wow. where are you ed gray ??? did we ever fast break ?? tough to watch. go bears.

calgo430 said:

---

wow. where are you ed gray ??? did we ever fast break ?? tough to watch. go bears.

---

In the few fast breaks we had, we probably missed at least 10 pts on missed layups. Oh, what would have been!!!!

I blame the 11 minute scoreless stretch on Coach FX (no 'O'),

BeachedBear said:

---

calgo430 said:

---

wow. where are you ed gray ??? did we ever fast break ?? tough to watch. go bears.

---

In the few fast breaks we had, we probably missed at least 10 pts on missed layups. Oh, what would have been!!!!

I blame the 11 minute scoreless stretch on Coach FX (no 'O'),

---

uhhhhh....

I was there and this isn't fair (or at least is a SF Bear take rather than a good one). The offense DID get open shots. They were best on the 5 to 10 possessions they were able to work it into the post, kicked it back out, and then resevered it. The ball did NOT stick on those possessions.

But our guys are simply incapable of making shots.

1) Grant passed up a NUMBER of wide open threes. Now he probably needed to because his shot was not falling and was way off but the offense generated these for him.

2) South had SEVERAL shots as well that he should have made. Most P5 guards could. Memo - he isn't a P5 guard.

3) Kelly is too short to play power forward and Lars is going to give me early heart disease. I figured it out last night - Lars=Kingsly. But the thing is that Kingsly had a lot more athleticism. Didn't get coaching but at least he could leap.

4) Game should have been a blow out. UCLA has a lot of the disfunction you see with highly rated recruits in rebuilding programs - they had a play (their Jasquez taking Grant off the dribble after a high screen) they could have run over and over and over. For some reason they didn't - and I chalk that up to high level recruits wanting/needing to get "their" shots. But every time they ran that it worked. They should have kept on it.

Fox can coach. I also don't think he is "Braun redux" in that he doesn't get offense. What is the case is that we don't have ANY talent out there - but hey, all you need is three stars that get coached up or have you not been reading the wall of text about Pete Newell's teams.

In the end the question is going to be whether Fox can find players. Early indications is that this is going to be why he is here just 3 years and we get to try again. Because at this point we put o

reality this is the lowest offensive talent level i have seen at cal in eons. outside of bradley our athletes cannot put the ball in the hole. fox and staff need to get kids who are pac 12 players. jucos accepted.

socaltownie said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

calgo430 said:

---

wow. where are you ed gray ??? did we ever fast break ?? tough to watch. go bears.

---

In the few fast breaks we had, we probably missed at least 10 pts on missed layups. Oh, what would have been!!!!

I blame the 11 minute scoreless stretch on Coach FX (no 'O'),

---

uhhhhh....

I was there and this isn't fair (or at least is a SF Bear take rather than a good one). The offense DID get open shots. They were best on the 5 to 10 possessions they were able to work it into the post, kicked it back out, and then resevered it. The ball did NOT stick on those possessions.

But our guys are simply incapable of making shots.

1) Grant passed up a NUMBER of wide open threes. Now he probably needed to because his shot was not falling and was way off but the offense generated these for him.

2) South had SEVERAL shots as well that he should have made. Most P5 guards could. Memo - he isn't a P5 guard.

3) Kelly is too short to play power forward and Lars is going to give me early heart disease. I figured it out last night - Lars=Kingsly. But the thing is that Kingsly had a lot more athleticism. Didn't get coaching but at least he could leap.

4) Game should have been a blow out. UCLA has a lot of the disfunction you see with highly rated recruits in rebuilding programs - they had a play (their Jasquez taking Grant off the dribble after a high screen) they could have run over and over and over. For some reason they didn't - and I chalk that up to high level recruits wanting/needing to get "their" shots. But every time they ran that it worked. They should have kept on it.

Fox can coach. I also don't think he is "Braun redux" in that he doesn't get offense. What is the case is that we don't have ANY talent out there - but hey, all you need is three stars that get coached up or have you not been reading the wall of text about Pete Newell's teams.

In the end the question is going to be whether Fox can find players. Early indications is that this is going to be why he is here just 3 years and we get to try again. Because at this point we put o

---

SCT

I agree with your takes about the offense. My one addition, however, is that it seemed that after a series of misses, the players got down on themselves and the offense stalled. Then it was Austin 1 on 5 with everyone spectating. I agree about Kelly. Since the start of P12 play, his offense has disappeared. Don't know what the matter with Anticevich is. In the 2 LA games, his shot hasn't been close (how do you airball a 10' jumper?). As for South--he's a heady player, usually makes the right play, unfortunately, there was a reason that he played his first 3 years at TA&M, San Antonio and not a P5 school. He lacks the athleticism and skill.

As for the game itself, it could have/should have been a blowout in either direction. If UCLA had played with even average IQ, they win by 20. OTOH, if we had made a few open shots early, it could have been a double digit win for the Bears, given UCLA's dysfunction.

Please, please stop with the gratuitous digs at SFCity. So you disagree about some things; so the f--- what. He posts his views; you post yours. How about leaving it at that?

socaltownie said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

calgo430 said:

---

wow. where are you ed gray ??? did we ever fast break ?? tough to watch. go bears.

