their best. I just think that if winning the most A10 games...possibly making a run in the tournament...if that's the goal then I think getting up more three pointers should be the plan.

I'm using ESPN's game log: www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/playbyplay/_/gameId/401596878

---

14:32 - Gill passes on an open 3 in favor of a slashing runner. He's fouled on the floor, but the shot had no chance. They do score on the possession when he makes a mid-range jumper. You'll see in the two pictures below what he passed on and then proceeded to attempt with three guys ready to shoot a three.




13:33 - Fasasi catches a ball on the wing and immediately pump fakes a three he could have taken. He then passes to Brantley who pump fakes a three he could have taken. Brantley is fouled on the floor.




13:21 - Brickus pump fakes a three from a long way out and kicks it to Brantley, who was open but didn't even look to shoot. Then he turns it over. Missed four chances to get a shot off and instead turn it over.




12:50 - Brantley attacks the lane and is surrounded and is (in my opinion) bailed out with a foul. He had three guys spot up and ready to fire a three and instead took what I consider to be a bad shot. He went 1-2 from the line.



11:10 - Gill finds Brickus who passes on an open three and drives into traffic. He misses a fading mid-range shot.




9:56 - Brickus pump fakes an open three he should have definitely taken. He finds a cutting Gill who misses a contested layup.



9:20 - Brantley gets the ball after breaking the press and has the ability to step into a three. He wouldn't have made it, but he instead pulled it out. La Salle called timeout and Brickus missed a mid-range jumper.



8:36 - Gill gets the ball and tries to back down his defender. The entire St. Joseph's team was ready for him and though he gets a shot off, it isn't even close. He had three guys wide open ready to take a three.



8:10 (positive note here) - Brickus catches a pass and just pulls a three from 26 feet and makes it. It was the first three they took since Marero made one over four minutes prior.



6:44 - Brickus passes to Brantley on the wing who immediately drives to the foul line and bricks a very contested 13 footer. Brickus was wide open the second Brantley took his dribble.




4:39 - Gill gets the ball at the top of the key and tries a running jumper through traffic that wasn't close. He then immediately fouls the rebounder. He had two guys with their hands up ready to catch and shoot.



4:06 - Brantley gets the ball from 28-feet out and though its a distance he cannot make it consistently from, the team was down five and the offense was non-existent. Brickus gets in the lane and fires a skip pass to Gill who was wide open from the corner. He finds Shepherd who was eventually fouled on proceeded to miss both free throws.




---

So that's 11 instances where I think that La Salle would have been better off with shooting a three, or looking to find a teammate for the express purpose of shooting a three. Instead, often, they took a bad shot and turned it over. I want to be very clear here. I don't think that La Salle is going to shoot teams out of the building. I just really feel like they aren't going to grind them out either and by shooting the threes, they at least have a chance to score points on most plays.

Sorry for the long post. March will be here soon when I have another one planned.

[glorydays]

Joe, Honestlly…I am serious…Thank you for the long well thought out piece of analysis. All in all it, proves that you are just as wacky at the rest of us. Welcome aboard.

[1863]

JoeFedorowicz - Personally, I loved your post.
Very interesting. 👍

[las71]

One of the biggest problems we have is that we only have two ball handlers. It's difficult to win when you only have two guys who are comfortable with the ball. I'm sure every scouting report says that once Gill starts to drive he's going to shoot and rarely passes it back out so it's okay to collapse on him. Deuce Jones is a really important recruit as we need to add more ball handlers.

[JoeFedorowicz]

Two ball handlers are fine. They play most of the game anyway. A next year recruit will take the spot of one of the two ball handlers. It won’t be completely additive.

[lasallealum]

This is a very interesting write up. I don't have much to offer in terms of game theory. I am a fan. My only preference is that La Salle wins. After following this and the St. Joes game thread it seems pretty clear that there is not going to be an agreement on the more 3's vs. less 3's debate. In the end, who cares. I'm not a coach, so I don't know the answer.

However, what does seem clear is that the school and team needs much more money to compete. I suppose we can all agree on that. I am making the assumption that the regular posters are attending a ton of game and donating to the program outside of buying season tickets in a big way... or at least I hope so.

