ADVERTISEMENT

Positives from games so far...

urmite said:
Is the % of shots that are threes increasing in the NBA over the last 20 years? If so I would expect that scoring off of each offensive rebound may have been decreasing as well.
Click to expand...

This is some good insight. It looks like there is a very, very string correlation between the % of shots that are 3s and the offensive rebounding percentages in the NBA:


The correlation also shows up for college basketball but is not as strong:


The NBA has seen a much bigger shift towards 3FGs and also a much larger decrease in offensive rebounding, which is probably why the correlation between the two stands out more than it does for college basketball.
 
December 18: After JMU win...

Clearly the best news from the JMU game was that Jacob started taking more open 3-point shots, which he needs to do for us to win games. He also was willing to take one of the biggest shots for us this season, at the end of the game.

I just took a peek at our individual statistics so far this season, and a few items jumped out at me.
1. Jacob's statistics so far this season are VERY close to matching ShawnDre's final overall stats from last season. For example, both have very similar minutes played (SDJ=36 and JG=35), both have very similar 3-point shooting %s (39% for both), both have very similar FT% also (82 vs 81). And more importantly, both have similar assist-to-turnover ratios (both very close to 2-1). However, JG has SDJ had 32 steals for the season (35 games) and JG has 24 already, which means JG is projected to get at least double the steals of SDJ. Bottom line: Other than experience, JG brings to the table very similar skills (and stats) to SDJ.
2. Grant's stats are similar to TJs in several ways too, but he clearly does not YET replace TJ statistically. Both TJ and Grant are team leaders in scoring, both are playing similar minutes (TJ= 32.6, GG= 31.5), both are close to 50% from the field (TJ= 52%, GG= 49%), and both rebound well for our team (TJ= 7.8, GG=5.8). Both are also close in defensive stats (TJ= 1/g and GG=.8/g). GG also is a far better shot-blocker TJ=8 for the season, and GG now at 14, and projected to get to about 40. I also believe they will finish the season with similar FT%s, although Grant is currently behind (69% vs. 58%). The one area where they are not yet comparable is in assists per game and A/TO ratio, where TJ was outstanding. Overall, GG is likely producing at a far higher level than TJ did in his first year with us, and is looking similar to TJ's senior year stats. GG also leads TJ in 3-point shooting % (TJ=32%, GG= 34%). We cannot complain about GG's stats so far, after 10 games. He should continue to improve.
3. We now have close to enough stats to project final season 3-point shooting %s, and they very closely match the observations of anyone who has watched a number of practices. Overall I expect JG (39%) and NS (37%) to lead the team in 3-point %, and that is where they are now. This does suggest, however, that some of our guys should be taking more 3-point shots (JG and NS) and others should be taking less (Buck=30% and KF=14%). And, a few of our guys should probably not be taking hardly any 3-point shots (Solly at 16%, and arguably KF at 14%). We also have some guys who are respectable shooters who should be taking more 3s than KF (GG at 34% and JJ at 32%). The biggest take-aways are that we need much better shot-selection on our 3-point shots and should leave this to our three starters who have the best shooting touch (and %), in NS, JG, and GG). The take-away is that we now know who should probably be taking more 3-point shots and who should be taking less. Getting this right could win us a few more games.
The biggest danger is using statistics is to rely on small sample sizes. However, we now have enough games under our belt to arrive at some statistically valid inferences/conclusions. My hope is that the coaches are encouraging JG and Nick to take more open 3-point shots and to encourage Buck, KF and Solly to be a bit more selective, and to drive to the hoop a bit more often. . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarolinaSpider
Spideroldie said:
December 18: After JMU win...

Clearly the best news from the JMU game was that Jacob started taking more open 3-point shots, which he needs to do for us to win games. He also was willing to take one of the biggest shots for us this season, at the end of the game.

