Bear Down Wildcats

Nice to see Bryce is midseason hustle form

Lonzo Ball 1-6 from 3pt in 14min. Kid has zero chill hahahaha

YoDeFoe wrote:Lonzo Ball 1-6 from 3pt in 14min. Kid has zero chill hahahaha

That was actually 14 pts, not minutes. I get you don't like the kid and want to cherry pick stats to make him look bad, but he is a talent. You ignore the 14/10/6 on 5 of 11 shooting, but that wouldn't help you with your agenda now would it.

Yes I have a conspiratorial agenda against an 18 year old. He still shot 1-6 from deep. I'm trilled.

He also scored 14 points, had 10 boards, and 6 assists. Not sure if laughing at one game doesn't preclude you from not having an agenda. He needs to hit from the outside but that's not his game and that's what he needs to work on. It's just an odd thing to focus on is all

"That's not his game."

Yeah someone should mention that to him hahaha.

The kid can't shoot and he won't stop trying. Same thing in the Aussie games over the summer.

That's good for us, no?

Regardless, the kid obviously has a ton of talent and is going to be rich this time next year.

It's a work in progress. Nobody is going to guard him tight and let him drive by them so he's trying to improve his outside shot. He's been struggling but it's also preseason. We shall see how the season goes.

No talking bad about UCLA until they lose to Dominoes Pizza Community College in a couple weeks.

YoDeFoe wrote:Yes I have a conspiratorial agenda against an 18 year old. He still shot 1-6 from deep. I'm trilled.

Do you need your tinfoil hat?

221 points their first 2 games. Lonzo with 19, 11 and 8 and Leaf with 22 and 15 opening night...Oh ya and Alford with 30

Jefe, why are you posting two-game totals? That's a little weird.

YoDeFoe wrote:Yes I have a conspiratorial agenda against an 18 year old. He still shot 1-6 from deep. I'm trilled.

He's 4 for 7 from 3 in two regular season games. Yeah, his form is butt ugly, but he isn't a bad shooter.

They have a legit team. We'll see what Alford gets out of the talent, but they definitely have talent.

...and he was 4-21 from three in his three games in Aussie (http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/ ... yptr=yahoo" target="_blank).

...and he shot 30% from three over his two years on the Adidas Nations circuit (http://basketball.realgm.com/player/Lon ... mary/59501" target="_blank).

He's a streaky volume shooter. I don't expect him to go 4-21 across every three game stretch and I don't expect him to go 4-7 over every two game stretch.

What I do expect is for him to come in as a low 30% three point shooter, just like his historical average. He went 3-4 against Pacific and now he's a good shooter? C'mon man.

I expect him to go 9-12 from three against us.

Olsondogg wrote:I expect him to go 9-12 from three against us.

We need Trier vs. UCLA, or we're in trouble.

I liked what I saw from UCLA. Giving Ball the reigns makes perfect sense and Alford the player should embrace his new role. They can score and I think they will surprise Kentucky in a few weeks.

Going to be a fun conference year and it is to bad we only get to see Oregon once. Of course our hope is we see him with Trier back as it will be very tough to win this thing without him

YoDeFoe wrote:...and he was 4-21 from three in his three games in Aussie (http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/ ... yptr=yahoo" target="_blank).

...and he shot 30% from three over his two years on the Adidas Nations circuit (http://basketball.realgm.com/player/Lon ... mary/59501" target="_blank).

He's a streaky volume shooter. I don't expect him to go 4-21 across every three game stretch and I don't expect him to go 4-7 over every two game stretch.

What I do expect is for him to come in as a low 30% three point shooter, just like his historical average. He went 3-4 against Pacific and now he's a good shooter? C'mon man.

You're cherry picking a little. He went 26%, then 33% from junior to senior year. Really, 33 to 35% is average.

All I said is he wasn't bad. I (shockingly) agree with myself.

He's on PGU selling the same stuff to them. I think he's a Mater Dei fan

I'm a Mater Dei conspirator.

