Longhorned wrote:But the wear down should be even more pronounced if you can put your best and most massive lineup on the court more minutes per game. Instead, we're sacrificing that for what can only be argued is the need for outside shooting to open the floor (but not using your best shooter to do it), or this idea that RHJ is somehow more comfortable coming off the bench (no All-American is comfortable coming off the bench).
I understand this point of view logically, but what people fail to recognize in this discussion is that having RHJ in the starting lineup automatically provides playing time for lesser players, which is what we, or at least many of us, were clamoring for all last year: an experienced bench. If Miller were to start RHJ, it would not be hard to imagine him sticking with that lineup for the lion's share of the minutes, leaving garbage time for the bench, just like last year.
No thanks, I like having Miller going to his bench early and often this year.
'A parent is the one person who is supposed to make their kid think they can do anything. Says they're beautiful even when they're ugly. Thinks they're smart even when they go to Arizona State.' -- Jack Donaghy
Chi and Odogg, thanks for your thoughts and I couldn't agree more. Miller obviously knows way more than we do about the team and each guy's comfort level and personality, etc and there are I'm sure very valid reasons for who he starts and how overall minute are dished. Do people call Pop out for bringing Ginobili off the bench? Hell no. I fail to see how that situation is any different. Having a stud off the bench is a huge advantage IMO and Miller clearly feels the same way.
Not to say that people on here can't disagree or voice an opinion, I just think it's stupid and pointless to bitch about who starts and really, "why the hell do we keep winning close games??!" is basically what people are saying. At some point can't fans simply be satisfied?? I know I am. If somebody gives me a new car for free I'm not going to bitch about the lack of seat warmers.
The wear down is amazing, I love being a second half team. Big first half leads and early starts tend to evaporate regularly, no matter the team...pro or college, it's partly human nature, even in football with the recent Packers Falcons monday nighter as evidence. I wouldn't trade who we are or what we do for anything.
Also, I find it amusing that the knock on Miller was never using the bench enough and tiring out our top 5 or 6...but now that we're using the bench and we have a nice system going everyone wants our top 5 on the floor as much as humanly possible, other factors be damned.
Also part 2, if RHJ did start, I guarantee there would be at least one game, maybe even in the tournament, where the starters all play shitty to begin with, including RHJ...and then what, we are relying on York/Pitts as the sole reinforcements?? RHJ is a major insurance policy off the bench, he symbolizes hope throughout the most trying of times. Off the bench he provides extended confidence uplifting everyone. Thankfully our top 4 starters plus York/Pitts are good enough to pull this off, and even if playing poorly, buy the time needed enabling us with this extra wrinkle.
I apologize none of this rambling concerned Pitts. I'm glad he's on the team the dude can play. He'll make some big threes for us this year (and already has).
Agree wholeheartedly here. He defers way too much to his teammates on the offensive end and doesn't take all of the shots that he should. Honestly, his shooting percentage is so high because he only takes wide open shots.
York on the other hand goes and gets his own shot. Yes, it doesn't go in at nearly the same clip as Pitts', but he's at least keeping defenses honest. If we have a starting lineup of TJ, Pitts, SJ, Bash, and Zeus, you've got two guards who don't shoot very often, one guy who only can play on the interior, doesn't have great hands, and has issues with passing to cutters, and two guys who can actually create offense for themselves. So you're giving the defense the ability to focus in on denying passes to SJ and Bash and dare the others to beat them one-on-one which is not their game.
With York in the lineup you've now got three guys who can go and get their own shot and actually look to do so, whether it's on drives or jumpers. You've also now got three guys (TJ, York, SJ) who can put pressure on the defense with the dribble. I haven't seen Pitts dribble drive yet this year.
So, I see why York starts and gets starter minutes, even though Pitts is the better shooter. Shooting from the outside is not the only thing we need from our 2 guard.
Of the 12 coaches, Rush picked the one whose fans have the deepest passion, the longest memories, the greatest lung capacity and … did I mention deep passion?
Pitts's role is growing, and his value is increasing in Miller's estimation.
