The interesting thing is that those elbow jumpers, by most people’s standards, are considered “bad shots”. Yet for Zak they’ve been his bread and butter, and he’s hit some HUGE shots for us the past 2 years from those spots.
As @Tom48160 said, he seems to be trying to shoot himself out of his slump. Such a delicate balance, because we obviously don’t want to waste possessions, but we do need Zak to get that confidence back.
I’m not going to touch his 3pt % debates, because he’s made plenty but has taken plenty that are not ideal.
Maybe he just needs to flip sides of the floor with DJ or something. He’s shooting much better on the right side (though seemingly smaller #'s). Still - maybe psychologically it would help him.
Agree with this except that I don’t think IU was terrible in that regard. A few of his shots I was okay with. A few I thought he should have passed up.
I’m definitely not on team “sit Zak”, if that’s what you thought. I wouldn’t mind him not being 2 in the conference in minutes played, but I think he needs to start due to the reasons you covered.
I saw 3 shots that came within 5 seconds of the shot clock. Was that the best shot they could get in the situation from a guy that isn’t exactly the most efficient shooter? I understand shooters gotta shoot but when you’re not shooting well do you want around half your shots to be questionable in nature?
Good shots vary for different people. For bad shooters the definition of a good shot is obviously going to be narrow. Hail’s opinion is that Zak is a bad shooter, and you’re not gonna change that (same with me). Why is it so odd to you that someone who thinks a player is a bad shooter also thinks that the player should only take clearly open catch and shoot shots?
It seems the general consensus is: dont shoot early shotclock, semi-contested jumpers, be more aware of making the extra pass, and stop shooting off the dribble (save his pet elbow shot). Considering we are talking about Michigan’s worst shooter in the rotation, that seems fair.
But this conversation is also difficult because if he made 2 of those jumpers, we are talking about a 3/8 (38%) shooting day and the conversation is probably much less heated. If he made just a few of the good shots he took, then it’s much easier to see why he’d take the less-deal shots. And, while this is a pretty enigmatic slump, I think most of us believe Zak wont be throwing up straight trash for 10 straight games.
I think Zak having consistent 3/8 shooting games (if not better, of course) is really important to the team: he’s the leader and we are best off with his confidence not paper-thin, he needs to be on the floor for his defensive versatility, he’s still more likely to make a PNR assist than anyone other than Walton, and teams will continue to respect/guard against his jumper, which is important for the offense. I realize these are mostly similar sentiments to what Dylan posted.
I’m of the opinion that a lot of those in the IU game were quick or could have used an extra pass but he was overthinking and trying to stay aggressive off the catch.
I actually LOVED the quick transition look with 8 minutes left. We were up 13 and on a run, that would have been an absolute dagger and could have ended the mental slump entirely had it gone in.
If Zak had been taking these shots in a tie game, I’d completely change my viewpoint.
Everyone seems to be harping on this like by definition an early shot in the shot clock is bad. Only one was without a pass and it was pretty much wide open. The other early clock shot was off of an offensive rebound (Irvin had previously passed up a three, drove and kicked to an open three) and then an extra pass (again, wide open). The final one was in transition with the only defender covering X before he dished it.
At the end of the day, let’s look at what Zak didn’t do: dribble into a bunch of early-clock mid-range jumpers, turn the ball over, etc. That’s basically what you want from a guy who is slumping.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that you can’t ‘play Zak’ and then tell him not to shoot open shots. Or not to shoot within the first 10 seconds of the shot clock. Or not to shoot in transition. Him being a threat to shoot the ball is important. He just needs to start making those shots.
An early shot in the possession isn’t always a bad one, especially for good shooters like Duncan, Walton, etc. Irvin is not Duncan, Walton, etc.
Why haven’t you touched on how much more effective our other shooters are? It is relevant when considering “opportunity cost” of Irvin taking those shots.
Hail explicitly said that the second shot on that video was a bad shot. He also explicitly called the last shot (a wide open catch-and-shoot) a terrible shot. If you can’t keep up with the conversation, why interject?
By your own definition, those two would be considered bad shots.
You said:
“Slump aside, Irvin isn’t such a terrible shooter than he should be passing up good shots unless a better shooter is immediately open or we are trying to run time off the clock.”
The shot at 0:18 (a better shooter was immediately open) and the shot at 1:37 (we should have used up more clock in that situation).
There was the 3 that Zak should’ve passed once more to Walton (the better shooter getting a better shot), the early 3 at the top of the key off a pick which was fairly contested, and the 3 off of MAAR’s offensive rebound which was also fairly contested. None of those were terrible shots, but one was a bad decision because a better option was standing 8 feet away from him in the corner, and the other two shots were the quality of looks that you can get at any point during any possession.
None were ‘bad’ shots, but all of them were fairly contested and taken by our worst shooter. I’d argue that it’s likely that we would have gotten off a ‘better’ shot if that even only meant someone other than Zak took those same shots later in the shot clock. But maybe that’s all too theoretical and not practical. I mean, I agree, Zak needs to shoot to preserve the rest of his utility
I don’t know why I have to repeat 30 times that I’m fine with him shooting open shots. I don’t care if he shoots a fast break three if it’s open. Clearly your definition of “good shot” for a career 35% shooter who hasn’t sniffed 40% in 3 years and has 4 better options than him on the court at nearly all times differs from mine. That’s fine. Agree to disagree. There’s seriously no need for you to continuously misrepresent my argument.
Great, then tell it to hail. I have no clue why the fuck you were directly saying it to me in that case. If you can’t keep up with the conversation, why interject?
