Butler Bulldogs at DePaul Blue Demons - 1/16

Discussion in 'Butler Basketball' started by bmradio99, Jan 15, 2019.

  1. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $1,561
    Your theory should then be predictive that Jordan Tucker is actually a 20% shooter on layups, and not simply inexperienced at shooting them at game speed.

    If you don’t believe that, then your theory is worthless.




    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
    bwesson15, estar20dawg and Hinkle like this.
  2. Hinkle Magic2

    Hinkle Magic2 Active Member

    Money:
    $360
    My point was never that Tucker was good at layups and needs to shoot more layups to get in rhythm. In fact, he reminds me a bit of a young Paul George, who used to struggle around the rim despite his overwhelming athleticism.

    I look at someone like Baddley--even last year. Was a good bench player because of his defense, yet hit .465 on 3 pt attempts (1.2 attempts) last year in 15.2 minutes per game. Right now, David's playing the same role this season as he was.

    Did he need a bunch of volume shots to be in rhythm? No. That's part of being a good bench player.
     
  3. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $1,561
    Short version: you’re wrong and are being irrational.

    Long version:

    You made a point based on the suggestion that if CD were actually a good shooter, volume and experience wouldn’t inhibit him from showing that in games.

    Therefore, your logic is that your actual skills translate to on court statistical output.

    If your logic is solid, it would suggest that Jordan shooting 20% on layups is representative of him being REALLY bad at layups.

    If you don’t think he’s REALLY bad at layups, then the logic you’re using to make your point is not logic at all but a cognitive miscalculation and therefore worthless as a means of objective miscalculation. If you’re right, we should probably teach him how to shoot layups before he plays.

    P.s. Henry started his career 1 for 13 on 3’s and has shot 38.5% since so even your argument to prove your point actually statistically works against you.


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
    Hinkle and estar20dawg like this.
  4. Hinkle Magic2

    Hinkle Magic2 Active Member

    Money:
    $360
    Here's another example:

    Doug McDermott on the Indiana Pacers.

    Shoots 2.8 PG per game in 17.5 minutes ppg this season and hits .400 of them.

    Don't all good shooters need to get in rhythm though and need a high volume of shots?
     
  5. Hinkle Magic2

    Hinkle Magic2 Active Member

    Money:
    $360
    Skills do translate to on court statistical output. That seems pretty obvious. Why are we even having this conversation?

    LeBron James is the best basketball player on the planet. He's also the most talented skills-wise.

    I don't think Jordan Tucker is as bad as his shot percentage on layups, but neither was Paul George early in his career with the Pacers. I do think he can improve on that, and it's probably more of an issue on timing, body control, etc.

    I also think it's dumb to automatically assume that Sean McDermott got better shooting from his 2nd to 3rd year purely because of more attempts per game. That could be a little bit of it, but you're completely disregarding the work he put on his body to get stronger, bigger, more athletic, as well as the work he probably put in with shooting coaches and shooting 1000's of shots in the offseason (where the real work is done)--not by shooting more shots in a game.
     
  6. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $1,561
    Oh my god.

    Not only are you suggesting that the basis of your prior statement is incorrect, but you’re saying that the basis of your CURRENT statement is incorrect too.




    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
  7. Hinkle Magic2

    Hinkle Magic2 Active Member

    Money:
    $360
    I don't even know what you're talking about. You're like that guy who tries to sound smart, but looks dumb.
     
  8. Hinkle Magic2

    Hinkle Magic2 Active Member

    Money:
    $360
    I'm serious though, what is your point?

    -Is it that skills don't translate to on the court production?
    -Is it that every good shooter has to shoot volume to be successful, and that's why David is failing?
     
  9. Hinkle Magic2

    Hinkle Magic2 Active Member

    Money:
    $360
    #1 is skills obviously translate to on the court production.

    #2 has been proven false by Baddley, Hahn, McDermott, and countless other examples.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2019
  10. Hinkle Magic2

    Hinkle Magic2 Active Member

    Money:
    $360
    For the good shooters need volume to be in rhythm crowd (from 3 pt range):

    Sean McDermott (17-18): .431, 3.5 attempt per game
    Sean McDermott (18-19) .432, 6.2 attempt per game

    Zach Hahn (07-11): .378, 2.9 attempts per game

    Henry Baddley (17-18): .465, 1.2 attempts per game
     
    Tybuhoops likes this.
  11. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $1,561
    You’re right. I take back everything.

    The analysis of the same measurement yields different conclusions depending on whom it’s applied to, but it’s def trustworthy.

