Hard not to like Coach Larranaga.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Seems like a very good dudeHard not to like Coach Larranaga.
I think that’s the big misuse in analytics in any sport. The analytics more instruct you how to build a roster and an offensive system than drive shot selection. If the best roster you can put together is best in the mid-range, then it can be a good option. Additionally you are seeing defensive and personnel and schemes follow suit - overplay on the perimeter and have a rim protector ready to help. So you are starting to see the mid-range come back a bit because it is a shot you can usually get good looks off of. A quick look at Gabe’s stats and it’s a no-brainer. His FG % from 2 is way higher than his effective FG% from 3. Considering he does not attack the rim a ton, it’s safe to say a mid-range, or more generally 2 pt attempt not at the rim is a better look for him than a 3.I know that Fred hated the mid-range shot, but if you shoot 32% from 3-pt line (and are 268th in the nation), the mid-range is probably a better option.
A good mix is probably the best option. If a player mixes up midrange, 3 attempts and taking it to the hole it forces defenders to play honest and you get better looks from all three.Only if you exceed 48% from the midrange and if rebounding the miss remains the same.
Missed threes often lead to rebounds further from the hoop which are slightly easier for the offense to get if they can pin the defender in closer.
That said, I like our midrange game. Last couple of games it has probably exceeded are within five feet game
Exhibit A - brockingtonA good mix is probably the best option. If a player mixes up midrange, 3 attempts and taking it to the whole it forces defenders to play honest and you get better looks from all three.
I think that’s the big misuse in analytics in any sport. The analytics more instruct you how to build a roster and an offensive system than drive shot selection. If the best roster you can put together is best in the mid-range, then it can be a good option. Additionally you are seeing defensive and personnel and schemes follow suit - overplay on the perimeter and have a rim protector ready to help. So you are starting to see the mid-range come back a bit because it is a shot you can usually get good looks off of. A quick look at Gabe’s stats and it’s a no-brainer. His FG % from 2 is way higher than his effective FG% from 3. Considering he does not attack the rim a ton, it’s safe to say a mid-range, or more generally 2 pt attempt not at the rim is a better look for him than a 3.
Nah it wasn't showing anyone up. It was made at himself/teammates.Should the ball slam at 4:12ish have been a T?
In the past it used to be if you slammed the ball down and didn't catch it on the rebound it was a T no questions asked. I have seen it multiple times this year with it never being called. Was there a directive given out this year or last to not call this a T?Nah it wasn't showing anyone up. It was made at himself/teammates.
I don't know the official answer, in theory I believe it's supposed to be a T. However, I would rather it not be, especially in that situation. He wasn't delaying the game or anything, either.In the past it used to be if you slammed the ball down and didn't catch it on the rebound it was a T no questions asked. I have seen it multiple times this year with it never being called. Was there a directive given out this year or last to not call this a T?
Only reason it wasn't a T was because the clock was at zero and people were already jogging off to the locker room. Had the ball been live or there was time on the clock, Johnny probably gets a T.I don't know the official answer, in theory I believe it's supposed to be a T. However, I would rather it not be, especially in that situation. He wasn't delaying the game or anything, either.
I'm not so sure. Every other year I can remember it has been an automatic T. This year I have seen it about a half a dozen times in a variety of situations and I have not seen it T'd up a single time.Only reason it wasn't a T was because the clock was at zero and people were already jogging off to the locker room. Had the ball been live or there was time on the clock, Johnny probably gets a T.
I had this sense, but hadn't tracked down the numbers - we really do win or lose entirely depending on whether we make more 3s than the other team.
We are 20-2 when making more 3-pt shots than our opponents (losses @OU and @TTU)
We are 2-10 when making the same or fewer 3-pt shots (wins Alabama St and Memphis)
I looked at Miami, and that trend does NOT apply:
Miami is 10-5 when making more 3-pt shots than their opponents
But is 15-5 when making the same or fewer 3-pt shots
Maybe not then I guess I haven't seen guys do it this year often. I always thought that you can slam it as hard as you want but when it goes above you it's supposed to be an automatic T. Maybe they laid off the rule though?I'm not so sure. Every other year I can remember it has been an automatic T. This year I have seen it about a half a dozen times in a variety of situations and I have not seen it T'd up a single time.
One of the really good people in the business. Had the chance to meet him a few times.Hard not to like Coach Larranaga.
The two offensive fouls on Brockington should not have been called on him in the first half. Davison should have been called for a flop warning at 15:39.Read the play by play for when a foul and a turnover occurred the same time. Here are our offensive fouls
1st half
15:39 brockington drawn by Davison
13:40 Robert jones drawn by Hepburn
9:04 brockington drawn by Davison
0:44 conditt drawn by Davis
2nd half
15:09 conditt drawn by Davison