Shooting five threes every game at 33% makes that person a low percentage volume shooter. That's not a good thing. Also 1 + 2 equals three and the earth is round, just in case those things are in question in your life as well.

If they grow an interest in defense, that will be a very tough team to beat. Scorers at every position. And with that style, they will keep rolling in the recruits.

YoDeFoe wrote:I'm a Mater Dei conspirator.

Shooting five threes every game at 33% makes that person a low percentage volume shooter. That's not a good thing. Also 1 + 2 equals three and the earth is round, just in case those things are in question in your life as well.

I know Math is hard, but 33% from 3pt is the same as 50% from 2pt. Also, Jason Kidd shot over four 3pt's a game for his NBA career and I would say Lonzo and J Kidd bring a lot of the same stuff to the table. I guess you may now argue that Jason Kidd was garbage too.

JKidd was garbage! He played for Cal

The Lonzo love here knows no bounds.

Jason Kidd: 2:1 FGA:FTA
Lonzo Ball: 5:1 FGA:FTA

There's your difference between Kidd and Ball. Jason Kidd was such a handful because of his ability to attack the rim and pass off the drive.

Ball has shot the three well and has done a great job of driving to the rim in his two regular season games this season. If he keeps that up, he'll be a very good player. Historically that's not his game.

YoDeFoe wrote:The Lonzo love here knows no bounds.

Jason Kidd: 2:1 FGA:FTA
Lonzo Ball: 5:1 FGA:FTA

There's your difference between Kidd and Ball. Jason Kidd was such a handful because of his ability to attack the rim and pass off the drive.

Ball has shot the three well and has done a great job of driving to the rim in his two regular season games this season. If he keeps that up, he'll be a very good player. Historically that's not his game.

Part of me wanted to let this go, but it really is a pet peeve of mine when people throw out made up stats like they are fact.

Jason Kidd - Career 11.2 FGA, 2.8 FTA. Again, I know math is hard but that works out to a 4:1 FGA:FTA ratio. Meanwhile, I have no clue what stats you are choosing for Lonzo but his senior year in HS he shot 529 FG's and 130 FT's which would be a 4.06:1 FGA:FTA ratio. I love stats, but please use them accurately instead of trying to muddy the waters with made up numbers.

Kidd's stats are from his days at Cal (since that's the closest parallel).

Ball's stats are from his days on the Adidas Nations circuit (since that's the most accurate record keeping and best consistent competition).

Not trying to muddy the waters. I'll let this go since I've stated my case: If Ball plays like he has historically (volume shooting low percentage threes and not attacking the rim) then UCLA is in trouble, if Ball plays like he has in the last two games (hitting his limited threes and attacking the rim for FTAs) then he'll be an absolute handful.

You are the only one who seems to find only the fault in his game and speak only to that. I mean, chris paul guarding the post is terrible too. He brings a lot to the table and you focus on the threes to an irrational level of discussion. I'll say this, at least it's analysis, whixh is more than we've ever seen from RC97

YoDeFoe wrote:Kidd's stats are from his days at Cal (since that's the closest parallel).

Ball's stats are from his days on the Adidas Nations circuit (since that's the most accurate record keeping and best consistent competition).

Not trying to muddy the waters. I'll let this go since I've stated my case: If Ball plays like he has historically (volume shooting low percentage threes and not attacking the rim) then UCLA is in trouble, if Ball plays like he has in the last two games (hitting his limited threes and attacking the rim for FTAs) then he'll be an absolute handful.

He shot 44% from 3 in regular HS games.

http://www.maxpreps.com/m/career/gender ... basketball" target="_blank

Kidd averaged 8.4 apg in college. Ball is averaging 8.5 (yes, a small sample size so far). It's an ambitious comparison, but not insane. Ball isn't the penetrate and kick guy Kidd was, but you cqn be an effective distributor in other ways.

gronk4heisman wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:I'm a Mater Dei conspirator.

Shooting five threes every game at 33% makes that person a low percentage volume shooter. That's not a good thing. Also 1 + 2 equals three and the earth is round, just in case those things are in question in your life as well.

I know Math is hard, but 33% from 3pt is the same as 50% from 2pt. .

