|
|
Post by mookie on Feb 5, 2024 9:52:51 GMT -5
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. Thanks for calling me out on Zan and Jocious. I was looking at the conference numbers for Zan and Jocious where those numbers were higher than the full season numbers so it wasn’t exactly an apples to apples comparison, by accident. That being said, I think shooting 32% and up is a key metric to be aware of as I think shooting 32% from 3 nets you the same output at shooting ~48% from 2. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Feb 5, 2024 10:02:01 GMT -5
Brantley is shooting 43% on two pointers this season.
|
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Feb 5, 2024 10:20:31 GMT -5
Ok. I believe that you're using the wrong data. My data came from here, so if this is wrong data, please provide an alternative source: www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/la-salle/men/2024-gamelogs.html And your ceiling is limited to these wins: (net ratings) Drexel - 109 (15 3s at a 40.0% clip)GW - 160 (19 3s at a 52.6% clip)Fordham - 179 (15 3s at a 40% clip)Penn - 210 Northeastern - 243 Bucknell - 290 Lafayette - 299 Southern Indiana - 331 Loyola MD - 348 Coppin St - 360 And we have losses to teams with the following triple-digit NET scores: Temple - 255 (shot 31 3s at a 29.0% clip) Howard - 283 (shot 28 3s at a 28.6% clip) Rhode Island - 206 (shot 31 3s at a 25.8% clip) I'm not sure what your point is regarding the NET scores here other than proving mine (I added the 3 pt attempt stats to your quote for the teams with higher NET ratings than us since that should be the target and we only have 1 game left against a lower rated NET team). We have wins against higher rated NET teams when we take fewer 3s, and losses to lower rated NET teams when we take more. Makes total sense if the goal is to finish with 13 wins and 12th in the A10. What is our goal right now? We are in 14th place, predicted to finish 15th. 12th would be overachieving. Again, Joe...the data shows taking more 3s doesn't work against the teams we will be playing for the remainder of the season (SLU aside). |
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Feb 5, 2024 10:23:14 GMT -5
I did not, at any point, utilize data to get to my argument. It is a framework shift, not a tinkering. If 12th or 14th in the A10 is great for you then what are we even doing here.
|
|
|
|
Post by 23won on Feb 5, 2024 10:28:14 GMT -5
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. The bold response is just wacky logic, so I will not engage any longer except for the following. Posters other than you agree with me, not you, so I'll just leave it at that. If the stats quoted above are correct that "Gill/Shepherd/Brantley ... have been atrocious from 3 since conference play (Gill-16.7; Shepherd-18.5; Brantley-21.6)" that proves my point. They can't be efficient from beyond the 3-line with A10 defenses. Whatever other overall higher 3 point stats they have for the season )against Rosemont and low net D1 teams) are meaningless. They shouldn't be taking 3s in A10 play but should focus on two things (1) setting screens for, or passing to, three shooters who can make shots (see my suggestions above) ideally in an open catch and shoot position or (2) exercise self-discipline to take 2 point shots they can make. We've lost a lot of close games, improving by decreasing bad shots by 6 per game can swing an outcome from L to W. Even if that focus is made only in the second half, we will do much better. |
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Feb 5, 2024 10:33:06 GMT -5
I did not, at any point, utilize data to get to my argument. It is a framework shift, not a tinkering. If 12th or 14th in the A10 is great for you then what are we even doing here. If you didn't use data, than I'm not sure why you called out mine as incorrect. Regardless, it's not great. No one thinks it is. I don't have aspirations for us winning the A10 this year or even finishing out of the PIG, but maybe shooting fewer 3s gets us more wins and higher than 14th. Rhode Island and St. Joe's at home were wins the team should've had and we were out-coached and played Ash-ball. Win both of those and we are sitting tied for 6th instead of in 14th. We took over 30 3s in both of those games which were winnable games. In our lone 2 A10 wins, we took under 20. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Feb 5, 2024 10:33:38 GMT -5
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. The bold response is just wacky logic, so I will not engage any longer except for the following. What is wacky about the fact that you used Davidson to prove a point when it instead, in fact, exactly what I'm arguing they should do. You guys are spouting off CYO stuff like "work the ball around" and "set screens to get a good shot" that is just not real life to me. Perhaps I am off base, but watching that second half Saturday solidified my belief. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Feb 5, 2024 10:35:47 GMT -5