I just took a peek at our individual statistics so far this season, and a few items jumped out at me.
1. Jacob's statistics so far this season are VERY close to matching ShawnDre's final overall stats from last season. For example, both have very similar minutes played (SDJ=36 and JG=35), both have very similar 3-point shooting %s (39% for both), both have very similar FT% also (82 vs 81). And more importantly, both have similar assist-to-turnover ratios (both very close to 2-1). However, JG has SDJ had 32 steals for the season (35 games) and JG has 24 already, which means JG is projected to get at least double the steals of SDJ. Bottom line: Other than experience, JG brings to the table very similar skills (and stats) to SDJ.
2. Grant's stats are similar to TJs in several ways too, but he clearly does not YET replace TJ statistically. Both TJ and Grant are team leaders in scoring, both are playing similar minutes (TJ= 32.6, GG= 31.5), both are close to 50% from the field (TJ= 52%, GG= 49%), and both rebound well for our team (TJ= 7.8, GG=5.8). Both are also close in defensive stats (TJ= 1/g and GG=.8/g). GG also is a far better shot-blocker TJ=8 for the season, and GG now at 14, and projected to get to about 40. I also believe they will finish the season with similar FT%s, although Grant is currently behind (69% vs. 58%). The one area where they are not yet comparable is in assists per game and A/TO ratio, where TJ was outstanding. Overall, GG is likely producing at a far higher level than TJ did in his first year with us, and is looking similar to TJ's senior year stats. GG also leads TJ in 3-point shooting % (TJ=32%, GG= 34%). We cannot complain about GG's stats so far, after 10 games. He should continue to improve.
3. We now have close to enough stats to project final season 3-point shooting %s, and they very closely match the observations of anyone who has watched a number of practices. Overall I expect JG (39%) and NS (37%) to lead the team in 3-point %, and that is where they are now. This does suggest, however, that some of our guys should be taking more 3-point shots (JG and NS) and others should be taking less (Buck=30% and KF=14%). And, a few of our guys should probably not be taking hardly any 3-point shots (Solly at 16%, and arguably KF at 14%). We also have some guys who are respectable shooters who should be taking more 3s than KF (GG at 34% and JJ at 32%). The biggest take-aways are that we need much better shot-selection on our 3-point shots and should leave this to our three starters who have the best shooting touch (and %), in NS, JG, and GG). The take-away is that we now know who should probably be taking more 3-point shots and who should be taking less. Getting this right could win us a few more games.
The biggest danger is using statistics is to rely on small sample sizes. However, we now have enough games under our belt to arrive at some statistically valid inferences/conclusions. My hope is that the coaches are encouraging JG and Nick to take more open 3-point shots and to encourage Buck, KF and Solly to be a bit more selective, and to drive to the hoop a bit more often. . .
Click to expand...
If statistics are the major determinant and just like last year why are we 2-8?
 
Thanks for all the data oldie............................most encouraging is JG's increased production and the correlation with SDJ is amazing at this early stage in his career. Great to see him step up and take the 3 that put us over the top against JMU. It is live and die by the three and we have been in the latter category for 80% of our games...let's change that................or we will stay there.............
 
Nice stats oldie:

2 points.

1. There was a lot of press about KF working on his 3 point game in the offseason. That hasn't materialized.
2. Playing a 4 guard line up at most times, we should be a good 3 point shooting team. However, we are currently 305 in the country in 3 point FG percentage. A valid argument could be madet our entire team should be shooting less 3 pointers, as we are not very good at that.
 
December 22nd: Following loss to Bucknell:
It is always harder to find positives after a loss, but here are 3-4 recent ones:

1. We shot 88% from the line, and both Buck and Jacob are starting to look very comfortable from the line.

2. Nathan got 18 minutes of quality time, and his stats would project to be 8 points and 8 rebounds per 36 minutes. Hope he continues to get more time, since we will need him to play more big-man minutes in the future.

3. Sal, our recruit for 2018, is lighting it up so far for hsi senior year, averaging close to 18-20 points per game, and being his team's #1 or #2 scorer.
 
There really are very few positives. I’d say Jacobs play has been positive given he’s a freshman. We get a fairly respectable number of steals per game. Everything else is pretty crappy.
 
Grant's offense obviously has been a huge positive, too. He looks like a junior out there more often than not. Defensively he still needs time, but he's the most advanced freshman big man I've ever seen in my 20+ years paying attention to the Spiders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MolivaManiac, MrTbone and urfan1
Eight Legger said:
Grant's offense obviously has been a huge positive, too. He looks like a junior out there more often than not. Defensively he still needs time, but he's the most advanced freshman big man I've ever seen in my 20+ years paying attention to the Spiders.
Click to expand...
Eight, you are right. Everyone talks about Jacob while Grant actually is a team leader in numerous important stats such as scoring, rebounds, blocks, steals, assists, et c. He is the real deal.
 
