Luka Bogavac commits to UNC!!

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I understand both sides, but I lean towards not telling much.

More data isn't necessarily helpful, but it often is. In this case it should be. But how helpful remains to be seen.

We'll be looking at several UNC players playing on different teams, for different coaches. There will be lots to compare.

Most here have opinions about why certain players seemed to under-perform last season. So one outcome might be that we see much the same at their new schools. In which case, some may want to reconsider whether the coaching staff was the main problem (a fairly common view at present).

If players do better, it may be harder to tease apart. Were they coached better or was it their own natural maturity that we would also have seen if they had stayed? Is Elliot better, for example, because he had a better front line to pass to; and would he have done as well or better with Veesaar and Wilson?

So . . . it could turn out a bunch of different ways, but we'll have the data and we will be able to decide for ourselves.

Moreover, I think it could be important. Not so much what we anonymous fans decide after looking at the data, but because it may factor into whether Hubert continues to coach here. Obviously if our 2025-26 team has a great year, that decision is made. But suppose it's a better season but not a great season? In that case, how Hubert's players fared at different schools might be something the PTB will scrutinize. As they should.

 

[UncTwinz]

Cadeau would have racked up the assists passing to Veeaar and Wilson.

 

[dtodd4475]

More data isn't necessarily helpful, but it often is. In this case it should be. But how helpful remains to be seen.

We'll be looking at several UNC players playing on different teams, for different coaches. There will be lots to compare.

Most here have opinions about why certain players seemed to under-perform last season. So one outcome might be that we see much the same at their new schools. In which case, some may want to reconsider whether the coaching staff was the main problem (a fairly common view at present).

If players do better, it may be harder to tease apart. Were they coached better or was it their own natural maturity that we would also have seen if they had stayed? Is Elliot better, for example, because he had a better front line to pass to; and would he have done as well or better with Veesaar and Wilson?

So . . . it could turn out a bunch of different ways, but we'll have the data and we will be able to decide for ourselves.

Moreover, I think it could be important. Not so much what we anonymous fans decide after looking at the data, but because it may factor into whether Hubert continues to coach here. Obviously if our 2025-26 team has a great year, that decision is made. But suppose it's a better season but not a great season? In that case, how Hubert's players fared at different schools might be something the PTB will scrutinize. As they should.

Possibly, but I won't put as much weight to it. Dawson Garcia, Styles, Puff, Walton, Dunn all had very different casts of characters and roles with their new rosters, and I do not think their roles at UNC should have been featured as such at the time they were here. Their results except for Dawson, I think showed why, but they played very different roles. Dawson would have been a feature as a player of that level if he stayed, and was seen as such. Walton played a similar role as well at Texas Tech.

EC was/is a featured player, and his new cast, and Jr. year maturity improvement will be vital for him. The guys coming in, it ain't Colorado State, very different ask for him now. Veesaar from Zona is a similar move, but with more of a feature role now and maturity as well, as a vet. Wouldn't hold improved numbers against his Zona coaching, or credit to Hubert necessarily either. Same with Ingram, Cormac and Manek, they were vets with a very different cast for teammates at UNC.

 

[JimmyinVA]

Cadeau would have racked up the assists passing to Veeaar and Wilson.

I think you're right. lack of inside scorers doomed EC at UNC.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Possibly, but I won't put as much weight to it. Dawson Garcia, Styles, Puff, Walton, Dunn all had very different casts of characters and roles with their new rosters, and I do not think their roles at UNC should have been featured as such at the time they were here. Their results except for Dawson, I think showed why, but they played very different roles. Dawson would have been a feature as a player of that level if he stayed, and was seen as such. Walton played a similar role as well at Texas Tech.

EC was/is a featured player, and his new cast, and Jr. year maturity improvement will be vital for him. The guys coming in, it ain't Colorado State, very different ask for him now. Veesaar from Zona is a similar move, but with more of a feature role now and maturity as well, as a vet. Wouldn't hold improved numbers against his Zona coaching, or credit to Hubert necessarily either. Same with Ingram, Cormac and Manek, they were vets with a very different cast for teammates at UNC.

Let me agree, again, that things change. But that's the point, not a reason to think we can't learn by comparison.