The point is, if we can all agree that this team needs financial support to move this thing forward how can we make that happen. We are really only going to get one shot at this when the arena is renovated. Arguing 3 pointers vs free throws after a game is not helping move the program forward. How do we make the team better??? its by donating, and getting others to donate, who then bring their families to games etc. Is there an interest in this group in helping move the needle in that direction, in a big way?

[JoeFedorowicz]

La Salle needs more than the 25 or some odd posters on here. But this is the place for debate over three pointers. If you want to start a thread about fundraising, have at it.

[I was in LA, were you]

Joe, I think the way this team is constructed, the only way to steal some games is to keep pouring in the threes. We have 1 "sharp shooter" it would be nice if we had 3. On some nights we will have 2 or more shooters in a rhythm and we could outscore teams. We do NOT have one player who can somewhat consistently drive the lane and finish, everything is contested. On the other hand, how many uncontested layups have we given in this bad stretch? If we dont jack the threes then lets run like the old LMU. They sure were fun to at least watch back then.

[JoeFedorowicz]

Feb 4, 2024 20:02:53 GMT -5 I was in LA, were you said:

If we dont jack the threes then lets run like the old LMU. They sure were fun to at least watch back then.

They shot more threes than anyone though!

[thelasallelunatic]

Feb 4, 2024 19:43:02 GMT -5 lasallealum said:

This is a very interesting write up. I don't have much to offer in terms of game theory. I am a fan. My only preference is that La Salle wins. After following this and the St. Joes game thread it seems pretty clear that there is not going to be an agreement on the more 3's vs. less 3's debate. In the end, who cares. I'm not a coach, so I don't know the answer.

However, what does seem clear is that the school and team needs much more money to compete. I suppose we can all agree on that. I am making the assumption that the regular posters are attending a ton of game and donating to the program outside of buying season tickets in a big way... or at least I hope so.

The point is, if we can all agree that this team needs financial support to move this thing forward how can we make that happen. We are really only going to get one shot at this when the arena is renovated. Arguing 3 pointers vs free throws after a game is not helping move the program forward. How do we make the team better??? its by donating, and getting others to donate, who then bring their families to games etc. Is there an interest in this group in helping move the needle in that direction, in a big way?

I mean, all things considered, I donate a couple hundred bucks to La Salle per year. A mortgage and 3 kids, with a 4th on the way, and it's not a priority right now, or probably in the next 20 years if we're being frank. My wife and I do ok, but we don't have fuck you money to just throw it around.

I don't want to spin this thread off it's axis, but I will put 10K in Draftkings and piss it away before I give it to a 19 year old point guard or wing that's going to try and play for 30K at Duquesne or bounce around a couple of schools in the ACC until they're in their mid 20s and it's time to go be a pro.

Those of you that have the means, and want to contribute to collectives, God bless you...to each their own. I'm not contributing to the problem of making talented young athletes more entitled than they already are right now. I will donate hundreds to kids in Paulsboro that come from nothing, so they can attend summer camps.

***Disclaimer... I'm not against college athletes making money for endorsements, appearances, and camps/clinics. I'm 100% against collectives and the arms race that is to come if colleges are allowed to directly pay players. I think it will kill of the college athletic landscape outside of like 40 schools. I also think that non revenue Olympic male sports will be next to extinct. But the school presidents call it progress so....

Back to my original point, there's more of a chance that Cabrini re-opens than there is that I donate money to pay a 19 year old recruit. No fucking way.

[JoeFedorowicz]

We are not going to turn this into a "GIVE MORE MONEY ASSHOLES" thing. And please move any discussion around fundraising off my "shoot more threes please" thread. Thanks.

[kinesiology]

I agree 100% that Gill and Brantley should penetrate and kick a lot more than they do now.

But screen grabs showing a potentially open 3 that was not seen in the heat of action does not prove that the simple minded “shoot more 3s” is any kind of coherent strategy.

Screenshots of missed opportunities could be pulled from any game, at any level, from travel to pro, to lobby for whatever strategy you wanted.