    P.s. if you’re into some light pregame reading, I suggest the Wikipedia page on confirmation bias.


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
    schoops likes this.
  12. Hinkle

    Hinkle Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $5,963
    There’s a big difference between arguing David needs more attempts to get in rhythm for him to shoot well and arguing David probably isn’t as bad of a shooter as his numbers suggest because it’s a small sample size.

    You seem to be conflating the two. (FWIW, I think they’re both reasonable hypotheses.)

    There’s also a big difference between getting a limited number of shot attempts per game and having taken a limited number of shots, in total, in a different environment, in one’s career.

    You seem to be conflating the two.

    Finally, that player A did not suffer from X problem is never conclusive evidence that player Y is not suffering from X.


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops mobile app
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2019
    schoops, estar20dawg and ButlerNut like this.
  13. Bernie44

    Bernie44 Member

    Money:
    $93
    This is starting to give me a headache!
     
  14. ButlerNut

    ButlerNut Well-Known Member VIP Member

    Money:
    $3,035
    I'm appreciating Ari's reason for giving up the FRH more with every post on this topic (not yours Hinkle...citing yours as a callback to our previous convo)

    Sent from my SM-G935V using Butler Hoops mobile app
     
  15. kmacker69

    kmacker69 Well-Known Member VIP Member

    Money:
    $3,178
    Argue all you ya want today I got some January Ocean therapy, makes all this melt away a little! 60 Degs and ran a mile or so out just to stretch her legs and set her up for the cold snap coming Sunday after it snows a bunch on yall... (Will be below freezing at night two whole days in a row!)
     

    Attached Files:

    bwesson15, Hinkle and estar20dawg like this.
  16. Eric

    Eric Active Member

    Money:
    $3,107
    I really don't like you right now.

    Sent from my SM-G892U using Butler Hoops mobile app
     
    kmacker69 and dawgs2014 like this.
  17. Gregory Roach

    Gregory Roach Active Member

    Money:
    $219
    upload_2019-1-19_9-50-32.png
    WestLoopDog has reached out to me for clarification so I would like to share with everyone the basis and tenor of my observation which was the catalyst for blow back.

    My comments did mean both of the concepts WestLoopDog reacted to. However, not with arrogant superior tenor read into the comments. Rather I was sharing empathy with the coaching staff decisions.

    What was missed in my comments was the backstory for those observations. During a long part of my life (two and half decades) I was a competitive head soccer coach with experience from the college to the club level. I often relied on fellow coaches, not connected to the teams I coached, to give me objective feedback on my team strategies and tactics at the team level and individual feedback on each of my players. I did this to avoid being blinded by my connection to and desire for each player to be successful and to be successful within our team concept. So too I wanted colleague feedback on whether the strategy I choose to employ for the collection of players that I had match the skill level of those players. I didn't want the team or any individual players to suffer for something I might have missed.

    That doesn't mean I wasn't capable of making an objective decision. It means I wanted to avoid being slow to see what should be seen and make the proper decision. I was using the same analogy for the Butler coaching staff. Nothing more or less. My statement didn't mean to imply incompetence nor do I see that at play with the Butler coaching staff.

    So my point really was very simply. It is much easier to be objective in section 204 than standing on the sidelines. Nothing more or less. The slow response of the Butler coaching staff to make lineup changes over the last five games is proof that they have struggled with this concept at some level. That doesn't mean they aren't capable, unprofessional nor unable to see what is needed nor make adjustments. It means they are HUMAN and all that implies. I am fine with LJ as the coach and I understand that this coach has a learning curve just as his players do.

    I remember a process whereby we can all ask each other for clarification to posts we night react too. As Churchill indicated "we are a common people separated by a common language". If you presume you know the meaning of what you are reacting too, you probably don't. It might be a more effective process that instead of blasting each other, we ask for clarification first. If you react to something I post in the future. Just ask for clarification. I will be happy to explain my thinking.

    Everyone be safe traveling to Hinkle today. As always, Go Dawgs.
     
    estar20dawg and tlp63 like this.
  18. Hinkle Magic2

    Hinkle Magic2 Active Member

    Money:
    $360
    The premise was that "All good shooters need volume to get in rhythm."

    That was the hypothesis. It's clearly wrong. There doesn't need to be anymore analysis than that.

    I also have someone comparing layups to three pointers which is apples to oranges. This is the same board that compared Brunk's shooting percentage to Baldwin's, so it makes sense.

    Go figure.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019

Share This Page