Why is that a problem when we are talking percentage? 600 guys would be less than 2 a team. We would only have 2 guys qualify right now at 1.5 a game. As common as the 3 is right now, I would think you would get a much better idea of who the good shooters are if you went to 1.5 a game. So, if a guy has played 15 games, you don't think 23 made 3s shows he shoots the 3 and should qualify?
Don't sleep on Roche
- Thread starter MountainSpider
- Start date
I didn't say it was a problem. I completely agree the threshold should be dropped. I don't have a strong feeling about whether 2.0 or 1.5 would be "better," so I was just tossing out how lowering it would change the number of eligible guys since I was curious.
I think lowering the makes threshold solves the issue though. If you make it 1.5 or 2.0 makes, then both of the guys are on the list.
If you base it on attempts and set it at 5.0 just as an example, both guys are still on there but you'll also get guys who shoot 1-for-5 on average.
If you use makes, the only way you get on the list at all if you're a bad shooter is if you have really high volume. If you base it on attempts you can get on the list by being a bad shooter at lower volume.
I really don't think it's a big deal either way. A longer list based on attempts with bad shooters down at the bottom is fine. But I also don't think basing on makes (with a lower threshold than current) is a problem.
So Lamar Wright of SIUE is #1
Year 1 0 for 0 in 17 games
Year 2 0 for 2 in 25 games
Year 3 5 for 16 in 30 games
Year 4 12 for 25 in 12 games (This year)
🤣
Shriver is 5-for-7 from three today as VCU is cruising over Davidson. (The whole team is 14-for-23 from deep.)
I think it's going to be one of those years in conference where most of the teams can look really really good one night, and then pretty bad the next game.
And often the home team looking good, hopefully including tonight.
How many true road games has the entire A-10 won this season? (Not just conference games)
Interesting, he was struggling and the coach still had enough confidence to give him to opportunity to take 5+ attempts. Clearly he trusted him as a player. Somehow our 45% 3 point shooter can't even manage more than 2-3 a game. What does that say about Mooney? Unreal...
Don't care how poorly he shot on the whole tonight, Roche was there when it counted, all in front of his Dad who made the trip! He's earned more time
??? I wouldn't mind more 3s from Roche, but he averages just under five 3s a game, and has shot 3 or less in only 4 of the 16 games.
We begged for the ROACH all year and finally got him in to get our first close game win.
Another game, another lack of Roche playtime. 60% from 3 and 19 minutes. What a Mooney masterclass
Couldn't afford to have him in there too much messing up our stellar second-half defense.
Mooney “I really should get him in the game more”
i think much is the problem of dribble penetration and no kick out to Shooter . When I am watching many times the pass is not made from out of control head down dribble . hard work to make fade to corner fade to top of key trailing three in secondary break needs practice to break aau habit of head down here i go . i know it is hard for coaches and players who never play much in their past with such a Shooter in making options like this into this offense but head down dribble not give it up needs a fix for success this season. I am to start penetrate and dish miss numbers now on to see. I am emjoying this team with the new players I think with good talents and think we can do it and need to work even smarter as a team.
So basically Mooney needs to coach up Jaynel on keeping his head up and finding the shooter. Do it Mooney, or don't.
Well, for this to work consistently, Nelson will have to always draw a double team when he drives, forcing Roche's or another shooter's man to leave him. And, I just don't think this will happen that much. This doesn't even always happen with the best, senior, NBA ready PGs out there because if you don't double, not only do you stay with the shooters out there and protect against the open 3, but you still force the PG to beat his man every time, and then finish at the rim every time, all for just a 2 pointer. So, if you are playing us, would you double Nelson when he penetrates?
I agree Roche needs more minutes, and I would take them from Goose. Goose with 32 minutes yesterday and 0 points. In our other conference loss, he had 36 minutes and 0 points. Goose provides outstanding defense, and I still want him out there a good amount, but it is just asking way too much from everyone else when you have a guy play that much and not score. I still want him starting to keep a good scoring opponent from getting off to good start, and he can still give us a huge defensive game by playing maybe 25-27 minutes. So far IC, Goose has played 36, 32, 34, 27, and 32 minutes. Roche has played 13, 18, 16, 15, and 19 minutes. These need to be closer. Just 5 minutes each way turns that into 31, 27, 29, 22, and 27 for Goose and 18, 23, 21, 20, and 24 for Roche, and it could be argued that it should maybe be even more than 5 minutes each way.
If Goose is out there stopping his guy like he does, and we are clicking on defense, and have a nice lead, fine, keep him at 30+ minutes that game. But, that will not always be the case, and Roche needs to be out there more when things are not clicking.
As often is the case, fezz making a good observation. The only two guys who drive with any regularity outside Burton are JayNel and goose. JayNel at least has a plan but too often gets stuffed, goose has no plan from what I see, he’ll often do this looping drive and toss up a low percentage bank rather than be more direct and maybe draw a foul.
It’s not a good part of our game.
Don’t worry, Mooney is content to do absolutely nothing to change any of it.
Is “change” a banned word in our bb program?
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
I love Goose, I really do but I have lost count of the lay-up's I have personally seen him miss just this season
Mooney must have his own mental version of RPIM that somehow values Roche less than most of us do. Even allowing for that, is there any possible justification for not playing him late in games when we are losing by multiple buckets? It is precisely at that time when Roche's value is at its highest since he can so quickly cut down that deficit.
Similar threads