I have no dog in this fight, but it really isn't. No one gets fouled shooting 3s, unless they are playing us 2 years ago. A regular player averaging 45% from 2 pt range is also very likely getting fouled on shots not in the shooting stats and picking up valuable points there. An active player hitting 45+% of their 2 point shots not only gets extra points on the line, but they also put the other team in foul trouble and increase the opportunities in the bonus and double bonus.

I'd take a 47% shooter from 2 over a 33% shooter from 3. The 3 just doesn't create enough other results to stand for that low of a scoring rate.

EVCat wrote:

gronk4heisman wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:I'm a Mater Dei conspirator.

Shooting five threes every game at 33% makes that person a low percentage volume shooter. That's not a good thing. Also 1 + 2 equals three and the earth is round, just in case those things are in question in your life as well.

I know Math is hard, but 33% from 3pt is the same as 50% from 2pt. .

I have no dog in this fight, but it really isn't. No one gets fouled shooting 3s, unless they are playing us 2 years ago. A regular player averaging 45% from 2 pt range is also very likely getting fouled on shots not in the shooting stats and picking up valuable points there. An active player hitting 45+% of their 2 point shots not only gets extra points on the line, but they also put the other team in foul trouble and increase the opportunities in the bonus and double bonus.

I'd take a 47% shooter from 2 over a 33% shooter from 3. The 3 just doesn't create enough other results to stand for that low of a scoring rate.

The two stats don't tell you enough. If you go 2-6 from 3, 0-1 from 2 and 10-10 from the line, what sort of player are you?

Unless you're Max Hooper, no one just shoots 3's. Being a 33% shooter from three is as good as being a 50% shooter from two. The percentage you shoot or penetrate is another thing entirely.

Bug:

If this is the first time you've heard that Lonzo Ball takes a shit ton of three pointers and a lot of them are questionable: welcome to Lonzo Ball. Here's some scouts saying the same thing: http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Lonzo-Ball-7229/" target="_blank

I've repeatedly praised other aspects of his game, saying that if he swaps bad threes for attacking the rim he'll be a beast.

Yell at clouds or read what I wrote and respond to that.

Spiff: stop using two cupcake games to forecast. It's just ridiculous. I know you know that but you can't seem to help yourself.

YoDeFoe wrote:Bug:

If this is the first time you've heard that Lonzo Ball takes a shit ton of three pointers and a lot of them are questionable: welcome to Lonzo Ball. Here's some scouts saying the same thing: http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Lonzo-Ball-7229/" target="_blank

I've repeatedly praised other aspects of his game, saying that if he swaps bad threes for attacking the rim he'll be a beast.

Yell at clouds or read what I wrote and respond to that.

Spiff: stop using two cupcake games to forecast. It's just ridiculous. I know you know that but you can't seem to help yourself.

You're using Adidas Nations instead of his HS career or the college games he's played. I've posted college stats and full HS stats. Take from that what you will.

Lol@telling me about Ball

MrBug708 wrote:Lol@telling me about Ball

Ball is life.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
The two stats don't tell you enough. If you go 2-6 from 3, 0-1 from 2 and 10-10 from the line, what sort of player are you?

Unless you're Max Hooper, no one just shoots 3's. Being a 33% shooter from three is as good as being a 50% shooter from two. The percentage you shoot or penetrate is another thing entirely.

