General Coach Candidate News

[Scotty R 2,321]

3 hours ago, AH1971 said:

Just say you don’t understand how advance metrics work. 

I know how they work and know they ruin basketball and the way it is meant to get played.

[AH1971 1,598]

1 minute ago, Scotty R said:

I know how they work and know they ruin basketball and the way it is meant to get played.

How so?

[Scotty R 2,321]

Just now, AH1971 said:

How so?

Saying that the only good shots are a 3 or a layup and taking half the court away from the game. It makes it so much easier to go hard when you know a team won't shoot in the mid range. I don't want some computer geeks telling me what you s tbe best thing since they probably never played a sport in their life. If analytics led to better offensr and more scoring I would he alright with it. The problem is that scoring and shooting are down compared to the 80's and 90's.

[Stuhoo 81,966]

3 minutes ago, Scotty R said:

 If analytics led to better offense and more scoring I would he alright with it. 

Then you must be alright with it, because they do.

[AH1971 1,598]

14 minutes ago, Scotty R said:

Saying that the only good shots are a 3 or a layup and taking half the court away from the game. It makes it so much easier to go hard when you know a team won't shoot in the mid range. I don't want some computer geeks telling me what you s tbe best thing since they probably never played a sport in their life. If analytics led to better offensr and more scoring I would he alright with it. The problem is that scoring and shooting are down compared to the 80's and 90's.

Oh brother lol. That’s literally not at all what they say.

Analytics say that that a 15 ft jump shot is way less efficient than a shot at the rim considering they’re both worth the same amount of points or a shot 5 feet further worth an additional point. And that would be unequivocally true.

In order for a 15 foot jump shot to be a primary staple of your offense, you’d need a player(s) who could consistently shoot ~60% from that distance. Considering the best players in the world only shoot at about a 50% clip from that distance, a 3 point shot made only 35% of the time is still a better shot. There’s a lot more 35% 3 pt shooters in this world than 60% jump shooters. Analytics have nothing to do with “computer nerds who have never played a sport”. It’s simple probability and literal data computed and incorporated to differing sports across the globe.

Edited February 26, 2024 by AH1971

[Alford Bailey 12,417]

5 minutes ago, AH1971 said:

Oh brother lol. That’s literally not at all what they say.

Analytics say that that a 15 ft jump shot is way less efficient than a shot at the rim considering they’re both worth the same amount of points or a shot 5 feet further worth an additional point. And that would be unequivocally true.

In order for a 15 foot jump shot to be a primary staple of your offense, you’d need a player(s) who could consistently shoot ~60% from that distance. Considering the best players in the world only shoot at about a 50% clip from that distance, a 3 point shot made only 35% of the time is still a better shot. There’s a lot more 35% 3 pt shooters in this world than 60% jump shooters. Analytics have nothing to do with “computer nerds who have never played a sport”. It’s simple probability and literal data computed and incorporated to differing sports across the globe.

Good breakdown. I agree. 15 ft jumper BAD!

[Free Jurkin! 1,507]

Saying that the only good shots are a 3 or a layup and taking half the court away from the game. It makes it so much easier to go hard when you know a team won't shoot in the mid range. I don't want some computer geeks telling me what you s tbe best thing since they probably never played a sport in their life. If analytics led to better offensr and more scoring I would he alright with it. The problem is that scoring and shooting are down compared to the 80's and 90's.

I don't know about college, but NBA offenses have never been more efficient than they are right now, and the shooting is stuff that guys in the 80s and 90s wouldn't even have been able to imagine. If college scoring and/or efficiency is down from the 80s and 90s, it's likely just because the overall talent in college is lower as guys now leave early compared to guys like MJ, Hakeem, Drexler, Ewing, etc., who stayed 3 or 4 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AH1971 1,598]

1 minute ago, Alford Bailey said:

Good breakdown. I agree. 15 ft jumper BAD!

Let me add, a 15 foot jump shot isn’t BAD (or at least in the context Scott is suggesting) in a one off setting. But over the course of a season, you’d have to shot at an unreasonable percentage to justify a mid- range shot over a 3 point at even a reasonable clip.

[go iu bb 6,662]

26 minutes ago, Scotty R said:

Saying that the only good shots are a 3 or a layup and taking half the court away from the game. It makes it so much easier to go hard when you know a team won't shoot in the mid range. I don't want some computer geeks telling me what you s tbe best thing since they probably never played a sport in their life. If analytics led to better offensr and more scoring I would he alright with it. The problem is that scoring and shooting are down compared to the 80's and 90's.

How has this IU team, built like it's still the 90s done against teams whose coaches have based their offenses and defenses on those metrics? The answer is "pretty poorly." Those teams are blowing IU out, not the other way around. 

Coaches adopted them because they are effective, no other reason. If they were shown to not work, the coaches who tried them wouldn't last long.

Also, that isn't a new concept. The Pitino UK teams played with that philosophy and they were really good. Won a NC.

[IUFAN1976 3,646]

My candidate choice is a proven P5 conference coach that’s a proven winner.  No risk for this hire and I think Dusty May, ISU’s coach and any one below a P5 would be a risk to me.  This is my opinion and we’ve already been burned by non P5 head coaches, yes you can include Davis in this group.  Yes it narrows our scope but that’s where the search should start and end, IMO

[Alford Bailey 12,417]

3 minutes ago, IUFAN1976 said:

My candidate choice is a proven P5 conference coach that’s a proven winner.  No risk for this hire and I think Dusty May, ISU’s coach and any one below a P5 would be a risk to me.  This is my opinion and we’ve already been burned by non P5 head coaches, yes you can include Davis in this group.  Yes it narrows our scope but that’s where the search should start and end, IMO

My fear is Dolson becomes fixated on May. We will have to beat out a few solid programs for the proven guys.

