Kentucky is Going to Catch Fire from 3; Here’s Why | KSR Explains
- Thread starter I’m The Village Idiot
- Start date
Steven has put in a ton of film study here and he’s right. There is no way these guys are this bad at shooting, eventually water is going to find its true level. These guys will eventually shoot at least close to their capabilities.
We'll see. Not counting on Chandler and Noah against top competition.
Need to do a better job of generating good looks, having JQ in there helps with that.
That’s 8 minutes I’ll never get back. 
cliff notes if you don’t want to waste 8 minutes. If you make more shots your percentage increases.
cliff notes if you don’t want to waste 8 minutes. If you make more shots your percentage increases.
It’s as simple as the law of averages. I’ve been saying for a while we will gain 4-6% on our average by years end.
We didn’t watch the same video then lol. He broke down the types of looks we were generating, compared and contrasted versus competition levels and analyzed the results of the shots —- concluded most were not missed horizontally, many of which rimmed out. You always have the most elementary takes possible and speak so definitively. I thought it was a good video, personally —- he didn’t cite catch and shoot and spot up percentiles from last season, which could have furthered his case.That’s 8 minutes I’ll never get back.
cliff notes if you don’t want to waste 8 minutes. If you make more shots your percentage increases.
Can they be more accurate on when, I'm hoping there talking immediate, like Alabama 
If you look at our player's historical 3 point averages I can't see anybody that will be taking many that should be less than 33% shooters...so I think we're a better than 33% team that will probably shoot 34-35% in SEC play. Just my worthless opinion.
It’s a solid enough take and reasonably thought out.
Two caveats:
—This would require Jaland Lowe to stay healthy. I believe Jaland Lowe will stay healthy. A little less than I believe in Santa Claus.
—I would not in a million years be holding my breath for Jelavic, Dioubate, Garrison, Moreno, and Quaintance to shoot 1 for 4 or better from three every single game collectively. Or to get far enough ahead of that in a few games that it all balances out to 1 for 4 or better from 3 between them. Either way. Not gonna happen. Otoh I could definitely see Aberdeen or Chandler or Oweh being able to do one shot per four attempts better every game than what he laid out as his roadmap. ….As long as Lowe is on the floor and fully mobile. See above.
Two caveats:
—This would require Jaland Lowe to stay healthy. I believe Jaland Lowe will stay healthy. A little less than I believe in Santa Claus.
—I would not in a million years be holding my breath for Jelavic, Dioubate, Garrison, Moreno, and Quaintance to shoot 1 for 4 or better from three every single game collectively. Or to get far enough ahead of that in a few games that it all balances out to 1 for 4 or better from 3 between them. Either way. Not gonna happen. Otoh I could definitely see Aberdeen or Chandler or Oweh being able to do one shot per four attempts better every game than what he laid out as his roadmap. ….As long as Lowe is on the floor and fully mobile. See above.
Yes. He went thru a lot of time to say that if we hit the shots we missed the shooting percentage would be higher.
But I didn’t need him to use anal-ylitics to know that.
Yeah but law of averages is imaginary. You know that, right? That’s why he takes care to predicate his assertions on regression to the mean, which unlike the law of averages is real but is highly affected by input parameters—hence his reason for going through all those numbers and all those specific dynamics. Not simple at all and only defensible in the form he laid out.
You use analytics everyday. Data analytics is simply using the patterns of data to make inferences. Without analytics, you literally can’t have an opinion one way or the other about shooting percentages my guy. Your constant grind against data is hilarious—- you’re climbing a mountain with your whole heart only to find you are no closer to the top of it than when you started. Anal-ytics aren’t going anywhere and you shouldn’t want them to. Ask for new ways to use the data —- don’t live life with your eyes covered and proudly declaring that leads to knowledge. It’s inevitable.
Agree. I also don't expect, for example, Kam to go 80% from 3 on 10 attempts again either. He will get closer to that 40% average by season's end.
I hear people say all the time that the “law of averages” is fake or imaginary. That’s not actually true. What is imaginary is the way most people think it works.
There is a real, proven principle in math and statistics called the Law of Large Numbers. It states that over a large enough sample size, results tend to move closer to the true average. This isn’t opinion it’s been proven repeatedly. So our players statistically have shot a certain percentage on a much greater sample size. Law of averages says the small sample size from this season isn’t the actual shooting percentage and it is definitely inclined to increase closer to the true mean.
For example, flip a fair coin a handful of times and you might get wildly uneven results. Flip it thousands of times and the percentage of heads will drift closer to 50%. That’s the law of averages in action.
Where people go wrong is believing that averages create or force outcomes in the short term. This is the false idea that if something hasn’t happened in a while, it’s “due”, or that time alone fixes probability. Thats what we call the gambler’s fallacy. Each event is independent. A missed shot doesn’t make the next one more likely to go in. A slow sales month doesn’t magically guarantee a big one. The key distinction here is that averages describe patterns over time but they do not owe you results.
The law of averages doesn’t reward patience by itself it rewards consistent behavior repeated enough times for probability to normalize. In real life, outcomes improve not because “it’s your turn,” but because you keep showing up, you keep taking reps and you keep stacking correct inputs. Short term? Anything can happen. Long term? Your habits create your averages. That doesn’t make the law of averages imaginary it makes it conditional on repeatable action.
I mean your dynamics are right but the law of averages is literally the gambler's fallacy; they are the same thing. When people say all the time the "law of averages" is fake or imaginary those people are correct: the law of averages is fake and imaginary. That is actually true.
Law of large numbers and regression to the mean both apply here to some extent, LLN being the reason we can make the RTM prediction, but again they are both heavily dependent on the circumstances—in a way that winds up meaning both that the law of averages could apply to our situation (but it's imaginary) and that RTM/LLN can apply to our situation but only in a way that's not simple (the simple version couldn't be correct) because the base numbers we're predicting from acrued under stuch different circumstances that we can't predict from them simply by RTM/LLN.
It may be simple as running his offense correctly. The system is supposed to create the percentages and not the players. Least that’s what we were told when he was hired.
Some guys gotta make some shots first, ironically. If you try to run those zoom sets and the defense can go under on literally all of them, it doesn’t produce points —- it just draws extra defenders. Williams making shots in the last couple games helps —- but it needs to get to a point where we are at least a threat from the outside before it matters.
The system is supposed to generate good looks from three. Ideally, you want your best shooters taking those shots.