iu eyedoc

Sorry for talking Mike Woodson's deficiencies in the Fire Mike Woodson thread. How rude of me.

Per 40 minute stats for Cupps, TG and Cupps? Care to venture any guesses? You say a guy had low volume like it is a bad thing when he hit 26% .Truly crazy how you think high volume 3's are a good thing regardless of percentage. 26, 27.5, 32, 35% from three is bad at any volume. With the caveat that a 4 or 5 shooting 35% is acceptable to good, not because of the actual points per shot, but the way it opens up the floor when a big has to be honored on the perimeter. Wings shooting below 37-38% is not a good thing, ever.

Agree, it would. I will believe it when I see it.

No I have been pointing out that your statement that some mythical improvement to 35% from 3 point shooting doesn't equal a significant improvement in OE. None of your pretzel logic makes it so. The "screaming" is just how you hear it in your head when your foolishness is pointed out.

What does that have to do with every other offensive statistic that IU lacked in? The simple fact is your imaginary increase in 3 pt % and volume doesn't even get IU in the top 50 without improvement everywhere else. And there in lies the rub, whatever marginal improvement in talent $6M bought they are still being coached a bad brand of basketball and that trumps everything else.

Yeah, don't think anyone is coming out to guard Ballo 15 ft from the basket

No you are assuming every single player takes huge leaps in efficiency and then your math still doesn't add up, so then you pretend math is subjective.

Great, so if IU can also make huge leaps to offensive rebound, protect the ball, provide assists and shoot ft like UConn I think you are on to something. Totally plausible.

Is it a good thing for a 27.5% 3 point shooter to find his shot off the bounce?

No, it literally doesn't and when you factor in the 50% lower rebound chance on 3 pointers it factually decreases the PPP.

So is Reneau going to stagnate on the perimeter or is he going to be Mr Automatic at the rim? Your contradictions confuse me Hell, If IU had made 8 3's on their 15.5 shot attempts per game last season, shooting an NCAA record 51% from 3, adding 9 pts per 100 possessions their ORtg would still only have been 43rd and their kenpom would have 20th. How do you not understand any volume of 35% 3pt shooting is not going to improve the offensive efficiency rating, if anything it will become even worse and the defense will suffer from easy run out buckets.

Not going to get into a longer misquoted diatribe. 1) I never said that if nothing else was different that 35% wasn't better than 32.4%. It was about replacing 53% 2's with 35%2's. Those are offensive efficiency equivalents. 2) The suggested 35% from the teams best shooters, from 3 is not a floor opening percentage. 3)read @AH1971 posts.

Likely true, but the offensive rebound % on 3's is 21% on 2's it is 41%, that is nearly double the chance of getting an extra attempt. Hoisting up 20 extra 3's a game with bad 35% shooters would result in 13 rebound attempts and 2.7 offensive rebounds. Shooting 53% from 2 as IU did last season would result in identical points made on first shots, 10 rebound attempts and 4 rebounds, so to break even you would need 2 less turnovers on those 20 outside vs inside attempts. At IU's 17.1% turnover rate that be 3.4 less turnovers per game assuming a perfect 0 turnover rate on 3 pointers, which of course is not true. So at the extremes against my point at every end of the argument it is a wash both in points and effeciency And remember the argument isn't the team being the same, it's rising from 105 by kenpom (because that seems to be the be all to end all) to top15 with 20 extra 3's from the assumption that really really bad 3 shooters improve to just really bad 35% shooters.

But you are proposing they somehow become top 15 offense by adding 29% 3 pt shooters that magically become 35% 3pt shooters. That is not more efficient. 35% from 3 from your "shooters" sucks @$$. Even factoring in the bigs and bench players 35% was 121st in percentage as a team last season. Making 35% of your threes is not more efficient than making 53% of your 2's, which IU did last season, factor in the offensive rebounding disparity and it is worse. Your volume shooters have to be better than 35%. 76 of 86 qualified shooters last season ( more than 2.5 3's made) made greater than 35%. You are making up huge leaps by these transfers just to improve them to be bottom 12 % "shooters." How do you not get that 35% shooting from your primary back court players, that which they can only dream of, is still crappy?