[lasallealum]

Feb 4, 2024 20:54:12 GMT -5 thelasallelunatic said:

Feb 4, 2024 19:43:02 GMT -5 lasallealum said:

This is a very interesting write up. I don't have much to offer in terms of game theory. I am a fan. My only preference is that La Salle wins. After following this and the St. Joes game thread it seems pretty clear that there is not going to be an agreement on the more 3's vs. less 3's debate. In the end, who cares. I'm not a coach, so I don't know the answer.

However, what does seem clear is that the school and team needs much more money to compete. I suppose we can all agree on that. I am making the assumption that the regular posters are attending a ton of game and donating to the program outside of buying season tickets in a big way... or at least I hope so.

The point is, if we can all agree that this team needs financial support to move this thing forward how can we make that happen. We are really only going to get one shot at this when the arena is renovated. Arguing 3 pointers vs free throws after a game is not helping move the program forward. How do we make the team better??? its by donating, and getting others to donate, who then bring their families to games etc. Is there an interest in this group in helping move the needle in that direction, in a big way?

I mean, all things considered, I donate a couple hundred bucks to La Salle per year. A mortgage and 3 kids, with a 4th on the way, and it's not a priority right now, or probably in the next 20 years if we're being frank. My wife and I do ok, but we don't have fuck you money to just throw it around.

I don't want to spin this year off it's axis, but I will put 10K in Draftkings and piss it away before I give it to a 19 year old point guard or wing that's going to try and play for 30K at Duquesne or bounce around a couple of schools in the ACC until they're in their mid 20s and it's time to go be a pro.

Those of you that have the means, and want to contribute to collectives, God bless you...to each their own. I'm not contributing to the problem of making talented young athletes more entitled than they already are right now. I will donate hundreds to kids in Paulsboro that come from nothing, so they can attend summer camps.

***Disclaimer... I'm not against college athletes making money for endorsements, appearances, and camps/clinics. I'm 100% against collectives and the arms race that is to come if colleges are allowed to directly pay players. I think it will kill of the college athletic landscape outside of like 40 schools. I also think that non revenue Olympic male sports will be next to extinct. But the school presidents call it progress so....

Back to my original point, there's more of a chance that Cabrini re-opens than there is that I donate money to pay a 19 year old recruit. No fucking way.

Anything that you give is totally great especially with real life expenses like kids, mortgage and everything else. I totally get it, and didn’t mean to come off in any other way other than generally gauging support for giving to start a conversation.

[23won]

Good stuff Joe. Some points based on suggestions I have made here early and often

1) Jig needs to shoot whenever he is open and it is short of 25-28'. See 13:21, 12:50, 11:10 and 9:56. In the other thread, I said he disappeared in that bad stretch. He needs to do disappear less and can fix this by taking every open shot.

2) Gill and Brantley drive too often against 2 or more defenders without any plan but trying to bull their way against taller defenders. This doesn't work. They need to drive looking for shooters (Tunde, Marrero, Jig or Rokas if wide open) and these players have to set up in high percentage floor spots with better spacing

3) as to spacing and floor lack of awareness, see 6:44 pic and the two pics where everyone is overloaded to the right side (8:36 and 11:00).

4) don't put < 33% 3 shooters in a corner 3 setup (which is a very low percentage shot). see 4:39 and 4:06. I'd only rely on Tunde, Marrero & Jig to make those and if that is part of your plan, keep all 3 on the floor for large stretches

5) 8:36 is Exhibit A of what Gill tends to do and shouldn't do (besides shooting across his body)

6) I wouldn't support a 3 jack from players who can't hit threes consistently (Brantley, Shepherd and Gill) especially when down or with the game on the line, so I disagree with any of those related picture suggestions above.

I will restate my point in the SJU thread - take more quality 3s by players who can make them; do not just take more threes. Quality versus pure quantity

[GlitterBro #2]

Feb 4, 2024 21:05:41 GMT -5 kinesiology said:

I agree 100% that Gill and Brantley should penetrate and kick a lot more than they do now.

But screen grabs showing a potentially open 3 that was not seen in the heat of action does not prove that the simple minded “shoot more 3s” is any kind of coherent strategy.

Screenshots of missed opportunities could be pulled from any game, at any level, from travel to pro, to lobby for whatever strategy you wanted.

