Pitt’s Offense Next Year
- Thread starter TheSpecialSauce
- Start date
He usually has 4 pretty good shooters to make that work. We will see how much our shooting improves.
Save to say it will be better and it should be the best shooting team in quite some time here .
The 13-14 lineup of James Robinson (solid from three with low volume), Cam Wright (below average), Lamar Patterson (excellent), Michael Young (really good, especially for his position), and Talib Zanna (didn’t shoot threes) is probably the last good shooting starting lineup we’ve had, and that was with a shorter three point line.
Last season Pitt made 31% of its 3s and opponents made 37% of their 3s. Reversing that would go a long way to flipping the W-L record.
Some very simple math on all of last season--
Rebounding = Pitt +88
Turnovers = Pitt -95
This is nearly a wash on number of possessions (i.e., 7 fewer possessions over 32 games) = Opponents + 0.22 possessions per game.
Shooting is where the biggest problem lies statistically:
Two point shots
Pitt = 503/1082 = 0.465
Opp = 493/995 = 0.495
Three point shots
Pitt = 172/548 = 0.314
Opp = 276/749 = 0.368
All shots
Pitt = 675/1630 = 0.414
Opp = 769/1744 = 0.441
Bottom Line: Improving Pitt shooting percentages significantly (especially 3s) would yield the biggest possible improvement.
Secondarily, improved rebounding coupled with committing fewer turnovers would also lead to additional improvement.
Looking at the recruiting for next season's roster:
It is clear that the focus, as it should have been, was on better shooters. The other focus was on big men which also makes sense since it potentially could impact by reducing opponents 2-point shooting percentages and increasing Pitt's possessions per game.
Rebounding = Pitt +88
Turnovers = Pitt -95
This is nearly a wash on number of possessions (i.e., 7 fewer possessions over 32 games) = Opponents + 0.22 possessions per game.
Shooting is where the biggest problem lies statistically:
Two point shots
Pitt = 503/1082 = 0.465
Opp = 493/995 = 0.495
Three point shots
Pitt = 172/548 = 0.314
Opp = 276/749 = 0.368
All shots
Pitt = 675/1630 = 0.414
Opp = 769/1744 = 0.441
Bottom Line: Improving Pitt shooting percentages significantly (especially 3s) would yield the biggest possible improvement.
Secondarily, improved rebounding coupled with committing fewer turnovers would also lead to additional improvement.
Looking at the recruiting for next season's roster:
It is clear that the focus, as it should have been, was on better shooters. The other focus was on big men which also makes sense since it potentially could impact by reducing opponents 2-point shooting percentages and increasing Pitt's possessions per game.
Surprised the turnovers weren't more negative. How does the simple math look for ACC only?
He probably will, especially if he reads your post, before that he had no idea
Making shots is largely a function of ball movement (open man) and shooting earlier in the shot clock. Everyone shoots better when they are open.
Simple math on ACC ONLY last season (data does not include ACCT loss) --
Rebounding = Pitt +21
Turnovers = Pitt -54
Net of Opponents +33 in 20 games. This is about 1.7 possessions per game opponent advantage. Worse than OOC (as expected).
Still, shooting is where the biggest problem lies statistically:
Two point shots
Pitt = 306/656 = 0.466
Opp = 315/609 = 0.517
Three point shots
Pitt = 123/369 = 0.333
Opp = 177/466 = 0.380
All shots
Pitt = 429/1025 = 0.419
Opp = 492/1075 = 0.458
Bottom Line: Improving Pitt shooting percentages significantly (especially 3s) would yield the biggest improvement.
Improved rebounding coupled with committing fewer turnovers would also lead to additional improvement. Bigger rebounding/turnover margin of 1.7 per game in ACC play statistically is reflected in Pitt's ACC vs overall season negative scoring margin of -7.7 vs -6.6.
Looking at the recruiting for next season's roster:
It is clear that the focus, as it should have been and was on better shooters. The other focus was on big men which also makes sense since it potentially could impact by reducing opponents 2-point shooting percentages and increasing Pitt's possessions per game. Given the ACC turnover margin taking better care of the ball also needed to be addressed. Will the addition of Cummings and Elliot and McNielly and the return of Sibande make the needed difference here?
Rebounding = Pitt +21
Turnovers = Pitt -54
Net of Opponents +33 in 20 games. This is about 1.7 possessions per game opponent advantage. Worse than OOC (as expected).
Still, shooting is where the biggest problem lies statistically:
Two point shots
Pitt = 306/656 = 0.466
Opp = 315/609 = 0.517
Three point shots
Pitt = 123/369 = 0.333
Opp = 177/466 = 0.380
All shots
Pitt = 429/1025 = 0.419
Opp = 492/1075 = 0.458
Bottom Line: Improving Pitt shooting percentages significantly (especially 3s) would yield the biggest improvement.
Improved rebounding coupled with committing fewer turnovers would also lead to additional improvement. Bigger rebounding/turnover margin of 1.7 per game in ACC play statistically is reflected in Pitt's ACC vs overall season negative scoring margin of -7.7 vs -6.6.
Looking at the recruiting for next season's roster:
It is clear that the focus, as it should have been and was on better shooters. The other focus was on big men which also makes sense since it potentially could impact by reducing opponents 2-point shooting percentages and increasing Pitt's possessions per game. Given the ACC turnover margin taking better care of the ball also needed to be addressed. Will the addition of Cummings and Elliot and McNielly and the return of Sibande make the needed difference here?
We have the pieces in place?? I'm not convinced yet. Hope I am by January.
Similar threads