---

In the few fast breaks we had, we probably missed at least 10 pts on missed layups. Oh, what would have been!!!!

I blame the 11 minute scoreless stretch on Coach FX (no 'O'),

---

uhhhhh....

I was there and this isn't fair (or at least is a SF Bear take rather than a good one). The offense DID get open shots. They were best on the 5 to 10 possessions they were able to work it into the post, kicked it back out, and then resevered it. The ball did NOT stick on those possessions.

But our guys are simply incapable of making shots.

1) Grant passed up a NUMBER of wide open threes. Now he probably needed to because his shot was not falling and was way off but the offense generated these for him.

2) South had SEVERAL shots as well that he should have made. Most P5 guards could. Memo - he isn't a P5 guard.

3) Kelly is too short to play power forward and Lars is going to give me early heart disease. I figured it out last night - Lars=Kingsly. But the thing is that Kingsly had a lot more athleticism. Didn't get coaching but at least he could leap.

4) Game should have been a blow out. UCLA has a lot of the disfunction you see with highly rated recruits in rebuilding programs - they had a play (their Jasquez taking Grant off the dribble after a high screen) they could have run over and over and over. For some reason they didn't - and I chalk that up to high level recruits wanting/needing to get "their" shots. But every time they ran that it worked. They should have kept on it.

Fox can coach. I also don't think he is "Braun redux" in that he doesn't get offense. What is the case is that we don't have ANY talent out there - but hey, all you need is three stars that get coached up or have you not been reading the wall of text about Pete Newell's teams.

In the end the question is going to be whether Fox can find players. Early indications is that this is going to be why he is here just 3 years and we get to try again. Because at this point we put o

---

Yeah - I was just trying to make a joke about Fox without an 'O' is FX and that a game score of 50-40 with an 11 minute scoring drought is indicative of lack of O. I really didn't dive deep into the coaching correlation, so glad that you did. What I saw on TV - did match with your in person observations.

Saw it a little differently than SCT. Sadly, I don't have the intestinal fortitude to re-watch the game for another look but I saw a lot of very poor quality shots against UCLA. Granted, I also saw some missed open jumpers as well but overall shot quality was pretty bad. How many times did we have to hoist a prayer as the shot clock wound down? Our half court offense looked horrendous last night, possibly the worst all year. UCLA forced us to start possessions away from the basket and as the possession went on, we got moved further from the bucket. No aggression or assertiveness in the attack. When we went through the 10 minute stretch of no scoring, I kept yelling at the screen to attack the bucket and draw a foul. When the shooting is off in any given game, you attack, draw fouls and score that way. The fact that we played the first 30+ minutes of the game without a foul shot tells me everything I need to know about how assertive we were on offense. Only Bradley seems to have an attack mode in his game right now.

On the plus side, Fox's D is pretty good. Hard to say at this point what his teams will look like when he has "his" players, but I see signs of good coaching going on here.

Trying to make the best of it here.

BeachedBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

calgo430 said:

---

wow. where are you ed gray ??? did we ever fast break ?? tough to watch. go bears.

---

In the few fast breaks we had, we probably missed at least 10 pts on missed layups. Oh, what would have been!!!!

I blame the 11 minute scoreless stretch on Coach FX (no 'O'),

---

uhhhhh....

I was there and this isn't fair (or at least is a SF Bear take rather than a good one). The offense DID get open shots. They were best on the 5 to 10 possessions they were able to work it into the post, kicked it back out, and then resevered it. The ball did NOT stick on those possessions.

But our guys are simply incapable of making shots.

1) Grant passed up a NUMBER of wide open threes. Now he probably needed to because his shot was not falling and was way off but the offense generated these for him.

2) South had SEVERAL shots as well that he should have made. Most P5 guards could. Memo - he isn't a P5 guard.

3) Kelly is too short to play power forward and Lars is going to give me early heart disease. I figured it out last night - Lars=Kingsly. But the thing is that Kingsly had a lot more athleticism. Didn't get coaching but at least he could leap.

4) Game should have been a blow out. UCLA has a lot of the disfunction you see with highly rated recruits in rebuilding programs - they had a play (their Jasquez taking Grant off the dribble after a high screen) they could have run over and over and over. For some reason they didn't - and I chalk that up to high level recruits wanting/needing to get "their" shots. But every time they ran that it worked. They should have kept on it.

Fox can coach. I also don't think he is "Braun redux" in that he doesn't get offense. What is the case is that we don't have ANY talent out there - but hey, all you need is three stars that get coached up or have you not been reading the wall of text about Pete Newell's teams.

In the end the question is going to be whether Fox can find players. Early indications is that this is going to be why he is here just 3 years and we get to try again. Because at this point we put o

---

Yeah - I was just trying to make a joke about Fox without an 'O' is FX and that a game score of 50-40 with an 11 minute scoring drought is indicative of lack of O. I really didn't dive deep into the coaching correlation, so glad that you did. What I saw on TV - did match with your in person observations.