I don't doubt that some posters think they know more than Miller, but I suspect there are very few who do. We side against Miller's decisions and have these debates so we can clarify why certain decisions are made. It's not in Miller's interest to unveil everything, there isn't time for him to do so, and it would serve such a small fraction of the population of overly obsessed fans that it would be basically useless even if it took no time. Skepticism of the coach is for the good of us, not the team, and not even us as a community. It's really for us as individual viewers who are annoyed by family interruptions and scared pets. I can't really credibly disagree with Miller. But If I agree with Miller, that doesn't help me if I really don't understand the reasoning behind what I agree with.
Perhaps the arguments should be less about who starts, and more about who gets minutes.
If that is the discussion, I agree that Pitts should keep earning more minutes. Miller has stated that this is the case, and he and PJC will be very important to what the team does this year.
As for Ristic and Victor, these two are clearly building for years to come. I'll go on the record that Ristic will likely see less minutes in PAC play from game to game, as Miller tries for a regular season championship (which is important to him). I'd suspect that you'll see several DNP Coaches Decision for Victor in this time as well.
As for rotations, I prefer to see both RHJ and SJ on the floor at the same time, but that relegates to Pitts/York substituting for them. I like the aspect of York starting. I think that it is more about York's confidence and swag than it is RHJ....RHJ would be fine coming 3rd off the bench if you made him...he is really in the mold of an AG type player, that is here for the team and not himself.
Pitts is in that mold as well. He will do what he is asked, but clearly does not have the talent that RHJ has. I saw Pitts aggressively go into the lane and to the rim last night, but that is against a mediocre team. But hey, you gotta start somewhere. I know that York is on record as saying "I am more than a spot up shooter" and I think Pitts thinks that of himself as well. For both players, as long as the long range shot is solid, anything they can give the team inside the arc is a definite plus. Also, if we are relegated to arguing about York/Pitts, than the team is in a good spot.
I fly like a hawk, or better yet an eagle--a seagull. I sniff suckers out like a beagle...My ego is off and running and gone, Cause I'm about the best and if you diss than that's wrong
Olsondogg wrote:I haven't an idea of the cause, but our AdjO at this point is at #14 and our AdjD is at #12. Nothing to scoff at there.
I have heard, and continue to hear, how great the Zags are from the offensive side of the ball...and I witnessed how well that team could shoot in McKale. To hold them to 39% from the floor, 23.5% from the arc, and to hold them from scoring for nearly 9 minutes should have been the focus. Instead, the focus becomes how Arizona doesn't win pretty.
For the record, this is shaping up to be Miller's best shooting team from the floor. Arizona sits at 49.8% currently. It's also averaging the highest points per game at 76 PPG.
So for everyone that is complaining about the offense, I can point to it being the best it ever has been under Miller. If you don't like that, then perhaps a Miller coached team is not for you...
Oh and to focus on Pitts, the point of the thread...the dude is shooting 52.6% from the arc.
Through 9 games last year we were averaging these numbers:
77.7 ppg / 1.17 PPP / 50 % / 15.9 apg
compared to
76.0 / 1.13 PPP / 49.8 % / 14.8 apg
So I'm not sure where you're getting the "best offense under Miller" mantra since our offense was better last year at this point of the season (and even before Bash went down our offense was showing major signs of vulnerability in conference play). The jury is still out on the offense, let's wait until February
loomer wrote:So I'm not sure where you're getting the "best offense under Miller" mantra
I'm sure it's looking at our numbers so far this year vs. all of last year. Which is not a bad way to look at it. Last year from game 10 on our offensive numbers went down slightly, but there's no evidence that will happen this year. If everyone stays healthy and continues to round into their roles, they could even go up.
Of the 12 coaches, Rush picked the one whose fans have the deepest passion, the longest memories, the greatest lung capacity and … did I mention deep passion?
loomer wrote:So I'm not sure where you're getting the "best offense under Miller" mantra
I'm sure it's looking at our numbers so far this year vs. all of last year. Which is not a bad way to look at it. Last year from game 10 on our offensive numbers went down slightly, but there's no evidence that will happen this year. If everyone stays healthy and continues to round into their roles, they could even go up.
No doubt they could go up, I may even think they will go up, but let's evaluate our offense in February when we have a larger sample size.
loomer wrote:So I'm not sure where you're getting the "best offense under Miller" mantra
I'm sure it's looking at our numbers so far this year vs. all of last year. Which is not a bad way to look at it. Last year from game 10 on our offensive numbers went down slightly, but there's no evidence that will happen this year. If everyone stays healthy and continues to round into their roles, they could even go up.