Exactly.  We could just as easily show dribbling down and shooting a 3 with 20 seconds left on the shot clock that misses the mark and results in a long rebound and transition basket the other way. It is easy to show some screenshots and say...should've kicked out here and the shot would've gone in. And just as easy to show all the times we've shot too quickly and missed instead of working the ball around. 

Here are the numbers plain and simple...that show we win more games when we shoot fewer 3's under Fran through almost 2 seasons. It becomes more pronounced in A10 play which is what our barometer should be.

Last season:

	Avg 3-pont attempts per game
All Wins	20.6
All Losses	21.9
Conference Wins	19.3
Conference Losses	22.3

This season (D1 games only):

	Avg 3-pont attempts per game
All Wins	23.7
All Losses	28.7
Conference Wins	17.0
Conference Losses	29.0

[JoeFedorowicz]

Feb 4, 2024 21:28:38 GMT -5 23won said:

take more quality 3s by players who can make them; do not just take more threes. Quality versus pure quantity

this isn’t realistic. There isn’t a ‘great’ shooter on the team. Some good shooters. Some average shooters. You’re missing the point that you can’t have your perfect strategy because it’s an imperfect lineup. A Brantley open three is better than a Brantley contested 10 footer. Every single time.

[JoeFedorowicz]

Feb 4, 2024 21:05:41 GMT -5 kinesiology said:

I agree 100% that Gill and Brantley should penetrate and kick a lot more than they do now.

But screen grabs showing a potentially open 3 that was not seen in the heat of action does not prove that the simple minded “shoot more 3s” is any kind of coherent strategy.

Screenshots of missed opportunities could be pulled from any game, at any level, from travel to pro, to lobby for whatever strategy you wanted.

This goes for Glitter too. I can’t pull tape. I had to jump through hoops to get the screenshots. In an over 10 minute stretch, I gave you 10 possessions where a better three-point shot could have been taken over what was taken. In that stretch, there were 21 possessions. Four of them ended in turnovers. So 17 possessions that ended in a shot. And I’m giving you evidence of 10 of them being bad possessions that could have been handled differently. Go watch the tape for yourself if you don’t believe me.

And your stats are fine. Keep grinding out teams from the mid-range and losing games to 85% of the A10. There’s not a thing I could show you that would change your mind.

[thelasallelunatic]

Feb 4, 2024 21:17:58 GMT -5 lasallealum said:

Feb 4, 2024 20:54:12 GMT -5 thelasallelunatic said:

I mean, all things considered, I donate a couple hundred bucks to La Salle per year. A mortgage and 3 kids, with a 4th on the way, and it's not a priority right now, or probably in the next 20 years if we're being frank. My wife and I do ok, but we don't have fuck you money to just throw it around.

I don't want to spin this year off it's axis, but I will put 10K in Draftkings and piss it away before I give it to a 19 year old point guard or wing that's going to try and play for 30K at Duquesne or bounce around a couple of schools in the ACC until they're in their mid 20s and it's time to go be a pro.

Those of you that have the means, and want to contribute to collectives, God bless you...to each their own. I'm not contributing to the problem of making talented young athletes more entitled than they already are right now. I will donate hundreds to kids in Paulsboro that come from nothing, so they can attend summer camps.

***Disclaimer... I'm not against college athletes making money for endorsements, appearances, and camps/clinics. I'm 100% against collectives and the arms race that is to come if colleges are allowed to directly pay players. I think it will kill of the college athletic landscape outside of like 40 schools. I also think that non revenue Olympic male sports will be next to extinct. But the school presidents call it progress so....

Back to my original point, there's more of a chance that Cabrini re-opens than there is that I donate money to pay a 19 year old recruit. No fucking way.

Anything that you give is totally great especially with real life expenses like kids, mortgage and everything else. I totally get it, and didn’t mean to come off in any other way other than generally gauging support for giving to start a conversation.

Welcome aboard... happy that you're on here. Didn't mean to start a pissing match. My apologies!

[23won]

Feb 4, 2024 21:43:41 GMT -5 JoeFedorowicz said:

Feb 4, 2024 21:28:38 GMT -5 23won said:

take more quality 3s by players who can make them; do not just take more threes. Quality versus pure quantity

this isn’t realistic. There isn’t a ‘great’ shooter on the team. Some good shooters. Some average shooters. You’re missing the point that you can’t have your perfect strategy because it’s an imperfect lineup. A Brantley open three is better than a Brantley contested 10 footer. Every single time.

