Haanif Cheatham is N

1 hour ago, hhcmatt said:

 

He means that a 3pt basket is worth 1.5 2pt baskets.

Yep.

35% 3 point shooting is the rough equivalent of 50% from the rest of the floor (it is actually better -- 35x3=105, 50x2=100).  Point being that doing better means exponential returns at the biggest stat of all -- winning.

The reason you've seen such a huge jump in 3 point shooting teams in the NBA is mostly because if you shoot a high enough % you win more often than you don't. They did the math on all the extra rebounds a taller team gets too and added it in there.

Yeah, the difference in how fouls were called between say... 1995 and now is a huge part of it.  But athletes can do mathematics most of the time too and 3 in a trip is a major upgrade over 2 in a trip.  Realistically it is an exponential difference and those are things you take advantage of -- not ignore.

5 minutes ago, kleitus said:

Yeah, the difference in how fouls were called between say... 1995 and now is a huge part of it.  But athletes can do mathematics most of the time too and 3 in a trip is a major upgrade over 2 in a trip.  Realistically it is an exponential difference and those are things you take advantage of -- not ignore.

It depends on the makeup of your team. Duke was definitely more efficient from 2 this year as they didn't have many good shooters and Zion hitting over 74% of his 2s

74% is a lot higher than 50% in 2 point shooting lol...

get zion and you win is the message... :P (or just get good players -- period)

i like good inside play too...  but you can win (and win big) with lots of good shooters so if that's what we're going to do I'm all for it.

it's very similar to all the people saying mike leach can't win in football because all he does is pass.  it makes some manly ethos' angry for some reason because they like 3 yards and a cloud of dust and good defense.

hoiberg's way works, and it's been proven to work.  and frankly, at this program we have zero room to nitpick on styles of play if the coach is going to win while doing it.

On 4/21/2019 at 12:50 AM, ShortDust said:

Fred won’t have the “traditional” bigs. He wants guys to run and shoot. The “bigs” will be guys who can run and are athletic freaks. 6’8/6’9 guys who can jump. Have a feeling that Doc will have defensive game plans with a lot of doubles and traps to keep teams honest. 

I cannot wait to see this team on the court.

This year's lineup before Copeland's injury would've been a perfect Hoiberg lineup...athletic bigs in Cope and Roby, 5 guys who could shoot the 3.

4 hours ago, hhcmatt said:

 

He means that a 3pt basket is worth 1.5 2pt baskets.

I'm aware of that, but that's assuming you make every three and two point basket. It's worth 0% of 2pt baskets if you don't make that three was my point. 

The top NBA teams in terms of percentage of all shots taken being three-pointers last year were as follows:

#3 Milwaukee did have the best record in the East and Golden State at #8 did win the title but the Mavericks and the Hawks sucked. And during the Showtime era, everyone tried to push the ball. Everyone copies a winner. When teams didn't have Magic Johnson on their team they weren't as successful at that game as the Lakers. When you don't have Curry, Thompson, and Durant on your team you aren't going to be as successful at that game either. If that's all it took then the Rockets would be NBA champions and Loyola Marymount would have been an NCAA dynasty in the late '80s and early '90s.  The Rockets are a good team. Do you think as the team is now comprised will ever win a title? If you want a good team you can play that way (and maybe all you hope for Nebraska is to get to the point they are a good team consistently) and you can win championships if you get the right players, but I don't remember a Golden State-like team winning an NCAA championship. Looking at the two teams in the finals this year and I have a feeling that the college world is about to get more defensive minded. We live in a world of few originals and many copiers. Get back to me in 5 years or so and tell me what the math says is the best way to win a championship then. And then tell me how many NCAA championships have been won by teams that shoot mostly threes. The three is an important part of the game now and should certainly not be ignored but the game is played and coached by people. Analytics can be a powerful tool in the hands of someone who can read through the numbers and make sense of it all. But it is only one tool and it can be the downfall of someone who decides they are just always going to play the percentages.

8 of the top 10 are in the playoffs. Five of which will be playing in the conference semis or further.

No dog in this fight. Just thought id share that for those who dont pay attention to the NBA.

32 minutes ago, Dean Smith said:

If you want a good team you can play that way (and maybe all you hope for Nebraska is to get to the point they are a good team consistently) and you can win championships if you get the right players, but I don't remember a Golden State-like team winning an NCAA championship.

