Jump to content
Billikens.com Message Board

The Wiz

Billikens.com Donor
  • Content Count

    2,800
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

About The Wiz

  • Rank
    The Wizard of Odds

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

9,536 profile views
  1. Just a few more perspective notes.....only 1 player shot above 50% from 3 last year (with at least 25 3P FGM)...Marcus Hammond ...Niagara 52.2%...there were 5 in the 49% range. . To be in the top 100 you had to shoot at least 42.9%. There were only 2 A-10 players that made the top 100...Laurent...UMass...46.7%....Hartwell II....GM...44.6%...The only local player to make the top 100 was Mark Smith at 45.6%. To be an A+ shooter on my list you have to shoot at least 41%. And finally, based on the new longer NCAA 3P shooting range for 2019....these numbers should come down.
  2. I always grade on the curve. So if everyone's numbers are bad... grades will stay the same. I am actually expecting our grade to go up....after you are rated F-....the only way to go is up. The question , I was alluding to in the above posts about the affect it would have on the Bills was the issue of the NCAA tamping down the 3pt shot...ie to make it a lesser part of the game by moving the distance out. This will have an an effect in the short run . In the last distance lengthening, team 3 pt shooting went down....then gradually came back. As of last few years there was no difference between the before and after distance change....hence the need to crackdown again by the NCAA. The point I was making above ..."Loading up"...was that I thought the Bills would take more 3 pt shots than last year.. Now with the change, it will be interesting to see if that happens. If we can't adjust...ie remain in the F category... then we may change strategies. As for the adjustment period....last year in the post season NIT experiment....teams started weak in 3 pt shooting ...numbers were noticeably down....but by the end of the tournament things had improved considerably. There were many hypothesizes about why....and even though the 3 pt stats were down for the whole tourney, the end result is things were much more normal near the end. Bottom line....we have better and more experienced shooters...I think our grade and our percentage will go up and our 3 pt shooting will be a positive for this year.
  3. In addition, I would count Goodwin and Wiley as 3 pt shooters . By my standards in order to qualify as a 3 Pt shooter you need to have at least 25 three pt shots made/season. The Bills have another potential in Thatch ...if he gets a few more shots and shoots better than last year...2018-19 season...18 shots made and 26.9%. So 5 or 6 perimeter shooters qualifies as "loaded up" especially by Bills standards. The real question is can we improve on the dismal 30.4% three pt shooting(17th worst ITN) and by how much? I think the answer to the 1st part is yes we can improve even with the new arc distance because we will have better and more experienced shooters. The second part ...by how much... is a little more cloudy. Had the 3pt line remained the same ...my answer would have been...improved by a lot....but the extra distance may cool things a bit. We will adjust (that is what good shooters do). As I mentioned above , if we can improve 6 or 7 % then good things will be happening for the Bills. But even if it's less than that, the extra 3 pt shooting along with the greater distance should open things up more for the Bills underneath which in turn should make us a better team. Should be an interesting year.
  4. Weaver has an unusual slash line. First of all, he likes to shoot 3s....I mean , he likes to shoot 3s. He was 74th ITN in 3P FGA... He was 97th ITN in 3P FGM...His 35.9% 3P%...Meh...coming in at a C among qualifying 3 pt shooters (ie... made 25 or more shots )... 85% of all shots he took were 3s....and most of the rest of the remaining 15% were were either on or just inside the arc. Here is what his slash looks like..... NA / S3 / C / S3 NA = Not applicable ...S3 = small sample size. So there you have it ... a 3 pt shooter. My concern is ....how will he do with the new arc.. A player like Jimerson who is an A+ shooter from everywhere should be able to adjust. ...although it will be a bigger adjustment, distance wise, than Weaver will have to make. Should be an interesting year with the NCAA trying to punish 3 Pt shooters in a season where the Bills have loaded up with with long distance guys. Will the Bills be able to adjust? Not just Weaver and Jimerson ... we will have a few others launching bombs from beyond the arc. If they can make a few (shoot around 37%)...there could be some Dancin'.......tall order from a team that shot F last year.....but it is possible....Stay tuned
  5. Whitt's 3P shooting is a small sample size....less than 1 shot /gm...not meaningful.