No doubt they could go up, I may even think they will go up, but let's evaluate our offense in February when we have a larger sample size.
I think the point that ODogg is trying to make is that people complaining about our offense so far this year don't have much of a leg to stand on when comparing the numbers to past Miller teams. So really you should be telling them to hold off until February to evaluate the offense since it's that evaluation that ODogg is responding to.
Of the 12 coaches, Rush picked the one whose fans have the deepest passion, the longest memories, the greatest lung capacity and … did I mention deep passion?
loomer wrote:So I'm not sure where you're getting the "best offense under Miller" mantra
I'm sure it's looking at our numbers so far this year vs. all of last year. Which is not a bad way to look at it.
I think it actually is a bad way to look at it. Comparing all of last year's offense, when last year we played a significant number of games without one of our best player, against this year when we are at full strength isn't a good comparison (or doesn't seem to me like it would be). I think it's a much more accurate/honest measurement to compare them at similar points in the season. That said, I think it's really too early to even do much comparison that way due to variances from year to year.
Anyways, most of my thoughts on the PItts topic have already been stated in the thread, but I would add this: Pitts needs to shoot more (for that matter, so does PJC). We need, as a team, to see if our best 3pt shooter (and I mean by FAR the best shooter thus far) is actually that reliable or if it's a bit of lying statistic due to minutes played and when those minutes are played and who was in the game etc.
I really want to know if Pitts is going to be that dead-eye 3pt shooter that we've been lacking, especially late in the season and tourney time. I don't expect him to stay at 52.6% necessarily, but I would like to know with more shots where he comes out at for his true percentage. He does pass up a few shots I wish he'd take, but I like that he waits for the good shots, I just think some of the shots he passes up are good shots too. As of right now, he's 10 of 19 from 3pt land on the year. He'd have to go 2 for the next 18 just to drag his percentage down to York's current percentage, and that's assuming York didn't take another shot obviously. Or to put it another way, York would have to make his next 16 3pt shots in a row with no misses to match (well, slightly surpass by a few tenths) the current percentage Pitts is at.
It's long past time to bring this back to the court, let's do it with a small update:
loomer wrote:So I'm not sure where you're getting the "best offense under Miller" mantra
I'm sure it's looking at our numbers so far this year vs. all of last year. Which is not a bad way to look at it.
I think it actually is a bad way to look at it. Comparing all of last year's offense, when last year we played a significant number of games without one of our best player, against this year when we are at full strength isn't a good comparison (or doesn't seem to me like it would be). I think it's a much more accurate/honest measurement to compare them at similar points in the season. That said, I think it's really too early to even do much comparison that way due to variances from year to year.
To be fair, he's also comparing this year's numbers against all other Miller years, which had their own various relative challenges and successes.
Of the 12 coaches, Rush picked the one whose fans have the deepest passion, the longest memories, the greatest lung capacity and … did I mention deep passion?
Fair enough. EOE makes a solid point...look at it whatever way you want, the offense is not the issue made out to be...unless of course the offense was an issue in your mind last year too.
The whole point I am making is that our offensive "struggles" that I've read about is not nearly as bad as it is made out to be. We can surely revisit this in February.
POM brings up a good point of Pitts turning down shots...and I've noticed this from TJ as well, and from York time to time...the shot needs to be taken within the rhythm of the offense. What I mean is, that I've witnessed players pass up on shots to let a defender possibly fly by, or to rearrange feet, or to get what they thought would be a better look...only to miss this shot because it wasn't in rhythm. Sometimes a wide open shot is not a better shot in this instance.
One important thing about Pitts is the fact that Miller is putting alot of trust in Pitts. If you look at when his minutes came in the Zag's game, they were in the pivotal moments of the outcome of that game. That should say alot to Pitts about his role on the team, and the confidence he should have playing.
I fly like a hawk, or better yet an eagle--a seagull. I sniff suckers out like a beagle...My ego is off and running and gone, Cause I'm about the best and if you diss than that's wrong
I don't really have a dog in the York/Pitts starting fight but here is one stat to consider. Gabe York current PER = 15.9, Elliott Pitts current PER = 14.4. Close.