Hate to break the news to you :

They were 215 in PPG. As far as KenPom, 35% 3 point shooting doesn't improve their offensive efficiency. It is points per 100 possessions. IU's OE was 109.8. 35% of 300 potential points is 105. I'm sure you are about to say, but"offensive rebounds." Well add in that 3 point misses are rebounded 20% less often by the offense than 2's (Rebounding 2's vs 3's) and that would be an offensive efficiency nightmare. These players are nice additions, but barring an offensive and defensive renaissance by this coaching staff, next season will almost assuredly be painfully familiar. Bad math and dreaming don't amount to ish.

So , again, your numbers: Ware: 11 shots at .586 = 13PPG Galloway: 4 at.466 =4 X Johnson 6 at.425=5 CJ Gunn: 4 at .342=2.8 Cupps: 2 at.364= 1.4 That's 27 less shots that resulted in 26 PPG Now you want to give: Ballo 7 at .658= 9PPG Rice 10 at .439=9 Carlyle 10 at.386=8 So 27 shots for an additional...wait for it...26 PPG. Giving the youngsters a 5% bump in shooting% adds 2 pts but that also ignores Wares FT shooting advantage over Ballo so again, how is this producing a top 15 offense out of a 215th ranked offense? FFS, I use your mythical numbers and this offense still suck. Obviously not a math major

Again, if they are shooting 400 times from 3 and hitting a waaaaay below average 35%, which would be a huge improvement from their collective 29% last season, that is not adding offensive efficiency or PPG. Even your made up sophomore leap of 6% better from three on their 75% increase of volume in attempts leads to a negative overall offensive efficiency. If the entire team shoots 35% from 3 that is still only good for 125th last season. It's funny how you add these mythical improved numbers to these players and it is still a subpar offense. Hell, let me just give you 400 additional shots with 140 made threes pretending that doesn't effect the 2 point shots at all. That still only gets IU to top 30 range in PPG. But...uh oh... unless unless IU gets 260 offensive rebounds on those 260 missed 3's that isn't going to be good for our 245th ranked points allowed defense.

What are you talking about? You want to add 400 3 pt attempts but not subtract 2 pt attempts? Are you honestly saying IU is going to add 400+ offensive possessions? Those shots are coming from somewhere.

Let's do the shot volume math with your numbers. We'll take your pie in the sky high ends for sh*ts and giggles. 140 made 3's on 400 attempts at your mythical 35% An additional 420 points on offense. Now let's subtract those 400 additional shots from IU's 2 point shooting last season which shot at .534 from inside the arc. That is 214 made 2's for a grand total of...class...anyone...428 pts. I'm kind of a simple guy. Help me figure out how subtracting 428 pts and adding 420 points skyrockets the 215th ranked offense to top 15.

You realize you are saying the addition of 1.8 to 2.8 additional made threes vs the departure of the 1.2 total made by X and Gunn, who actually collectively shot at 35% instead of your wishful increase from 29%, transforms this offense? And this addition of 3 for 8 or 4 for 11 from three from your "shooter" transfers along with the loss of the best of the bad shooters in the 344th ranked 3 pt team turns this offense in to a top 15 offense? If you mean top 15 in the Big 10, I agree. If you mean that somehow morphs the 215th ranked offense(PPG) to 15th nationally...

"The lunatic is in the Hall"

Well, no other coach in college basketball was likely offering to play the game from the inside out. Ballo's mom didn't raise no dummy.

Blueblood!!!!

Or I could be expressing that I think these players are being overhyped with regard to their ability to suddenly change the continual mediocre path (at best) of this program versus where we all want it to be or where it has been. But hey if you think every non-sunshine pumper has some nefarious "MO", cool.