  6. The NCAA is trying to keep the 3 pt shot from overtaking the game. This year the 3 pt shot was taken 37.5% of the time up from the 16% in 86-87, the first year it was adopted by the NCAA as a whole. Coaches and players have figured out that a 3pt shot is worth 50% more than a regular shot...a high premium...probably too high . The 3 has gone from an oddity in the 80s to a game winning strategy in the last few years....from 1 shot in 6 attempted to 2 of 5 (NCAA has estimated that in the 2019-2020 season 40% of the shots would be 3s). Since it is not practical to make the value of a 3 only 2.5 pts....the next best thing to slow the growth is to lengthen the distance of the shot. This is what happened in 08-09.... when the distance was increased the number of shots dropped....for a while and then started to increase again....this time approaching 40% .In the lab experiment for this change...this year's NIT ...the NCAA implemented the proposed change. ...and the results were ugly....In the first round numbers dropped to 31% made (vs a normal 36%) and 35% attempt ratio of all shots (vs 37.5%) Yet by the end of the tourney, the numbers had risen to 34% made and 36% attempted. Bottom line....When the 3 pt shot was instituted the "premium" of a 3pt shot (50% more ) was too much but it worked for a while. It took about 20 years for teams to figure that out....After the next increase in distance (08-09) it took another 6-7 years to figure it out again. Is 22 ft 1 3/4 in the right distance? Who knows...But the the NCAA knows that it will slow down the rate of increase on 3 pt attempts ....at least for now. Yes it could partially explain the improvement from the 1st round to the end of the tourney. As teams are eliminated, the better teams play better. Another partial explanation is the players start to adjust as the tourney goes on and they start to figure out the new distance...yes, even in a short tourney. BUT.... In the end, the NCAA accomplished its goal...to slow the 3P Att and 3P% . Which brings up the following questions....Will the NCAA implement the rule change on June 5?...Probably, ... in that their experiment was a success....After they make the changes will they be done meddling in the 3 pt range?...Only for awhile,....When will they meddle again? When 3Pt atts approach 40% again. Then what? ...They will probably move it out to NBA range (23ft 9in). There is though a weird quirk...The NBA distances taper as the line swings out to the corner. In the corner the distance is only 22 ft....In the international rules (propose to be adopted by NCAA) the line is a uniform 22ft all the way around....so that when an NCAA player goes into the corner he will actually take a longer shot than an NBA player (by 1 3/4 in) Should the Bills still try to get 3Pt shooters? Yes ...while it will be a more difficult shot , the 50% premium for 3s is still a good deal and teams will invest in shooters.
  7. The NCAA is trying to keep the 3 pt shot from overtaking the game. This year the 3 pt shot was taken 37.5% of the time up from the 16% in 86-87, the first year it was adopted by the NCAA as a whole. Coaches and players have figured out that a 3pt shot is worth 50% more than a regular shot...a high premium...probably too high . The 3 has gone from an oddity in the 80s to a game winning strategy in the last few years....from 1 shot in 6 attempted to 2 of 5 (NCAA has estimated that in the 2019-2020 season 40% of the shots would be 3s). Since it is not practical to make the value of a 3 only 2.5 pts....the next best thing to slow the growth is to lengthen the distance of the shot. This is what happened in 08-09.... when the distance was increased the number of shots dropped....for a while and then started to increase again....this time approaching 40% .In the lab experiment for this change...this year's NIT ...the NCAA implemented the proposed change. ...and the results were ugly....In the first round numbers dropped to 31% made (vs a normal 36%) and 35% attempt ratio of all shots (vs 37.5%) Yet by the end of the tourney, the numbers had risen to 34% made and 36% attempted. Bottom line....When the 3 pt shot was instituted the "premium" of a 3pt shot (50% more ) was too much but it worked for a while. It took about 20 years for teams to figure that out....After the next increase in distance (08-09) it took another 6-7 years to figure it out again. Is 22 ft 1 3/4 in the right distance? Who knows...But the the NCAA knows that it will slow down the rate of increase on 3 pt attempts ....at least for now.
  8. This year's Bess stats vs Lewis II career stats ( He didn't play a full season this year) ..............................FG%...............2P%..............3P%............FT%...........Reb...........Ast..............Stl.............Pts Bess......................39...................45.................33................79.............6.8..........1.8.................1.4............15.3 Lewis II..................40...................45.................36................82.............2.1..........1.1.................0.8............14.1