Suppose a player does about the same at his new school. There might be lessons to learn, but there probably isn't a lot of incentive to drill down. Whereas if a player does noticeably better or worse, then we can ask why. We can drill down and see if there are lessons to be learned.

What lessons? Mainly about coaching. The players are gone, after all. They can't help our team. But how they do next can help us identify what our coaching staff may have done well or poorly. And that's useful for our team.

I think that's worth doing. Moreover I think it would be a mistake not to do it. Whether that exercise generates useful information remains to be seen, but the effort makes sense.

 

[DSouthr]

I think you're right. lack of inside scorers doomed EC at UNC.

Being so small at every position was the THE problem last season and we all knew that before the first game was played. That one problem was directly involved in everything else we saw. If you are going to totally fail in the portal as we did then you must adapt an approach that allows you a chance to win, means last thing you want to settle for is a lot of half court games and why in the world would you go even smaller than you had to or base everything on outside shooting when you had only 1 outside shooter that defenses had to worry about? It was stacking failure on top of failure on top of failure?

 

[DSouthr]

While I am not as blown away with Luca as many seem to be I do wonder, can he be a factor for us as a PG? That isn't a question of can he play the point like Cadeau but more, can he play the point as well or better than Evans, Dixon, or Seth? I don't know that he can defend ACC PGs but he has nice size and the handles to play over a lot of defenders at the point and should be able to get his shot off over them. He does play with his head up so he should be able to see over most defenders and he has a nice hesy handle game, at 6'5"he would be harder to trap because he could see over many of his defenders.

If Luca could handle the point his value to me would explode upward ! Clearly for me the most glaring need is for a back up for Veesaar but outside of that ball handles at the point is my other area of concern.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

While I am not as blown away with Luca as many seem to be I do wonder, can he be a factor for us as a PG? That isn't a question of can he play the point like Cadeau but more, can he play the point as well or better than Evans, Dixon, or Seth? I don't know that he can defend ACC PGs but he has nice size and the handles to play over a lot of defenders at the point and should be able to get his shot off over them. He does play with his head up so he should be able to see over most defenders and he has a nice hesy handle game, at 6'5"he would be harder to trap because he could see over many of his defenders.

If Luca could handle the point his value to me would explode upward ! Clearly for me the most glaring need is for a back up for Veesaar but outside of that ball handles at the point is my other area of concern.

I know you're a fan of playing Wilson at SF. Others favor playing Stevenson at SF.

If either of those turns out to be a good option, then where does Luka play? Your thought that he might play PG is one option. I've heard others suggest that his handle - though good - isn't good enough to play PG. Who knows?

Another possibility, if Luka isn't our starting SF, is that he moves to SG. I hope this will be Seth's year to shoot well AND keep shooting well throughout the season. If he does, I assume he's our starting SG. But if his shooting never gets there or begins to fade, and Luka's shooting is as-advertised, might we see Seth relegated to the bench until his D is needed?

Hubert could have lots of options, but I guess we'll have to wait to find out which are actually viable.

 

[alabamaheel]

I know you're a fan of playing Wilson at SF. Others favor playing Stevenson at SF.

If either of those turns out to be a good option, then where does Luka play? Your thought that he might play PG is one option. I've heard others suggest that his handle - though good - isn't good enough to play PG. Who knows?

Another possibility, if Luka isn't our starting SF, is that he moves to SG. I hope this will be Seth's year to shoot well AND keep shooting well throughout the season. If he does, I assume he's our starting SG. But if his shooting never gets there or begins to fade, and Luka's shooting is as-advertised, might we see Seth relegated to the bench until his D is needed?

Hubert could have lots of options, but I guess we'll have to wait to find out which are actually viable.

If those other two turn out then I could see Luka playing some at the 2. Seth better bow up. That league he came from is no joke. I’d say his game will translate really well.

 

[DSouthr]

I know you're a fan of playing Wilson at SF. Others favor playing Stevenson at SF.

If either of those turns out to be a good option, then where does Luka play? Your thought that he might play PG is one option. I've heard others suggest that his handle - though good - isn't good enough to play PG. Who knows?

