They “Retired” Coach Woodson Thread

[RaceToTheTop 27,760]

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 1,351]

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 6,190]

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 2,891]

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 27,760]

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. 

[RaceToTheTop 27,760]

4 hours ago, Kentuckysucks said:

Haha.

 

 

FWIW, I do know what Goodman likely blocked him over.  Goodman was being Goodman and stating some pretty stupid things (like he does to poke the Indiana bear) and went into a rant about Indiana needing shooters.  Tyme and he went back and forth then I think Goodman had mentioned a guy like the Stojkavic kid in the portal from Stanford and Tyme posted a meme from the family guy where a policeman is holding a skin palette up to Peter and on the pallet the whiter skin tones said something like 'good shooters' and the darker ones said 'not good enough'.  Not quoting exactly, but that was the jist.

TL;DR

Tyme accused Goodman of making a racist statement that was likely more of a stupid statement than a racist one.

[Hornsby 3,011]

Haha.
 
 

Sounds like the king of blocking people got mad he gotb blocked. Lol.

Sent from my SM-A146U using Tapatalk

[Hornsby 3,011]

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.

That offseason in iu land. Ever offseason we are going to have the greatest team ever until December rolls around.

Sent from my SM-A146U using Tapatalk

[AH1971 2,013]

4 hours 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. 

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.

What playmakers, shooters, etc were running the offense last year that you speak of? What guard could even create his own shot? Ballo is not a post-dominant big who you force feed every time down, clearly you’ve never seen him play. 

[IU Prof 1,351]

30 minutes ago, AH1971 said:

What playmakers, shooters, etc were running the offense last year that you speak of? What guard could even create his own shot? Ballo is not a post-dominant big who you force feed every time down, clearly you’ve never seen him play. 

I said over the last 3 years. JHS, Galloway, Kopp, and even X at times were all playmakers or shooters (Galloway was both in 22-23). 

Agreed we won't force feed Ballo. We'll force feed Reneau instead.

Meanwhile, the Ballo-Reneau pairing will clog driving lanes, reducing the effectiveness of Rice and Carlyle. And while I think both will shoot better from distance this year, neither will hit at a high enough rate to be a difference maker from deep.

The system is the problem. And that's before we even get into defense, which has dropped every year since Fife was pushed out.

[WayneFleekHoosier 49,539]

FWIW, I do know what Goodman likely blocked him over.  Goodman was being Goodman and stating some pretty stupid things (like he does to poke the Indiana bear) and went into a rant about Indiana needing shooters.  Tyme and he went back and forth then I think Goodman had mentioned a guy like the Stojkavic kid in the portal from Stanford and Tyme posted a meme from the family guy where a policeman is holding a skin palette up to Peter and on the pallet the whiter skin tones said something like 'good shooters' and the darker ones said 'not good enough'.  Not quoting exactly, but that was the jist.
TL;DR
Tyme accused Goodman of making a racist statement that was likely more of a stupid statement than a racist one.

He’s connected, somehow, someway. Also, this account makes a lot of racist accusations and likes to presume that is why Woodson gets grief and that the Indiana fanbase is racist.

I say, GTFOH with that nonsense. This fanbase loves good basketball and good basketball players of any race. Countless examples of this and this lazy take by some is probably the most offensive take to me of all the Indiana fan generalities. Genuinely upsets me that some want to perpetuate this notion. Tyme and his crew do ALOT of this.


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

[AH1971 2,013]

33 minutes ago, IU Prof said:

I said over the last 3 years. JHS, Galloway, Kopp, and even X at times were all playmakers or shooters (Galloway was both in 22-23). 

Agreed we won't force feed Ballo. We'll force feed Reneau instead.

Meanwhile, the Ballo-Reneau pairing will clog driving lanes, reducing the effectiveness of Rice and Carlyle. And while I think both will shoot better from distance this year, neither will hit at a high enough rate to be a difference maker from deep.

The system is the problem. And that's before we even get into defense, which has dropped every year since Fife was pushed out.

I’ll bet anything Reneau’s production stagnates if not dips with a better back court. He’s going to be playing out more on the perimeter anyway so I’m not worried about force him every possession, just more paranoia. 
 

Laughable that you’d put guys like Galloway and Xavier Johnson in the same sentence as Rice and Carlyle. Those guys were better as freshman than X and Galloway were as upperclassmen. There’s nothing wrong with Woodson’s system with the right personnel. We finally have guards (multiple) who can win one on one matchups and score off the bounce. JHS the only guard under Woodson who was capable of winning his matchup consistently and he was pretty damn good. 

[iu eyedoc 2,891]

3 hours ago, RaceToTheTop said:

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. 

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.

 

[Juwan Moye 519]

10 hours ago, AH1971 said:

What playmakers, shooters, etc were running the offense last year that you speak of? What guard could even create his own shot? Ballo is not a post-dominant big who you force feed every time down, clearly you’ve never seen him play. 

