This is why we need shooter(s).,.

#1
bleedingTNorange

bleedingTNorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
74,041
Likes
50,220
#1
And to learn to feed the post...

On the year our 4 big men combined to go:

324-591 55%


Our guards combined to go:

485- 1256 38%


So why are 2/3 of our shots coming from the guards? Whether or not this is CCM philosophy, something needs to change for next year. We have a huge advantage on the inside, and we need to expose it each and every game. As I stated in another thread, the ball should hit stokes or maymon on the post every possession before any guards are even allowed to think about shooting.

Now if we add a guard who can shoot like Fabyon, then ok that changes things a LITTLE. But still, the advantage is huge on the inside and we need to utilize it each and every possession as much as possible. Last night we were going inside and had MTSU in more foul trouble than they knew what to do with, yet then we quit going inside.

IMO stokes and maymon should be getting 12-15 shots a game EACH MINIMUM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2
#2
You think this is significant?

This is a pretty standard % breakdown for every team in college basketball. Of course your big men score at a higher percentage than your guards... they're typically a lot closer to the rim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3
#3
I've heard CM is big on taking the open shot, which in theory makes sense, but he needs to amend that in games like last night and/or on the off shooting nights. Of course, Stokes also needs to finish. We could really have used those three layup shots he missed.
 
#4
#4
golfballs03 said:
You think this is significant?

This is a pretty standard % breakdown for every team in college basketball. Of course your big men score at a higher percentage than your guards... they're typically a lot closer to the rim.
Click to expand...

If it's so standard we really must have the dumbest guards in college basketball.
 
#5
#5
golfballs03 said:
You think this is significant?

This is a pretty standard % breakdown for every team in college basketball. Of course your big men score at a higher percentage than your guards... they're typically a lot closer to the rim.
Click to expand...

This is not significant, but we all know our guards are very limited either in ball handling, creating their own offense, or shooting open shots. Our formulation for winning is simple...feed the damn post. We had arguably the one of the best 4 and 5 spots all year with Yemi, Miller, Stokes, Maymon, Hall, and Woolridge.

And putting in a 4 guard lineup with Yemi at the 5 is assinine. I'm tired of the stupid rotations also.
 
Last edited:
#6
#6
If you have players that can dribble and penetrate, everyone shoots better.

We handle the ball like a hs jv team, so help D isnt necessary, therefore you have less open looks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
golfballs03 said:
You think this is significant?

This is a pretty standard % breakdown for every team in college basketball. Of course your big men score at a higher percentage than your guards... they're typically a lot closer to the rim.
Click to expand...

My bigger concern is the guard %. Take away Renaldos 40+ fg% and that number goes down closer to 37%. How many teams 1-3 average around 35% fg, and are succesful?

My guess is not many, but if I'm wrong in that assumption then my apologies.

Edit:
looking at UK, their guards shoot 46%

Looking at Vanderbilt their guards are around 45%

Looking at Alabama their guards are around 45%

Looking at Florida their guards are around 45%.

See the trend?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8
#8
I'm gonna guess not many NCAA teams shoot as badly as our guards do, 37%.

So the point about getting it inside to our strengths....

If you pound it in there and get those boys 12-15 shots a game defenses will have to adjust. When this happens your guard will have wide open looks, and if they can't hit 40% of wide open looks then they don't deserve a d1 scholarship.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
tennesseety said:
I've heard CM is big on taking the open shot, which in theory makes sense, but he needs to amend that in games like last night and/or on the off shooting nights. Of course, Stokes also needs to finish. We could really have used those three layup shots he missed.
Click to expand...

Agree, but the guys taking the open shot have to actually be able to make baskets- last night was pitiful.
 
#10
#10
bleedingTNorange said:
My bigger concern is the guard %. Take away Renaldos 40+ fg% and that number goes down closer to 37%. How many teams 1-3 average around 35% fg, and are succesful?

My guess is not many, but if I'm wrong in that assumption then my apologies.

Edit:
looking at UK, their guards shoot 46%

Looking at Vanderbilt their guards are around 45%

Looking at Alabama their guards are around 45%

Looking at Florida their guards are around 45%.

See the trend?
Click to expand...

Those are good teams to be comparing us against - and very good guards.

Whats significant is not just the percentage - but the # of attempts at said percentage.

It was very obvious to watch Tennessee play that feeding the post was crucial for us to play well. But other teams knew that and could focus their defense in the paint - forcing us to shoot it more from the outside.
 
#11
#11
golfballs03 said:
Those are good teams to be comparing us against - and very good guards.

Whats significant is not just the percentage - but the # of attempts at said percentage.

It was very obvious to watch Tennessee play that feeding the post was crucial for us to play well. But other teams knew that and could focus their defense in the paint - forcing us to shoot it more from the outside.
Click to expand...

What team would you like me to compare us to,MTSU? I did the 4 NCAA teams from the sec, are we not comparable to them?

Exactly. That's why I posted the numbers and percentages. No reason our guards should be getting 2/3 of the shots when our bigs are converting as regularly as they do.

MTSU knew we wanted to go inside last night and still couldn't stop it. The only thing that stopped it was our guards not passing it in, and taking quick shots. The opposing teams can know its coming, but from the fg% and ft rate, obviously them knowing its coking isn't stopping it. I come from the mind set if it ain't broke don't fix it. If getting it into maymon and stokes is working, why stop? Continue to do it until they no longer are shooting 50+% from their, or until they double or triple you and your guards start hitting their shots at a 40% clip as well.
 
#12
#12
golfballs03 said:
Those are good teams to be comparing us against - and very good guards.

