Where do we improve?

[Norm Peterson]

You're Tim Miles.  (OK, no, you're not, but just go with me here.)

 

Your team is coming off a season in which you surprised nearly everyone by finishing among the top 4 teams in the Big Ten Conference, when most basketball pundits picked you dead last.  Or maybe 11th.

 

The good news is that you return 4 of 5 starters from a team that made it to the NCAA tournament.  In the off-season, you tried to add a piece or two to the equation who would make your team even better.  You filched a big man from Georgetown and you snagged a hidden gem of a point guard out of Jersey City.

 

And, as you sit down and look at your roster for '14-'15, you ask yourself, "Where do we improve?"

 

Y'know, we finished 4th in the Big Ten Conference last year and, in looking at the Big Ten Conference's team statistics from last season, you might wonder why.  Or how.

 

The Big Ten keeps 21 categories of team statistics that they post on their website.  The Huskers finished in the top 4 in the conference in only 3 of those statistical categories last year: 

 

~ 3-point FG defense (3rd)

~ steals (3rd), and

~ turnover margin (4th) (which takes into account steals)

 

On the other hand, we finished in the bottom third of the conference in:

 

~ scoring offense (10th)

~ scoring margin (9th)

~ field goal percentage (9th)

~ rebounding offense (10th)

~ rebounding defense (10th)

~ rebounding margin (11th)

~ blocked shots (11th)

~ assists (dead last)

~ assist:turnover ratio (11th)

~ offensive rebounds (11th), and

~ offensive rebound percent (11th)

 

Wow.

 

You might say we sucked at shooting and rebounding.  Yet, somehow, we managed to win enough games to finish 4th in the league.

 

So, you're Tim Miles (maybe you really are ... OK, probably not) and you're scratching your head thinking "Where do we improve?"  And the next question is "Who's going to improve us in that area?"

 

And the answer is? 

 

Go ahead, Tim, have at it.

 

[a0t0w0]

...Adjusts glasses...

 

Blocking

Offensive rebounding

Assists

[hhcmatt]

 

1. Shoot at a higher percentage.  Both our 2pt % and 3pt % were sub par

2. Stop hacking people so much

3. If we're going to keep being so good at missing, also become good at knowing where those misses will ricochet 

[HuskerFever]

1. Win more games.

2. Lose less games.

[49r]

...Adjusts glasses...

 

 

 

You get an up vote from me for this part.

[Norm Peterson]

 

...Adjusts glasses...

 

 

 

You get an up vote from me for this part.

 

He's just getting in character.  ("Now what's my motivation?")

[Silverbacked1]

Well first I make sure if my tweeter feed is up to date...

[Cazzie22]

1.  Shot selection, maybe I'm getting old (actually, I am) but we jacked up some ungodly shots last year.

2.  Offensive and Defensive rebounding.

3.  Better Point Guard play.

[Brandon4Real_X]

It's not a stat but I'm going with clock management. We took to many wild shots to beat the shot lock last year.

[colhusker]

I think there is room to improve every aspect.

[jimmykc]

Assists- but that goes along with higher shooting percentage since no one can get an assist if the goal is missed. I seem to recall a lot of pretty easy shots being blown last year which were potential assists.

[aphilso1]

_{Just get off to a better start at the beginning of the season.  Last year we dropped most of our important non-con games, and dug an early hole in conference play.  You can break down individual statistical categories to your heart's content, but frankly just picking up a few extra wins in the non-con while duplicating our record in the B1G will get us up quite a few seed lines in the Dance.  And IMO, winning early comes down to returning experience (had very little last year, but lots this year) and confidence (had very little last year, but lots by the end of the year).} 

[Huskerpapa]

The improvement must be in the mental portion of the game.  Sure the physical part of the game needs improvement...that is the common theme for any player in any sport.  You must continue to improve your skills throughout ones career.  But the mental part of the game is always the key.  Will each player understand and embrace their roles?  Will they embrace a team first attitude?  What will happen when they face adversity?  Will they accept a challenge or will they lose focus?

 

Honestly, I thought this was a mentally tough team last year.  Yet, at the end, that mental toughness was challenged.  How did the team and coaches react?  We have to get over that hurdle...if we do, I will be really, really geeked.

