Analytics in College Hoops
- Thread starter paultzman
- Start date
Moose
Well-known member
Here are some analytics free of charge. And yes they aren't coming from an Analytics expert.
The closer you are to the hoop. The better your odds of making the shot. So instead of always jacking up a 3, take 1 dribble two steps in and pull up.
#BringBackMidRangeGame
That is all.
The closer you are to the hoop. The better your odds of making the shot. So instead of always jacking up a 3, take 1 dribble two steps in and pull up.
#BringBackMidRangeGame
That is all.
Last edited:
[quote="Moose" post=345923]Here are some analytics free of charge. And yes they aren't coming from an Analytics expert.
The closer you are to the hoop. The better your odds of making the shot. So instead of always jacking up a 3, take 1 dribble two steps in and pull up.
#BringBackMidRangeGame
That is all.[/quote] Watching Amar and Trimble always puzzled me. They both took almost all 3 pt shots and really weren’t good 3 pt shooters I always wondered why they didn’t adapt your strategy.
The closer you are to the hoop. The better your odds of making the shot. So instead of always jacking up a 3, take 1 dribble two steps in and pull up.
#BringBackMidRangeGame
That is all.[/quote] Watching Amar and Trimble always puzzled me. They both took almost all 3 pt shots and really weren’t good 3 pt shooters I always wondered why they didn’t adapt your strategy.
ronm
Well-known member
[quote="richard A Steinfeld" post=345930][quote="Moose" post=345923]Here are some analytics free of charge. And yes they aren't coming from an Analytics expert.
The closer you are to the hoop. The better your odds of making the shot. So instead of always jacking up a 3, take 1 dribble two steps in and pull up.
#BringBackMidRangeGame
That is all.[/quote] Watching Amar and Trimble always puzzled me. They both took almost all 3 pt shots and really weren’t good 3 pt shooters I always wondered why they didn’t adapt your strategy.[/quote]
Lack of coaching. They were encouraged to jack up 3s.
The closer you are to the hoop. The better your odds of making the shot. So instead of always jacking up a 3, take 1 dribble two steps in and pull up.
#BringBackMidRangeGame
That is all.[/quote] Watching Amar and Trimble always puzzled me. They both took almost all 3 pt shots and really weren’t good 3 pt shooters I always wondered why they didn’t adapt your strategy.[/quote]
Lack of coaching. They were encouraged to jack up 3s.
[quote="richard A Steinfeld" post=345930][quote="Moose" post=345923]Here are some analytics free of charge. And yes they aren't coming from an Analytics expert.
The closer you are to the hoop. The better your odds of making the shot. So instead of always jacking up a 3, take 1 dribble two steps in and pull up.
#BringBackMidRangeGame
That is all.[/quote] Watching Amar and Trimble always puzzled me. They both took almost all 3 pt shots and really weren’t good 3 pt shooters I always wondered why they didn’t adapt your strategy.[/quote]
Because everyone had a neon green light when some should have been yellow or red.
The closer you are to the hoop. The better your odds of making the shot. So instead of always jacking up a 3, take 1 dribble two steps in and pull up.
#BringBackMidRangeGame
That is all.[/quote] Watching Amar and Trimble always puzzled me. They both took almost all 3 pt shots and really weren’t good 3 pt shooters I always wondered why they didn’t adapt your strategy.[/quote]
Because everyone had a neon green light when some should have been yellow or red.
[quote="fuchsia" post=346151](.4) x 3 > (.5) x 2[/quote]
Winning is more complicated than just hoisting more 3s.
St. John's shot the '3' 809 times last season, making it .357% for a total of 867 points and shot the '2' 1,291 times, making it .507% for total points of 1,310.
The only team in conference that scored more points by the '3' than by the '2' was 'Nova.
But it's not that 'simple' either.
The 2 teams that had the highest average pts per game were Georgetown and DePaul who also had the worst scoring defense averages per game.
St. John's tallied the 5th best average points per game in the conference but the 8th worst scoring defense average per game.
Marquette, Nova, Creighton, St. John's, Depaul, and Seton Hall were the top 6 for offense - defense 'scoring margin' while the conference standings ended with Nova, Marquette the top 2, and the Hall, G*Town, Creighton, and Xavier all 'tied' for 3rd at 9-9, with SJU 7th at 8-10, and DePaul, Providence, and Butler all 'tied' for 8th with 7 - 11 records.
Free throw points made were also a factor, with G*Town on top with 568 total FTs made, followed by DePaul with 537 points, Providence 533 pts, Marquette 524, Nova 506, Seton Hall 492, SJU 446, X 437, Creighton 395, and Butler 360.
As I said: it's complicated.
I conclude it's 'best' to be 'good' at as many of the metrics to measure 'fundamentals' as possible.
Lol.
Winning is more complicated than just hoisting more 3s.
St. John's shot the '3' 809 times last season, making it .357% for a total of 867 points and shot the '2' 1,291 times, making it .507% for total points of 1,310.
The only team in conference that scored more points by the '3' than by the '2' was 'Nova.
But it's not that 'simple' either.
The 2 teams that had the highest average pts per game were Georgetown and DePaul who also had the worst scoring defense averages per game.
St. John's tallied the 5th best average points per game in the conference but the 8th worst scoring defense average per game.
Marquette, Nova, Creighton, St. John's, Depaul, and Seton Hall were the top 6 for offense - defense 'scoring margin' while the conference standings ended with Nova, Marquette the top 2, and the Hall, G*Town, Creighton, and Xavier all 'tied' for 3rd at 9-9, with SJU 7th at 8-10, and DePaul, Providence, and Butler all 'tied' for 8th with 7 - 11 records.
Free throw points made were also a factor, with G*Town on top with 568 total FTs made, followed by DePaul with 537 points, Providence 533 pts, Marquette 524, Nova 506, Seton Hall 492, SJU 446, X 437, Creighton 395, and Butler 360.
As I said: it's complicated.
I conclude it's 'best' to be 'good' at as many of the metrics to measure 'fundamentals' as possible.
Lol.