Coaching can improve rebounding and defense but shooting is a skillset that most players have developed during high school.The failure to make foul shots and baskets during crunch time is the reason why Rutgers is in last place in the B1G.Another year with the same players won't change the status quo.There must be some shooters added to the squad next year.
The Gap
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
no I am just done arguing with obtuse and stupid. You are going to keep hammering what ifs , ifs, ifs....bottom line is the team is 2-10..you predicted 6 plus wins..thats fact. I predicted 4 and you are calling me negative..we have two wins. I already said no one predicted that Pikiell would have us this competitive...NO ONE even you who cried that Jordan was fired and it was a mistake. Move on and accept we are not going to agree on this topic. I will bring up the prediction thread
In other words I am actually EXACTLY correct, not almost correct: You specifically argued in that initial thread that RU WOULD increase its 4.8 3-pointer per game average in its 13 OOC games to over 6 3-pointers per game in Big Ten play, despite the ramp up to tougher competition. And that that increase would mean RU WOULD win 6 to 8 Big Ten games.
And you double down by saying you "expected" the number of 3's made per game to increase, even against tougher competition and better defenses.
And as the argument evolved, you changed your argument from WOULD to COULD to IF ONLY.
The argument was not that Bac and me - and others - had a different "expectation," but that your EXPECTATION of RU being able to dramatically improve its 3-point shooting percentage and number of made 3-pointers was ridiculous on the face of it.
Now, as to my expectations, I never expected RU to be a good 3-point shooting team: Their wing players are just not natural SHOOTERS, for the most part. I did feel there was a chance, pre-season, that RU could aspire to shoot 32% to 33% from 3-point range for the entire season. As a note, if RU COULD have been a 33% 3-point shooting team, they would still be the 12th or 13th WORST 3-point shooting team in the Big Ten. On top of that, RU is an appallingly bad TWO-POINT FG percentage shooting team, averaging just 40% from 2-point range in Big Ten play.
But RU is NOT a 32% 3-point shooting team. And if a team's shooting ability is 30% or lower from 3-point range, then that team should NOT be jacking up 15-20 or more 3-pointers per game - so your opinion that Pikiell made a mistake is ... well, while you are entitled to that or any opinion, is simply bad basketball judgment. Though I suppose if a team cannot shoot 2-pointers either, an argument could be made to shoot for the moon and the occasional hot day and throw up as many 3's as you can. It is just not good fundamental basketball.
College basketball has changed and every single team in the country even North Carolina and Kansas and Kentucky shoot threes at rates that they have never done before. In fact, UNC would get upset by a three point shooting team despite their bigs dominating and crashing the boards for put backs. They still lead the country in crashing the boards and offensive rebounds and converting those into points, but now Berry and Jackson shoot threes at very high rates and shoot a great percentage. My son went to UNC., so I watch almost every one of their games,. I am not comparing them to us, that would be ridiculous but I am comparing their style specifically crashing the glass and converting the offensive rebounding. We also are top 5 in offensive rebounding except we do not convert like they do. But they like every team in the country knows it is mandatory to hit threes to win games today. You think that is bad basketball and although you are entitled to your opinion , every coach in the country would disagree with you.
Your reading comprehension needs to improve.
Yes, it is "mandatory" to hit 3's to win games - especially in tough leagues like the Big Ten. In fact, I have stated many times this season that in my opinion it is very, very difficult to win a game in the Big Ten MAKING as few as 3 or 4 3's in any single game.
BUT: What I said was that when you shoot 3's VERY POORLY, it is not good basketball to keep shooting them.
In other words, MAKING 3's is important to winning - not shooting a lot of 3's and missing them.
Since a 3-pointer is worth 50% more than a 2-pointer, if you can make 3's at even a reasonable percentage, you should attempt more of them. But if you suck at MAKING 3's at even a reasonable percentage, then fundamentally sound basketball would suggest a different path to scoring might be called for. And as shown, even were RU to shoot 3's at a substantially higher percentage than they do, it would still be a poor shooting percentage.
Also, your comment about Kansas, UNC and Kentucky does not make your point - in fact it makes your point even more ridiculously idiotic. Kansas is 7th best in the country in 3-point shooting percentage, over 41%. UNC is not as good - ranking just 70th - but still shoots 37.5% from 3-point range. Kentucky is the worst of the 3, ranking 154th - but shooting 35.7% from 3 point range. RU ranks 339th out of 347 Division 1 teams in 3-point FG percentage, at 29.4% overall.
For perspective, by the way, 2 of those teams (Kansas and UNC) RANK WAY lower in 3-point FG ATTEMPTS, than they do in 3-point FG percentage: Kansas and UNC rank in the 150's in 3-point attempts ... UK is in the same range, so about the same ranking as their 3-pint FG percentage ranking. Interestingly, RU ranks the same in 3-point attempts, as it does in 3-point FG percentage: 339th. In other words, you coudl actually make the case that Kansas and UNC should shoot the 3 MORE than they do - though maybe their percentages are so high because they mainly take appropriate attempts - combined with the talent they have. And RU also attempts the number of 3-pointers their 3-point FG% would imply they should: Few, since RU cannot successfully shoot the 3.