 

This team tasted the blood in the water.  Are they mentally tough enough to move it to the next level?  Time will tell, but I do think this team has the ba*** to take it up multiple notches. 

[hhcmatt]

_{Just get off to a better start at the beginning of the season.} 

 

The last two seasons have been train wrecks to start.  We should finally see what an experienced Tim Miles team looks like to start the season.

[Norm Peterson]

One of the reasons for our shooting % numbers (and it probably affects offensive rebounding in some way as well) is that we don't and haven't had a guy getting points with his back to the basket.

 

Walter, for example, makes a high percentage of his 3 pointers -- 41%, which I believe was best on the team for anyone with any significant attempts.  But that's paltry compared to a decent back-to-the-basket center.  For as much as we used to complain about Aleks Maric missing all those "bunnies" near the rim, he still shot 57.5% from the floor.  That's because he's taking a lot of high percentage shots from in close.  And so, if you're looking just at the overall team shooting percentage, you'll typically have a better team shooting percentage if you have a guy with a bunch of attempts from down low.

 

Now, it's certainly worth pointing out that 3 point shots count for more.  A guy shooting 41% from 3 scores more on 100 attempts than a guy shooting 57.5% from 2 with the same number of attempts.  I think the stat guys call that "effective shooting percent."  But, two thoughts in response to that:

 

1.  The guy who shot 57.5% from down low also drew a ton of fouls, putting the opposing bigs in foul trouble and scoring 100 more points from the stripe than the guy who shot 41% from beyond the arc; and

 

2.  Outside of Pitchford, we only shot 31.3% from down town.  So while we didn't have anyone scoring significantly inside, we also weren't particularly effective as a team from the outside either.  Normally, you have a big man getting you high percentage looks inside and SOMEONE ELSE knocking down the looks from outside but, last year, we had that reversed.

 

3.  OK, I guess three thoughs.  Third, if your big guy is taking shots beyond the arc, he's NOT down low looking to snag offensive rebounds.  And offensive rebounding was one of our worst areas last year.

 

So, the remedy?  Well, I'm not Tim Miles.  But it seems to me you have to have a couple of guards step up and start stroking the deep ball a lot better than they did last year.  When our center is the only guy on the team with more than a handful of attempts who connected on more than 32.7% of his threes, that's a problem.  I remember nustudent describing Paul Velander as being "profoundly mediocre" as a 3-point shooter when he was only connecting on about 38% of his treys.  Boy, what Miles wouldn't give for a couple more mediocre three-point shooters, huh? 

 

I'm hoping, and expecting really, that up and down the roster, we're going to see a group of guys who are more accurate from beyond the arc this year than they were last year.  Tai Webster made just six treys on 35 attempts last year (17%.)  That percentage ought to be at least double.  Petteway (32.7%) and Shields (31.6%) should both be Velander-esque at 37.5% or better.  Can Tarin Smith at least match Rey Gallegos' 30% proficiency?  I sure hope so.  And then Nick Fuller could be the sharpshooter that challenges Pitchford for best on the team.

 

If we get that kind of improvement from everyone else beyond the arc, then Pitchford doesn't have to carry all that water.  And if he doesn't develop a post-up game, he at least needs to learn how to drive the ball and take it to the rack, a la Brandon Ubel from two years ago.  Getting Pitch inside more will give us more of what we really need, which is second-chance shot opportunities.  We need to reset the shot clock more often each game.  A team that shoots 43% from the floor like we did last year will score 5 more points per game by finding just 3 more offensive rebounds each half.  And 5 more points per game would move us from 10th place in the league in scoring offense nearly into a tie for 5th.

 

It's a bad combination when you're in the bottom 3 of the league in shooting percentage AND offensive rebounding.  Bad shooting percent means there's a lot of potential offensive rebounds.  And we weren't getting them because our longest, tallest player and best leaper was spotting up along the arc drilling threes.  That, to me, is where the guy making the big bucks needs to find an answer.

[hhcmatt]

Now, it's certainly worth pointing out that 3 point shots count for more.  A guy shooting 41% from 3 scores more on 100 attempts than a guy shooting 57.5% from 2 with the same number of attempts.  I think the stat guys call that "effective shooting percent."  But, two thoughts in response to that:

 

This is essentially what eFG % is. One 3PT is worth 1.5 Two Pointers.  Shooting 33% from 3pt range = 50% from 2pt range.