If someone could come on the board and say, with a straight-face, that one of the positives is that our returning players are all improving and developing their games, THAT would be truly a positive. If Nick, JJ, KF and Buck were all having the kinds of seasons we were hoping to see, we might easily be 8-2. However, I do really like what I have seen so far from Grant, Jacob, and Nathan. We just need the veterans to show steady improvement too. .
 
  • Like
Reactions: gospidersgo, Eight Legger and Ulla1
Spideroldie said:
If someone could come on the board and say, with a straight-face, that one of the positives is that our returning players are all improving and developing their games, THAT would be truly a positive. If Nick, JJ, KF and Buck were all having the kinds of seasons we were hoping to see, we might easily be 8-2. However, I do really like what I have seen so far from Grant, Jacob, and Nathan. We just need the veterans to show steady improvement too. .
Click to expand...
Remember Trey, Deon, sometimes players peak early and improvement comes in small increments if at all over the years.
 
Ulla1 said:
I-M, with all due respect, I cannot recall either Deion or Trey "peaking".
Click to expand...
No they were as good as they were going to get their sophmore year/early in the tenure at UR. That's the point I'm trying to make. For example, Buck may be there as well, I think he's great and hope his offensive skills, ball handling, outside shot, improve but they may not. Nick might be there as well.
 
I-M-UR said:
No they were as good as they were going to get their sophmore year/early in the tenure at UR. That's the point I'm trying to make. For example, Buck may be there as well, I think he's great and hope his offensive skills, ball handling, outside shot, improve but they may not. Nick might be there as well.
Click to expand...
I-M, you have a point; I'm just hopeful this is not the case. Seems like Nick is improving on defense and rebounding; hopefully his shooting percentage will also get better. I think it will, but you may be right. Time will tell.
 
Ulla1 said:
I-M, with all due respect, I cannot recall either Deion or Trey "peaking".
Click to expand...
It may be that they were over recruited. Suspect that they were made to believe that they could be a star in Division 1, when that was never really the case.
 
+1 Grant has the potential to be the best Spider big man in 20+ years, if not in 50+ years. His teammates and coaches do need to find ways to get him the ball in position to score, and we need to have enough confidence in him to push him to take 15+ shots per game. I would far prefer the ball in Grant's hands, with the chance for a lay-up or dunk (or short 5-footer) than most of our guys jacking-it-up from 3-point land, with little chance to rebound a miss. At least Grant would have a chance to rebound his own miss, and he has not been missing many of his inside shots anyway.

Jacob may also need to be more fully utilized in our offense. I would love to see him driving the ball, and getting fouled, late in our games. He is "money" at the line, and is one of our top-two 3-point shooters too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eight Legger
Post Dec 30th Davidson win:

1. UR played solid defense. Davidson had a much smaller number of wide-open 3-point shots than UR had been allowing earlier in the season.

2. Nick played by far his best game of the season and his best game so far in his career, showing some real intensity on both offense and defense . The big difference: He drove the lane several times, getting several short "chippie" shots and even drawing fouls in the lane. My prediction after this game: When Nick leads the team in scoring, we will usually win that game, and when Nick plays aggressively, and drives the lane more, good things will happen.

3. Jacob played a very solid floor-game with 2 assists and 0 TOs, as our primary ball-handler. He also managed to take on the role of primary ball-handler late in this game, as we were protecting a lead. As he has proven he can do, he was "money" at the line.

4. We got the ball inside to Grant consistently in the second half, and as he has shown he can do, he either made the shot or drew fouls.

5. Far more intense rebounding. Not only did our usual rebounders (Grant and Buck) go after the ball aggressively,. but others also did, and especially Nick. Hopefully, the rebounding in this game is the beginning of a trend, and not an annomaly.

5. By far the biggest positive in this game was much-improved shot-selection by UR. Nick took much better shots, Buck took better shots, and everyone else also took better shots. We did not just launch up 3-pointers, but tried to get high-percentage inside shots whenever possible. It worked!

The above "positives" are a very likely recipe for continuing to win. Can we remember the recipe in future games?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpiderK
Spideroldie said:
Post Dec 30th Davidson win:

1. UR played solid defense. Davidson had a much smaller number of wide-open 3-point shots than UR had been allowing earlier in the season.

2. Nick played by far his best game of the season and his best game so far in his career, showing some real intensity on both offense and defense . The big difference: He drove the lane several times, getting several short "chippie" shots and even drawing fouls in the lane. My prediction after this game: When Nick leads the team in scoring, we will usually win that game, and when Nick plays aggressively, and drives the lane more, good things will happen.