It is smart basketball to shoot the three these days, but we don't have players who can do it consistently. Mike is hot and cold as much as I love him. Thiam is just getting his feet back. Nigel isn't a shooter, nor is Corey or even Sa.
They shot 4-17 last night. That's too much. If they shoot 4-12 and take it to the hoop 5 more times, maybe Rutgers wins.
You can't just chuck up threes because everyone does. You have to play to your strengths.
UNC recruited shooters. That's what Rutgers has to do. RU doesn't shoot many threes because Pikiell doesn't like the three point shot... they don't shoot many threes because it's not strategically sound with this team.
Issa and Mike on the court that changes. Plenty of opportunities for Issa to get wide open 3s last night. I believe Eugene found him.
First, , I never said to chuck up threes. We get plenty of opportunities to shoot open threes earlier in the shot clock that we are passing up, which would be better than some of the threes Mike takes or Nigel takes at the end of the shot clock. With Corey penetrating ,Mike and Issa should be free to catch and shoot and most of the time they are reluctant early in the clock. Yeah of course, we need better shooters, but we need the shooters we have (4of them) to shoot earlier in the shot clock and when they come off screens, that in my opinion would increase their shooting percentage. Last night, Nigel was hurt, but he pulled up for three with 1:33 left with the score 62-60 that was not a chuck. Issa missing a wide open three that would have also given us the lead with 6:15 left was taken 6 seconds into the shot clock but was also a good shot and not a chuck up. No one is saying to chuck it up. But with all the offense rebounds we get , a kick out to our shooters for a shot early in the clock after a rebound is a good thing that we have to do more of to be successful.
Sigh ... this is like arguing with a 5-year-old.
Do you even read what you yourself write? You suggest RU should shoot more 3's, earlier in the clock, suggesting that would be a successful strategy for RU. As EXAMPLES, you cite 2 shots taken early in the clock by an open Thiam and an open Johnson ... who both MISSED. Hence, not successful.
When your team lacks scoring TALENT (which it does), and you face teams with much more offensive talent, the goal is not to create MORE possessions for your opponent, but fewer. RU will win few shoot-outs, but stay competitive through grinding it out. Hence, if RU gets easy shots, Pikiell has said the players have 5-10 seconds to get those easy shots, but after that they work the offense.
As a sidebar, Thiam's shot was a good one. Johnson's shot, however, was an awful decision: Early in the clock a step or 2 behind the line (not even at the line), before RU had a chance to set up for any offensive rebound. RU was down 2, with 1:30 left ... the right basketball move is to work the offense, let Freeman get a touch in the post, try to free up Williams or Thiam from 3.
Jelly, enough with the 5 year old crap. If you disagree fine but I have watched more Rutgers basketball and college basketball than you or anyone else and my opinions are not novel but main stream. If we charted our 3 point attempts, especially during that rough stretch we went through, I would be almost certain that most threes were taken with less than 5 seconds on the clock and were forced or rushed and unsuccessful. Kinda like what we did to Wisconsin. There is nothing wrong with Mike or Issa or Corey or Nigel at the top of the key coming off a screen, to shoot a good open look 3. Issa and Mike should come off screens hard and launch. Cam Williams did exactly that to us yesterday. With the way we crash the boards, and the way threes come off if missed , which would be long, we would still be playing to our strength. I do not believe it will lead to shootouts because I am not advocating it for every possession. We can run our offense but when we get an open look we should take it, because the shot we have been taking with under 5 seconds on the clock has been forced and not in rhythm.
Except that RU players do not get those open shots,or have the quick releases, that other players, better players, get (shots) and have (quick releases).
Of course, if RU players were actually better, and got more open shots, and earlier in the clock, and had quicker releases, and therefore might hit a higher percentage of their 3-pointers, then it would be wise to take more 3-pointers, and earlier in the clock. So ... that is 3 or 4 "ifs." All of which are required ot make your case, but none of which happen to actually apply to the RU players.
As part of our analysis of how unrealistic expectations are developed, we are now looking at the aftermath, the death spiral. It's hard to follow because it is not followable. But it is the trail end of the logic stream that allows such people to develop unrealistic expectations over and over again. Blame all the things that you didn't expect, as if the unexpected isn't precisely what you take on when you make predictions. Data mine for particulars that weren't discussed, then argue that others didn't say that those particular things would happen either. Dwell on the trees and ignore the forest that everyone told you about earlier. Find new trees and say they change everything. It's a twisted free fall off a cliff that is dizzying to anyone who reads it, but not the person who wrote it. To the contrary, he ends up standing on his own two feet, firmer in his stance than before, and still ever ready to develop future unrealistic expectations.