With respect to our overall offense - one measure that I always look at for offensive efficincy is points scored per field goal attempt. Right now the teams PPA is 1.45. Only twice in the last 50 years has an Arizona team been higher: 1988-89 = 1.46 and 1987-88 = 1.54. I can bitch all day about the pace of the game but certainly cannot about the Efficiency.
I really don't like comparing the offense to previous years... I don't think it's particularly helpful, especially this early in the season. I think looking at numbers/statistics is too results oriented, and as Miller himself would tell you- the process is by far the most important thing at this point.
To me, it makes a lot more sense to use the eye test, look at each possession, and say "was that a good offensive possession?" If the possession ends in a good shot, it's a good offensive possession.
It doesn't matter if the shot goes in or not, what matters is whether it was a good shot to begin with. The problem with all of these efficiency numbers is that they are too concerned with points scored, and not whether it was a good shot that led to getting those points. Obviously what constitutes a "good shot" is subjective, but I think there are some principles that most people would agree with. Principles such as "don't take a shot when you're double teamed" "don't take a shot if there is another player that has a better shot" and "don't take a shot that you can't hit at consistently." The last principle obvious does require looking at numbers, but the sample size is still too low. For instance, looking just at the numbers, York is only hitting 32% of this 3's, but most people would consider York taking an open 3 to be a good shot- I certainly do. As the sample size increases, if the results remain the same, that opinion might change.
So when I watch games, I look at each possession and I think "did the possession end in a good shot?" When Pitts is on the court, the answer is typically yes, and if not, it's never his fault. Same with PJC.
That's my problem with York, he too frequently takes low % shots early in the shot clock, and as a result, him being on the court leads to a lot of "bad offense." Regardless of whether he scores points and regardless of whether he has superior basketball skills to Pitts (which I think is debatable).
The fact that Pitts knows is role is why I think he's so valuable. He is allowed to be passive because when he only takes good shots, he's not the problem, he's never the cause of bad offense. Even assuming it's true that Pitts is one-dimensional, that's ok, we only need him to be a one dimensional player. When the team has Ashley, Rondae, and Stanley who can all drive to the basket at will, a one dimensional player is fine... in fact, it's exactly what we need. He allows our truly gifted offensive players to do their thing, while knocking down the open shots that are available.
Good stuff. Funny how it can be close when "it's not even close."
As I try to climb into Miller's brain, I think he values efficiency over all (on the offensive end). We don't have a Derrick Williams on this team, so it has to be spread out. Sometimes guys will have big games; sometimes not (and it was only two games ago that York had a big game). It's tempting to want to switch them out when they don't. Or to disregard a good game from a guy you've already dismissed.
Given the drop in scores throughout college basketball, it's the best barometer for comparisons to previous teams and other teams this year. Plus, it curbs frustrations about the final point total. All fans are dealing with that. Can't be said enough: the game has changed.
To me the issue is not who starts. The issue is how many play. I really like how much run our bench is getting. Here's hoping Miller continues this. Pretty difficult not to when you see how these guys (PJC, Pitts, & Ristic) produce when given the chance. Like to see Victor more as well.
If Miller allows all the players to develop by getting important minutes during games, this team will have enough depth to give anyone in the country, including Kentucky, all they want.
P.S. I don't care how early it is, this free throw shooting is irritating the hell out of me. Drop the worst -- by far -- guy on the roster from last year, and this is the best we can do? Shot 19-32 last night. Want to fix an obvious blemish? There it is. And, it's a good shot every time.
Utah Valley made six in a row during the technical fouls stretch. That just pissed me off even more.
We have a grand total of three guys shooting above 70 percent. Best is Rondae at 74.5. Shooting 67.5 as a team. Point guard can't make a front end, or close out free throw. One guard shooting above 70 pct. Guys are shooting it worse than last year.
That's awful.
Last edited by gumby on Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gumby wrote:Good stuff. Funny how it can be close when "it's not even close."
My statement was that Pitts is far superior to York off the dribble... and I stand by that statement, and the reason I stand by that statement is that to me, York is in the deep negative when it comes to "bad shots taken after driving in"- the vast majority of the time York tries to drive by his defender in the half court, he ends up taking a bad shot. Pitts on the other hand rarely (possibly never?) forces the issue, and to me, by virtue of not being a negative, he's far superior.