Another possibility, if Luka isn't our starting SF, is that he moves to SG. I hope this will be Seth's year to shoot well AND keep shooting well throughout the season. If he does, I assume he's our starting SG. But if his shooting never gets there or begins to fade, and Luka's shooting is as-advertised, might we see Seth relegated to the bench until his D is needed?

Hubert could have lots of options, but I guess we'll have to wait to find out which are actually viable.

First WW, I would not listen to those folks you heard say Luka's handle is good but not good enough to be a point. Why, because we have ll seen the same clips, looked to me like he was playing on the ball a lot. Yet I don't know if he can play the point for us, I have not seen him enough to make that judgement nor have I seen enough to say he can't.

 

[dtodd4475]

This roster is totally fresh and new. How they adapt quickly to each other and as a unit is anybodies guess.

Evans a lower mid level squads feature shooter at point stepping up.

Luka used to much quicker and physical play, introducing himself to the college style.

Wilson a incoming long athletic touted freshman, with questions on shooting.

Veesaar a split time big transferring in to a feature role.

Stephenson a long stretch type usage guy in his past couple years transferring in.

Other incoming freshman seen as solid down the road types, not expected as feature types stepping in.

Brown and High, total wild cards.

Seth, the only returning quanity in house, not a point, undersized 3, poor shooting 2. Gotta find spot to maximize his dee and athleticism strengths.

I like the roster moves, but it is a total hodge podge to mix in and develop roles and chemistry. Daunting task for any coach, with a definite possible big time upside though.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Evans a lower mid level squads feature shooter at point stepping up.

I like all your points but want to discuss this one. Evans's team, Colorado St, is in the Mountain West. If you believe Pomeroy, they were only slightly worse than the ACC last season. They've been the 6th or 7th best conference in the nation (out of 31) for the last few years, alternating with the now-defunct PAC 12.

To be fair, the MWC isn't usually that close to the ACC, but they were last year.

Evans started every game as a soph and scored in double digits in 24 of 36 games - including 12 of his last 13. By and large he shot as well against the best foes as he did against easier teams. Most of the time his low scores were due to not taking many shots.

Obviously we won't know until the season happens, but my guess is that he will perform similarly to his last year - on the theory that the ACC being slightly harder will be compensated for by soph-to-junior development.

Concerns include a not-so-good 1.59 assist-to-turnover ratio and the fact that he was the #3 outside shooting option on that team. He could be the #1 or #2 outside threat for us. So I'm not counting on his 44.6% 3pt percentage to survive the move. But if he and Luka (and hopefully others) can deliver near 40% we should be in good shape.

Conference	Rating	Conference
1	Southeastern Conference	+22.09
2	Big Ten Conference	+19.00
3	Big 12 Conference	+17.09
4	Big East Conference	+13.58
5	Atlantic Coast Conference	+9.16
6	Mountain West Conference	+8.06

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Seth, the only returning quanity in house, not a point, undersized 3, poor shooting 2. Gotta find spot to maximize his dee and athleticism strengths.

This needs to be the year the "poor shooting" part goes away and stays away. I really thought that was happening early last year, but it didn't last.

 

[montana_heel]

What kind of sense does it make to want to utilize all 5 players on offense but only want to utilize 2 or the 3 offensive areas of the floor and ignore between the 3 point line and key. I don't understand the logic. Being a threat all over the court seems good to me.

I would be more concerned about creating a quality shot rather than from where it is taken if I were a coach.

 

[UncTwinz]

This needs to be the year the "poor shooting" part goes away and stays away. I really thought that was happening early last year, but it didn't last.

He was shooting almost 40% from 3 before the concussion.

 

[Kool1234567]

I think you're right. lack of inside scorers doomed EC at UNC.

Not saying you aren’t wrong but he couldn’t shoot….Nobody we played respected him hitting shots….

So you might be wrong 😂😂😂😂😂

 

[Mrs.Jeans15]

This roster is totally fresh and new. How they adapt quickly to each other and as a unit is anybodies guess.

Evans a lower mid level squads feature shooter at point stepping up.

Luka used to much quicker and physical play, introducing himself to the college style.

Wilson a incoming long athletic touted freshman, with questions on shooting.

Veesaar a split time big transferring in to a feature role.

Stephenson a long stretch type usage guy in his past couple years transferring in.

Other incoming freshman seen as solid down the road types, not expected as feature types stepping in.

