***Official 2019 B1G Off Season thread***
- Thread starter bMORE607
- Start date
You might as well be explaining calculus to my dog.
I have a good feeling about that recruitment. It would be great to land him and be done with the 2020 class in the fall. Unless Lander reclassifies to 2020
yes I am YOU LEARN FROM WATCHING OTHERS MISTAKES, never coached BB at any level have you, when you win against inferior opponents they stop listening to the coaches and get to cocky thinking they can't be beat, then all of sudden they play a team as good or better then they get blown out. this a major wake up call and gets the players attentions. this can go two ways,
1st they can listen to the coaches and improve/correct their mistakes or they can pout and go into a funk.
You could word it differently. You said, "you don't learn by watching good plays you learn by watching others make mistakes." Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone. But, I'm guessing just about every high-level player in the world has studied film on elite players. Watching what they do successfully. Certainly you want to correct silly mistakes, but it's also helpful to study the moves, techniques, and patterns of great players. If simply making mistakes made you better, bottom-feeders like Boston College and Washington State would have have made noticeable improvements in the last few years.
Surrounding yourself with good teammates to emulate is probably a more effective strategy. Kids that stick around in programs like Villanova, Kansas, UNC, and Gonzaga seem to be very successful after a few years (ie Mikal Bridges, Devonte' Graham, Luke Maye, Rui Hachimura).
Its a fad for sure. Some times it works some times not. I am okay with that hire for them.
what metric's?
that 12' is more accurate and it also leads to drawing fouls. plus he was a 90+% ft shooter.
Fredrick came in @170 lbs and now after a RS he is now 195 lbs and is more physically prepared to take the pounding in BT play.
there is another advantage to that 12' shot is that if they try to step out to take the 3 away he can take that two dribble and score, some time a 2 pointer is just has good as a 3 point attempt, now with then moving the 3 point line further back its even more useful.
The mid-range jumper is a bad shot according to metrics. Lower percentage shot for only 2 points. Layups are statistically the best shot followed by a 3 pointer. Anything else is statistically not a very good shot.
In other words, which of these shots would your rather have?
50% 2 pt
40% 2 pt
33% 3 pt
You should say 50% 2 pt = 33% 3 pt which are both greater than 40% 2 pt.
Jordan was playing on a bad hip and now Moss is playing for Kansas and according to Self has a good chance to start,
based on that he did learn quite a bit.
remember last year team won 23 games so its not like all he saw was watching bad players,
that's because the mid range shot is a lost art, now its either the 3 or run headlong to the rim, now most teams have forgotten how to defend that mid range shot.
his heritage shows a very strong BB background. with a very high BB IQ which leads to a very good BB player.
this is what separates the avg from the good/great players.
I’m more curious what about they will do in the offseason. Go all in for Cole? They have some fixing to do on the pitching staff.
That’s because of analytics. It’s the worst shot in the game. You might as well step back a couple feet and shot the 3.
No, it's because statistically it's a worse shot. If you're not shooting over 50% from mid-range, it's a bad shot. Pretty easy way to calculate how effective a shot is is to multiply the percentage you shoot by the number of points it's worth.
.33 x 3 = 1
.5 x 2 = 1
.4 x 2 = .8
A 40% 3 point shooter is worth as much as a 60% 2 point shooter (.40 x 3 = 1.2 = .60 x 2). It's basic stats.
Also, we had Michael Jordan's son on our team, and he was shit. Hereditary traits don't guarantee anything.
there is a good 10' between the new 3 point line and a 12' jump shot. you can't just take a couple steps back and shoot/launch a 3,
now if were just a 17-18' shot then maybe those stats might mean more, but I am talking about a shot that is 10' closer.
He should not be allowed to have the last name of Jordan. He was Iowa baaaaaaad.
Yore not getting the math. Shooting 40% from 12' is worse than 33% from 22'.
There is no "we shall see". That's math. It's fact.
If I make 1/3 out of my shots from 3 and you make 1/2 from 2, we'll have the same amount of points.
