Shooting wasn't our problem

[Norm Peterson]

Yeah, we sucked last year. But shooting wasn't the problem.

 

In conference games only, we ranked 10th in FG% and 7th in opposing FG% among league teams.

 

In terms of 3-pt shooting, we were 6th in the conference at 34.2% from long range. And we were 2nd best in the league against the 3, giving up 31.3%.

 

Enough of the good stuff.

 

OK, if we're roughly middle of the pack in terms of our own shooting and among the better teams in the league in FG% defense ...

 

HOW ON EARTH DID WE COME IN DEAD LAST IN SCORING MARGIN?

 

We were far and away the worst team in the league in scoring margin, being outscored by an average of 10.2 ppg. Second worst was Northwestern at -6.8 ppg.

 

HOW?

 

Well, if you figure that every possession is worth about a point (that's roughly the average -- some teams do a little better, some a little worse), you start to see a picture come together.

 

We were worst in the league in both turnovers and turnover margin, giving up an average of 14.4 turnovers in league games with a league-worst turnover margin of -2.32 per game.

 

We were 2nd worst in the league in rebounding, being outrebounded by our opponents by an average of 5.4 rebounds extra possessions per game.

 

And we were dead-last in the league in FT% and probably also worst in missing the front ends of 1+1s (although I don't know if anyone charts that stat), which means that every possession that ended in foul shots was more likely to be an empty possession for us than for any other league team.

 

Now, the good news is that two of our top 3 rebounders along with our best offensive rebounder have all left the team, so ...

 

Wait wut?

[hhcmatt]

We're not trying to outrebound teams.  It's great if we do but it's not our focus in terms of team building nor execution.

We're trying to outshoot teams and not turn the ball over.  Shooting was still an issue but the turnovers might have been THE issue. Seems like you could chalk those issues up to inconsistency from our ball handlers/PGs.

 

"Did we address our PG issues?' has to be high up on the list of burning questions for this season.

[Norm Peterson]

18 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

We're not trying to outrebound teams.  It's great if we do but it's not our focus in terms of team building nor execution.

We're trying to outshoot teams and not turn the ball over.  Shooting was still an issue but the turnovers might have been THE issue. Seems like you could chalk those issues up to inconsistency from our ball handlers/PGs.

 

"Did we address our PG issues?' has to be high up on the list of burning questions for this season.

 

Being worst in turnover margin is a bad deal and definitely a point of emphasis.

 

But our rebounding margin is worse than our turnover margin in terms of gaining or losing opportunities to take shots.

 

If we think we can get by being a bad rebounding team by just shooting better, that might be a mistake.

 

Taking better care of the ball has to be a point of emphasis, but not getting beaten so badly on the glass has to be a consideration as well.

[aphilso1]

5 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Being worst in turnover margin is a bad deal and definitely a point of emphasis.

 

But our rebounding margin is worse than our turnover margin in terms of gaining or losing opportunities to take shots.

 

If we think we can get by being a bad rebounding team by just shooting better, that might be a mistake.

 

Taking better care of the ball has to be a point of emphasis, but not getting beaten so badly on the glass has to be a consideration as well.

 

I think you have to consider style of play and roster composition.  In both cases, HCFH wants a team of athletic shooters that can run the floor.  He also wants versatility rather than a traditional 1 through 5.  A team that is operating as designed in this system is still probably going to be in the bottom half of the league in both rebounding and turnovers.  That's the tradeoff of not recruiting a true floor general or traditional dominant big man.  

Edited August 24, 2021 by aphilso1

[millerhusker]

Missed free throws and turnovers have made us look like a bad high school team at times. Also, our 2P% was 48%, which is very poor. Especially since we were apparently the best in the conference at getting analytically “good shots” - threes (especially corner threes), shots at the rim and free throws. That means we’ve been atrocious at converting shots at the rim. It seems like we get more shots blocked than any other team I watch during the season, and it drives Hoiberg nuts. 

[hhcmatt]

26 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Being worst in turnover margin is a bad deal and definitely a point of emphasis.

 

But our rebounding margin is worse than our turnover margin in terms of gaining or losing opportunities to take shots.

 

If we think we can get by being a bad rebounding team by just shooting better, that might be a mistake.

 

Taking better care of the ball has to be a point of emphasis, but not getting beaten so badly on the glass has to be a consideration as well.

