He really doesn't have the benefit of surprising the opposition this year. He just at times looks to me to be confused or thinking to much. Last year he showed very good instincts. This year the good teams have scouting reports and it looks like he is having trouble adjusting his game.
hope your right but I cannot tell you the last time he got to the hoopI would find it hard to believe a guy getting 20+ minutes per game gave anyone a surprise in scouting by end of year last year. He was a factor that had to be scouted and accounted for. Nobody had to scout KJ very much....he wasn't going to drive and he was a below average shooter. Cumberland was the guy on the wing that other teams had to factor in.
He's off to a slowish start...but he will get it going. Instinct doesn't just go away...Jarron has it.
hope your right but I cannot tell you the last time he got to the hoop
He had a huge and 1 to put us up 53-49...but then missed the FT. He also had a bs charge called on him where the defender was clearly still sliding. I'd like to see him get it going. I feel like he's still looking to be himself though.
hes struggling with his shot. 7-22 from 3 the last 6 games. 7-21 inside the arc the last 5 games.
And you don't think every player will struggle in this way at some point??
And you don't think every player will struggle in this way at some point??
Last year Blueitt shot 9-11 in our game and shot .371 on the year. Evans shot .418 on the year without the benefit of a 9-11 game.
I am fully aware of the advanced metrics of 3s. I understand the math of how a lower percentage of 3s equals the same number of points as a higher percentage of 2s. I think this is harder to apply to the college level. They aren’t as good as shooters. If they were, way do zones work so well in college?Math is hard.
Can't believe we aren't past the low percentage shot discussion, when what matters is obviously the expected point total. You aren't changing that guys mind.
It's almost 2018.
I am fully aware of the advanced metrics of 3s. I understand the math of how a lower percentage of 3s equals the same number of points as a higher percentage of 2s. I think this is harder to apply to the college level. They aren’t as good as shooters. If they were, way do zones work so well in college?
I am fully aware of the advanced metrics of 3s. I understand the math of how a lower percentage of 3s equals the same number of points as a higher percentage of 2s. I think this is harder to apply to the college level. They aren’t as good as shooters. If they were, way do zones work so well in college?
1. Your posts don't seem to indicate that because you were just calling it a lower percentage shot when you were using a 37% shot as "low percentage" as opposed to a 2 pt attempt. You'd have to be getting a 55% 2 pt attempt to be equal, which isn't an easy look to come by. That's objectively not a "low percentage" shot. We want those shots. And lots of them.
2. The "worse" shooting in college, is somewhat offset by the closer 3 point line and the not quite as good individual defenders in college.
3. Zones work better in college than the NBA, because you can't play a "true" zone in the NBA. Sure you can zone in the NBA, but it's not the same because there is no defensive 3 seconds rule in college. In college, you can just plant Taco Fall (or whatever other big man) around the charge circle the entire possession, which you can't do in the nba.