I did not, at any point, utilize data to get to my argument. It is a framework shift, not a tinkering. If 12th or 14th in the A10 is great for you then what are we even doing here. If you didn't use data, than I'm not sure why you called out mine as incorrect. Regardless, it's not great. No one thinks it is. I don't have aspirations for us winning the A10 this year or even finishing out of the PIG, but maybe shooting fewer 3s gets us more wins and higher than 14th. Rhode Island and St. Joe's at home were wins the team should've had and we were out-coached and played Ash-ball. Win both of those and we are sitting tied for 6th instead of in 14th. We took over 30 3s in both of those games which were winnable games. In our lone 2 A10 wins, we took under 20. I shouldn't have used incorrect. I'll change that to irrelevant. At least to me. And we are both entitled to our opinions. I just happen to think very strongly that the best this team could finish doing what they've been doing (but better, I guess) is middle of the pack. And that's if all things go right. |
|
|
|
Post by mookie on Feb 5, 2024 10:39:55 GMT -5
Brantley is shooting 43% on two pointers this season. Yes but if you take his numbers to make it apple to apples… ~14 shots per game 43.3% for 2 = 11.3 ppg 28.1% for 3 = 10.9 ppg While close to same, he then loses out on the almost 4ppg from the FT line if he shoots more 3s. At 78% for his career annd 80% this season, he clearly has a strength for getting to the line and making his FTs which are essentially free points. Also, I get looking at the FG% on the season but his season numbers are boosted by his OOC performances. With almost half of A10 play done, he needs to make some adjustments and reign it in until he starts shooting better. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Feb 5, 2024 10:41:41 GMT -5
How many turnovers do they prevent if he's not slashing aimlessly through the lane. One per game? Two? More?
|
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Feb 5, 2024 10:43:46 GMT -5
If you didn't use data, than I'm not sure why you called out mine as incorrect. Regardless, it's not great. No one thinks it is. I don't have aspirations for us winning the A10 this year or even finishing out of the PIG, but maybe shooting fewer 3s gets us more wins and higher than 14th. Rhode Island and St. Joe's at home were wins the team should've had and we were out-coached and played Ash-ball. Win both of those and we are sitting tied for 6th instead of in 14th. We took over 30 3s in both of those games which were winnable games. In our lone 2 A10 wins, we took under 20. I shouldn't have used incorrect. I'll change that to irrelevant. At least to me. And we are both entitled to our opinions. I just happen to think very strongly that the best this team could finish doing what they've been doing (but better, I guess) is middle of the pack. And that's if all things go right. I love how data - actual data - like facts and numbers - are, in your words, " irrelevant" when they don't conform to what you "believe". First my data was incorrect, but when I provided a source, it was deemed "irrelevant". Like I said, Joe...data is your kryptonite. You are certainly entitled to your non data-driven opinion though, and I'm sure the readers here that developed critical-thinking skills will ascribe the right level of worth to such an opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by mookie on Feb 5, 2024 10:45:16 GMT -5
How many turnovers do they prevent if he's not slashing aimlessly through the lane. One per game? Two? More? Good question. He’s currently only turning it over 2x a game. But the same for 3s, I’m not saying aimlessly slash, be selective. I’m not opposed to shooting wide open 3s unless your name happens to be Gill and Shepherd just as I’m not saying blindly slash more. Take what the defense gives but when someone is shooting as poorly as they are currently, a 3pt attempt is the equivalent of a TO. The numbers analytically are there to support it. Thus why I say use the analytics to your benefit. Some players need to earn their 3 point attempts while others have a green light. Side note: generally speaking I agree with you and the offense you speak of would be fun and entertaining. There are obvious risks on nights when you miss everything (it happens) but I just don’t feel this team has the horses to execute that kind of an offense successfully. To me, it plays more to their weaknesses than it does their strengths, and for many, their capabilities. Which is fine, shooting 32-35% from 3 isn’t easy and there’s a ton of NBA players and college players who can’t even do that. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Feb 5, 2024 10:46:37 GMT -5
I shouldn't have used incorrect. I'll change that to irrelevant. At least to me. And we are both entitled to our opinions. I just happen to think very strongly that the best this team could finish doing what they've been doing (but better, I guess) is middle of the pack. And that's if all things go right. I love how data - actual data - like facts and numbers - are, in your words, " irrelevant" when they don't conform to what you "believe". First my data was incorrect, but when I provided a source, it was deemed "irrelevant". Like I said, Joe...data is your kryptonite. You are certainly entitled to your non data-driven opinion though, and I'm sure the readers here that developed critical-thinking skills will ascribe the right level of worth to such an opinion. Again man, your opinion. Have at it. |
|
|
|
Post by explorer88 on Feb 5, 2024 10:46:58 GMT -5
IMO The answer to our issues is not simply shooting more 3's. Joe has some good points but all the answers are not in that vacuum.
Do we win if we have Gill and Brantley shoot 30 3's? Of course not.