National Champions

LOTS OF 3s

Villanova 2018 - 47.5% of shots were 3pt (12th in Div 1)

LOTS OF 2s

North Carolina 2017 - 30.3% of shots were 3pt (306th in Div 1)

The problem with arguing for or against style is that style itself doesn't determine success. Playing fast or slow is a style. Shooting more or less 3s is a a style.  Generating more or less assists is a style. Those 3 national championship teams illustrate how invalid both the arguments that you can't win shooting 3s and you can't win not shooting 3s are.

At the end of the day style is a function of how you go about compiling the statistics that actually matter like eFG%,(how well you shoot in a combination of 2s and 3s) turnover rate (not ending possessions without a shot which is effectively a missed shot), offensive rebounding rate (how many extra attempts you get at a shot) and Free Throw rate. 

That ^^^^^^^^ LOL

What you need is just enough inside.  Length gives you good D and some rebounding.  Athleticism gives some as well.

Nobody is advocating ignoring the interior.  What they're saying is offensive and defensive efficiency is what gives you wins.  On the offensive side, it's hard to overcome something that's 50% more efficient than the alternative unless you're essentially not missing much.  That is all that's being said by those who advocate lots of 3 pointers.

What hoiberg basically wants to do is have a lineup similar to what we had this year pre-cope's injury but with better shooting and a light 'em up offensive philosophy.  Get a lead and let Doc keep it.  Frankly, for those of us who remember doc's defense -- that's a hell of a way to win a lot of games.

Our team the first half of this year was pretty good -- if we're at all honest.  it could easily have won an ncaa game and could have had a sweet 16 run.

We didn't have the depth etc. so we fell apart but there's nothing here that says we can't win a TON of games doing it.

National title?  Eh... I'll take an ncaa run or 5 and not complain but that'll be a work in progress.  People wonder if frost's offensive philosophy can win a title too... and frankly there's a reason we're just happy he's here in general -- we're going to win games and be competitive.

I just remember coaches preaching about getting high percentage shots. That was before the 3-point line, so that obviously didn't involve factoring in 50% greater value of the made 3 pointer. Usually, it meant finding guys cutting to the basket or setting ball screens to allow guys to drive.  Teams that don't shoot a ton of 3s, like UNC in 2017, can only succeed because they have guys who can reliably score in the paint. Because you're not winning a national title by relying on long 2s, that's for sure.

If you don't have players who can get into the paint and get buckets on shots that will be contested, then you better have guys who can bury the 3.  And if you don't have guys who can bury the 3, then you better have guys who can score inside.

To me, whichever style you prefer, you need players who can execute that style.  Guys who can hit a sufficient percentage of whatever kind of shots your offense generates that you can score points hopefully more efficiently than the other team.

Just because it takes skill to hit the threes doesn't mean it doesn't take skill to hit the twos. I agree that 40% from three is a big ask, but Virginia had 3 starters who were able to do it and they won a national title. And experience suggests to me we're more likely to be able to assemble a backcourt of efficient perimeter shooters than to find that big man who's unstoppable in the paint.

49 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

 

National Champions

 

LOTS OF 3s

Villanova 2018 - 47.5% of shots were 3pt (12th in Div 1)

 

LOTS OF 2s

North Carolina 2017 - 30.3% of shots were 3pt (306th in Div 1)

 

The problem with arguing for or against style is that style itself doesn't determine success. Playing fast or slow is a style. Shooting more or less 3s is a a style.  Generating more or less assists is a style. Those 3 national championship teams illustrate how invalid both the arguments that you can't win shooting 3s and you can't win not shooting 3s are.

 

At the end of the day style is a function of how you go about compiling the statistics that actually matter like eFG%,(how well you shoot in a combination of 2s and 3s) turnover rate (not ending possessions without a shot which is effectively a missed shot), offensive rebounding rate (how many extra attempts you get at a shot) and Free Throw rate. 

That was my point. Over half of all NBA teams make the playoffs. So that number would include some pretty bad teams. There is NO ONE RIGHT WAY to play the game. Basketball is a science but it is also an art. There are lots of tools that can help you achieve your goals including analytics and the use of the 3 point shot. As teams win in different ways there will be lots of copycats. If you have an efficient method and the players that fit that system then you can be successful no matter what system you are using.

Of the bottom 11 NBA teams in 3pt FG attempted only San Antonio is still alive.  

Sounds like, according to 247 that the transfer is official!

2 hours ago, Tallbaby21 said:

Of the bottom 11 NBA teams in 3pt FG attempted only San Antonio is still alive.  

And the Spurs were 4th in the league in 3 point shooting percentage. 

30 minutes ago, colhusker said:

Sounds like, according to 247 that the transfer is official!