 

Disagree on the rebounding deal.

We don't chase offensive rebounds because we try to get back on defense.  Unlikely that will change.

We suffer in terms of defensive rebounds because we emphasize trying to break for transition points. The one reason to change on that philosophy a bit would be better half court execution but then we're back to talking about an emphasis in shooting and not turning the ball over.

 

I think our rebounding will boil down to the roster we roll out. Banton is the only guy we're losing that hurts in terms of defensive rebounding as Eduardo should be able to approximate or exceed Yvan. What we get from the other 4 guys on the court will dictate where we'll end up between poor and average.  If this team can shoot and not turn the ball over, average will be just fine.

 

 

[Norm Peterson]

48 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

 

Disagree on the rebounding deal.

We don't chase offensive rebounds because we try to get back on defense.  Unlikely that will change.

We suffer in terms of defensive rebounds because we emphasize trying to break for transition points. The one reason to change on that philosophy a bit would be better half court execution but then we're back to talking about an emphasis in shooting and not turning the ball over.

 

I think our rebounding will boil down to the roster we roll out. Banton is the only guy we're losing that hurts in terms of defensive rebounding as Eduardo should be able to approximate or exceed Yvan. What we get from the other 4 guys on the court will dictate where we'll end up between poor and average.  If this team can shoot and not turn the ball over, average will be just fine.

 

 

 

Average would be a huge improvement.

[Handy Johnson]

Our rebounding should take a BIG jump with Walker for a full season, a filled out Andre, Breidenbach, B McGowens & Edwards all chipping in...

[75unlgrad]

The last two years, our weaknesses have been:  (in order)

1.  too many turnovers;

2.  not enough rebounds/giving up too many offensive rebounds;

3.  poor free-throw shooting (especially one-and-ones); and

4.  poor perimeter shooting.

 

I am encouraged with the new players we are bringing in.  We should be more athletic and more skilled -- improving our free-throw shooting and perimeter shooting.  I still expect too many turnovers by the young players and I believe we are one year away from being a good rebounding team (Andre will be a year older and we add Blaise Keita from the juco ranks.)  The future looks bright.

[Nighthawk]

17 hours ago, 75unlgrad said:

The last two years, our weaknesses have been:  (in order)

1.  too many turnovers;

2.  not enough rebounds/giving up too many offensive rebounds;

3.  poor free-throw shooting (especially one-and-ones); and

4.  poor perimeter shooting.

 

I am encouraged with the new players we are bringing in.  We should be more athletic and more skilled -- improving our free-throw shooting and perimeter shooting.  I still expect too many turnovers by the young players and I believe we are one year away from being a good rebounding team (Andre will be a year older and we add Blaise Keita from the juco ranks.)  The future looks bright.

and 5. Last years lack of fans in the stands.  Granted this one impacted everyone...but the Huskers just seem to do a lot better in front of a home crowd than they do on the road. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Nighthawk

[Fullbacksympathy]

On 8/24/2021 at 1:54 PM, hhcmatt said:

 

Disagree on the rebounding deal.

We don't chase offensive rebounds because we try to get back on defense.  Unlikely that will change.

We suffer in terms of defensive rebounds because we emphasize trying to break for transition points. The one reason to change on that philosophy a bit would be better half court execution but then we're back to talking about an emphasis in shooting and not turning the ball over.

 

I think our rebounding will boil down to the roster we roll out. Banton is the only guy we're losing that hurts in terms of defensive rebounding as Eduardo should be able to approximate or exceed Yvan. What we get from the other 4 guys on the court will dictate where we'll end up between poor and average.  If this team can shoot and not turn the ball over, average will be just fine.

 

 

 

Re: half court offense... agree.  I think there will be a big difference between what Verge and BMac bring vs. Teddy and Thor just in terms of being able to get iso shots up without turning the ball over.  A lot of times a guy who can score one on one (let alone three of them with TMac) can mitigate turnovers by not passing.  They can also create more turnovers in the case of Teddy, but that was more of a speed/handles issue.  BMac and Verge aren't going to have that problem.  

 

As for rebounding, we are deeper than last year at the 4-5 with WB and EA coming off the bench.  We'll also presumably have all 4 bigs the entire season which will also influence those numbers.