It matter who shoots the 3's.
You can't come unglued and make poor decisions when a team makes a run.
Can't miss free throws at a poor percentage.
Can allow rebounds off missed free throws
Need Gill and Brantley to dish to open shooter when they drive
Need Rokas to be better. More involved, more aggressive, stay out of foul trouble
Need Brickus to be more aggressive at time.
Need Shepherd to defend better
Need Shepherd to play overall better.
Need Marrero to defend better
Some need to take better shots
Some need to take more shots and more 3's
We need more depth and talent
We need to stop giving up easy shots at the rim
All of these have been mentioned and probably a few more we missed. Any numerous reasons can contribute to a loss or bunch of losses.
We need more shooters to shoot more 3's. We need more toughness in the frontcourt. We need Brantley to lead this team more consistently and help Brickus. We need Shepherd to flat out be a better player to earn those minutes. We need Gill to make smarter decisions. We need to play more poised and smarter at key moments in the game.
All of these are in the mixture to make a better tasting soup. I think the more of these things that happen the more we will win.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd on Feb 5, 2024 10:50:57 GMT -5
Joe, you missed your calling... you should have a discussion with Fran. In all seriousness though the coaches may have told the guys to hoist open treys but they may have decided not to based on who they thought they could get the ball to. The best laid plans of coaches sometimes go awry.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Feb 5, 2024 10:51:37 GMT -5
How many turnovers do they prevent if he's not slashing aimlessly through the lane. One per game? Two? More? Good question. He’s currently only turning it over 2x a game. But the same for 3s, I’m not saying aimlessly slash, be selective. I’m not opposed to shooting wide open 3s unless your name happens to be Gill and Shepherd just as I’m not saying blindly slash more. Take what the defense gives but when someone is shooting as poorly as they are currently, a 3pt attempt is the equivalent of a TO. The numbers analytically are there to support it. So take a Gill who is currently 21% from three and 47% from two on roughly 28mpg. Is he unplayable? He's taking 10 of 63 shots out there or almost 16%. He takes about 70% of his shots from two. Shepherd (51% from two, 27% from three) is closer to 50/50 on over eight shots a game. It's a lot of missed shots. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Feb 5, 2024 10:52:43 GMT -5
Joe, you missed your calling My calling as message board blowhard is well filled. |
|
|
|
Post by mookie on Feb 5, 2024 10:58:28 GMT -5
Good question. He’s currently only turning it over 2x a game. But the same for 3s, I’m not saying aimlessly slash, be selective. I’m not opposed to shooting wide open 3s unless your name happens to be Gill and Shepherd just as I’m not saying blindly slash more. Take what the defense gives but when someone is shooting as poorly as they are currently, a 3pt attempt is the equivalent of a TO. The numbers analytically are there to support it. So take a Gill who is currently 21% from three and 47% from two on roughly 28mpg. Is he unplayable? He's taking 10 of 63 shots out there or almost 16%. He takes about 70% of his shots from two. Shepherd (51% from two, 27% from three) is closer to 50/50 on over eight shots a game. It's a lot of missed shots. Not exactly following but wouldn’t say either of those guys are unplayable. They just shouldn’t 3s or even take long 2s. Gill is effective at slashing and playing D. He’d be a great 3andD guy but he’s not a good 3pt shooter which makes him a liability if that’s what you ask him to do. Shepherd would be another great 3andD guy but same story for him as well. Shepherd isn’t a great slasher but his athleticism can change the momentum of a game so finding him open looks through cutting and whatnot is how you’ll get the most out of him offensively, not shooting 3s. If you want that to be part of his game then he really needs to hit the practice floor hard during the offseason because right now he’s not improving according to conference play. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd on Feb 5, 2024 11:00:11 GMT -5
Joe, you missed your calling My calling as message board blowhard is well filled. We all bleed blue and gold here... after 2 losses to the Hawks we are bleeding more than I thought possible. |
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Feb 5, 2024 11:05:49 GMT -5
Good question. He’s currently only turning it over 2x a game. But the same for 3s, I’m not saying aimlessly slash, be selective. I’m not opposed to shooting wide open 3s unless your name happens to be Gill and Shepherd just as I’m not saying blindly slash more. Take what the defense gives but when someone is shooting as poorly as they are currently, a 3pt attempt is the equivalent of a TO. The numbers analytically are there to support it. So take a Gill who is currently 21% from three and 47% from two on roughly 28mpg. Is he unplayable? He's taking 10 of 63 shots out there or almost 16%. He takes about 70% of his shots from two. Shepherd (51% from two, 27% from three) is closer to 50/50 on over eight shots a game. It's a lot of missed shots. Those numbers are even worse in conference play. Gill (granted he was hurt for many of the games so smaller sample size) - 1 for 6 from 3 (16.7%); 7 for 27 from 2 (25.9%); 4 for 6 from the line (66.7%); 21 minutes per game average Shepherd - 5 for 27 from 3 (18.5%); 18 for 49 from 2 (36.7%); 19 for 29 from the line (65.5%); 30 minutes per game average More 3s isn't the answer in conference play where the numbers are significantly worse. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Feb 5, 2024 11:07:59 GMT -5
I think I'd make the argument that Gill is unplayable right now. Can't throw it in the ocean from three and just ineffective from two. He's out there to play defense, but too much offense involves him with the ball. At least from what I saw Saturday.