A counterpoint to having a big man sitting on the 3 point line is that it opens the lane for the slashing game of Petteway and Co.

 

It's a bad combination when you're in the bottom 3 of the league in shooting percentage AND offensive rebounding.  Bad shooting percent means there's a lot of potential offensive rebounds.  And we weren't getting them because our longest, tallest player and best leaper was spotting up along the arc drilling threes.  That, to me, is where the guy making the big bucks needs to find an answer.

 

I think that our offensive rebounding numbers are a combination of our personnel and our defensive strategy. For last season, especially during our run, our strategy was to minimize fast break points which meant bailing on the boards.  We're certainly capable of crashing the boards....I still remember watching Pitchford dunk home a rebound vs. Iowa more in awe that he was actually going after an offensive board.  The staff must have thought that was a key to beating Iowa and Pitch had 8 offensive rebounds that game....which we lost.

 

 

So, the remedy?  Well, I'm not Tim Miles.  But it seems to me you have to have a couple of guards step up and start stroking the deep ball a lot better than they did last year.  When our center is the only guy on the team with more than a handful of attempts who connected on more than 32.7% of his threes, that's a problem.  I remember nustudent describing Paul Velander as being "profoundly mediocre" as a 3-point shooter when he was only connecting on about 38% of his treys.  Boy, what Miles wouldn't give for a couple more mediocre three-point shooters, huh? 

 

 Nustudent was exactly right...for a guy who only shot 3 pointers he wasn't exceptional at it except for the first half of his senior year.  If nothing else we should have addition by subtraction as Gallegos was a prolifically mediocre 3 point shooter and I'll take my odds with whatever players take up the 200+ shots he took last year.

 

Until other guys can prove to be better at shooting 3s than Pitchford, it remains in our best interest for Pitchford to shoot 3s and the other guys to be good at rebounding.

[busticket]

We should get much better FG% wise just from a) Rey graduating (36.4% overall on the year) and Tai getting better (30.4% from the field).  With the work Webster put in with Petteway, and just his natural talent, I have to believe he will be at least 10% better this year, which would still not be a great FG%.  

 

I'm not sure how much better Terran (42.6%) will get, as he is a bit streaky and somewhat of a volume scorer.  Then again, with better PG play he may get better looks instead of having to make things happen on his own as often as he did last year.  Tarin Smith could factor in improving our team FG% by creating good looks for his team mates.  I've only seen limited film of him but he had some nice dishes in the paint.  I'm looking forward to seeing the battle for PG minutes this fall.

[Cazzie22]

One of the reasons for our shooting % numbers (and it probably affects offensive rebounding in some way as well) is that we don't and haven't had a guy getting points with his back to the basket.

 

Walter, for example, makes a high percentage of his 3 pointers -- 41%, which I believe was best on the team for anyone with any significant attempts.  But that's paltry compared to a decent back-to-the-basket center.  For as much as we used to complain about Aleks Maric missing all those "bunnies" near the rim, he still shot 57.5% from the floor.  That's because he's taking a lot of high percentage shots from in close.  And so, if you're looking just at the overall team shooting percentage, you'll typically have a better team shooting percentage if you have a guy with a bunch of attempts from down low.

 

Now, it's certainly worth pointing out that 3 point shots count for more.  A guy shooting 41% from 3 scores more on 100 attempts than a guy shooting 57.5% from 2 with the same number of attempts.  I think the stat guys call that "effective shooting percent."  But, two thoughts in response to that:

 

1.  The guy who shot 57.5% from down low also drew a ton of fouls, putting the opposing bigs in foul trouble and scoring 100 more points from the stripe than the guy who shot 41% from beyond the arc; and

 

2.  Outside of Pitchford, we only shot 31.3% from down town.  So while we didn't have anyone scoring significantly inside, we also weren't particularly effective as a team from the outside either.  Normally, you have a big man getting you high percentage looks inside and SOMEONE ELSE knocking down the looks from outside but, last year, we had that reversed.

 

3.  OK, I guess three thoughs.  Third, if your big guy is taking shots beyond the arc, he's NOT down low looking to snag offensive rebounds.  And offensive rebounding was one of our worst areas last year.