Brown and High, total wild cards.

Seth, the only returning quanity in house, not a point, undersized 3, poor shooting 2. Gotta find spot to maximize his dee and athleticism strengths.

I like the roster moves, but it is a total hodge podge to mix in and develop roles and chemistry. Daunting task for any coach, with a definite possible big time upside though.

Yes people usually step into new roles as their career progresses.

This is all about coaching.

 

[dtodd4475]

Yes people usually step into new roles as their career progresses.

This is all about coaching.

Coaching is certainly a key in the process to mesh so many full transitions. It is a new age though, and this new type of difficult task of having to coach with almost complete newcomers to campus having to learn each others game, let alone the staff to acclimated to each is not that rare anymore.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

He was shooting almost 40% from 3 before the concussion.

He tore it up the first 7 games. Unfortunately, the slide began well before the concussion. He was 3 of 16 from deep in the 5 games before missing 4 games.

It looked like he might be back in stride starting late Feb, but it didn't last, and he went 0 for 11 from deep the final 5 games of the season.

It sort of looks like he shoots better as a starter than coming off the bench, but with everything else that was going on, roster-wise, it's hard to be sure.

 

[dtodd4475]

He tore it up the first 7 games. Unfortunately, the slide began well before the concussion. He was 3 of 16 from deep in the 5 games before missing 4 games.

It looked like he might be back in stride starting late Feb, but it didn't last, and he went 0 for 11 from deep the final 5 games of the season.

It sort of looks like he shoots better as a starter than coming off the bench, but with everything else that was going on, roster-wise, it's hard to be sure.

My concern is his arch, it seems inconsistent to me, tends to drift into some balloon balls.

 

[Mrs.Jeans15]

My concern is his arch, it seems inconsistent to me, tends to drift into some balloon balls.

Yes attack the basket. Could care less about his 3 ball. If we are relying on that we will have a losing record, improvement or not.

 

[UncTwinz]

Not saying you aren’t wrong but he couldn’t shoot….Nobody we played respected him hitting shots….

So you might be wrong 😂😂😂😂😂

Cota couldn't shoot either. But he had a lot of guys who could finish his passes with layups and dunks.

Cadeau was the starting PG on a team that won the ACC regular season, swept dook, earned a 1 seed in the tournament, and was a couple Withers' mistakes away from reaching the elite eight.

 

[dtodd4475]

Yes attack the basket. Could care less about his 3 ball. If we are relying on that we will have a losing record, improvement or not.

He's has to be adequate with the 3 though, not a seek it out look type guy, but solid enough to keep dee's honest. He is not a Cota or Cadeau assist first point guard. Heck, I don't even see him as a point. As a 2, not worrying about his 3ball is going to be tough.

 

[DSouthr]

What kind of sense does it make to want to utilize all 5 players on offense but only want to utilize 2 or the 3 offensive areas of the floor and ignore between the 3 point line and key. I don't understand the logic. Being a threat all over the court seems good to me.

I would be more concerned about creating a quality shot rather than from where it is taken if I were a coach.

EXACTLY!!!

 

[Mrs.Jeans15]

He's has to be adequate with the 3 though, not a seek it out look type guy, but solid enough to keep dee's honest. He is not a Cota or Cadeau assist first point guard. Heck, I don't even see him as a point. As a 2, not worrying about his 3ball is going to be tough.

Agree..adequate is all I'm looking for.

 

[NathanFielder]

What kind of sense does it make to want to utilize all 5 players on offense but only want to utilize 2 or the 3 offensive areas of the floor and ignore between the 3 point line and key. I don't understand the logic. Being a threat all over the court seems good to me.

I would be more concerned about creating a quality shot rather than from where it is taken if I were a coach.

It's because very few players are actually good at shooting long 2s.

In the NBA, DeMar DeRozan led the league in mid-range jumpers attempted. He's known as an elite mid-range shooter and he shot 45.8% from mid-range. Which isn't a bad percentage, but it immediately makes it a less efficient shot than someone who is shooting 32% from 3, which would be considered below average.

