Fire Coach Woodson Thread

[iu eyedoc 1,949]

33 minutes ago, AH1971 said:

Also you understand that between Galloway, Cupps, Johnson, Leal, and Gunn, the 5 of them combined went 77/238 for 32% last year. You get that correct? Asking how the offense will improve with two guys shooting 35% from 3 on volume before even taking into consideration production from Mgbako, Reneau, and Ballo is legit asinine.

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.

[HoosierAloha 30,068]

This should be year 1, not year 4, type stuff but I’ll be looking for leadership, the off-season work they put in this summer, and the dreaded e and e to begin the season. This might be as telling as any shooting % any individual or team total they put up this season. Is the attitude closer one of cohesion and battling for each other with a few leaders stepping forward or are we playing “Easy like a Sunday morning” style Woody ball again?

[AH1971 1,461]

28 minutes ago, iu eyedoc said:

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.

The 400 additional shots isn’t a hard number to overcome, gone are:

Ware’s 11 shots

Galloway’s 9 shots will significantly decrease with a new role. 9 to 5/6 seems appropriate

Gone are Xavier Johnson’s 6 shots

Gone are CJ Gunn’s 4 shots

Cupps dips from 4 to 2. 
 

That’s 28 additional shots a game that just became available.

Ballo 7-8 shots, Carlyle and Rice 10 shots, with 5 to 6 being from the perimeter. That’s not including a spike from Mgbako + Tucker and whatever 4/5 the staff brings in on

[Juwan Moye 253]

35 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

This should be year 1, not year 4, type stuff but I’ll be looking for leadership, the off-season work they put in this summer, and the dreaded e and e to begin the season. This might be as telling as any shooting % any individual or team total they put up this season. Is the attitude closer one of cohesion and battling for each other with a few leaders stepping forward or are we playing “Easy like a Sunday morning” style Woody ball again?

This is why his “it doesn’t matter who starts it matter who finishes” type lines frustrates me as a fan. It ABSOLUTELY matters who starts, that’s how you set the tone for a game. Too often we come out listless, especially against bad teams, and allow them to get confidence that they can compete.

Punch them in the mouth from the start and take any wind they may have out of their sails. Be relentless about the pursuit of excellence in all things at all times if the goal is actually a national championship.

[Class of '66 Old Fart 84,613]

And this thread was so peaceful and calm yesterday.   :-)

[iu eyedoc 1,949]

25 minutes ago, AH1971 said:

The 400 additional shots isn’t a hard number to overcome, gone are:

Ware’s 11 shots

Galloway’s 9 shots will significantly decrease with a new role. 9 to 5/6 seems appropriate

Gone are Xavier Johnson’s 6 shots

Gone are CJ Gunn’s 4 shots

Cupps dips from 4 to 2. 
 

That’s 28 additional shots a game that just became available.

Ballo 7-8 shots, Carlyle and Rice 10 shots, with 5 to 6 being from the perimeter. That’s not including a spike from Mgbako + Tucker and whatever 4/5 the staff brings in on

24 minutes ago, AH1971 said:

 

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

 

[AH1971 1,461]

3 minutes ago, iu eyedoc said:

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

 

Where the hell are you getting 215th ranked offense? They were 105th in KenPom efficiency. Carlyle and Rice shooting 35% on 5-6 3 point attempts along with Mgbako shooting his same % on a slightly higher volume than he did in the B10 last season is easily a top 15 KenPom offense next year once you factor in Ballo and Reneau’s efficiency at the rim.

[Uspshoosier 45,600]

27 minutes ago, AH1971 said:

Where the hell are you getting 215th ranked offense?

Mythical numbers 

[Juwan Moye 253]

1 minute ago, Uspshoosier said:

Mythical numbers 

I believe he’s quoting points per game, which is flawed, but here’s a screenshot. I’d trust KenPom more which had us at 105th.

[iu eyedoc 1,949]

10 minutes ago, AH1971 said:

Where the hell are you getting 215th ranked offense? They were 105th in KenPom efficiency. Carlyle and Rice shooting 35% on 5-6 3 point attempts along with Mgbako shooting his same % on a slightly higher volume than he did in the B10 last season is easily a top 15 KenPom offense next year once you factor in Ballo and Reneau’s efficiency at the rim.

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.

[AH1971 1,461]

5 minutes ago, Juwan Moye said:

I believe he’s quoting points per game, which is flawed, but here’s a screenshot. I’d trust KenPom more which had us at 105th.