I disagree, Corey and Nigel , coming off a high screen both get open looks and can hit the three. Corey has been doing it a lot lately and did it in the Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Penn State games. Before Nigel , was hurt he was doing it as well. Mike on the other hand, gets an open look but almost never shoots it early in the clock. Issa's release is slow but if Corey and Nigel penetrate and dish out, or if the bigs dished out or kicked it out instead of always going to the hole, that will give him time to launch.
Well, you are simply wrong.
First, Corey does not get many open 3-point looks off screens - nor does Johnson, though Johnson gets a few more. Especially with Sanders, that is simply not Sanders' game - he is not a catch and shoot guy, but gets his shots off the dribble. Most of his 3-point attempts come from his defender taking half a step back to defend against the drive.
Second, even if you were correct - which you are not - Sanders and Johnson are not RU's best shooters from deep - which means that even if they were the ones to be able to get the open shots off screens (which they do not), they would not be the best players on RU to actually take those shots ... meaning RU would have an offense where the sub-optimal shooters are taking the 3-point shots. An offense where the primary guys taking 3's are sub-30% shooters from that range ... oh ... that is what RU actually has!
Third, Williams has a reasonably quick release - but he rarely gets totally clean and open looks off screens. His most open shots are from someone else's dibble penetration (Sanders, typically, but also sometime Omoruyi, Johnson or even Freeman), and kick. Is the problem that RU does not set good enough screens? Or is the issue that RU players are less capable than better players at properly squaring off as they "turn the corner" on screens? Or is it other deficiencies? Or a combination.
id think catch and shoot has a higher percentage than off the dribble (other than Sanders). We have the ability to get the ball to bigs on the low block. We should be using that to open up the perimeter
I wish Eugene didn't have so many unforced TOs and could knock down shots. He makes the team better in the half court offense because he looks for others. We don't have enough of that skill set on the team. Unfortunately on 2/9/2017 he doesn't do enough of the other stuff to be worthy of PT. I really like Eugene and really hope he improves.
I wish Eugene didn't have so many unforced TOs and could knock down shots. He makes the team better in the half court offense because he looks for others. We don't have enough of that skill set on the team. Unfortunately on 2/9/2017 he doesn't do enough of the other stuff to be worthy of PT. I really like Eugene and really hope he improves.
At the end of the day for the first time in many years, I am fully confident that we have the right coaching staff in place. The facilities are also on their way.
I see nothing but good days ahead with this program.
I see nothing but good days ahead with this program.
I am talking about Corey and Nigel using the ball screen and pulling up off the dribble. Defenders are always worrying about Corey in particular going past them and they go under the screen and that is when he has launched and been successful lately. Plus both Corey and Nigel are shooting below what they shot previously and from where Corey started this year, he is becoming one of our better three point shooters. We hardly ever kick out when our bigs are on the blocks, which should be corrected, and both Mike and Issa are open if they passed it back out. CJ has been the biggest offender as he almost always gives to the hole without passing out or diagonally .
A lot of guys on the Round Table could have used this post during football season as well.
I know there's a lot of fantasy-land to wade through in this thread, and I haven't gotten to read it all yet... but this one stood out for me.
Why would you or Coach Pike have expected Nigel to be a 75% FT shooter? Over his first two seasons at KState, he averaged 67.7%. He's improved on that slightly at RU to 68.7% overall, and even higher at 72.7% in conference play... but expecting him to come in at 75% out of the gate? Not sure where that expectation would come from. He seems to be improving somewhat as the season progresses, though, which is good.
Also, why would you have felt Corey would be a 75% FT shooter? He was 71.3% last year, but only 68.0% in conference play... so he was hotter at the start of the season than he ended. This year, he's at 63% (and 61% in conference play), seemingly continuing that downward trend. Honestly, don't know why he's been continually regressing - but expecting him to have ended last year at 68% and to have started this year at 75% isn't realistic.
Mike, I'll give you... he was a near-80% FT shooter, and dropped quite a bit at the start of the season, but he's back to 79.7% in conference play.
How about free throw shooting improving as you go from freshman to sophomore to junior to senior years ? Have you considered that or is that a myth in your mind as well?
You say this as if every player is expected to make steady (or in Nigel's case large) gains every year, and that regression never happens. FT% can be all over the map year to year.
To take a few examples from around the league, you can have someone like Melo Trimble who has been consistent year to year (86/86/83)... or someone like Bronson Koenig who dropped from 81% to 76% from his soph to junior year... or someone like Robert Johnson who jumps from 64% to 79% from his sophomore to junior year. Sometimes you see big jumps, other times regression, and other times just steady state.
You were expecting both Nigel and Corey to make big jumps up, and no one to regress. Well, reality didn't conform to your expectation, unfortunately.
As an aside, for whatever reason, Corey's been dropping steadily in FT% rather than improving:
OOC last year: 43/58 (74%)
Conf last year: 34/50 (68%)
OOC this year: 26/39 (67%)
Conf this year: 36/59 (61%)
Similar threads