Of the players who attempted 100 mid-range jumpers in the NBA, 7 of them shot 50% or better. And by my rough count, the median percentage was like 43%. That area just isn't an advantageous shot for the vast vast vast majority of basketball players. So you can be a threat from the mid-range and shoot 45%, which is well above average. But then I take an average 3PT shooter who shoots 33% and the average 3PT shot becomes a much more efficient shot.

I understand the game isn't played on paper, and the quality of shot and opponent's defense plays a part in it. My point is year-after-year it is tracked that the mid-range shot is simply a less efficient shot.

Maybe Seth Trimble is the next Kevin Durant, Devin Booker, Shai Gilgeous Alexander where his mid-range game will legitimately be a weapon and a plus skill. Assuming it isn't, I don't think offense should be designed for that. If UNC's best offensive option is scheming mid-range jumpers, then it's going to be a really long season. The offense needs to be predicated on getting shots at the rim, getting to the FT line, and 3PTers before scheming for mid-range opportunities with minus jump shooters.

Also shot quality based on what? Based on how open the shot it? Based on who's taking it? I mean if it turns out that Kyan Evans is like a 45% overall 3PT shooter and a 35% 3PT shooter on contested 3s. And Stevenson is a 45% shooter on open mid-range jumpers, then Kyan Evans taking a contested 3 is probably a better shot than Stevenson taking an open mid-range.

Shot quality needs to be defined specifically. If it's purely about where the shot is taken and how open it is, that's only maybe 1/2 the equation.

 

[alabamaheel]

It's because very few players are actually good at shooting long 2s.

In the NBA, DeMar DeRozan led the league in mid-range jumpers attempted. He's known as an elite mid-range shooter and he shot 45.8% from mid-range. Which isn't a bad percentage, but it immediately makes it a less efficient shot than someone who is shooting 32% from 3, which would be considered below average.

Of the players who attempted 100 mid-range jumpers in the NBA, 7 of them shot 50% or better. And by my rough count, the median percentage was like 43%. That area just isn't an advantageous shot for the vast vast vast majority of basketball players. So you can be a threat from the mid-range and shoot 45%, which is well above average. But then I take an average 3PT shooter who shoots 33% and the average 3PT shot becomes a much more efficient shot.

I understand the game isn't played on paper, and the quality of shot and opponent's defense plays a part in it. My point is year-after-year it is tracked that the mid-range shot is simply a less efficient shot.

Maybe Seth Trimble is the next Kevin Durant, Devin Booker, Shai Gilgeous Alexander where his mid-range game will legitimately be a weapon and a plus skill. Assuming it isn't, I don't think offense should be designed for that. If UNC's best offensive option is scheming mid-range jumpers, then it's going to be a really long season. The offense needs to be predicated on getting shots at the rim, getting to the FT line, and 3PTers before scheming for mid-range opportunities with minus jump shooters.

Also shot quality based on what? Based on how open the shot it? Based on who's taking it? I mean if it turns out that Kyan Evans is like a 45% overall 3PT shooter and a 35% 3PT shooter on contested 3s. And Stevenson is a 45% shooter on open mid-range jumpers, then Kyan Evans taking a contested 3 is probably a better shot than Stevenson taking an open mid-range.

Shot quality needs to be defined specifically. If it's purely about where the shot is taken and how open it is, that's only maybe 1/2 the equation.

Good post and my take on Seth is that you have to make up for being a subpar hesitant shooter with good defense. Can’t be a zero on offense of course but definitely can’t Olay the bull on the other end. He does play great defense btw.
My philosophy as well as a lot of guys, is outscore your man. If you’re playing defense and give up 20 but only score 2 then there’s a problem. I know all five guys on the court won’t accomplish this, but to keep it close would be attainable. Very rarely is your best scorer also the best defender. Hard to ask that from most guys. RJ didn’t play great defense for sure, but he made up for it on offense.
Back to Seth, imo he’d better perform on offense this year because I could see his minutes at the 2 being taken by Luka. Once again, that’s hoping that Wilson turns out to be as advertised, and Stevenson and others can perform. I don’t think Seth has shown any pg chops to take many of those minutes. I am happy to get to see Seth as a senior and hopefully settle into a nice offensive role.

 

[montana_heel]

Good points. I guess I always worry about a bad night shooting 3's where it seems like middies have less variation on percentage made.

