Norm Peterson

I C what U did there.

Agreed. And eyes are not deceiving you. Shamiel is hitting almost 90% from 2-point range. He probably has as much length as Yvan in terms of wingspan. I remember reading somewhere that Shamiel has crazy long arms and is also an explosive leaper. And he's looked good in that dunker role. I wish we had a better idea of what we'd be getting with Walker and Andre. And how soon does Andre come out of quarantine? Anyone know? (I mean anyone on the board; I'm sure someone somewhere knows.)

No.

If you're talking about Breidenbach, I was just listening to the announcers in his team's game against Sierra Canyon (which has the #5 player in the 2022 class) saying he's fundamentally the best rebounder on his team.

Do you have a recipe for this?

Why do tweets not show up as tweets anymore? At least not for me.

Troy Machir on Twitter: "This is the first time since December 1986 that three Big Ten teams not named Indiana, Michigan or MSU are ranked in the AP Top 5 in the same week. 12/16/86: #2 Purdue, #3 Iowa, #5 Ill. 11/30/20: #3 Iowa, #4 Wisky, #5 Ill." / Twitter

Even legit 3-point shooters will have off games from time to time during a season. And nobody shot well against Nevada. BUT if you set aside what they did against Nevada ... Trey McGowens is shooting 4 for 7 from outside (57.1%) Lat Mayen is shooting 6 for 13 (46.2%) Dalano Banton is shooting 3 for 8 (37.5%) Teddy Allen is shooting 4 for 12 (33.3%) Thor Thorbjarnarson is shooting 3 for 9 (33.3%) That might not make any of them "legit 3-point shooters" but it certainly makes you more comfortable with them taking those shots. And it won't take too many more games to give us a decent sample size.

Norm Peterson on Twitter: "@JonRothstein https://t.co/CEhEnMVh90" / Twitter

One thing is clear: it's expectation-based analysis, not outcome-based. The data are derived from past outcomes but the determination of whether a shot is a good one or not is based on expectations rather than outcomes. That makes sense to me. The one time you make an improbable shot doesn't justify having taken it if the likelihood was that you'd miss it 90% of the time. So, let's develop a system that puts our players in position to make high-percentage shots that factor in the shot's value. Hoiberg's system does that. I don't think our last few coaches' systems did. In fact (and I remember disagreeing with this at the time) Doc Sadler used to say that if a defender was close enough to foul you on the 3-point attempt, then "you wasn't open." Actually, that's bad math, Doc. A contested three has more projected value than an uncontested jumper from the elbow off the dribble. And, intuitively, I think we knew this, especially after watching our teams get beat by players hitting treys with hands in their faces. You can guard a three. You can contest a three. But if you're a 3-point shooter and you can get the shot off without it getting blocked, it's probably still a shot worth taking. See, for example, that dagger three at the end of the Nevada game.

According to their website, the algorithm they developed factors in ability. Along with 89 other factors, which are apparently objectively measured (I'm not sure how -- it's proprietary, I'm sure, but even a simple explanation of how you determine how "open" a 3-point attempt was doesn't appear to be offered.)

If Thor took nothing but threes and only hit 25% of them, his points per shot is still .75. If someone else took a bunch of mid-range shots and hit 37.5% of them, the points per shot would be the same. That probably has something to do with why you still want Thor taking 3s. That, plus you expect his numbers will improve as he settles in.

Also, a "good" shot is anything that is .75 or better. So, Thor taking a three, even though he's only hitting at about a 25% clip, would still be a good shot compared to someone driving to the elbow for a mid-range jumper.

That FT stat on Teddy game me another thought on him. His eFG% is higher b/c of his 2-point shooting. But when you factor in drawing and-1s and 2-shot fouls going to the rim, his driving is even more valuable. Now, if he was just hitting 80% or better from the stripe like he did in juco.

Teddy is over 31% (6/19) on threes, which gives him a green light to shoot from deep (3rd most accurate on the team right now). But he's 12 of 19 on two-point attempts (63.2%), which means let him keep doing what he's doing. Another odd Teddy Allen stat: He currently has 19 3-point attempts, 19 2-point attempts, and 19 1-point attempts.

Someone posted a tweet by the Shot Quality account and I started poking around on their website (https://shotquality.com). It's a little different than Kenpom. It analyzes more the individual than the team and adopts the belief that many of us have stated in the past: a bad shot is still a bad shot even if it goes in. But he also adopts the converse: a good shot is still a good shot even if it doesn't go in. And then he breaks down players and teams that are doing the best job of taking the best shots. And he gives players credit for passing not based on whether their teammate hit the shot or not, but whether they should have hit it, at what rate they should have hit it, and what value the shot had (e.g., not all 2-pointers are created equally: some offer a higher chance at an offensive rebound or an and-1.) Now, he's marketing this to both college and NBA teams, so he's trying to make money, but it's an interesting approach. He's ranked, among many other things, all players nationally for the number of points their passing should have generated per game (taking into account the probability the shot had for going in whether the teammate hit the shot or not, and the value of the shot, 2 vs. 3, etc.) Dalano Banton is an intriguing prospect not simply for his length at his position. He's also among the top 40 players nationally (among 350 D1 teams) in terms of points created per pass that leads to a shot, assuming his teammates hit the shots from those passes at the rate they would be expected to hit them (i.e., a 40% look is a 40% look, whether the ball goes in or not). This takes the assist stat to another level and factors out of the equation whether the teammate came through on their end or not. Very interesting. You stat guys might want to take a deeper dive and let us all know what you think.

If we can get to 35% as a team, we'll win some games. More than what the computers are projecting.

30% from three as a high school sophomore/junior is pretty close to Hunter Sallis, no?

This is an excellent point. I remember everyone worrying that he would be a fouling machine. Turned out not to be the case. And he's actually a better rebounder than I had given him credit for previously. He's shown improvement in catching and leaping for dunks on those quick dishes when we get guard penetration into the paint. He still doesn't have touch around the rim, but if he can keep a possession alive with an offensive rebound and kick-out for an attempt at a three, that's a better overall shot than a post-up anyway.

Right now, we’re averaging 28.9% from three. You have to figure that number will improve. Our season average was 31.8 a year ago. We have some capable shooters getting good looks while averaging less than you’d expect from beyond the arc. The Nevada game messed with our averages and it’s a small sample size. You figure we’ll get hot at some point and win a game nobody thinks we can. Fingers crossed anyway.

Once is happenstance. Twice is a coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.

Get him some confidence like calling some high-percentage passing plays for a new QB.

What this tells me is that when you get the kick out catch–and–shoot three point opportunity and the defender closes out strong, rather than a pump fake and dribble in for a mid-range shot, the better choice is to pump fake and take two steps to the side for the dribble 3.

I think Hoiberg said Walker is our best at posting up. That's only one aspect of being a post player. And important one, to be sure, but maybe not crucial for this offense. Better question is can he keep opposing bigs from establishing deep position?

Aside from layups in transition, the four best shots in basketball are all treys.