|
|
|
|
Post by mookie on Feb 5, 2024 11:11:24 GMT -5
I think I'd make the argument that Gill is unplayable right now. Can't throw it in the ocean from three and just ineffective from two. He's out there to play defense, but too much offense involves him with the ball. At least from what I saw Saturday. Tough to argue with you on Gill given the results…tbh. |
|
|
|
Post by weston2 on Feb 5, 2024 11:17:08 GMT -5
Very few talk about playing Defense. That's what the infatuation with the 3 plays out. D turned the game around for SJU.
|
|
|
|
Post by 23won on Feb 5, 2024 13:09:01 GMT -5
The bold response is just wacky logic, so I will not engage any longer except for the following. What is wacky about the fact that you used Davidson to prove a point when it instead, in fact, exactly what I'm arguing they should do. You guys are spouting off CYO stuff like "work the ball around" and "set screens to get a good shot" that is just not real life to me. Perhaps I am off base, but watching that second half Saturday solidified my belief. DC is just one of a handful I called out. What about the Nova point pre and post Jay? |
|
|
|
Post by 23won on Feb 5, 2024 13:14:19 GMT -5
So take a Gill who is currently 21% from three and 47% from two on roughly 28mpg. Is he unplayable? He's taking 10 of 63 shots out there or almost 16%. He takes about 70% of his shots from two. Shepherd (51% from two, 27% from three) is closer to 50/50 on over eight shots a game. It's a lot of missed shots. Those numbers are even worse in conference play. Gill (granted he was hurt for many of the games so smaller sample size) - 1 for 6 from 3 (16.7%); 7 for 27 from 2 (25.9%); 4 for 6 from the line (66.7%); 21 minutes per game average Shepherd - 5 for 27 from 3 (18.5%); 18 for 49 from 2 (36.7%); 19 for 29 from the line (65.5%); 30 minutes per game average More 3s isn't the answer in conference play where the numbers are significantly worse. It's like telling poor people to buy more lottery tickets to fix their financial situation. Joe's like "keep on scratchin ..." |
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Feb 5, 2024 13:26:12 GMT -5
What is wacky about the fact that you used Davidson to prove a point when it instead, in fact, exactly what I'm arguing they should do. You guys are spouting off CYO stuff like "work the ball around" and "set screens to get a good shot" that is just not real life to me. Perhaps I am off base, but watching that second half Saturday solidified my belief. DC is just one of a handful I called out. What about the Nova point pre and post Jay? Sorry I just don't get your argument. Is it that coaching needs to be better to improve at both La Salle and Villanova? Villanova has a roster of 4+ star recruits. How can you use them as a comp to anything we're talking about here? |
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on Feb 5, 2024 13:44:31 GMT -5
I don't know where I stand on the actual argument about shooting more 3's, but "We just need to get good shots, not turn it over, play good defense, make good passes, grab rebounds, and get to the line" isn't going to happen with our roster. It's like saying "we need to recruit 5 star players and get them to stay at La Salle for 4 years."
Gotta do something unconventional or just accept 12-14 wins is going to be end result more often than not.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelasallelunatic on Feb 5, 2024 14:56:39 GMT -5
I don't know where I stand on the actual argument about shooting more 3's, but "We just need to get good shots, not turn it over, play good defense, make good passes, grab rebounds, and get to the line" isn't going to happen with our roster. It's like saying "we need to recruit 5 star players and get them to stay at La Salle for 4 years." Gotta do something unconventional so just accept 12-14 wins is going to be end result more often than not. Are you trying to say or**** instead of so accept 12 to 14 wins? |
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on Feb 5, 2024 15:32:08 GMT -5
Yes. I meant OR. Sorry. I’m a dope.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelasallelunatic on Feb 5, 2024 21:28:41 GMT -5
Yes. I meant OR. Sorry. I’m a dope. I'm also a dope, so no judgement here... |
|
