Arizona 1/4 2:30 ESPN2

[SawyerHall68]

It appears to me that it all comes down to having quality players, playing within a system that requires players to be constantly moving in patterns that quickly or eventually develop open shots.
Often UC players are seen just standing around with no pattern of constant play. This has been the case for many years with different coachs. Many teams that UC has played in the past (top or lower divisions) had operated within such systems that always appeared to provide quality shots.

In addition, successful foul shooting is a must. Shooting uncontested shots at the foul line should be much more successful than shooting anywhere else on the court except layups and dunks. Why is this the case routinely with UC players?

[sedz]

In addition, successful foul shooting is a must. Shooting uncontested shots at the foul line should be much more successful than shooting anywhere else on the court except layups and dunks. Why is this the case routinely with UC players?

We knew what we were getting with Mitchell and Aziz. Mitchell is a career 48% free throw shooter. Aziz is under 60%. We chose to bring them in anyway for their defense and rebounding. The problem is our offense doesn't focus on guards and wings getting to the rim. So it's usually our poor shooting big men at the line. Simas and Jizzle lead the team in minutes, but have only attempted 34 free throws combined this season. Aziz, Mitchell, and even Page have taken that many individually. We'll continue to be a poor foul shooting team unless we can open driving lanes for our guards.

[Rufus]

As I was shoveling the 6 inches of snow off my driveway a thought occurred to me. Simas started out last season exactly the same way. At that time we were discussing it as being the effects of being hit by a car. Jizzle was one of our more consistent scorers early on but now Jizzle can't buy a bucket and SL is back to his normal form apparently. At any rate after three years we still have a stable of of athletes that can't / won't challenge defenders or consistently make shots when defended. Did we not hire a shot doctor?

[leeraymond]

You're telling me that Cincinnati plays as fast as Iowa and Kentucky because they all take about the same number of shots. We play WAY slower than those teams. Iowa has the 20th fastest tempo in the country. Kentucky is #36. We're #276. Iowa's games average 7 more possessions than ours.

Except for and-ones, free throws take the place of a shot. If you get fouled shooting and it doesn't go in, it doesn't count as a shot. Since we very rarely get to the line (our free throw rate is #341 in the country), we're ending possessions with a shot instead. Teams that play fast will have the same number of shots as us, AND more free throws. Or more turnovers and offensive rebounds. Florida shot 12 more free throws than we did. The Iowa/Wisconsin game had 15 offensive rebounds combined - less than we did by ourselves. That game was up and down. Shot on one end, shot on the other. 76 possessions.

You can say whatever you want about shots. "Tempo" is an actual term that has had an established meaning for decades. It's measured in possessions.

Here is the break-down of shots taken per game by Iowa, UK, and UC. The second number is the shots taken by the opponent. UI (65.9, 64), UK (65.2, 64.6), and UC (62, 56.8). As you can see, UC is not that far behind these so-called "up-tempo" teams. You are thinking that tempo is totally associated with running and gunning. When I think of tempo, I think of how fast in the shot clock a shot is taken. UC does NOT get many shot clock violations. That is because UC has a quick shooting trigger. To me, Miller's UC teams have always shot quickly in the shot clock. Think about Davenport, Nolley, Dejulius, and others and how frustrating it was to watch those guys play because they shot the ball WITHOUT regard to the shot clock.

This current UC team is not as quick to shoot as Miller's past UC teams. Nevertheless, you have to admit that 62 shots a game, even though there are other teams that shoot the ball more, is high for a college team. The bad part about all these quick shots is that they are not generating wins for UC in conference play.

By the way, "tempo" may be an established term. I understand that and it is cool. I get it. However, it does NOT negate looking at things in other ways in an attempt to better understand them. That is where I am with it.

Now I wish I can understand why UC cannot win its conference games. Especially at home.

[SKell82155]

Remember when Skillings used to attack the rim, I'd like to see him realize that's his strength, he is not a shooter

After last season, Skillings said it’d be his last season.
He doesn’t actually consider himself NBA worthy does
he ? A guard that can’t shoot ?

[red_n_black_attack]

Here is the break-down of shots taken per game by Iowa, UK, and UC. The second number is the shots taken by the opponent. UI (65.9, 64), UK (65.2, 64.6), and UC (62, 56.8). As you can see, UC is not that far behind these so-called "up-tempo" teams. You are thinking that tempo is totally associated with running and gunning. When I think of tempo, I think of how fast in the shot clock a shot is taken. UC does NOT get many shot clock violations. That is because UC has a quick shooting trigger. To me, Miller's UC teams have always shot quickly in the shot clock. Think about Davenport, Nolley, Dejulius, and others and how frustrating it was to watch those guys play because they shot the ball WITHOUT regard to the shot clock.

This current UC team is not as quick to shoot as Miller's past UC teams. Nevertheless, you have to admit that 62 shots a game, even though there are other teams that shoot the ball more, is high for a college team. The bad part about all these quick shots is that they are not generating wins for UC in conference play.

By the way, "tempo" may be an established term. I understand that and it is cool. I get it. However, it does NOT negate looking at things in other ways in an attempt to better understand them. That is where I am with it.

Now I wish I can understand why UC cannot win its conference games. Especially at home.

Wes teaches players to take quick shots if they are good shots, crash the boards, and hope for offensive rebounds or more possessions. Many of the quick shots look good, but somehow a bit out of rythm so they miss more than they make. The prolem with that in conference play is everyone can box out and rebound, so we get fewer second chances.

Side note, some nights they shoot lights out, but you cannot count on that. They simply need to make the extra pass, even if open to get in rythm with the up-tempo

[leo from jersey]

After last season, Skillings said it’d be his last season.
He doesn’t actually consider himself NBA worthy does
he ? A guard that can’t shoot ?

