Illini Basketball 2026-2027

[Cravingschampaign]

Yeah definitely a good point, feel like if we play fast we'll probably have to go 9 deep

https://twitter.com/x/status/2089004126793339005

 

[CoalCity]

That's pretty confident when we lost to them earlier in the same year on a neutral floor and they held us to the two lowest offensive outputs for the year. Reed and Mullins were also banged up in the first one. They were also up 14 under 10 in the F4 game, we were playing catchup the entire time. Brad could use a new wrinkles or two on offense. Need to learn from these experiences.

Or the players could have made some of the layups and wide open 3's the offense generated. There were a LOT of missed open shots

 

[wc_illini]

this is still extremely contextual though, you added 4 filters to your data set

if i want to know a players ability in a certain area i dont compare him solely against above average players because that skews what im looking at

dont know what was originally said at this point but feels like goal posts got moved when filters started being added to data set so it would show what you want it to show

now looking back it appears someone had said .295 was poor and someone else said it wasnt poor and you guys are arguing in favor of the former? .295 isn't poor for his archetype, its not great or elite, but not poor either unless you start increasing the quality of the players you are comparing him to, which is seen in the graph how ft rate increases as usage increases

i remember the other day you were saying how vastly different a player with a usage rate of 23 (vaaks) is to a player with a usage rate of 30, and that very same point applies here too

The funny thing is that the chart I showed revealed very little correlation between FT rate and PRPG!, so the optimists and pessimists don't need to take their usual sides on this. And I'm not arguing that 29.5 is poor- just not "pretty good", which of course is subjective.

If you want fewer filters, then among all high-major combo guards with decent playing time, the average was.....29.3. Sure, he's slightly ahead of the median, but there's a lot more separation ahead of him than behind him

 

[lstewart53x3]

Let's say we don't use 3 PRPG as the limiting factor then (if you think that's such a big deal and it's ruining the data).

On Torvik -- Vaaks is listed as a combo guard, with a PRPG of 3.7, and a usage of 23.4.

Here's the same graph with the only constraints being:

- combo guard (Vaaks's positon)
- at least 20 games played
- at least 2 PRPG (down from the previous example of 3)
- at least 20 usage (usually very attainable for a starting guard who has the ball in his hands)

View attachment 51196

Here’s the data one more time with the only filter being combo guard:

Here’s the data with the bottom X-Axis showing rim attempts instead of usage:

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

now looking back it appears someone had said .295 was poor and someone else said it wasnt poor and you guys are arguing in favor of the former? .295 isn't poor for his archetype, its not great or elite, but not poor either unless you start increasing the quality of the players you are comparing him to, which is seen in the graph how ft rate increases as usage increases

1. The point raised was that a 29.5 is “really good.”

2. What we’re pointing out is that it’s rather average or below average as opposed to really good (via the graphs, comparisons to other players, etc).

3. Nobody said it was terrible, or that he can’t improve or won’t improve.

 

[EmeraldCityIllini]

UConn had the 8th best 3 pt FG% defense in the country last year at around 30%. They were at the top of the sport in their 3 recent runs, between 29-31%. They were the best high D1 program, Michigan next at 18th. It's not only about length, it's about rotations, close outs, extension, discipline, etc.

Houston has been ridiculously good in this stat in past years, but had a drop off this past year. They were at 26% in 23. Their system is a lot of high hedging with long mobile guys like Tugler and Roberts, who could disrupt the perimeter and then quickly rotate back to defend the paint. The drop off was mainly due to Cenac not being all that great at this aspect of Sampson's system.

When you get to the F4, you can expect the defensive quality to go up, hence you need to be able to make adjustments and show different looks. Brad kept looking to pound Clingan in 24, and how did that turn out? Being a one trick pony and sticking to your system stubbornly isn't a great counter when you are going up against top coaches, even if mashing the math seems like the odds would work out 6/7 games. When you go into the half, if what you're doing isn't working, having a counter is key.

I’m not talking about 2024 tho (although I have my own beliefs on that game being wildly overblown) - this year we got a ton of easy looks and just missed.

I’m not sure making a counter just for the sake of making a counter - going away from wide open missed 3s and even layups - if anything it seems like a panic.

But admittedly, I’m not someone who thinks every shot or play result is a direct correlation to in game coaching.

 

[EmeraldCityIllini]

That's pretty confident when we lost to them earlier in the same year on a neutral floor and they held us to the two lowest offensive outputs for the year. Reed and Mullins were also banged up in the first one. They were also up 14 under 10 in the F4 game, we were playing catchup the entire time. Brad could use a new wrinkles or two on offense. Need to learn from these experiences.

Yes, I know it’s confident.

My eyes saw what they saw that game. We missed every layup and wide open look, and solo ball was banking in shots off the shot clock and WE STILL should have won.

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

The funny thing is that the chart I showed revealed very little correlation between FT rate and PRPG!, so the optimists and pessimists don't need to take their usual sides on this. And I'm not arguing that 29.5 is poor- just not "pretty good", which of course is subjective.

If you want fewer filters, then among all high-major combo guards with decent playing time, the average was.....29.3. Sure, he's slightly ahead of the median, but there's a lot more separation ahead of him than behind him

This one only constraints Combo Guard and 20 games played:

(no PRPG or Usage limit)

 

[NarrowJ]

1. The point raised was that a 29.5 is “really good.”

This is the core we should aim to get to, and you're wrong on this I'm afraid:

I said it "isn't a bad FT rate", nowhere throughout this discussion did anyone state that it was "really good".

Your claim is a strawman.

