Texas vs. Kansas: Shot Selection vs. Fool's Gold

by Barking Carnival Staff on Jan 24, 2011 1:10 PM CST in Texas Longhorns and Other Basketball

We talk about fool’s gold, heat checks, and shot selection on this blog almost as much as tote bags, pederasty, Scipio's sabbaticals, and HenryJames' continued parole violations. So I wanted to take a moment and explain why if you’ll indulge me. Look no further than the Kansas game for an instructive example.

The poster children for Fools Gold are deep treys that swish early in the shot clock and driving runners from your big men that magnetically fall in the hoop. They are also idiots who buy "precious" coins off infomercials. They may shoot you into a 18-3 lead but they are also just as likely to shoot you out of ballgames as evidenced by KU’s double digit loss to Texas last Saturday.

Conversely, even when Texas was down by 15, they were still in the ballgame because they were getting great looks and while Kansas’ shots were falling, they were usually horrible in terms of shot selection. It was only a matter of time before Kansas came back down to Earth because the shots that sparked the 18-3 opening salvo weren’t going to continue to fall against a club as long and athletic as Texas. Hence Kansas’ torrid beginning was fool’s gold and the heat checks by the Selby and the Morris twins weren’t coming in the confines of Kansas’ offensive comfort zone. Two passes and jack up a shot isn’t an offense regardless of how talented your club is. And it certainly isn’t a viable, sustainable offense against a defensive club the caliber of Texas.

Fast forward to the second half of the KU vs. Texas ballgame for an indication of how terrific Texas’ shot selection was. Even though the Horns were held to just 23 points in the first half, you knew they’d break out offensively if they continued to get the same open looks. They got these same open looks in spades but converted the majority of them. The result? 51 points in one of the most explosive halves of offensive basketball in recent memory. But the real story is what kind of shots the Horns took in the second half.

Here’s a breakdown.

According to the shot chart, 33 of or our 51 second half points were either layups or foul shots. That’s amazing efficiency especially when you consider KU is one of the top 2 or 3 defensive teams in all of college hoops. But wait, there's more!

Of the other 18 points four of the field goals were 3 balls and 3 of the field goals were non layups. Two of four 3′s were wide open jumpers—one coming off of a drive and kick to Brown and the other on a blown assignment by Tyrel Reed that allowed Cory Joseph to simply dribble to the arc and shoot an uncontested 3. (I think Reed assumed KU was still in a triangle and two but it was obviously man.)

The two other 3’s should be characterized as tough shots. One was a contested 3 by Brown off a ballscreen and the other was a banked 3 by Joseph with the shot clock winding down. It happened to us against UConn. It was Kansas' turn.

As for the 3 mid-range field goals, one came on a drive and kick by Hamilton to Johnson for a wide open 15 footer, one was a dotted circle jumper by Brown after he backed down Selby, and the third was a Cory Joseph pull up from 15 feet.
So outside of all layups and free throw offense, I’d characterize the following as tough shots that are “wins” for the defense: the Brown dotted line shot is an outstanding individual move where J’Covan used his strength to take Selby down to the cup and muscle in an 8 footer. Not a shot you make a living with. The Cory Joseph banked 3 up against the shot clock is obviously not a good shot-hell, they should deduct points for that. The Cory Joseph midrange pull up isn’t a shot you want to hang your hat on, but Cory is capable of hitting it. Still, if I’m Self I don’t mind that shot. And finally the J’Covan Brown contested 3 off the ballscreen wasn’t a good shot and certainly something you don’t design an offense around.

So all told, that’s 10 tough points off of 4 questionable shots. The other 41 points came by simply running offense and were a direct result of getting great looks. That’s the opposite of fool’s gold. In fact, it goes to show if Texas just runs their stuff and stays patient, they can drop big numbers on every team in America in any venue. This isn’t Kevin Durant or Jordan Hamilton going 15-20 from the field. This an example of efficient offense that can carry the day even when your stars like Jordan Hamilton and Gary Johnson are having off shooting nights.

It’s the difference between consistent scoring and suffering through a tale of two halves as Kansas can certainly attest.

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Very insightful analysis there, Trips. I know there’s been lots of talk about how this year’s club has so much more “chemistry” and “heart” than last year’s club, but this year’s improvement is much more due to the fact that we are running a real-live, died-in-the-wool offense this year, imo.

Would have been interesting to see how last year’s team (and the Aldridge-Gibson-Tucker team, for that matter) would have fared with this year’s offense.

by gilberto verde on Jan 24, 2011 1:17 PM CST reply actions

So you’re saying my theory that one of the Kansas rims was actually slightly oblong (like a fair game) wasn’t the reason for the change in shooting luck from half to half?

by Texas Wahoo on Jan 24, 2011 1:35 PM CST reply actions

Excellent.

by Dumeril Seven on Jan 24, 2011 1:38 PM CST reply actions

Would have been interesting to see how last year’s team (and the Aldridge-Gibson-Tucker team, for that matter) would have fared with this year’s offense.

That team had so much individual talent that I doubt a screening offense would have made a lot of difference. Sometimes, it would be like giving each guy a chance on the various trips.

by Bob in Houston on Jan 24, 2011 2:17 PM CST reply actions

Trips,

Nice article.