It's totally realistic.  Good teams take quality shots.  You don't mark one great shooter.  You put three scorers on the floor at the same time (e.g., as above, Jig, Andres and Tunde) and you work the best shot.  It could include Rokas if wide open, which allows Brantley to drive without a rim protector doubling him.  That means you don't walk the ball up and chew into clock but you move with purpose up court and within an offensive set.

Want examples - Wright at Nova, Mc Killop SR at DC, Schmidt, Chaney at Temple (a bad shot is a turnover) and Majerus at SLU to name a few locals/conference teams.  Also Knight, Coach K, Mark Few; the list can go on.

The Nova example is telling as they have increased talent this year and should be better record wise but they fail to work for the open shot like they did under Wright.  Wright had drilled the good shot mentality into their head so well it was a thing of beauty to watch that offense.  Nova today, not so much ...  and they have a sub .500 BE record to prove it.

[JoeFedorowicz]

You’re listing teams that had ‘best of conference’ talent with the exception of McKillop who had talent that specifically did one thing well: shoot threes. You’re proving my point with him. His teams were outmatched athletically and he got more threes than basically everyone. His team was always top 50 and usually top 25 in three pointers attempted. You don’t get to pick and choose who shoots it though…that’s where you get turnovers. Where you get bad shots.

‘Getting a good shot’ isn’t an offense. It’s a daydream. And for La Salle, it’s often a nightmare because the defenders are just bigger and stronger. My argument is that the good shot for La Salle is the one that is more points and more often open.

[GlitterBro #2]

Feb 4, 2024 21:51:38 GMT -5 JoeFedorowicz said:

Feb 4, 2024 21:05:41 GMT -5 kinesiology said:

I agree 100% that Gill and Brantley should penetrate and kick a lot more than they do now.

But screen grabs showing a potentially open 3 that was not seen in the heat of action does not prove that the simple minded “shoot more 3s” is any kind of coherent strategy.

Screenshots of missed opportunities could be pulled from any game, at any level, from travel to pro, to lobby for whatever strategy you wanted.

This goes for Glitter too. I can’t pull tape. I had to jump through hoops to get the screenshots. In an over 10 minute stretch, I gave you 10 possessions where a better three-point shot could have been taken over what was taken. In that stretch, there were 21 possessions. Four of them ended in turnovers. So 17 possessions that ended in a shot. And I’m giving you evidence of 10 of them being bad possessions that could have been handled differently. Go watch the tape for yourself if you don’t believe me.

And your stats are fine. Keep grinding out teams from the mid-range and losing games to 85% of the A10. There’s not a thing I could show you that would change your mind.

I realize that data is like kryptonite to you, but the actual data on this under the Fran era is that, in aggregate, fewer 3 point attempts results in more wins, and this is more pronounced in conference play where we play the majority of our games.

In our conference losses this season, we average about 64 shots per game. 45% of those are 3s, and they fell at a 29.5% clip. We also only got to the foul line an average of 13 times a game. Why? Because we don't challenge the opposing team and make the ref blow the whistle, giving them a free pass chucking 3s that fall fewer than 1 out of 3 times. 

In our conference wins this season, we average 59 shots per game and only 29% were 3s. Those 3s fell at a 47% clip. We also got to the foul line an average of 21.5 times in those games.

Fewer 3s per game seems to allow us to shoot them better and get to the line more, putting other teams in foul trouble. We essentially put up an average of 12 more 3s in our losses...and the results from those 12 extra 3s was an average of 8.57 made per game as opposed to 8 in the wins. that translates to an extra 1.5 points per game on throwing up 12 more 3s per game in the losses. That's horrendous.

Jack up lots of 3s just doesn't work, Joe, no matter how many screen shots you post. And you're right...there's not a thing you can show me that would change my mind, because I base decisions on data and results. But if we start putting up 35 3s a game in conference and winning, then I will admit I was wrong. But you and I both know that won't happen, as does anyone with any basketball IQ.