3. Jacob played a very solid floor-game with 2 assists and 0 TOs, as our primary ball-handler. He also managed to take on the role of primary ball-handler late in this game, as we were protecting a lead. As he has proven he can do, he was "money" at the line.

4. We got the ball inside to Grant consistently in the second half, and as he has shown he can do, he either made the shot or drew fouls.

5. Far more intense rebounding. Not only did our usual rebounders (Grant and Buck) go after the ball aggressively,. but others also did, and especially Nick. Hopefully, the rebounding in this game is the beginning of a trend, and not an annomaly.

5. By far the biggest positive in this game was much-improved shot-selection by UR. Nick took much better shots, Buck took better shots, and everyone else also took better shots. We did not just launch up 3-pointers, but tried to get high-percentage inside shots whenever possible. It worked!

The above "positives" are a very likely recipe for continuing to win. Can we remember the recipe in future games?
Click to expand...
Pretty much agree with all of this, except for #1. We left a ton of guys wide open from three for the first 30 minutes of the game – including on at least 2 or 3 occasions TWO guys all alone on the perimeter. We did a good job the last 10 minutes, but we also got incredibly lucky that Davidson was missing everything. If they make even a third of the wide-open looks from all over the court they missed tonight, we might still be playing.

I'll add on Jacob that on Nick's last three, which pretty much sealed the game, Nick was open because of a great ball fake by Jacob that his defender bit on. It also gave Nick just enough time to slip open and hit the three. A little thing that paid big dividends, and candidly something we should be doing a LOT more (ball-faking).
 
  • Like
Reactions: gospidersgo and mojo-spider
Eight Legger said:
Pretty much agree with all of this, except for #1. We left a ton of guys wide open from three for the first 30 minutes of the game – including on at least 2 or 3 occasions TWO guys all alone on the perimeter. We did a good job the last 10 minutes, but we also got incredibly lucky that Davidson was missing everything. If they make even a third of the wide-open looks from all over the court they missed tonight, we might still be playing.

I'll add on Jacob that on Nick's last three, which pretty much sealed the game, Nick was open because of a great ball fake by Jacob that his defender bit on. It also gave Nick just enough time to slip open and hit the three. A little thing that paid big dividends, and candidly something we should be doing a LOT more (ball-faking).
Click to expand...
Don’t agree with #4 either. Thought Grant played very well inside but we didn’t get him enough touches inside.
 
Eight Legger said:
Pretty much agree with all of this, except for #1. We left a ton of guys wide open from three for the first 30 minutes of the game – including on at least 2 or 3 occasions TWO guys all alone on the perimeter. We did a good job the last 10 minutes, but we also got incredibly lucky that Davidson was missing everything. If they make even a third of the wide-open looks from all over the court they missed tonight, we might still be playing.

I'll add on Jacob that on Nick's last three, which pretty much sealed the game, Nick was open because of a great ball fake by Jacob that his defender bit on. It also gave Nick just enough time to slip open and hit the three. A little thing that paid big dividends, and candidly something we should be doing a LOT more (ball-faking).
Click to expand...
Here's a clip of Gilyard's fake and pass to Nick for the run stopping three...also included Gilyard's ball handling after another Spiders stop...


Very glad the players got a much needed win. Go Spiders!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eight Legger and gospidersgo
#6. Coach dressing very bad . Now he needs one part of shirt sticking out of pants and shoes not so shiny and we win next game too.
 
Spider2020 said:
Don’t agree with #4 either. Thought Grant played very well inside but we didn’t get him enough touches inside.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Grant is rarely located inside. He is on the perimeter way too often. I don’t mind him setting up at the foul line and distributing or driving from there. Teams are letting him shoot the 3 because he shoots it at about 28%.
 
January 3, 2018: Post Fordham loss:

This was a game where the positives are hard to ID and the "misses" are all too obvious. However, here are two clear positives:

First, Nate Cayo had his coming out party tonight. He finally showed what some of us had seen, clearly, in the pre-season. Nate is a very talented defensive player. Tonight he almost single-handedly shut down the interior. Fordham's "bigs" were not able to shoot over or around him. He was the "stopper" I had been expecting to see from Day 1. I have not checked the box-score but did watch the entire game. He should have been credited with a minimum of two blocks, two steals and lots of altered shots. Nate also showed three other key abilities that will come in handy in the future: 1) An ability to drive to the basket and get a lay-up, and 2) an ability to drive the lane and then pass the ball to a wide-open 3-point shooter, and 3) An ability to jump center (to start the OT or to start a game) and to win the tip. He showed me that he can effectively play as our back-up center, or power forward, as needed.