Nor is willing to look to pass. His rebounds are pursuit, hustle, opponents watching not reacting and serendipity instead of skill (no pun intended). I tire of the excuse that he didn't play to HS. Yes it often starts in the first grade and players are selected between the 3rd and fifth grades, but he went to a BB teaching HS. He played at the best camps, best tutoring and a solid AAU circuit. Yes that is common for D1 player, but outside of the AAU, he was taught fundamentals is what I am saying. There are many year round 3-5 night a week or day bb skill training organizations. They are not cheap, but money is often found for skilled players I love his hustle, but when playing skilled opponents, hustle is just one although important aspect. Even in season, at least 3 days at skill organizations, private instruction and weight training. Again, some had had that for over 5 years entering HS, but a good player in Jersey gets top teaching. A skill school I am knowledgeable about is run by Seton Hall HoFers and former starters from the various colleges in the area (NYC-Jersey) Like Rutgers, St, Pete's etc. They have several men and women pro alums and many college. Yes he was behind, but training is intense if you take to it, you learn the fundamentals. PS at these schools a lot of time is spent on teaching rebounding concerning the protectory of the ball and where it will bounce off the board. If you can't or won't box on a play this is a giant help in going and getting it. Dan has that talent, but his D1 opponents also have it. They spend a lot of time of teaching to see & read both ends of the floor. This is a skill that I see so many not having or perhaps they could care less. -- I talk too much.

[sedz]

UC has a quick shooting trigger. To me, Miller's UC teams have always shot quickly in the shot clock.

Do you have anything to back this up, or is that just your feeling?

[London 'Cat]

Do you have anything to back this up, or is that just your feeling?

I get the opposite feeling when watching UC play. It seems the clock is running down by the time it takes a shot. No I don’t have solid evidence of that just the feeling I have in games I have watched this year.

[sedz]

I get the opposite feeling when watching UC play. It seems the clock is running down by the time it takes a shot. No I don’t have solid evidence of that just the feeling I have in games I have watched this year.

Yeah, same. It seems like we spend a lot of time every possession just reversing the ball with Aziz up top. I would guess our time to first shot is slower than average. I think Kenpom used to track that, but I haven't subscribed in a few years.

It's entirely possible to have a slow tempo but quick first shot if you take your time after every offensive rebound. But I don't think we do that. My opinion is that we're just a slow team that takes more shots from the field than average and fewer free throws than average.

[leeraymond]

Do you have anything to back this up, or is that just your feeling?

I am looking at the average number of shots taken per game, which is 62. The faster into the shot clock that a shot is taken, the more shots that will be attempted. I know that sounds crazy. However, that approach to measuring pace has gained some traction. Look up "Measuring Pace Based on Time to Shot". Very interesting read on measuring pace by examining the time it takes to shoot once the shot clock is moving.

Also, I looked up the shots per game for the UC 2022-23 team (Nolley, DeJulius, and Davenport). That team averaged 63.4 shots a game.

[sedz]

The faster into the shot clock that a shot is taken, the more shots that will be attempted. I know that sounds crazy. However, that approach to measuring pace has gained some traction. Look up "Measuring Pace Based on Time to Shot". Very interesting read on measuring pace by examining the time it takes to shoot once the shot clock is moving.

I know, I'm asking if you have those numbers. I don't think it will show Cincinnati in the top half. Again, you're missing that we take more shots (field goals) than other teams because we are not ending possessions with free throws or turnovers as much as other teams. If you're going to use shots per game as a proxy for pace, you have to correct for those factors. Otherwise you're trying to make a statistical argument based on gut feeling.

[leeraymond]

Although UC does not run up and down the floor, can we agree that UC is aggressive offensively based on the number of shots taken a game. The BIGGEST problem with this team is not pace. UC's biggest problem is it CANNOT play defense without putting the other team on the free throw line. In two conference games, UC shoots 8 free throws a game. The opponent shoots 18.5 free throws a game. I know it is only two conference games, however UC's conference stats are horrible. They will not be able to compete with Baylor. UC will probably lose this one.

[sedz]

Although UC does not run up and down the floor, can we agree that UC is aggressive offensively based on the number of shots taken a game. The BIGGEST problem with this team is not pace. UC's biggest problem is it CANNOT play defense without putting the other team on the free throw line. In two conference games, UC shoots 8 free throws a game. The opponent shoots 18.5 free throws a game. I know it is only two conference games, however UC's conference stats are horrible. They will not be able to compete with Baylor. UC will probably lose this one.

No, we're not aggressive offensively because we don't get to the free throw line. You said it yourself! That's exactly what I've been trying to get across. Our guards and wings don't attack the rim. A telling stat is that our shots are blocked at the 26th lowest rate in the country. Only 1 out of 16 of our two pointers are blocked. We don't attack, so we don't get fouled and we hoist jumpshots. We play scared, not aggressive.

[leeraymond]

No, we're not aggressive offensively because we don't get to the free throw line. You said it yourself! That's exactly what I've been trying to get across. Our guards and wings don't attack the rim. A telling stat is that our shots are blocked at the 26th lowest rate in the country. Only 1 out of 16 of our two pointers are blocked. We don't attack, so we don't get fouled and we hoist jumpshots. We play scared, not aggressive.

The problem is not getting to the free throw line. The problem is UC CANNOT keep the opponent off the free throw line. In all of its losses, UC had decisive advantages in most all the scoring and rebounding categories except free throws where they were killed on the free throw line. Even when UC can get to the free throw line, it is shooting only 53% in conference play. That is a terrible foul shooting percentage. However, it could that Mitchell (1-7) and Aziz (2-6) are dragging the conference free throw average down.