I’ll go on record and say that, regardless of personnel, we’ll be in the bottom half of the country in three point attempts.

 The issue isn’t players here, it’s system. Go and look at the JHS/TJD/Kopp team and explain to me why Kopp averaged 4.1 3PA per game. The answer isn’t a lack of playmakers, or thar Kopp couldn’t shoot.

3PA rankings each year under Woodson:

2021- 321st (17.7/g)

2022- 352nd (15.5/g)

2023- 355th (15.5/g)

Edited April 22, 2024 by Juwan Moye

[IU Prof 1,351]

8 hours ago, AH1971 said:

I’ll bet anything Reneau’s production stagnates if not dips with a better back court. He’s going to be playing out more on the perimeter anyway so I’m not worried about force him every possession, just more paranoia. 
 

Laughable that you’d put guys like Galloway and Xavier Johnson in the same sentence as Rice and Carlyle. Those guys were better as freshman than X and Galloway were as upperclassmen. There’s nothing wrong with Woodson’s system with the right personnel. We finally have guards (multiple) who can win one on one matchups and score off the bounce. JHS the only guard under Woodson who was capable of winning his matchup consistently and he was pretty damn good. 

Time will tell, but what's laughable to me is the suggestion that this is a top 15 offense. This whole line of argument also conspicuously sidesteps the fact that if guards who can create off the dribble are so essential to Woodson's offense, why it is that he willingly went into last season with a lack of such an essential ingredient to his offensive scheme.

And, of course, it also sidesteps the severe defensive regression IU has experienced each season under Woodson...

[Golfman25 6,143]

2 minutes ago, IU Prof said:

Time will tell, but what's laughable to me is the suggestion that this is a top 15 offense. This whole line of argument also conspicuously sidesteps the fact that if guards who can create off the dribble are so essential to Woodson's offense, why it is that he willingly went into last season with a lack of such an essential ingredient to his offensive scheme.

And, of course, it also sidesteps the severe defensive regression IU has experienced each season under Woodson...

Still have that hump.  And we are a new/young team and need time to gel. 

[RaceToTheTop 27,760]

7 hours ago, iu eyedoc said:

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.

 

You are still assuming a higher three point shooting percentage does not affect two point shooting percentage, which is not true.  Shooters create spacing due to defensive adjustments.

[Juwan Moye 519]

4 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

You are still assuming a higher three point shooting percentage does not affect two point shooting percentage, which is not true.  Shooters create spacing due to defensive adjustments.

Going back and re reading his point was simply that IU will not have a top-15 offense this year and he was refuting some questionable points brought up by another poster to try and defend the top-15 prediction.

The finer points here don’t matter much to that discussion IMO. You could assume growth in 3pt% and 2pt% and we’re still not a top-15 offense unless those numbers are SUBSTANTIALLY better than last year.

Edited April 22, 2024 by Juwan Moye

[RaceToTheTop 27,760]

9 hours ago, WayneFleekHoosier said:

He’s connected, somehow, someway. Also, this account makes a lot of racist accusations and likes to presume that is why Woodson gets grief and that the Indiana fanbase is racist.

I say, GTFOH with that nonsense. This fanbase loves good basketball and good basketball players of any race. Countless examples of this and this lazy take by some is probably the most offensive take to me of all the Indiana fan generalities. Genuinely upsets me that some want to perpetuate this notion. Tyme and his crew do ALOT of this.


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

Okay, but I wasn’t defending Tyme.  I was stating why Goodman blocked him.  I was saying the chain of events was:

1.  Goodman made a stupid statement.

2.  Tyme said that stupid statement was racist (basically Goodman brought up the name of a white shooter saying he was better than guys Indians has even though the percentages were basically the same).

3.  Goodman blocked him.

That’s all I was saying.  Not defending Goodman or Tyme, just stating the chain of events as I interpreted them.

[IUHoosierJoe 1,590]

47 minutes ago, Juwan Moye said:

I’ll go on record and say that, regardless of personnel, we’ll be in the bottom half of the country in three point attempts.

 The issue isn’t players here, it’s system. Go and look at the JHS/TJD/Kopp team and explain to me why Kopp averaged 4.1 3PA per game. The answer isn’t a lack of playmakers, or thar Kopp couldn’t shoot.

3PA rankings each year under Woodson:

2021- 321st (17.7/g)

2022- 352nd (15.5/g)

2023- 355th (15.5/g)

True, but in 2021 and 2022 we also had a guy that hit 59% of his 2-pointers, at a very high volume.  So, while you always need to shoot some 3-pointers, you're completely ignoring metrics and common sense to actually prefer a 30-some percentage 3-point shot over a 59% 2-point shot.