 

So, the remedy?  Well, I'm not Tim Miles.  But it seems to me you have to have a couple of guards step up and start stroking the deep ball a lot better than they did last year.  When our center is the only guy on the team with more than a handful of attempts who connected on more than 32.7% of his threes, that's a problem.  I remember nustudent describing Paul Velander as being "profoundly mediocre" as a 3-point shooter when he was only connecting on about 38% of his treys.  Boy, what Miles wouldn't give for a couple more mediocre three-point shooters, huh? 

 

I'm hoping, and expecting really, that up and down the roster, we're going to see a group of guys who are more accurate from beyond the arc this year than they were last year.  Tai Webster made just six treys on 35 attempts last year (17%.)  That percentage ought to be at least double.  Petteway (32.7%) and Shields (31.6%) should both be Velander-esque at 37.5% or better.  Can Tarin Smith at least match Rey Gallegos' 30% proficiency?  I sure hope so.  And then Nick Fuller could be the sharpshooter that challenges Pitchford for best on the team.

 

If we get that kind of improvement from everyone else beyond the arc, then Pitchford doesn't have to carry all that water.  And if he doesn't develop a post-up game, he at least needs to learn how to drive the ball and take it to the rack, a la Brandon Ubel from two years ago.  Getting Pitch inside more will give us more of what we really need, which is second-chance shot opportunities.  We need to reset the shot clock more often each game.  A team that shoots 43% from the floor like we did last year will score 5 more points per game by finding just 3 more offensive rebounds each half.  And 5 more points per game would move us from 10th place in the league in scoring offense nearly into a tie for 5th.

 

It's a bad combination when you're in the bottom 3 of the league in shooting percentage AND offensive rebounding.  Bad shooting percent means there's a lot of potential offensive rebounds.  And we weren't getting them because our longest, tallest player and best leaper was spotting up along the arc drilling threes.  That, to me, is where the guy making the big bucks needs to find an answer.

Norm, do you really believe that Pitchford is an inside post presence on offense?  I think he will be at his best on the perimeter.  Maybe the big guy from G-Town can offer a post presence and have the ability to kick the ball outside for shots.  We may not want an interior presence at all times to leave driving lanes available for Petteway and Shields.  

[jimmykc]

Does Ali F. get to teach three point shooting technique or is his job only an administrative one. He was really good (at least against KU).

[Chuck Taylor]

Does Ali F. get to teach three point shooting technique or is his job only an administrative one. He was really good (at least against KU).

I'm pretty sure that's why he was hired. Good shooting % on 3s isn't just form. It's spacing, learning to read a defense, shot selection as well. We took a lot of bad shots at the end of the shot clock last year, which hurt our %. But we also jacked up bad shots. One of the reasons Walt was effective is he gets better looks, partly because his defender keeps an eye on the paint, allowing him more space to shoot. But he also is good at finding open spots.

[lanigan123]

I think we are improved with a deeper bench, having guys off the bench who can score will help this team. If PG play is average other areas will improve. Often times last year we played 4 on 5. The loss of Smith will loom large I'm guessing he plays late in the year.

[huskerbaseball13]

I think PG play is the biggest thing. If Tai can be a legitimate threat we will be a very tough team to defend.

[HB]

Interesting thread, in that it seems to parrot what fans talk about the most:  Offense.  Virtually every post mentions offense.  When we improved last year, it was about defense.  Turned the season around,  Perhaps because the D was so much better late in the year posters aren't mentioning defense from an improvement standpoint, but I suspect it is just because the natural tendency of fans is to focus on offense. There are some posts about Ray's shooting, but I am wondering whether we have a 2 guard who will defend as well as Ray.  Our interior defense may also be a spot where we improve, with Abraham's physicality, and some buy in by Walt. 

[twinswingohuskers]

Assists, defensive rebounding,  shooting percentage if we improve to middle of the big 10 in those three areas and hold or improve on our defensive stats we will win the big 10.  I also agree that we will have better depth across the board which should help all of our stats.

[Navin R. Johnson]

Good point HB. Defense is where we improved the most last year. We went from being a pretty poor defensive team to a very good one. Strange how we were able to do it when the schedule got tougher.