To me, a good shot is one taken in rhythm. My kids are shocked when I tell them if a shot is going in right after it leaves a players hands. I know it was that way for me. These guys are light years away from what I was but I think a shot in rhythm with your feet set underneath you is the best. I don't care where from as much as how comfortable it feels to the shooter.

That is what great point guards do in my opinion is they get you the ball when and where makes you the most comfortable. That makes you the best player you can be.

 

[NathanFielder]

Good points. I guess I always worry about a bad night shooting 3's where it seems like middies have less variation on percentage made.

To me, a good shot is one taken in rhythm. My kids are shocked when I tell them if a shot is going in right after it leaves a players hands. I know it was that way for me. These guys are light years away from what I was but I think a shot in rhythm with your feet set underneath you is the best. I don't care where from as much as how comfortable it feels to the shooter.

That is what great point guards do in my opinion is they get you the ball when and where makes you the most comfortable. That makes you the best player you can be.

100%. Each game is its own entity and you need to do what you can to win the game. I would argue against being reliant on the mid-range just because the 3 isn't falling. I think there are other ways to manufacture a more efficient offense, but I understand that point.

And btw, I know being overly analytical like I tend to be has its shortcomings. College basketball is not the NBA. Regular seasons are 35 games long, not 82. The playoffs are 1-and-done in college, and they're best of 7 in the NBA. The analytical advantage will tend to play itself out over a longer sample size and college basketball isn't the longest of sample sizes.

That's why I've said I'm against excessiveness most parts when it comes to scheme or strategy. Especially in March, you will have to manufacture scoring because good teams and well coached teams will take away some of those numerical advantages you can find on the court. From there, you better make a tough 18 footer at an important moment if you want to beat a 1 or 2 seed in the Elite 8. I get all that.

But to have your offense schemed around something that is less efficient is a really poor strategy IMO. And one that deserves to be questioned in its long-term effectiveness.

 

[NathanFielder]

Good post and my take on Seth is that you have to make up for being a subpar hesitant shooter with good defense. Can’t be a zero on offense of course but definitely can’t Olay the bull on the other end. He does play great defense btw.
My philosophy as well as a lot of guys, is outscore your man. If you’re playing defense and give up 20 but only score 2 then there’s a problem. I know all five guys on the court won’t accomplish this, but to keep it close would be attainable. Very rarely is your best scorer also the best defender. Hard to ask that from most guys. RJ didn’t play great defense for sure, but he made up for it on offense.
Back to Seth, imo he’d better perform on offense this year because I could see his minutes at the 2 being taken by Luka. Once again, that’s hoping that Wilson turns out to be as advertised, and Stevenson and others can perform. I don’t think Seth has shown any pg chops to take many of those minutes. I am happy to get to see Seth as a senior and hopefully settle into a nice offensive role.

I think a lot of this season will depend on how much Seth's offense is needed. If it turns out Veesaar, Evans, and Bogavac are plus offensive players for their position and they all give you 14-18 PPG, then I'm more than happy with Seth being a 4th or 5th option. I wouldn't be all that bullish if Seth has to be the lead option out of the guards.

He has a ton of value but I'm assuming he's going to be a limited offensive player and particularly a limited jump shooter. If he's a limited jump shooter, then I want him living in the paint, play off of 2 feet and score at the basket or get fouled and shoot a ton of FTs. There are other dudes on this team who should be able to shoot it much more effectively.

Be a superstar in your role. And for Seth, I highly doubt that role will be taking jump shots from any distance.

 

[DSouthr]

Good points. I guess I always worry about a bad night shooting 3's where it seems like middies have less variation on percentage made.

To me, a good shot is one taken in rhythm. My kids are shocked when I tell them if a shot is going in right after it leaves a players hands. I know it was that way for me. These guys are light years away from what I was but I think a shot in rhythm with your feet set underneath you is the best. I don't care where from as much as how comfortable it feels to the shooter.

That is what great point guards do in my opinion is they get you the ball when and where makes you the most comfortable. That makes you the best player you can be.