Do you think the Gary Johnson 15-17 foot jumper is fools gold? I happen to believe that Gary isn’t a good enough shooter to be consistently taking that shot unless the shot clock is winding down. I would imagine his FG percentage from 15+ feet is like 30%.

by ryan on Jan 24, 2011 2:32 PM CST reply actions

He’s going to keep shooting it. The one he made, he made because he shoots it regularly.

by Bob in Houston on Jan 24, 2011 2:38 PM CST reply actions

Reading this enlightening analysis, I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. The shot selection on the misses would seem to be every bit as integral to the lesson here as the makes. Don’t they tell the same story from the flip side?

by OldTimeHorn on Jan 24, 2011 2:40 PM CST reply actions

I’m not Trips but from what I’ve seen, Gary has been money this season on the jumpers he missed on Saturday, especially in the first half.

by Frank The Plank on Jan 24, 2011 2:41 PM CST reply actions

Enjoyable read, Trips. I was amazed at your early game comment when we were getting rolled.

I know there’s been lots of talk about how this year’s club has so much more "chemistry" and "heart" than last year’s club, but this year’s improvement is much more due to the fact that we are running a real-live, died-in-the-wool offense this year, imo.

One begets the other.

by Drew Dunlevie on Jan 24, 2011 2:43 PM CST reply actions

Not at all Ryan. Gary is a very solid shooter from midrange and has been money from that distance for nearly the entire season. KU was just an off game for him. We need him to take that shot to open up the floor for driving lanes and post position for TT. Also it allows Gary to stretch out his defender and take him off the dribble, where he is excellent at drawing fouls.

by Blake B on Jan 24, 2011 3:14 PM CST reply actions

Barne’s re-invention of himself as a teacher of legitimate offensive basketball this offseason is an accomplishment that just can’t be given enough credit, imo. I’d love to see an article comparing the similarities of what we’ve been running to this point in the season with the Sloan Jazz offense.

My mental picture of Rick’s pilgrimage to Utah to learn that offense is basically the first 20 minutes of the first Christopher Nolan Batman movie. I’m not sure if it culminated with Rick defeating Jerry Sloan in a katana duel and then burning down the Delta Center, but I’d like to believe that it did.

by nobis60 on Jan 24, 2011 3:15 PM CST reply actions

Bang-on analysis, Trips. This team is scary good when it consistently runs a legitimate offense. It will be interesting to see if they’ve “got it” in Stillwater.

by AKHorn on Jan 24, 2011 3:27 PM CST reply actions

Trips, I appreciate the insight into our team and our opponents. One thing I am still trying to understand about the KU game is how did Kansas manage to almost get it back to even in the last few minutes? I read your article breaking down each possession in the last 5 minutes, but I’d appreciate input into which category those points for Kansas fell into. Was it more fool’s gold? Or did they start to run some real offense? Or was it a screwing by the refs against Matt Hill?

Mainly I am trying to get a bead on what a rematch in the Big 12 Tournament will look like. Can Kansas run a real offense and give us real trouble for a full 40 minutes (if that is what they did in the final 5 minutes), or do they just have to hope that they can get hot for two halves instead of just one?

by TexasWright on Jan 24, 2011 3:28 PM CST reply actions

Excellent analysis. I am also interested in the question posed by TexasWright regarding a potential rematch. Was the Fools Gold the direct result of a magnificent Texas defense, or from a poor offensive game plan by Coach Self? Can Texas do it again in the conference tournament? Seems to my untrained eyes that this defense can take complete control of a game.

by Granite Bay Longhorn on Jan 24, 2011 4:30 PM CST reply actions

KU missed a lot of makeable shots, and a lot of free throws. KU did have a better FG percentage than Texas coming into the game, so it’s not out of the question that they shoot better in a rematch even if Texas plays as well defensively as it did Saturday.

by Bob in Houston on Jan 24, 2011 5:02 PM CST reply actions

Nice stuff Trips. Out of curiosity, were you as shocked as I was when you saw checked the box score? I just did and saw that Texas was only credited with six assists. Granted a big piece of that is because many of their points came from the stripe (and could have otherwise been credited as assists) but it’s halfway amazing to me.

by Hiphopopotamus on Jan 24, 2011 8:46 PM CST reply actions

TexasWright,

I’m not Trips but part of the answer to your question is in his post analyzing the last five minutes of the game. Based on a reading of that. what got KU closer was a combo of some points off their press, hitting a couple of those Fools’ Gold shots (2 runners by Morris), and some poor calls by the officials.

All told, I would say KU is plenty good enough, particularly inside, to be very tough in a rematch. If we can run our offense (see post above), play as well defensively and show the poise and toughness that are becoming more consistent this season, I like our chances.

by hopefulhorn on Jan 25, 2011 6:08 AM CST reply actions

Hip: Lots of drives and pull-ups. But yeah, I was shocked, too.

by Bob in Houston on Jan 25, 2011 10:38 AM CST reply actions

I’m assuming Kansas’ official scorer is better than A&M’s. Have the Aggies fixed that issue where they were getting assists on roughly 90% of made field goals during home games?

by Huckleberry on Jan 25, 2011 10:54 AM CST reply actions

Wahoo –
I share your conspiracy theory on the oblong goal. We couldn’t buy a bucket in the first half with what I thought were great shots (as Trips seems to agree). Happened to KU in the second half. Cheaters never win!

Been waiting for this post and the post mortem since the final buzzer on Saturday. Thanks Trips. Now waiting for the next post on pederasty.

by jinx on Jan 25, 2011 11:18 AM CST reply actions