  9. You are right ....Raw data is out dated...but that doesn't mean it isn't still useful....My thing is to convert data into grades...I think it is easier to understand ....not everybody is a numbers person....The slash line is readily available and widely used....Even adding the 2P% seems strange at times but I put it in when I think it contributes some less than visible info. I am trying to keep it simple...Look at the Perkins data posted in the VeniceMenace link above....24 stats...and they don't even list eFG%. ..If you go to the sports reference page,,,,they have 24 stats per section and there are 10 sections....240 variables....overall totals..per game totals...per 40 min . ...per conf games...per 100 possessions... advanced metrics....and yes , here is where eFG% is buried. Look what has happened in this thread...just talking about the basic concept of slash line vs FG%...and built in bias.....many posts spread over a number of pages....can you imagine adding more variables. ...hundreds of posts...dozens of pages. I don't mind discussing built in bias on certain stats or explaining how or what or why I do certain things with numbers.... I just don't want to do it everyday. If it was just you and me , we would be discussing eFG%, Points Produced, Offensive win shares and Defensive box plus /minus. But if we did discuss all these items , I think it would be just you and me on the board. Bottom line....I am going to keep to the basics and try to simplify ... keeping it easy and concise....as they say in football concentrate on the blocking and tackling. NH, I do appreciate the suggestion.
  10. Thanks Here are the 2 yr totals.....57/ 62/ 38/ 80 = 175 (2Pt excluded from slash total) ...........................................A+ / A+/ B+/A+= A+ overall grade Shot attempts.....823/ 648/ 175/ 340....Even though he has only played 2 years at JUCO, these numbers are equivalent to many average 4 year players...While past numbers are no guarantee of future success...This bodes well for his future. Also the numbers are more meaningful as he is playing better competition than most HS kids.....Furthermore, his 3s are real....i.e. from college distance as opposed to HS range. Time to get out the towels.....
  11. Down a little but still a 168... good for an A Do you have the raw stats?....FGM-FGA...3PM-3PM ...FTM-FTA....Then I could come up with some 2 year stats and grades....large sample size would be very predictive.
  12. All I am saying is that there is no model that covers everything.....I personally like the overall model...which is the Combo of the whole slash line....156 is above average(C+)....171 A+...180 Majerus....However it is not fair to non guards ....so I think it is good to use the FG% for them...46% is above average (C+)....50.3% A+. In using the info, I personally would compare guards on the overall grade....and front court players using the FG%.. Again both are biased in their own ways which is fine as long as you understand what they mean and how to use the info...... Comparing like players on the appropriate data charts. Sorry, I didn't mean to make it more confusing than it is...hope that clears things up a bit.
  13. Here are his full season numbers from last year, the most recent I have......if you have more current numbers....raw #s not %s for this year , I would be happy to run them. 61/ 43/ 81=185....A+......A Majerus 180 player How could he have been robbed of being a Top 50 player...don't know...But Majerus wouldn't have cared and it seems Ford doesn't either. A quality get.
  14. Unfortunately , my stats sources don't break it down by position. And while the FG% is biased against guards, it cuts both ways...as the overall rating( the cumulative slash number) is biased against non guards since most can't get an overall rating because of low 3 Pt numbers. Still , the overall rating tends to work . In combination with the individual slash ....together they provide important and valuable information. Let's look at 3 star's list of players...I have used career numbers so they all have large enough sample sizes....Most qualify as bucket getters ( includes FTs) except Cumberland and Hughes both of whom would have made it with better FT shooting. Markus Howard...45/43/90 =178....A+ Carsen Edwards....41/37/ 82-160....B Myles Powell.........43/36/82-161.....B Shamorie Ponds....44/33/84=161....B Charlie Brown.........41/37/ 84=162...B+. Ky Bowman............43/39 /76=158...B- Jarron Cumberland..42/36/72=150..D Larry Hughes.............42/29/69=140..F- Jason Tatum.............45/34/85=164...A-
  15. If you have made 100 FGs...and have shot at least 46% (C+) you qualify as a "bucket getter"....If you shoot 50.3% (A+)....you qualify as a "gold bucket getter"
×
×
  • Create New...