First this deal about players struggling more to make long 2 than treys, know why? Because guys are having to worry about where their feet are before they go up for the shot, JUST WORRY ABOUT MAKING THE DAMN SHOT! 2 inches forward is a harder shot to make, seriously, come on guys, you have to know better than that? I am a HUGE advocate for pump faking the rushed trey and driving against a defender flying out to defend, even if it is a step or 2. I do not like players having to worry about where their feet are unless they are very close to the side, base, or half court lines. IT gives them to much to be concerned with, it complicates the shot, that adds a level of difficulty that makes the shot harder than it should be.

I don't know why so many insist that Seth for example should focus on being a 3pt shooter when that isn't his game. Until he got hurt Seth was a double digit scorer, if that kid does not feel that 3pt shot I want him to pass it up for a shot he more feels, I want all players doing that.

 

[DSouthr]

100%. Each game is its own entity and you need to do what you can to win the game. I would argue against being reliant on the mid-range just because the 3 isn't falling. I think there are other ways to manufacture a more efficient offense, but I understand that point.

And btw, I know being overly analytical like I tend to be has its shortcomings. College basketball is not the NBA. Regular seasons are 35 games long, not 82. The playoffs are 1-and-done in college, and they're best of 7 in the NBA. The analytical advantage will tend to play itself out over a longer sample size and college basketball isn't the longest of sample sizes.

That's why I've said I'm against excessiveness most parts when it comes to scheme or strategy. Especially in March, you will have to manufacture scoring because good teams and well coached teams will take away some of those numerical advantages you can find on the court. From there, you better make a tough 18 footer at an important moment if you want to beat a 1 or 2 seed in the Elite 8. I get all that.

But to have your offense schemed around something that is less efficient is a really poor strategy IMO. And one that deserves to be questioned in its long-term effectiveness.

The real flaw in your thinking is that if they are doing it in the NBA then they should be able to do it at any level. In the NBA you have the most talented, most developed, most skilled players in the game and the college level does not have that. The best of the best college players spend only 1 season in the college game before they are off to the NBA. Just because Seth Curry makes a 35ft hard guarded jumper look like a lay up does not mean college kids can do that. Curry makes shots that every kid in college should realize is a bad shot. The solution for missing a bad shot is never just take another bad shot, defined by degree of difficulty and the players comfort with the shot.

 

[NathanFielder]

First this deal about players struggling more to make long 2 than treys, know why? Because guys are having to worry about where their feet are before they go up for the shot, JUST WORRY ABOUT MAKING THE DAMN SHOT! 2 inches forward is a harder shot to make, seriously, come on guys, you have to know better than that? I am a HUGE advocate for pump faking the rushed trey and driving against a defender flying out to defend, even if it is a step or 2. I do not like players having to worry about where their feet are unless they are very close to the side, base, or half court lines. IT gives them to much to be concerned with, it complicates the shot, that adds a level of difficulty that makes the shot harder than it should be.

I don't know why so many insist that Seth for example should focus on being a 3pt shooter when that isn't his game. Until he got hurt Seth was a double digit scorer, if that kid does not feel that 3pt shot I want him to pass it up for a shot he more feels, I want all players doing that.

The real flaw in your thinking is that if they are doing it in the NBA then they should be able to do it at any level. In the NBA you have the most talented, most developed, most skilled players in the game and the college level does not have that. The best of the best college players spend only 1 season in the college game before they are off to the NBA. Just because Seth Curry makes a 35ft hard guarded jumper look like a lay up does not mean college kids can do that. Curry makes shots that every kid in college should realize is a bad shot. The solution for missing a bad shot is never just take another bad shot, defined by degree of difficulty and the players comfort with the shot.

Worrying about their feet? Ok sure. And I'm not even saying players "struggle" making long 2's. I pointed out the percentages in the NBA. A 41-43% standard mid-range jump shot is much higher than a 34% 3PT shot from a percentage standpoint. But the percentage has to be taken with a grain of salt because the 3 is 50% more valuable in terms of points than a 2 pt jumper.

And I never said shooting from closer is harder. My point is the efficiency of the shot. From that vantage point, there is no discussion. The mid-range shot is generally not the most efficient shot you can get. It needs to be part of your arsenal, sure. But it simply isn't an efficient shot unless you are a truly elite mid-range shooter.