If shots were called ahead of time and not a part of play, then yeah, I got you. But considering all those twos that were fouled...just remove the foul on the other team and FT, which are both factors...the 50% or 45% only accounts for your shooting on unmolested 2s. The player shooting 50% from 2 has also likely been fouled on shots that were otherwise going in, where if the defender did not foul, the shooter would be shooting 60%+. Also, the player can stop and shoot the 3, or drive, when all that other shit happens. If you stop and shoot the 3, your only result is make or miss. 33% = 3 pts per 3 shots. The decision to drive and shoot a 2 comes with a 45% 2-of rate, but in reality, you are going to shoot 60% if not fouled. If you get fouled shooting a 2 and make both FT? It's a full make. In the points per possession game, the 33% 3 point shooter only shooting is making 9 points in 9 possessions (or 10 pts per 10 possessions).. The 2 pt shooter who hits 45% of 2s and gets fouled every 4th drive and hits an average of 1.5 FT per 2 (75%) has 8 shots and two line trips in 10 possessions has 7.2 points 8 poss x 45% = 3.6 makes at 2pts) from the 8 shots on average and 1.5 FT on 2 trips for a total of 10.2 points in 10 possessions. So the 2 point shoot decision at 45% = a greater point per possession than the 3 shooter despite being 5% less than the "equivalent" 50%. And that is with 2 fouls per 10 shots. If it were 1 per 10, it comes out a little less, but 3 fouls per 10 shots in 2 pt range is greater, and without considering any of the other factors that impact the game (The foul trouble, bonus, etc).

I get as raw stats, they are equivalent...50% from 2 = 33% from 3. But you can't keep the columns separated unless someone's 2pt shots are of the perimeter variety. In that case, the Eye test becomes important to determine whether the 2 pt shot ratio is made up of potential foul drawing shots or not.

But 33% from 3 doesn't give me, as a coach, a real desire for that player to shoot when they can put the ball on the floor or pass to someone who will get to the hole for a 2 that goes at 45% or a foul. With bonus shots, that point per action goes up considerably for the 2 or shooter who draws fouls.

I want a 3 point shooter to be up in the 38%+ range before they consider a 3 to be the equal of attacking the basket. An open 3 is an open 3, and you have to take it, but a 33% 3 pt shooter does not inspire me at all, where someone at 50% from 2, also drawing fouls on shots that would have made his shooting percentage 60+ % equivalent if you count the Fts. The 2 pt FG percentage is misleading because it does not include the attempts that did not count that made 1 or 2 FTs. Add the FTs and an attempt to 2 pt shots and the 50% shooter goes up to 60+%. We separate those numbers out to the FT column, but they belong with the results of the 2 pt attempt they occurred during and were caused by. Player shoots a 2, gets fouled wiping the shot accuracy off the percentage but results in 2 points? Add an attempt and a make. 1 FT? Add an attempt and half a make . Then properly compare 2 pt attempt results vs 3 pt attempt results and 33% from 3 doesn't hack it

EV, I feel like we're talking past each other.

My point is that % of made 3's doesn't define the extent a player attacks the rim. If a player shoots 10 2's for every 3, that player is attacking. That same player can also make 33% of his 3's.

Shooting percentage only tells you how many times a player converts. It tells you nothing about whether they penetrate or draw fouls.

Stats like TSP, efficiency, etc. give you a fuller picture of the player's work on the whole. The raw 33% only tells you what the make/miss comparison is, not how that player plays or whether they draw fouls.

Traffic must be borderline apocalyptic tonight.

I'll never understand how the historically best college sports program of all time in a city of 10+ million can't even get their arena half full.

They invented TV and every game was broadcasted LOL

Well they are playing San Diego who lost at home to Samford by 18. And no that was not a typo, it is Samford and not Stanford

Meanwhile, USD is hanging tough.

Chicat wrote:Meanwhile, USD is hanging tough.

I fully expect an ASUhater post echoing this thought.

UCLA is playing down to their level and not having a bench is starting to kick in.

MrBug708 wrote:

Chicat wrote:Meanwhile, USD is hanging tough.

I fully expect an ASUhater post echoing this thought.

UCLA is playing down to their level and not having a bench is starting to kick in.

Bruins need to get out and run. Not sure why they aren't attacking.

Pretty lethargic game. They also have Lonzo off the ball too often

Abu gonna fill in?

rgdeuce wrote:Abu gonna fill in?

I blame Jafar.

Good grind out win for ucla against a physical team

The Bruins have been very impressive. Ball is the real deal. I think they will beat Kentucky when they play

Not sure of these commitments stick but LiAngelo Ball finished with 56 points against a well-coached Orange Lutheran team. Melo Ball had 21 and 18 assists. Chino Hills beat Olu 121-89