Whats significant is not just the percentage - but the # of attempts at said percentage.

It was very obvious to watch Tennessee play that feeding the post was crucial for us to play well. But other teams knew that and could focus their defense in the paint - forcing us to shoot it more from the outside.
Click to expand...

Uh, MTSU guards average 45%+
 
#14
#14
calban said:
Uh, MTSU guards average 45%+
Click to expand...

whats your point?

How many teams in college hoops have guards that have higher % than their big men?

MTSU is also better than us. FG% vs Wins is probably the highest correlated stat is basketball. It's no secret!
 
#15
#15
golfballs03 said:
whats your point?

How many teams in college hoops have guards that have higher % than their big men?

MTSU is also better than us. FG% vs Wins is probably the highest correlated stat is basketball. It's no secret!
Click to expand...

Yes most teams post have a higher fg% than their guards. The point is our guards fg% is REALLY bad.

As in, too bad to be very succesful IMO.

Btw Northern Arizoma is #4 fg% in the country, and has 5 wins. And 6 of the top 10 fg% teams in the country have less than 20 wins.
 
Last edited:
#16
#16
I have to say we may be one of the worst perimeter shooting teams in the NCAA. I guess I don't understand why they continue to do the same things over and over again. Somewhere in some of these kids lives someone told them they could shoot. Tatum, Richardson, Golden etc all shoot like an above average HS player, actualy I played with numerous guys who had more range and could easily out shoot them. McStache has his moments but he's very inconsistent.

I think I was more disappointed last night in the perimeter defense. Every player has offensive tendencies, the PG for MTSU last night loved to penetrate to his left and for some reason no one forced him right. A lot of that had to do with the post players not stepping up on the pick and roll but when you know it's coming and still get burnt, thats just bad defense.

I think The Cuanz has this program headed in the right direction and once he gets his type of players in here, we'll be a lot better. I'm glad he was a shooter in college, he knows what to look for when it comes to recruiting one.
 
#17
#17
bleedingTNorange said:
Yes most teams post have a higher fg% than their guards. The point is our guards fg% is REALLY bad.

As in, too bad to be very succesful IMO.

Btw Northern Arizoma is #4 fg% in the country, and has 5 wins.
Click to expand...

So that's 1 team. Chart all the teams. Correlation is strongest among any stat.
 
#20
#20
golfballs03 said:
Wait, so you're saying shooting a higher % doesn't mean more wins? I guess that refutes your original post.
Click to expand...

No, not at all.

My original point is our guards don't shoot a good enough %.

My guess with those schools is that they probably shoot a very high inside % and that the majority of their shots are inside.

Also, If you don't play D or turn it over 100 times a game your fg% isn't going to matter at all. There are many factors that still matter, simply saying fg% means wins is not true.

Right now Tennessee did a lot of things well, their biggest weakness IMO was guard fg%. If our guards shot 45% I'd say we're a sweet 16 team.
 
#21
#21
bleedingTNorange said:
No, not at all.

My original point is our guards don't shoot a good enough %.

My guess with those schools is that they probably shoot a very high inside % and that the majority of their shots are inside.

Also, If you don't play D or turn it over 100 times a game your fg% isn't going to matter at all. There are many factors that still matter, simply saying fg% means wins is not true.

Right now Tennessee did a lot of things well, their biggest weakness IMO was guard fg%.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think everyone will agree that our guards as a whole cannot shoot worth a lick.

BTW, FG% is the most correlated stat in basketball. It's all relative, of course.
 
#22
#22
bleedingTNorange said:
My bigger concern is the guard %. Take away Renaldos 40+ fg% and that number goes down closer to 37%. How many teams 1-3 average around 35% fg, and are succesful?

My guess is not many, but if I'm wrong in that assumption then my apologies.

Edit:
looking at UK, their guards shoot 46%

Looking at Vanderbilt their guards are around 45%

Looking at Alabama their guards are around 45%

Looking at Florida their guards are around 45%.

See the trend?
Click to expand...


You're talking about a Tennessee team quite a bit less talent than these school too. If you have a guy like Jenkins at Vandy, Boynton at Florida, any of those guards at Kentucky, etc. everyone around you will shoot better, because they will get open looks. Tennessee doesn't have anyone like that.

Imagine this, the most comparable guy we have to those players is Trae Golden, the same Trae Golden that led the team in turnovers and constantly got belittled on this message board. Having someone like Lofton, for instance, makes everyone better, because more attention is placed on Lofton. If you were scouting against Tennessee, which one of our guards are you going to be afraid of? None.
 
#24
#24
calban said:
Now, which is it?
Click to expand...

There's more to winning than fg% is what I'm saying. Which is why 6 of the top 10 fg teams in the country aren't that good of teams.

When I'm talking about Tennessee though as in the second part saying they'd be sweet 16, it's because I fell we do all the other things good enough. I feel we rebound, play d and do all the other things well enough that the one major thing missing is guard fg%.

With those other teams though; that's not necessarily the case. That's what I was saying.
 
#25
#25
dooley2 said:
You're talking about a Tennessee team quite a bit less talent than these school too. If you have a guy like Jenkins at Vandy, Boynton at Florida, any of those guards at Kentucky, etc. everyone around you will shoot better, because they will get open looks. Tennessee doesn't have anyone like that.

Imagine this, the most comparable guy we have to those players is Trae Golden, the same Trae Golden that led the team in turnovers and constantly got belittled on this message board. Having someone like Lofton, for instance, makes everyone better, because more attention is placed on Lofton. If you were scouting against Tennessee, which one of our guards are you going to be afraid of? None.
Click to expand...

What about bama?

Or MTSU?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top