 

[PepeSilvia]

It does though. It takes 750 attempts for 3 point shooting to fully normalize (ref: see Darryl Blackport's 2014 study on this). Single game sample is smaller than miniscule. It literally does not matter at all and I couldn't force myself to keep reading after the first sentence, sorry.

Lol he's saying takes 750 attempts to stabilize 3pt% to stabilize when looking at shooting ability and trying to decide if a player has improved.

I don't need 750 attempts to tell you that a team is going to consistently shoot better if they get open looks in rhythm than relying on shooting contested or off the dribble 3s.

Blackport literally says "The 750 attempts are also assumed to be taken under roughly the same conditions, so if a player’s role changes, then the attempts under the two roles shouldn’t be included together ... If someone goes from a team where they have to run the offense and create shots for themselves and others to a team where all they need to do is stand outside the three-point line and catch and shoot open threes, we can be pretty confident their increase in three-point percentage is real, not necessarily because they are a better shooter but because they are in a better situation to make threes".

The NBA even has shooting tracked that shows shooting percentage increase as players are more open. It's tracked as having a defender within 2 feet very tight, 2-4 tight, 4-6 open, or 6+ wide open

 

[PleaseMakeABowlGame]

This is the core we should aim to get to, and you're wrong on this I'm afraid:

View attachment 51201

I said it "isn't a bad FT rate", nowhere throughout this discussion did anyone state that it was "really good".

Your claim is a strawman.

YOU said this:

 

[IlliniHardwood]

Beet juice?

Wheatgrass.

 

[NarrowJ]

Lol he's saying takes 750 attempts to stabilize 3pt% to stabilize when looking at shooting ability and trying to decide if a player has improved.

I don't need 750 attempts to tell you that a team is going to consistently shoot better if they get open looks in rhythm than relying on shooting contested or off the dribble 3s.

Blackport literally says "The 750 attempts are also assumed to be taken under roughly the same conditions, so if a player’s role changes, then the attempts under the two roles shouldn’t be included together ... If someone goes from a team where they have to run the offense and create shots for themselves and others to a team where all they need to do is stand outside the three-point line and catch and shoot open threes, we can be pretty confident their increase in three-point percentage is real, not necessarily because they are a better shooter but because they are in a better situation to make threes".

The NBA even has shooting tracked that shows shooting percentage increase as players are more open. It's tracked as having a defender within 2 feet very tight, 2-4 tight, 4-6 open, or 6+ wide open

You’re trying to focus on context now, which is irrelevant in this case.

A single game sample of 26 three-point attempts is minuscule for a team because a basketball season requires hundreds of shots to separate skill from random luck. With so few attempts, normal statistical variance can cause swings up to even 50 percent. Even a couple of lucky bounces swing a team’s shooting percentage by 15% or more.

 

[NarrowJ]

YOU said this:

View attachment 51202

Yes, and you all have conflated “really pretty good” with “really good”. I clarified that statement immediately after by saying it’s really pretty good for a player with his shot diet (which is true). And then went on to say we could probably expect his shot diet to improve at Illinois (also likely true).

This discussion centered around nitpicking syntax, semantics and so on has taken 3 days for us to get to this point. I don’t intend to spend another 3 days micro-analyzing words and their potential meanings in this context. Good grief, man.

 

[FrankNitty30]

Or the players could have made some of the layups and wide open 3's the offense generated. There were a LOT of missed open shots

This. We lost that game because we missed shots we had made all year.

Not sure why we are making it more than that.

 

[wc_illini]

Yes, and you all have conflated “really pretty good” with “really good”. I clarified that statement immediately after by saying it’s really pretty good for a player with his shot diet (which is true). And then went on to say we could probably expect his shot diet to improve at Illinois (also likely true).

This discussion centered around nitpicking syntax, semantics and so on has taken 3 days for us to get to this point. I don’t intend to spend another 3 days micro-analyzing words and their potential meanings in this context. Good grief, man.

Ehhh, I can see both sides to this. Yes, you didn't say "really good", but you were responding to "under 30 is usually not great." If 29.5 isn't "really good", then "not great" would have been appropriate to begin with.

Regardless, this rabbit hole about FT rate started when debating whether Vaaks is just a shooter, and FTRate was mentioned to argue that "He doesn't put pressure on the rim". 16.8% of his shot attempts were close 2s, which was 73rd out of 92 high major combo guards (avg 26.5%). He could still have been "more than just a shooter" in other ways, and his game/role will likely change some this year, but "little pressure on the rim" seems like a reasonable take on his game last year.

 

[NarrowJ]

Ehhh, I can see both sides to this. Yes, you didn't say "really good", but you were responding to "under 30 is usually not great." If 29.5 isn't "really good", then "not great" would have been appropriate to begin with.

Regardless, this rabbit hole about FT rate started when debating whether Vaaks is just a shooter, and FTRate was mentioned to argue that "He doesn't put pressure on the rim". 16.8% of his shot attempts were close 2s, which was 73rd out of 92 high major combo guards (avg 26.5%). He could still have been "more than just a shooter" in other ways, and his game/role will likely change some this year, but that seems like a reasonable take on his game last year.

I don't want to continue micro-analyzing words people said. At least one person has admitted that the verbatim quote that was attributed to me never happened.

My original statement was simply ".295 isn't a bad FT rate"... so, if I'm allowed, I'd like to lock that answer in. And we can move on (hopefully).

EDIT: Agree 'little pressure on the rim' is entirely correct, but the .295 FTr on only 16.8% close 2s tells me when he does get downhill he's fairly effective at using his body/size. We all hope he does this more in 2026-27.