Every time York tries to drive I cringe and brace myself for him throwing a shot over numerous defenders. Every time Pitts drives in (which isn't often) I expect he'll make the right decision in terms of shooting/passing.
Regardless, eoe said he didn't want to argue the point, and neither do I. As I just stated, I think our SG's ability to drive is largely irrelevant, and that all we really need from the position is someone who can knock down a high% of 3's and who doesn't take bad shots.
Stand all you want. But when Pitts hardly ever drives, and York is 50 percent on twos, I think you're exaggerating. If he is vastly superior, you should be mad at him for not slashing more. I do think it's important to have a driver from that position.
gumby wrote:Stand all you want. But when Pitts hardly ever drives, and York is 50 percent on twos, I think you're exaggerating.
First, those stats are misleading because I have no problem with York's ability to score in transition, or his ability to hit mid-range shots coming off of screens. My problem specifically is with him driving in the half court.
Second, I still think that's being too results oriented. If York takes a shot over 3 defenders and it goes in, that's a bad shot to me. If York drives in and takes a floater with 25 seconds on the shot clock before anyone else has even touched the ball, that's a bad shot to me.
I said it's subjective. Each poster is going to have their idea of what constitutes a good or bad shot, but more often than not, when York drives in, he takes a shot that I would rather him not take. On the other hand, I can't think of any shot that Pitts has taken that I have considered a "bad shot."
Last edited by UofACat23 on Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Neither one turns it over much: York, 4. Pitts, 1. Neither one has many assists. Pitts has taken six shots inside the arc in nine games. So what you're saying, essentlally, is that doing nothing off the dribble is vastly superior. In that case, Tarc is better off the bounce.
It does create issues when the off guard is only a stand-still threat.
I honestly don't remember more than a handful of times that Pitts has driven the lane to take a shot. And since that's not a part of his game, it's not something the defense has to worry about. So they can get in his face when he has the ball on the perimeter safe in the knowledge that he's going to pass out of it because he doesn't take contested threes and he doesn't drive past his defender. And that's why you don't see big shot totals from him. He only shoots open jumpers. Which is fine, since we need people to take and hit open jumpers. But it in no way keeps the defense honest or makes it easier to have good offensive possessions.
As far as good offense vs. bad offense, I am about 90% positive that Sean Miller would say the best offensive possessions are the ones that end in a made shot and that there's no such thing as "too results oriented". Bad shots are bad when they are missed, so you want players to take the least amount of bad shots possible. But I'm pretty sure that some players have more leeway to find their own shot, outside of the standards of good and bad, simply because they make them often. Stanley has to be one of those players. You don't see him getting yanked out of the game for taking early threes. I'm thinking York is as well for the same reason.
Of the 12 coaches, Rush picked the one whose fans have the deepest passion, the longest memories, the greatest lung capacity and … did I mention deep passion?
Chicat wrote:I honestly don't remember more than a handful of times that Pitts has driven the lane to take a shot. And since that's not a part of his game, it's not something the defense has to worry about. So they can get in his face when he has the ball on the perimeter safe in the knowledge that he's going to pass out of it because he doesn't take contested threes and he doesn't drive past his defender. And that's why you don't see big shot totals from him. He only shoots open jumpers. Which is fine, since we need people to take and hit open jumpers. But it in no way keeps the defense honest or makes it easier to have good offensive possessions.
As far as good offense vs. bad offense, I am about 90% positive that Sean Miller would say the best offensive possessions are the ones that end in a made shot and that there's no such thing as "too results oriented". Bad shots are bad when they are missed, so you want players to take the least amount of bad shots possible. But I'm pretty sure that some players have more leeway to find their own shot, outside of the standards of good and bad, simply because they make them often. Stanley has to be one of those players. You don't see him getting yanked out of the game for taking early threes. I'm thinking York is as well for the same reason.
I trust Ashley, Stanley, and Rondae can take any defender one-on-one. That means if Pitts defender is sticking to him, they can't double our real offensive threats, and that's good enough for me.
And if that's true about Miller, I think that's short sighted. You can win a pot playing 2-7 off-suit, but you're not going to win the WSOP playing that way.