[mookie]

Great piece of analysis, Joe.
I agree with you but at the same time, I don’t. I initially argued we need to cut down on 3s and then backtracked a little saying the analytics to some degree favors shooting more 3s.

I agree on the premise of shooting more 3s, i do not agree on a blind or green light bombs away. And I don’t think that’s what you’re saying but maybe I’m wrong.

I agree we should shoot more but I believe we need to also be more selective. For example, Gill/Shepherd/Brantley have shot below 30% from 3 just about every year of their career. Shepherd shot 40% his freshman year but with a very small sample size. He and Gill fall under the category of what I called as earning their 3s. Brantley shot 33% which essentially means that a team has to shoot about 49-50% from 2 in order to match the output of shooting 3s. That single season, it would make sense for him to shoot more 3s with a green light. However, 2 years of data now indicate that is more of an outlier so he needs to rein it in a bit. In fact, all 3 have been atrocious from 3 since conference play (Gill-16.7; Shepherd-18.5; Brantley-21.6). Unfortunately, they all have been shooting terrible from 2 and the best remediation and remedy for that is to actually get to the foul line.

Basically, only players who should have a green light are Brickus, Marrero, Fassasi and as much as I hate to say this, Zan/Jocious. As far as ball handlers, it helps but having 2 strong handlers is great but the rest are sufficient. The team needs more creativity and movement so that players can get open looks whether from screens or something else.

[thelasallelunatic]

Feb 5, 2024 8:31:40 GMT -5 JoeFedorowicz said:

You’re listing teams that had ‘best of conference’ talent with the exception of McKillop who had talent that specifically did one thing well: shoot threes. You’re proving my point with him. His teams were outmatched athletically and he got more threes than basically everyone. His team was always top 50 and usually top 25 in three pointers attempted. You don’t get to pick and choose who shoots it though…that’s where you get turnovers. Where you get bad shots.

‘Getting a good shot’ isn’t an offense. It’s a daydream. And for La Salle, it’s often a nightmare because the defenders are just bigger and stronger. My argument is that the good shot for La Salle is the one that is more points and more often open.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you want to play like that D3 school that has to get a shot up within 10 seconds of the possession? The school escapes me, but they score a bunch. It's a gimmicky way to play, but I will listen. Every game will basically become a gamble, and we are either going to shoot our way into games or shoot ourselves out of games.

I don't know, Joe, but I'm willing to hear you out.

[nealum]

With an offense that runs plays that counter the defense, the offensive players work to get open and aren't always taking a 'contested shot'. The comment 'getting a good shot isn't an offense" is wrong.

In the last frame in your pics above, 4 of the 5 LaSalle players are all making an effort to stay behind the 3-pt line. None are in position for a rebound. The player receiving the pass in the corner (#3) is Gill, who has the worst 3-point shooting percentage on the team (.213). He easily could have accepted the pass closer to the basket for a higher percentage shot. Or drove to the basket.

It's not the players fault here. It's the coaching staff. There is no intelligent offense.

[JoeFedorowicz]

Feb 5, 2024 9:04:23 GMT -5 thelasallelunatic said:

Feb 5, 2024 8:31:40 GMT -5 JoeFedorowicz said:

You’re listing teams that had ‘best of conference’ talent with the exception of McKillop who had talent that specifically did one thing well: shoot threes. You’re proving my point with him. His teams were outmatched athletically and he got more threes than basically everyone. His team was always top 50 and usually top 25 in three pointers attempted. You don’t get to pick and choose who shoots it though…that’s where you get turnovers. Where you get bad shots.

‘Getting a good shot’ isn’t an offense. It’s a daydream. And for La Salle, it’s often a nightmare because the defenders are just bigger and stronger. My argument is that the good shot for La Salle is the one that is more points and more often open.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you want to play like that D3 school that has to get a shot up within 10 seconds of the possession? The school escapes me, but they score a bunch. It's a gimmicky way to play, but I will listen. Every game will basically become a gamble, and we are either going to shoot our way into games or shoot ourselves out of games.

I don't know, Joe, but I'm willing to hear you out.