Again, it has been proven that layups/dunks, free throws, and 3-pointers are the most efficient shots in basketball in totality. No, I don't think you should never shoot a mid-range jumper. But if you have the choice between a long 2 and a 3 (assuming both are open), over the long term, the open 3 will be the much more advantageous shot to take. Again, this has been proven. It's not really an opinion right now.

And I'll reiterate. If this team has legitimate 3PT weapons with Kyan Evans, Bogavac, Powell... Then it shouldn't be scheming for a bunch of mid-range jumpers. If they have 3 legit 3PT weapons and better quality bigs, then they should shoot like 50% of their shots inside the paint, 40% of their shots from 3, and maybe 10% from mid-range. And that isn't extreme. 40% of your field goals being 3s would rank around 150th in the country.

Houston led the country last year in "long 2 point shots" last season. They were obviously a great team last year. But it's no coincidence they were 295th in the country in 2PT percentage last season. Of course, it's an efficient shot to depend on.

 

[UncTwinz]

I think Stevenson might benefit from more midrange shots and less 3s.

 

[NathanFielder]

I think Stevenson might benefit from more midrange shots and less 3s.

Maybe. But 64% career FT shooter. Does that translate into an effective and efficient mid-range shooter? He would need to prove it before I believed it. Obvsiously his mid-range sample size is too small at Alabama to take much away from it.

In fairness, Seth shot 80%+ from the FT line, so by my argument, maybe he will be a plus mid-range shooter.

Regardless, I don't think it's really something the offense should scheme when there are better options and more efficient shots likely available.

 

[montana_heel]

Great discussion. Thanks everybody for input. Not one person was called a name for having an opinion. I am certainly not anti 3. I do think a fake shot and 2 dribbles into a 10 footer is just as good. Maybe it isn't after seeing the numbers that Nathan is showing. It has always felt like a comfortable shot for me but at 5'9" with no hops, I wasn't venturing into the paint unless I knew it was to dish it to someone.

 

[DSouthr]

Maybe. But 64% career FT shooter. Does that translate into an effective and efficient mid-range shooter? He would need to prove it before I believed it. Obvsiously his mid-range sample size is too small at Alabama to take much away from it.

In fairness, Seth shot 80%+ from the FT line, so by my argument, maybe he will be a plus mid-range shooter.

Regardless, I don't think it's really something the offense should scheme when there are better options and more efficient shots likely available.

It doesn't translate to a good three point shooter either now does it...

 

[DSouthr]

Great discussion. Thanks everybody for input. Not one person was called a name for having an opinion. I am certainly not anti 3. I do think a fake shot and 2 dribbles into a 10 footer is just as good. Maybe it isn't after seeing the numbers that Nathan is showing. It has always felt like a comfortable shot for me but at 5'9" with no hops, I wasn't venturing into the paint unless I knew it was to dish it to someone.

Folks seem to need to complicate this when it is actually very simple, the team that gets and takes the higher quality shots and forces the other team to take more shots that have a higher level of difficulty is going to win the vast majority of the time. You could draw a little circle on the floor and call that a 4pt shot if you want and you would see some try to say shooting 20% from there is how your offense should be set?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Maybe. But 64% career FT shooter. Does that translate into an effective and efficient mid-range shooter? He would need to prove it before I believed it. Obvsiously his mid-range sample size is too small at Alabama to take much away from it.

In fairness, Seth shot 80%+ from the FT line, so by my argument, maybe he will be a plus mid-range shooter.

Regardless, I don't think it's really something the offense should scheme when there are better options and more efficient shots likely available.

Dexter Strickland shot very well from mid-range as a junior (57.6% from 2pt range, a lot but not all from mid-range). He decided - or was told - to stop shooting treys after disappointing from deep his frosh and soph years, and became a solid scoring threat (until he was injured).

FWIW, Dexter shot 66.7% from the stripe that season.

 

[NathanFielder]

Dexter Strickland shot very well from mid-range as a junior (57.6% from 2pt range, a lot but not all from mid-range). He decided - or was told - to stop shooting treys after disappointing from deep his frosh and soph years, and became a solid scoring threat (until he was injured).

FWIW, Dexter shot 66.7% from the stripe that season.

Dexter Strickland also averaged the 7th most FGA per game that season. If UNC is good enough where Seth is outside the top 5 in FGA/game, then UNC's offense will be in good shape regardless of where he is shooting from.