agree about the good shot chances and not making them. One problem is that we have lapsed at times with the speed of the game and made lazy passes which have been stolen leading to open shots. Up to 7 steals against us.

wheels coming off

Sigh

Zone hasn't been terrible tonight. Much better than against Georgia State and UNLV, but still clearly kinks to work out. It's not gonna be an overnight process.

I just wish Pera had called a timeout when we started getting sloppy. The players probably thought they could pull this one back, but the slight panic ensured that the deficit was going to get out of hand.

I like what I've seen tonight; there is no reason for the team to deviate from what it is doing to set the offense. But damn, they have to start making shots.

We probably don't have the horses to play great D, but at least the effort is there. I do feel the 20+ point deficit flatters Ole Miss a bit.

Ya I’m not really disappointed with our performance. Better shooting and we are in a competitive game at a neutral site with a decent SEC team.

Pretty pleased with announcers at least. Owls still playing hard

Dylan Jones needs to play more.

Basically even on the boards, with 15 offensive rebounds for Rice.

Ole Miss shot 48.3%, while Rice shot 33.3%. Rice was also 7 for 31 from three on mostly open looks. There is your ballgame.

UNLV 85 Utah 58. Guess UNLVhas retooled nicely. Rebels won both games by 27.

(11-22-2017 11:54 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  Rice was also 7 for 31 from three on mostly open looks. There is your ballgame.

Which, of course, begs the question of why are we shooting 25 threes per game on average (in the top quintile in college basketball for attempts) when we are in the bottom third in three point percentage? That type of offense may have worked last year (and could very well work next year), but through the first five games, it appears we simply do not have the shooters needed to justify that many three point attempts. The coaches need to recognize these early trends (albeit we’re only a sixth of the way through the season) and adjust the offense accordingly as we gain more data points.

If they believe guys will start making more shots based on what they have seen from the guys in non-game scenarios, I think they should stick with their game plan for at least a bit longer. No sense giving up on the game plan this early and no need to panic after 5 games.

(11-23-2017 11:24 AM)mrbig Wrote:  If they believe guys will start making more shots based on what they have seen from the guys in non-game scenarios, I think they should stick with their game plan for at least a bit longer. No sense giving up on the game plan this early and no need to panic after 5 games.

Very fair point, not a lot of data points so far - I just hope they are open to making adjustments given whatever trends they see through X% of the season. The opposite of the square peg, round hole scenario.

(11-23-2017 01:04 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 11:24 AM)mrbig Wrote:  If they believe guys will start making more shots based on what they have seen from the guys in non-game scenarios, I think they should stick with their game plan for at least a bit longer. No sense giving up on the game plan this early and no need to panic after 5 games.

Very fair point, not a lot of data points so far - I just hope they are open to making adjustments given whatever trends they see through X% of the season. The opposite of the square peg, round hole scenario.

Truth be told, I would rather they be poor this year and gain experience to set a firm foundation for an excellent season next year than make adjustments to be mediocre this year and merely above average next year. To make a football comparison, if my team hired a triple-option coach, I'd rather run the option right away and take our lumps than continue a pass-first scheme just because the prior staff built the roster for that. A long-term view just after the exodus last year will ultimately make a better program. I don't think there's any threat that Pera will get hired away after one season, so, barring a scandal, there will be at least a short period of stability in which to build.

True, but a program must enjoy a certain measure of immediate success (in the form of victories) to build confidence, support and belief in the coach in order to build said program.

Sent from my SM-G935V using CSNbbs mobile app

I watched the game and noted the real talent disparity between Ole Miss and Rice. Nonetheless, the Owls energy on the court was solid and they are working hard. The lack of depth at guard is a real challenge. They seemed to lose focus early in the 2nd half and panic a little (some bad shots taken too early during the possession). Right now I am just looking for signs of improvement during the season.

(11-23-2017 09:27 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 11:54 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  Rice was also 7 for 31 from three on mostly open looks. There is your ballgame.

Which, of course, begs the question of why are we shooting 25 threes per game on average (in the top quintile in college basketball for attempts) when we are in the bottom third in three point percentage?

FTR, we're #226 of 351 D-1 men's basketball teams in 3-point FG percentage (42/129 = 32.5%) ... but 317th in overall FG percentage (113/289 = 39.1).

(11-24-2017 11:38 AM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 09:27 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 11:54 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  Rice was also 7 for 31 from three on mostly open looks. There is your ballgame.

Which, of course, begs the question of why are we shooting 25 threes per game on average (in the top quintile in college basketball for attempts) when we are in the bottom third in three point percentage?

FTR, we're #226 of 351 D-1 men's basketball teams in 3-point FG percentage (42/129 = 32.5%) ... but 317th in overall FG percentage (113/289 = 39.1).

Part of that may be self-fulfilling. We are t56th in 3-point attempts, and the percentage is lower for 3-pointers, so that would drag the overall FG percentage down. Without making the effort to verify, I would expect that a number of the leaders in 3-point attempts would be among the trailers in overall FG percentage. Note that we are averaging just about 1 point per 3 point attempt (3 x 32.5%=.98) but something less than 0.9 points per 2-point attempt (2 x 71/160 = 2 x 44.4%=.89). Because of the number of long rebounds, missed 3-pointers tend to produce more offensive rebounds. Tom Penders's teams used to take a lot of threes off the secondary break, and got a lot of offensive rebounds in the resultant fluid situation on the court. We are t157th in offensive rebounds, and for the year tied with opponents, although out-rebounded in total, suggesting a little of that my be happening.

In any event, I'd rather miss a 3 than turn the ball over.

If you asked me who Rice's top 3-pt shooters would be coming into this season, based on reputation and past performance, I would have guessed Cashaw, Lapray, and Adams. Those 3 are a combined 31/82 (37.8%) and have taken almost 2/3 of Rice's 3-pt shots. Adams has started slow, but Cashaw and Lapray have been great.

Like I suggested above, it has only been 5 games. If the coaches trust them to keep shooting, then I am not going to complain about the number of 3-pt shots being taken or the distribution of shots unless we get to CUSA play and some guys are still taking a lot and missing a lot. Until then, the sample size is just too small (particularly for some of the younger players). 1 or 2 bad games in a stretch of 5 games can really tilt the early stats. I doubt Lapray ends the season shooting 50% on his 3-pt shots (and if he does, he needs to shoot more, more, more of them!) and I would be a little surprised if Adams ends up at 25% (though I don't have any inside knowledge on how he looks in practice, that is just based on his shooting 35.6% last season).

(11-23-2017 09:27 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 11:54 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  Rice was also 7 for 31 from three on mostly open looks. There is your ballgame.

Which, of course, begs the question of why are we shooting 25 threes per game on average (in the top quintile in college basketball for attempts) when we are in the bottom third in three point percentage? That type of offense may have worked last year (and could very well work next year), but through the first five games, it appears we simply do not have the shooters needed to justify that many three point attempts. The coaches need to recognize these early trends (albeit we’re only a sixth of the way through the season) and adjust the offense accordingly as we gain more data points.

If you're going to shoot anywhere beyond about 15 feet in college, it makes sense to shoot a 3 instead of a 2.

The Rockets' staff would probably argue that the true number is more like 6 feet, even if your shooters are subpar. Wide open threes are great shots and drawing defenders away from the hoop opens up more options.