Yes, and  AJ Register's role on the coaching staff is to compile a lot of the statistics for future use.

Apropos of this topic this was a great quote from Marshall coach Dan D'Antoni in 2016 (brother of Rockets coach Mike D'Antoni) about why it doesn't make sense anymore to just "work the ball into the paint":

"You see those top three teams. Golden State — do they work it [inside]? My brother in Houston, the biggest turnaround in the league — do they work it in?  You can go get any computer and run what the best shots are and it will tell you the post-up is the worst shot in basketball. If you want to run down and try to get it [in the paint] to shoot over somebody, then you're beating analytics. The best shot in basketball is that corner three. The next-best shot in basketball is any other three. Other than free throws, which we try to do, when you get to the foul line, you score 1.5 points every time you go to the foul line in the pros. It just trickles down. It's the same thing for college kids..."

When a reporter began to ask a question, D'Antoni cut him off, saying, "I haven't finished my damn analytics story yet." He continued:

"If you can get a layup and it's clean — it's not one that's highly contested — it's [worth] 1.8 points [per attempt]. It's 1.3 from that corner, 1.27. Do you know what a post-up is, with a guy standing over top of you? It's 0.78. So you run your team down there and we'll see how long you can stay with teams that can play the other way. You've seen it in the NBA. The last two championships have been Cleveland and Golden State. What do they do? You don't see anybody post up. They just spread that thing out and go."
 
 

Last edited by GW0509 (1/17/2020 10:27 am)

Also Sloan Seymour

I think the analytics goes beyond basics, like shooting more threes to evaluating where on the floor each player is most effective - and then running plays to get guys shots in those spots.

This is also the perfect thread in which to post an interesting article I was going to post anyway, about one creative way the San Francisco Dons recently used analytics.  I love this. 

https://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2020/01/16/why-does-san-francisco-intentionally-foul-at-the-end-of-the-first-half/

(and note that USF's analytics-driven new coach is replacing Kyle Smith, another analytics-driven coach, who turned USF into a top 100 program, took over dormant Wazzu and just beat Orgon last night). 

 

Thanks for posting the article FQ.  The article also mentions 2 for 1's (not the primary point of the article but another example of a tactic designed to give a team a mathematical advantage).  A common practice in the NBA when closing out quarters, I very rarely see college teams even try to pull off a two for one, and I don't understand why.  It just seems logical to give your team two chances at the end of a half to score rather than one, even if this means taking a less than ideal shot in order to ensure having one more possession or chance to score.
 

BC wrote:

Both teams can play that game.  They could theoretically have something like 10 fouls in the last 20 seconds couldn't they?   Seems like some recent endless games I've seen 10 fouls in 20 seconds isn't too far fetched. The LSF  rule should be invoked - 3 foul shots to make 2 points.   I arbitrarily blame LSF for this rule, but didn't someone once have a 3 shots for 2 point rule at some time  long in the past?   Back when LSF and I were mere tykes.

Yes, that would be the NBA which somehow thought it would be wise to have a rule giving its players, many of them among the best shooters in the world, three chances to make two free throws on shooting fouls when teams were over the limit.  Those were the days of the 128-126 barn burners.  Those types of scores today are back to an extent but only due to the fact that teams now take half of their shots from 3 and generally shoot every 10-12 seconds.

 

What % of 3s does a team need to make, to make shootings 3 on par with 2s?