However, even if you do want to be results oriented, I'm confident that York's FG% on strictly half court drives is incredibly low. I've been watching York extremely close all season, looking specifically at how he does in non catch-and-shoot half court offense, and it has been abysmal. People don't need to take my word for it, just focus on it in the next couple of games and I think you'll see what I mean. (BTW- I actually thought York played a decent game last night because he mainly only took open 3's, even though he missed 6 of them)
And for the record, I think RHJ should start, not Pitts.
UofACat23 wrote:I trust Ashley, Stanley, and Rondae can take any defender one-on-one. That means if Pitts defender is sticking to him, they can't double our real offensive threats, and that's good enough for me.
But they can still double off of Pitts. I'm only talking about when he gets passes on the perimeter. He gets the ball and his defender is all up on him. When he passes it back or around, his defender is free to sag back into the lane and clog things up for Bash, SJ, Rondae, and Zeus.
UofACat23 wrote:However, even if you do want to be results oriented, I'm confident that York's FG% on strictly half court drives is incredibly low. I've been watching York extremely close all season, looking specifically at how he does in non catch-and-shoot half court offense, and it has been abysmal. People don't need to take my word for it, just focus on it in the next couple of games and I think you'll see what I mean.
I think you're being too results-oriented.
What I'm saying is that whether York makes it or not, we have to have someone drive to the hoop to keep defenses honest. Just like we have to have guys take three pointers. York does both. Pitts does not.
Also, I would be willing to bet that if we take and make more 3's, the lane would open up for dribble drives and the results from York and SJ would improve. So I guess my main thing is, just keep shooting. Almost half of them should go in.
Of the 12 coaches, Rush picked the one whose fans have the deepest passion, the longest memories, the greatest lung capacity and … did I mention deep passion?
I think that CBB should make a bigger deal about the "Ending 5"
What players did you win/lose the game with?
I fly like a hawk, or better yet an eagle--a seagull. I sniff suckers out like a beagle...My ego is off and running and gone, Cause I'm about the best and if you diss than that's wrong
20 shots on the year, 5 were 2-pt shots of which he made 2. He's a deep-shooter through and through.
York this season:
50 shots on the year, 21 were 2-pt shots of which he made 11 (that's >than 50%). He has proven in multiple games this season alone he can drive to the basket, make the floater, and hit the long ball. Something Pitts has never shown in any game in his time at Arizona.
York played a good game today, particularly off the dribble.
I'm still not crazy with the idea of him once again leading all players in shot attempts (he went 6-12, Stanley went 8-10, nobody else took more than 6 shots) but it's hard to argue with the results.
UofACat23 wrote:York played a good game today, particularly off the dribble.
I'm still not crazy with the idea of him once again leading all players in shot attempts (he went 6-12, Stanley went 8-10, nobody else took more than 6 shots) but it's hard to argue with the results.
Ya I'm not sure I am crazy about that either, but I don't remember him forcing anything tonight and you can't argue with 50% from the field.
UofACat23 wrote:York played a good game today, particularly off the dribble.
I'm still not crazy with the idea of him once again leading all players in shot attempts (he went 6-12, Stanley went 8-10, nobody else took more than 6 shots) but it's hard to argue with the results.
Ya I'm not sure I am crazy about that either, but I don't remember him forcing anything tonight and you can't argue with 50% from the field.
I actually don't mind York and Stanley leading the team in shot attempts. They are both by their nature volume shooters and are effective playing that way. But both will have games where they are 3-11 or whatever.
Someone has to take those shots. TJ won't and shouldn't. RHJ would be forcing it. Zeus & Ashley won't get quality opportunities if shots aren't coming from the perimeter. So let York shoot. The results might not always be pretty but that doesn't mean it's still not an effective part of the overall gameplan.
Of the 12 coaches, Rush picked the one whose fans have the deepest passion, the longest memories, the greatest lung capacity and … did I mention deep passion?
UofACat23 wrote:York played a good game today, particularly off the dribble.
I'm still not crazy with the idea of him once again leading all players in shot attempts (he went 6-12, Stanley went 8-10, nobody else took more than 6 shots) but it's hard to argue with the results.
Ya I'm not sure I am crazy about that either, but I don't remember him forcing anything tonight and you can't argue with 50% from the field.