Second, UR's bench was very productive. When you have JJ, Solly, and Nate on the bench you KNOW that there should be some production and some depth. Tonight we finally showed that our bench can produce.

Nate (as a "defensive stopper") and a productive bench were two huge positives tonight. We just did not combine those positives with even average "other" play (Getting Grant 10-15 shots inside, free-throw shooting, mistake-free passing) , or we would have had an easy win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulla1 and SpiderK
Spideroldie said:
January 3, 2018: Post Fordham loss:

This was a game where the positives are hard to ID and the "misses" are all too obvious. However, here are two clear positives:

First, Nate Cayo had his coming out party tonight. He finally showed what some of us had seen, clearly, in the pre-season. Nate is a very talented defensive player. Tonight he almost single-handedly shut down the interior. Fordham's "bigs" were not able to shoot over or around him. He was the "stopper" I had been expecting to see from Day 1. I have not checked the box-score but did watch the entire game. He should have been credited with a minimum of two blocks, two steals and lots of altered shots. Nate also showed three other key abilities that will come in handy in the future: 1) An ability to drive to the basket and get a lay-up, and 2) an ability to drive the lane and then pass the ball to a wide-open 3-point shooter, and 3) An ability to jump center (to start the OT or to start a game) and to win the tip. He showed me that he can effectively play as our back-up center, or power forward, as needed.

Second, UR's bench was very productive. When you have JJ, Solly, and Nate on the bench you KNOW that there should be some production and some depth. Tonight we finally showed that our bench can produce.

Nate (as a "defensive stopper") and a productive bench were two huge positives tonight. We just did not combine those positives with even average "other" play (Getting Grant 10-15 shots inside, free-throw shooting, mistake-free passing) , or we would have had an easy win.
Click to expand...
We lost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Not-A-Homer
January 6, 2017: Post Saint Louis loss:

Once again our top positive of the game was the play of freshman Grant Golden, who scored 24 points, grabbed 8 rebounds, had three blocks, and altered several shots defensively. Grant was perhaps our sole clear positive in this game.

Jacob also played fairly well, with five assists and 4/5 from the line, and one three pointer from the parking lot.

The fact that none of our veteran returnees played well enough to be mentioned here (no need to name names), is the main reason why we absorbed another mind-numbing loss to go 3-12. The fact that we are 3-12 could be a "positive in disguise," because our new AD will certainly have enough material to have some "conversations" with his new staff.
 
I look forward to watching Grant help lead Pitt to the 2021-22 national championship alongside his brother.
 
Tues., Jan 9,2017: Post Dayton loss:

This entry is a relatively easy one. Julius Johnson (JJ) was clearly the biggest positive today. JJ shot 5 for 7 from 3-point range, went 2/2 on FTs, and scored 17. JJ is, surprisingly, competing now for the title of "top 3-point shooter on our squad," but Nick and Jacob should hold on to that title a bit longer. JJ also plays better Defense than Nick, and that is not close. Those on this board who claim that we do not have at least 6 players with A-10 talent levels should re-watch this game, and figure out if they believe that JJ cannot play at this level. JJ clearly showed some of his "upside" in this game, and he may have shown why he should start over Nick.

I suppose that outscoring Dayton in the second half could be a plus, but getting to 3-13 may be the other top plus, since it increases the odds of a possible coaching "transition." I still feel we have enough ability on this team to be a top-4 team in the A-10, but we are somehow totally not putting it together. Figuring out why (other than the standard "It's the recruiting stupid."), might be too much to ask for, but we can always hope to figure this out before the season winds down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpiderK
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

spider23

Gripes so Far

Replies
14
Views
2K
UR Basketball Board
brooklyn brownstone
B
97spiderfan

VCU Observations

Replies
21
Views
2K
UR Basketball Board
Anachnid
Anachnid
S

VCU Offensive Rebounding Makes Them a Winner-Why Can't UR Just Try the Same?

Replies
24
Views
2K
UR Basketball Board
urmite
urmite
Section 204and5

WBB 2024-25 A-10 Awards

Replies
14
Views
796
UR Basketball Board
Ferrum Spider
Ferrum Spider
Anachnid

CM’s coaching philosophy from his own quotes in RTD

Replies
30
Views
2K
UR Basketball Board
spider23
spider23
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back