Last edited:
or if you make 2 out of 3 from 12' you have 4 points that is a math fact. then we don't have the same amount of points. or for you 2-4 for 50% still = 4 points.
another fact by math is that 1 3 pointer is like shooting 50% from 2. again shooting 2-4 = 50% and still is greater 4-3 point wise,. in any game the 2 point attempt always is greater than the 3. you might find 1 maybe 2 players on a team that will shoot over 40% from 3,
the Twins will be on scholarship but you know what these will be in front of them
6'6 Wieskamp
6'8 Patrick
a pair of top 100 4* players that means they can learn and ease into the lineup, hopefully that get RS'd, it did a lot for 3/4* Moss and former walk on Baer.
again until they play and their college career is done NOBODY knows anything about these 2.
as for Moss he never got a offer from Illinois or NW
Fleming had offers from these
Auburn
Florida
Memphis
Nebraska
UNLV
and only lasted one year, again not getting or getting P5 or high mid-major offers does not = how good a player is or will be.
6'6 Wieskamp
6'8 Patrick
a pair of top 100 4* players that means they can learn and ease into the lineup, hopefully that get RS'd, it did a lot for 3/4* Moss and former walk on Baer.
again until they play and their college career is done NOBODY knows anything about these 2.
as for Moss he never got a offer from Illinois or NW
Fleming had offers from these
Auburn
Florida
Memphis
Nebraska
UNLV
and only lasted one year, again not getting or getting P5 or high mid-major offers does not = how good a player is or will be.
its your math that I used can't stand it can you when your narrative is used against you now can you.
Here are the percentages of 2-pt pull-up jumpers by some of the NBA elites from 2019. Notice there's a HUGE variance between their pull-up jumpers percentage and their overall effective field goal percentage. Kevin Durant is the only player who is above 50% on 2-pt pull-up jumpers. Yet every player is above 50% when you account for the efg%.
The average 2-pt pull-up jumper % for these 10 players is right around 44%. Yet their efg% average is 56.7%.
So 100 shots at 44% = 88 points
100 shots at .567 = 113.4 points
That's a difference of 25.4 points per 100 shots. Or roughly one point per every 4 shots.
Here are the percentages of 2-pt pull-up jumpers by some of the NBA elites from 2019. Notice there's a HUGE variance between their pull-up jumpers percentage and their overall effective field goal percentage. Kevin Durant is the only player who is above 50% on 2-pt pull-up jumpers. Yet every player is above 50% when you account for the efg%.
The average 2-pt pull-up jumper % for these 10 players is right around 44%. Yet their efg% average is 56.7%.
So 100 shots at 44% = 88 points
100 shots at .567 = 113.4 points
That's a difference of 25.4 points per 100 shots. Or roughly one point per every 4 shots.
that is way too much math for this argument. You have to fight confusion with confusion.
And heights and weights of every Iowa player.
Zero chance you have a girlfriend/wife.
And I’d say you’re technically wrong considering we’re getting an official visit and considered one of the potential landing spots. So I’d guess our “chance” of landing Garcia is higher than zero.
Not quite. The NCAA average for 3-pointers was 34.4% and 50.3% for 2-pointers.
If you take 100 3-point shots and 100 2-point shots at these percentages, you get:
.344*100*3= 103.2 points
.503*100*2= 100.6 points
That's not math or a fact.
Right, or I could hit my 4th shot and be up 6-4 and then miss my next two while you go 1/2 and then tie me. That's how averages work.
Wrong. You think all of these coaches are emphasizing 3 point shots because they don't understand the basic math behind the shot?
If you're shooting 50% from two, I only need to find a guy that shoots 33%, and there are plenty of those.
"Teams have realized that they can improve their offense by simply changing their shot selection. Take more threes and score more points." https://shottracker.com/articles/the-3-point-revolution
Teams shooting 3-10 feet shoot 39.4%. (0.788 point per shot)
Teams shooting 11-16 feet shoot 41.7% (0.834 point per shot)
Teams shooting two pointers from at least 17 feet shoot 40.1% (0.802 point per shot)
Teams shooting three pointers shoot 36.1% (1.083 point per shot)
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...ng-the-leagues-least-valuable-shooters#slide0
So, by league average your shot is worth 24.9 points per 100 attempts, meaning you'll lose by 25 points if we each shoot 100 times, or 1 point for every 4 shots.
He'll get lost in the middle, find one thing he misunderstood, and hammer that point like it nullifies your argument.