#2 - that is because we had less talent than about 1/2 of our OOC opponents. We really, in terms of talent, are that bad.
#3 - Because Washington, while a bad shooting team, has guys that CAN hit them. Elerby, Boton and Robinson have about 63% of their attempts and are not THAT bad from the arc. It is the rest of the team that shoots w…
#2 - that is because we had less talent than about 1/2 of our OOC opponents. We really, in terms of talent, are that bad.
#3 - Because Washington, while a bad shooting team, has guys that CAN hit them. Elerby, Boton and Robinson have about 63% of their attempts and are not THAT bad from the arc. It is the rest of the team that shoots woeful and probably shouldn't. BTW - Elerby woudl be our best player.
#4a. Well....that is hard to answer because the offense isn't designed to get Paris Austin open to brick a three. Nor should it. Grant is open ALL THE TIME, he just is too slow to get it off (and lacks confidence to do so). We definately don't run a lot of down screens - but I also think that is, with a short bench, Fox hasn't been able to run a ton of motion _AND_ our guys don't actually shoot very well coming off the curl or down screen - Matt likes to have the rock in his hands with his step back and grant is a two feet planted in cement guy before letting it fly. South is open on the ball reversals and can't hit the side of a barn. As noted, we set a TON of screens up top that if we had a stretch four would be fantastic in a pick and pop.
#4b). His WOlfpack teams generally shot the rock relatively well and at a decent if not abnormally high rate.
#4c). Some of this is also by design. No three = fewer long rebounds and thus fewer fast breaks. Compare that statistic - we are limiting run outs to a huge degree. And that is by design - when this team wins it wins by making the game ugly - fewer possesions, long clock, few fast breaks, limit TO's up top.
I don't disagree that the PROGRAM needs better outside shooters and needs to understand that is the direction of the game. I don't think Fox doesn't know that. But this team lacks shooters and I am not sure Fox is to blame. Lets revisit next March - both as we will see what we have AND know what is coming in for year three on the recruiting side. If we continue to brick it up we can resurrect the post.
"Grant is open ALL THE TIME, he just is too slow to get it off (and lacks confidence to do so)."
I've seen Mark Fox get on him, like literally screaming in his face right after removing him from the game, for hunting for his shot. He had taken 2-3 3s that he missed and they weren't that well defneded. It seems like Grant goes through stretches where he isn't looking for his shot, even when he's wide open, to move the ball around.
FWIW, Fox's Nevada teams didn't ever shoot 3s at an average rate even for that period of basketball - his teams ranged from 217th to 330th in the nation in 3 point attempt rate.
Also FWIW, I wish I had focused in the article more on taking fewer of the obviously bad shots (long 2 point jumpers) rather than the type of shots Cal should be trying to create instead, though I still maintain that there are ways to create more 3 point shot opportunities.
Thank you. You CAN get long rebounds. But MANY games cal isn't crashing the boards. Frankly kudos to Kelly for getting as many O boards as he has - really a place of improvement. Instead, Cal almost only sends 2 to the boards and rotates back three. A huge point of emphasis is not to let people run on them.
And one of the things that doesn't show up in most metrics is that you want to limit breaks because of how easy it is to score with them _AND_ how it can swing momentum. Nothing like a monster dunk to rattle the opponent - especially at home. The Bears main way of winning this year has been to hold teams to the 60s.
On the latter point, I think it would just be a matter of comparing effective FG% to 2 pt FG%, and see which is higher. In most instances, eFG% is going to be higher, which is why the number of 3’s taken at all levels of basketball has gone up dramatically.
#2 - that is because we had less talent than about 1/2 of our OOC opponents. We really, in terms of talent, are that bad.
#3 - Because Washington, while a bad shooting team, has guys that CAN hit them. Elerby, Boton and Robinson have about 63% of their attempts and are not THAT bad from the arc. It is the rest of the team that shoots woeful and probably shouldn't. BTW - Elerby woudl be our best player.
#4a. Well....that is hard to answer because the offense isn't designed to get Paris Austin open to brick a three. Nor should it. Grant is open ALL THE TIME, he just is too slow to get it off (and lacks confidence to do so). We definately don't run a lot of down screens - but I also think that is, with a short bench, Fox hasn't been able to run a ton of motion _AND_ our guys don't actually shoot very well coming off the curl or down screen - Matt likes to have the rock in his hands with his step back and grant is a two feet planted in cement guy before letting it fly. South is open on the ball reversals and can't hit the side of a barn. As noted, we set a TON of screens up top that if we had a stretch four would be fantastic in a pick and pop.
#4b). His WOlfpack teams generally shot the rock relatively well and at a decent if not abnormally high rate.
#4c). Some of this is also by design. No three = fewer long rebounds and thus fewer fast breaks. Compare that statistic - we are limiting run outs to a huge degree. And that is by design - when this team wins it wins by making the game ugly - fewer possesions, long clock, few fast breaks, limit TO's up top.
I don't disagree that the PROGRAM needs better outside shooters and needs to understand that is the direction of the game. I don't think Fox doesn't know that. But this team lacks shooters and I am not sure Fox is to blame. Lets revisit next March - both as we will see what we have AND know what is coming in for year three on the recruiting side. If we continue to brick it up we can resurrect the post.
"Grant is open ALL THE TIME, he just is too slow to get it off (and lacks confidence to do so)."
I've seen Mark Fox get on him, like literally screaming in his face right after removing him from the game, for hunting for his shot. He had taken 2-3 3s that he missed and they weren't that well defneded. It seems like Grant goes through stretches where he isn't looking for his shot, even when he's wide open, to move the ball around.
FWIW, Fox's Nevada teams didn't ever shoot 3s at an average rate even for that period of basketball - his teams ranged from 217th to 330th in the nation in 3 point attempt rate.
Also FWIW, I wish I had focused in the article more on taking fewer of the obviously bad shots (long 2 point jumpers) rather than the type of shots Cal should be trying to create instead, though I still maintain that there are ways to create more 3 point shot opportunities.
Thank you. You CAN get long rebounds. But MANY games cal isn't crashing the boards. Frankly kudos to Kelly for getting as many O boards as he has - really a place of improvement. Instead, Cal almost only sends 2 to the boards and rotates back three. A huge point of emphasis is not to let people run on them.
And one of the things that doesn't show up in most metrics is that you want to limit breaks because of how easy it is to score with them _AND_ how it can swing momentum. Nothing like a monster dunk to rattle the opponent - especially at home. The Bears main way of winning this year has been to hold teams to the 60s.
On the latter point, I think it would just be a matter of comparing effective FG% to 2 pt FG%, and see which is higher. In most instances, eFG% is going to be higher, which is why the number of 3’s taken at all levels of basketball has gone up dramatically.