I actually don't mind York and Stanley leading the team in shot attempts. They are both by their nature volume shooters and are effective playing that way. But both will have games where they are 3-11 or whatever.
Someone has to take those shots. TJ won't and shouldn't. RHJ would be forcing it. Zeus & Ashley won't get quality opportunities if shots aren't coming from the perimeter. So let York shoot. The results might not always be pretty but that doesn't mean it's still not an effective part of the overall gameplan.
The idea that there is value to missed shots is interesting, and one I'm still mulling over, but even assuming that it's true, there has to be a point of diminishing returns, and I think York taking twice as many shots as Ashley, Tarc, and RHJ is past that point. Taking some shots might keep the D honest, but if you take too many shots you're going away from your truly talented players. I just think that sometimes York should pass up a good look in favor of getting a teammate a great look.
Like I said though, it's hard to argue with the results of last night's game. If we look like that every game then that's good enough for me.
One of the reasons I'm skeptical is that TJ takes "open" shots all the time because the defense is going under the screens. Him taking the shot isn't doing anything if he can't make it because the defense isn't worried about him shooting low % shots, in fact they're encouraging him to. They'll continue to sag off until he makes that shot consistently, so it's hard to see what benefit there is to him shooting and missing.
UofACat23 wrote:The idea that there is value to missed shots is interesting, and one I'm still mulling over, but even assuming that it's true, there has to be a point of diminishing returns, and I think York taking twice as many shots as Ashley, Tarc, and RHJ is past that point. Taking some shots might keep the D honest, but if you take too many shots you're going away from your truly talented players. I just think that sometimes York should pass up a good look in favor of getting a teammate a great look.
One thing that should be considered is that we are a good rebounding team, so there can be value in missed shots becoming close looks for second chance points from RHJ, Bash, Zeus, and SJ before the defense can get reset. So if a York jumper falls, that's great. If not, we have guys who make it their mission to clean it up on the offensive glass.
Of the 12 coaches, Rush picked the one whose fans have the deepest passion, the longest memories, the greatest lung capacity and … did I mention deep passion?
UofACat23 wrote:The idea that there is value to missed shots is interesting, and one I'm still mulling over, but even assuming that it's true, there has to be a point of diminishing returns, and I think York taking twice as many shots as Ashley, Tarc, and RHJ is past that point. Taking some shots might keep the D honest, but if you take too many shots you're going away from your truly talented players. I just think that sometimes York should pass up a good look in favor of getting a teammate a great look.
One thing that should be considered is that we are a good rebounding team, so there can be value in missed shots becoming close looks for second chance points from RHJ, Bash, Zeus, and SJ before the defense can get reset. So if a York jumper falls, that's great. If not, we have guys who make it their mission to clean it up on the offensive glass.
The last part of your post is only true if the missed shot is a good shot. Lots of bad shots lead to run outs for the opposition...
I fly like a hawk, or better yet an eagle--a seagull. I sniff suckers out like a beagle...My ego is off and running and gone, Cause I'm about the best and if you diss than that's wrong
UofACat23 wrote:The idea that there is value to missed shots is interesting, and one I'm still mulling over, but even assuming that it's true, there has to be a point of diminishing returns, and I think York taking twice as many shots as Ashley, Tarc, and RHJ is past that point. Taking some shots might keep the D honest, but if you take too many shots you're going away from your truly talented players. I just think that sometimes York should pass up a good look in favor of getting a teammate a great look.
One thing that should be considered is that we are a good rebounding team, so there can be value in missed shots becoming close looks for second chance points from RHJ, Bash, Zeus, and SJ before the defense can get reset. So if a York jumper falls, that's great. If not, we have guys who make it their mission to clean it up on the offensive glass.
The last part of your post is only true if the missed shot is a good shot. Lots of bad shots lead to run outs for the opposition...
I don't think anyone wants to see a bunch of bad shots just because we rebound well, and oftentimes shots are bad because they are taken with no rebounders ready to follow them up.
Of the 12 coaches, Rush picked the one whose fans have the deepest passion, the longest memories, the greatest lung capacity and … did I mention deep passion?
I fly like a hawk, or better yet an eagle--a seagull. I sniff suckers out like a beagle...My ego is off and running and gone, Cause I'm about the best and if you diss than that's wrong