Yeah I don’t care how many ppg we score so long as it’s more than the other team. 

[AH1971 1,461]

29 minutes ago, iu eyedoc said:

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.

3’s are worth more than 2’s….especially on a higher volume…..DERRRRR.
 

You ever stop and think that KenPom efficiency numbers were so low due to the fact that IU was a low make, low volume 3 point shooting team? I mean JC this isn’t that hard, when your 5 core backcourt players make 77 combined 3’s in a 30+ game season at a 32% clip, your efficiency numbers are going to suck.

[iu eyedoc 1,949]

2 minutes ago, AH1971 said:

Yeah I don’t care how many ppg we score so long as it’s more than the other team. 

Hate to break the news to you :

[iu eyedoc 1,949]

1 minute ago, AH1971 said:

You ever stop and think KenPom efficiency numbers were so low due to the fact that IU was a low make, low volume 3 point shooting team? I mean JC this isn’t that hard, when your 5 core backcourt players make 77 combined 3’s in a 30+ game season your efficiency numbers are going to suck.

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?

 

[Kentuckysucks 2,255]

Haha.

 

 

[RaceToTheTop 25,613]

2 hours ago, iu eyedoc said:

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.

Issue on your missed 2’s v 3’s argument on offensive rebounds:  Teams with an offense focused more on 2’s turn the ball over more.  It’s a product of working for a better shot.

[IU Prof 851]

Not sure how anyone could have watched this coaching staff operate the last three years and think that because IU suddenly has Rice and Carlyle in the backcourt that that will lead to a significantly increased 3 point shooting volume. 

IU has had playmakers, shooters, etc., over the last three years and still played post dominant. They just spent $1+ million on Ballo, and lord knows how much to retain Reneau. The offense is still going to be post dominant.

[str8baller 5,214]

1 hour ago, IU Prof said:

Not sure how anyone could have watched this coaching staff operate the last three years and think that because IU suddenly has Rice and Carlyle in the backcourt that that will lead to a significantly increased 3 point shooting volume. 

I'm skeptical on the 3pt volume suddenly taking a dramatic shift but it should increase.  The increase in talent should bump our offensive efficiency numbers too. Top 15 offense is probably pushing it and no amounting of stomping one's feet an insisting so will make it come true.  

[iu eyedoc 1,949]

2 hours ago, RaceToTheTop said:

Issue on your missed 2’s v 3’s argument on offensive rebounds:  Teams with an offense focused more on 2’s turn the ball over more.  It’s a product of working for a better shot.

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.

[RaceToTheTop 25,613]

1 hour ago, iu eyedoc said:

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.

You are demonstrating some very fundamental misunderstanding of offensive efficiency.  

#1 -- the argument that an increase in three point shooting percentage 'wouldn't increase the team efficiency' is false.  Are you really going to say that in the past season if nothing else was different that if IU had hit 35% of their three point shots rather than 32.4%, that their efficiency would not have been different?  That's beyond comprehension.  We aren't talking about a change in the number of shots or types or shots, simply the number of three point shots made.  If IU shot 35% from three last season, that equates to 42 more points scored for the year without changing how many shots they took.  While you are saying that the 'offensive efficiency is 1.05 when IU's was 1.098 last year', you aren't comparing the correct data sets (and you can't figure efficiency solely on what two point/three point shots were taken and percentage made anyway).  If IU shoots 35% on three point shots instead of the 32.4% last year and took the same number of shots, you are replacing the three point shots that had (your calculated, but calculated incorrectly) efficiency of 0.972 with plays that had an efficiency of 1.05.  This is an increased efficiency of .078 on each three point shot and when divided by total number of possessions, a new efficiency of 1.12...higher than the 1.098 you are citing.

#2 -- the fact is that three point shooting percentage and two point shooting percentage are NOT independent.  The ability of a team to make three pointers opens the floor up, decreasing the ability of the defense to back off shooters and double the interior.

#3 -- the throwaway line of 'hoisting up 20 extra threes by 35% shooters' is a non starter that has no basis in reality.  Have you seen anyone suggest that IU is going to be taking 35 three point shots per game?  Sounds like a pretty big reach when there wasn't a single NCAA team taking that many threes.  The average team took 6 more threes than IU.

I love math, but you are trying to oversimplify the calculation.  There hasn't been much research done on this specific to the NCAA, but it most certainly has been done at the NBA level.