[Alford Bailey 12,417]

Would our weak a** athletic department compete against Louisville for Pearl, Oats or Musselman? I think we would cower down in the corner.

[Scotty R 2,321]

38 minutes ago, AH1971 said:

Oh brother lol. That’s literally not at all what they say.

Analytics say that that a 15 ft jump shot is way less efficient than a shot at the rim considering they’re both worth the same amount of points or a shot 5 feet further worth an additional point. And that would be unequivocally true.

In order for a 15 foot jump shot to be a primary staple of your offense, you’d need a player(s) who could consistently shoot ~60% from that distance. Considering the best players in the world only shoot at about a 50% clip from that distance, a 3 point shot made only 35% of the time is still a better shot. There’s a lot more 35% 3 pt shooters in this world than 60% jump shooters. Analytics have nothing to do with “computer nerds who have never played a sport”. It’s simple probability and literal data computed and incorporated to differing sports across the globe.

Funny how our all time leading scorer made his living shooting those terrible shots. Alford only had the 3 one year a d is the second.leading scorer. With some of the shot blockers taking it to the basket is a lower percentage shot. Funny we lived and loved the game way before analytics and IU scored around 80 points a game. Not many teams average that much today and the offenses are horrible.

[Scotty R 2,321]

34 minutes ago, Free Jurkin! said:

I don't know about college, but NBA offenses have never been more efficient than they are right now, and the shooting is stuff that guys in the 80s and 90s wouldn't even have been able to imagine. If college scoring and/or efficiency is down from the 80s and 90s, it's likely just because the overall talent in college is lower as guys now leave early compared to guys like MJ, Hakeem, Drexler, Ewing, etc., who stayed 3 or 4 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am only talking about the college game. The NBA offense today is amazing 

[Scotty R 2,321]

35 minutes ago, Free Jurkin! said:

I don't know about college, but NBA offenses have never been more efficient than they are right now, and the shooting is stuff that guys in the 80s and 90s wouldn't even have been able to imagine. If college scoring and/or efficiency is down from the 80s and 90s, it's likely just because the overall talent in college is lower as guys now leave early compared to guys like MJ, Hakeem, Drexler, Ewing, etc., who stayed 3 or 4 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also I just don't like the style of offense that is used today

 I hate the ball screen and brongimg two defenders to the ball. Also I hate seeing the other 3 players standing outside waiting for the pass out. I think the 30 second clock is to short and it leads to a lot of horrible shots trying to beat the click. Tbe main thing that hurts offenses is that they wait to long to get into their offense

 I see to many times a guard dribbles out top until 15 is left on the clock and then get into the offense. At least with our best teams under RMK we get into the motion right away and usually shot within the first 15 second of the possession. One old game I just watched I counted the number of passes before we shot in the first half and the most was 4 passes.

[AH1971 1,598]

5 minutes ago, Scotty R said:

Funny how our all time leading scorer made his living shooting those terrible shots. Alford only had the 3 one year a d is the second.leading scorer. With some of the shot blockers taking it to the basket is a lower percentage shot. Funny we lived and loved the game way before analytics and IU scored around 80 points a game. Not many teams average that much today and the offenses are horrible.

I have no clue what you’re talking about or how that pertains to analytics? Analytics is nothing more than data. It’s a mathematical fact that a 3 point shot is a more efficient shot (over an entire setting) than a 15 foot jump shot. You’re literally arguing against data and math.

[Scotty R 2,321]

30 minutes ago, go iu bb said:

How has this IU team, built like it's still the 90s done against teams whose coaches have based their offenses and defenses on those metrics? The answer is "pretty poorly." Those teams are blowing IU out, not the other way around. 

Coaches adopted them because they are effective, no other reason. If they were shown to not work, the coaches who tried them wouldn't last long.

Also, that isn't a new concept. The Pitino UK teams played with that philosophy and they were really good. Won a NC.

This team doesn't even look like college basketball of the  80's and 90's

 I bet you haven't ever seen a college game from that era. It was a beautiful brand of offense with little dribbling in the half court and had player and ball movement.

[Scotty R 2,321]

1 minute ago, AH1971 said:

I have no clue what you’re talking about or how that pertains to analytics? Analytics is nothing more than data. It’s a mathematical fact that a 3 point shot is a more efficient shot (over an entire setting) than a 15 foot jump shot. You’re literally arguing against data and math.

Just saying if offenses would still use the open 12-15 shot and the players would work at it, that offense would still score more points than just shooting 3's and layups.

Take Alabama they score a lot of points and play fast and when they are hitting 3's they look unbeatable. The problem is when they aren't hitting the 3 they really struggle to win. Also their defense is so bad this year that they can't afford to have an off night.

I just like to see a variety on style if play but today everyone looks the same

 

[AH1971 1,598]

9 minutes ago, Scotty R said:

Just saying if offenses would still use the open 12-15 shot and the players would work at it, that offense would still score more points than just shooting 3's and layups.

Take Alabama they score a lot of points and play fast and when they are hitting 3's they look unbeatable. The problem is when they aren't hitting the 3 they really struggle to win. Also their defense is so bad this year that they can't afford to have an off night.

I just like to see a variety on style if play but today everyone looks the same

 

Alabama and Purdue are #1 and #2 in offensive efficiency and are two of the most analytical teams in the country. 

[IUFAN1976 3,646]

52 minutes ago, Alford Bailey said:

My fear is Dolson becomes fixated on May. We will have to beat out a few solid programs for the proven guys.

If we can afford to pay the buyout for a fired coach every 3-4 years, we can up the annual pay for a proven P5 coach.  We shouldn’t take no for answer.  Quit pussyfooting around and get an experienced, proven, quality coach who knows X’s and O’s and runs a good program.