According to UNL it's official

20 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

 

According to UNL it's official

That is what I meant, just worded it poorly.  I reelly do speek gooder den I's tiep

On 4/22/2019 at 8:20 PM, Dean Smith said:

The top NBA teams in terms of percentage of all shots taken being three-pointers last year were as follows:

If that's all it took then the Rockets would be NBA champions and Loyola Marymount would have been an NCAA dynasty in the late '80s and early '90s.  The Rockets are a good team. Do you think as the team is now comprised will ever win a title?

The Rocket's should have beaten the best team in NBA history in a seven game series last year, who by the way shot 3s to get there, and gone on to win the NBA finals against a depleted Cavs team. So yes if age wasn't a factor the Rockets certainly could win an NBA championship as currently constructed. The Rockets are probably the best example of a team overachieving by shouting as many threes as possible. There style of offensive slows the game down taking an incredible team like the Warriors out of offensive flow and allows them to play harder on defense as well as get more offensive rebounds. Shouting lots of 3s doesn't mean that passing or dribbling aren't important either. It just means those things are used to get 3s instead of 2s. 

Another perfect example is the Cavs last year vs the Lakers this year. There are a lot of factors but the biggest difference between the two teams was that one team had guys who shot 3s and the other didn't. The Lakers thought they could turn back the clock and have a bunch of drivers and they sucked. NBA defenses are far better and more complex today than they used to be.

In the NCAA it is a bit of a different story. NCAA teams with incredible defenses can make up for their lack of scoring. If I had to guess 2pt% is usually more associated with athleticism and good defense than 3pt%. I don't think many people would contend that Texas Tech and Virginia were legendary offensive teams. Mostly they just outworked everybody on defense which seems to be something Doc could be good at getting out of players. We will see.

7 hours ago, cjbowbros said:

The Rocket's should have beaten the best team in NBA history in a seven game series last year, who by the way shot 3s to get there, and gone on to win the NBA finals against a depleted Cavs team. So yes if age wasn't a factor the Rockets certainly could win an NBA championship as currently constructed. The Rockets are probably the best example of a team overachieving by shouting as many threes as possible. There style of offensive slows the game down taking an incredible team like the Warriors out of offensive flow and allows them to play harder on defense as well as get more offensive rebounds. Shouting lots of 3s doesn't mean that passing or dribbling aren't important either. It just means those things are used to get 3s instead of 2s. 

Another perfect example is the Cavs last year vs the Lakers this year. There are a lot of factors but the biggest difference between the two teams was that one team had guys who shot 3s and the other didn't. The Lakers thought they could turn back the clock and have a bunch of drives and they sucked. NBA defenses are far better and more complex today than they used to be.

In the NCAA it is a bit of a different story. NCAA teams with incredible defenses can make up for their lack of scoring. If I had to guess 2pt% is usually more associated with athleticism and good defense than 3pt%. I don't think many people would contend that Texas Tech and Virginia were legendary offensive teams. Mostly they just outworked everybody on defense which seems to be something Doc could be good at getting out of players. We will see.

Husker player comp: Evan Taylor with a more reliable outside shot?

Elite defender and vocal leader. Solid, but not great overall offensive game. 

20 hours ago, millerhusker said:

Husker player comp: Evan Taylor with a more reliable outside shot?

Elite defender and vocal leader. Solid, but not great overall offensive game. 

I was having the same thought.  Evan was 16-for-36 from deep as a senior for 44 percent. HC will probably shoot twice that many, but more likely 35 percent, which is cool. As I've noted about 6,000 times, I think it's important to have a senior elite defender in the starting lineup, especially one with good offensive numbers. 

On 6/2/2019 at 8:20 AM, jayschool said:

I was having the same thought.  Evan was 16-for-36 from deep as a senior for 44 percent. HC will probably shoot twice that many, but more likely 35 percent, which is cool. As I've noted about 6,000 times, I think it's important to have a senior elite defender in the starting lineup, especially one with good offensive numbers. 

As a senior Evan Taylor was 8 for 10 from three in November, 5 for 13 in December, and 3 for 13 in January/February/March. 

Looks like he completed his needed work.

Haanif Cheatham
@hcheatham_22

College graduate!

Felicidades!

What’s more impressive is he posted this pic of him and Drake. I hope Drake shows up courtside at PBA. Gives Hoiberg a shoulder rub and then makes Fran lose it. 

20 hours ago, rwhiston said:

I hope Drake shows up courtside at PBA.

NOPE!

Also... Cheatham must have some connections... he's been playing pickup ball against about a dozen pros (and hanging with Drake I guess.. but NOPE!)...

You can see him in the following video (grey shirt/Husker shorts)... he hits a couple threes, but allows Shabazz Napier to dagger him for the game-winner...