Where did I say that. I provided screenshots that within the current offense, opportunities are there where a three pointer should be prioritized over what instead occurred. That's all I'm saying. You don't need to rush the three, but the point of the offense should...at least in my opinion...be geared to creating three pointers over all else. If they give Brantley an open layup, by all means take it. But when three or four guys drop on him at the foul line, he shouldn't be permitted to take a fading 13 footer. Gill can't just barrel into the center. Which is what happened in the second half yesterday.

[JoeFedorowicz]

Feb 5, 2024 9:02:21 GMT -5 mookie said:

Basically, only players who should have a green light are Brickus, Marrero, Fassasi and as much as I hate to say this, Zan/Jocious. As far as ball handlers, it helps but having 2 strong handlers is great but the rest are sufficient. The team needs more creativity and movement so that players can get open looks whether from screens or something else.

You're close, but this is the jump I'm making. They're going to bait the guys not in your list into doing the thing that they want them to do. I believe that all of these guys can shoot better than they have been except Jig, who is shooting out of his mind right now. You don't put that chokehold on anyone. If they are that bad, they shouldn't be out there anyway.

Jocius is shooting 26% from three this year on 19 attempts. Brantley is shooting 28% on 96 attempts. Zan is 31% on 13 attempts. Why you'd single out one of those guys is interesting to me.

[giveansk1]

kenpom.com/team.php?team=La+Salle
barttorvik.com/team.php?year=2024&team=La+Salle

I encourage those that don't to visit KenPom and Bartorvik more often to look at advance stats. La Salle is shooting 33.9% from 3 (174th in country) and and 41.7% of FGA are 3s (74th). La Salle is shooting 47.5% from 2 (288th) and to make matters worse is not getting to the FT line (340th in country). Now if La Salle shot more twos they would generate more free throws as well as more offensive rebounds, but the reality is the team is justified shooting the 3s they do. Brickus and Brantley are your ball handlers and drivers but are they going to finish at the rim often enough or generate enough fouls to justify the shift in 3s to 2s? The harsh truth is the team isn't good and one way teams that are talent and size deficient to compete is to increase variance and fire more 3s. What the team probably needs is to distribute the 3's to better shooters when possible.

Brantley is a playmaker but takes too many contested long twos including some early in shot clock. He needs to stop that and as only a 30% lifetime three point shooter needs to shoot less of them. He can make these tweaks and still not see a huge impact to his usage.

Brickus is lifetime 38% 3 Point shooter and is even better this year so fire away. Tunde and Marrero are both over 38% at high volume and should do the same.

Gill is a great defender but lifetime 27% from 3 and should shoot less of them. Sheppard is lifetime 28% and should also shoot less.

I don't have a synergy account but the team certainly does and they can break down shooting percentages from various spots on the floor, catch and shoot %, off dribble. I am willing to bet they are doing this, but I wonder how they communicate it to the team.

[JoeFedorowicz]

Feb 5, 2024 9:01:26 GMT -5 GlitterBro #2 said:

I realize that data is like kryptonite to you, but the actual data on this under the Fran era is that, in aggregate, fewer 3 point attempts results in more wins, and this is more pronounced in conference play where we play the majority of our games.

Ok. I believe that you're using the wrong data. And your ceiling is limited to these wins:

(net ratings)

Drexel - 109
GW - 160
Fordham - 179
Penn - 210
Northeastern - 243
Bucknell - 290
Lafayette - 299
Southern Indiana - 331
Loyola MD - 348
Coppin St - 360

You want to stand tall on 10 wins that have an average net rating of 253? Yeah lets keep doing the stuff that you recommend. Makes total sense if the goal is to finish with 13 wins and 12th in the A10.

[JoeFedorowicz]

Feb 5, 2024 9:36:12 GMT -5 giveansk1 said:

The harsh truth is the team isn't good and one way teams that are talent and size deficient to compete is to increase variance and fire more 3s. What the team probably needs is to distribute the 3's to better shooters when possible.

👌🏻

[JoeFedorowicz]

Feb 5, 2024 9:10:51 GMT -5 nealum said:

He easily could have accepted the pass closer to the basket for a higher percentage shot. Or drove to the basket.

I presented like five examples of where for Gill specifically the closer to the basket shot is not, in fact, higher percentage. That's my point.