---

Being there helped. On TV, for example, because they don't show everything it sometimes isn't clear how hard Matt is working to free himself. Last night I saw him moving ALOT to get open. The Paris "hero ball" actually comes out of a set play - a high screen with Paris either using it and going with his right or refusing and initiating a ball reversal. It was actually there ALOT during the first half - they took it away with a high hedge off the scrreen in the second and our bigs (Lars, grant) just were not good on the roll and paris is a bit too short to pass over that when the other team has length. Didn't fault him for it.

Uthaithani said:

---

On the plus side, Fox's D is pretty good. Hard to say at this point what his teams will look like when he has "his" players, but I see signs of good coaching going on here.

Trying to make the best of it here.

---

Yes, as bad as the offense has been, the defense has been almost as good.

I can't bring myself to watch.

What types of shots was the O generating? Which players were getting shots and from where?

It's going to take a lot of time to rebuild this. You either needs athletes to press and play transition or you need guys that are skilled enough to create shots or you need guys who can play in a structured O and knock down shots that are created for them. We are thin on all of that. It is what it is. Fox needs a long leash to recruit and coach these guys up.

socaltownie said:

---

Being there helped. On TV, for example, because they don't show everything it sometimes isn't clear how hard Matt is working to free himself. Last night I saw him moving ALOT to get open. The Paris "hero ball" actually comes out of a set play - a high screen with Paris either using it and going with his right or refusing and initiating a ball reversal. It was actually there ALOT during the first half - they took it away with a high hedge off the scrreen in the second and our bigs (Lars, grant) just were not good on the roll and paris is a bit too short to pass over that when the other team has length. Didn't fault him for it.

---

For whatever reason, Paris missed almost all of his layups; granted some were contested by bigs, but others were just bricks. Seems like on the road everyone forgets how to shoot.

2/3 of Cal's offense left when Sueing and Vanover transferred. They have not been replaced by guys with similar talent. Cal's next 3 opponents are Stanford, Oregon and Oregon State. We will likely lose all three.

We will play better at home. Not sure we win any.

caltagjohnson said:

---

2/3 of Cal's offense left when Sueing and Vanover transferred. They have not been replaced by guys with similar talent. Cal's next 3 opponents are Stanford, Oregon and Oregon State. We will likely lose all three.

---

A month ago, some folks were saying we would go 0-16 in conference. Things ebb and flow.

Hey, WSU just beat both the Oregons and we beat them. Ya never know.

As far as our roster, South is a marginal player at this level, but he's also in a slump. He'll be making some more shots for us. Anticevich has always been a bit of a streak shooter. His jumper even looks different when the shots aren't falling, like he's thinking about it too much.

The freshman bigs will certainly improve, but it's going to take them an off-season, at least. I would give Kuany and Klonaras some minutes and a little freedom, to see what they can do. What do we have to lose?

Yes, we need multiple non-bigs who can put the ball in the basket. Thinking optimistically, maybe the two recruits will be able to help us. We could use another grad transfer to get us over the hump. The staff found guys for us last spring: Hopefully they can pull a couple of rabbits out of the hat.

Fox said on the pre-game shows that they had fewer possessions in the overtime against Washington than in 40 minutes against $c.
Am I the only one who thought Austin threw away 10-12 possessions in both games this weekend? Driving the lane, getting off balance and underhanding shots that have about a 2% chance of going down?
How Fox can stand there and allow it all game is bewildering.

Fox put the clamps on Austins drives fir a part of the preseason but we were losing so it appears he is allowing it again . Worked against the Wash. Did not in la.

socaltownie said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

calgo430 said:

---

wow. where are you ed gray ??? did we ever fast break ?? tough to watch. go bears.

---

In the few fast breaks we had, we probably missed at least 10 pts on missed layups. Oh, what would have been!!!!

I blame the 11 minute scoreless stretch on Coach FX (no 'O'),

---

uhhhhh....

I was there and this isn't fair (or at least is a SF Bear take rather than a good one). The offense DID get open shots. They were best on the 5 to 10 possessions they were able to work it into the post, kicked it back out, and then resevered it. The ball did NOT stick on those possessions.

But our guys are simply incapable of making shots.

1) Grant passed up a NUMBER of wide open threes. Now he probably needed to because his shot was not falling and was way off but the offense generated these for him.

2) South had SEVERAL shots as well that he should have made. Most P5 guards could. Memo - he isn't a P5 guard.

3) Kelly is too short to play power forward and Lars is going to give me early heart disease. I figured it out last night - Lars=Kingsly. But the thing is that Kingsly had a lot more athleticism. Didn't get coaching but at least he could leap.

4) Game should have been a blow out. UCLA has a lot of the disfunction you see with highly rated recruits in rebuilding programs - they had a play (their Jasquez taking Grant off the dribble after a high screen) they could have run over and over and over. For some reason they didn't - and I chalk that up to high level recruits wanting/needing to get "their" shots. But every time they ran that it worked. They should have kept on it.

Fox can coach. I also don't think he is "Braun redux" in that he doesn't get offense. What is the case is that we don't have ANY talent out there - but hey, all you need is three stars that get coached up or have you not been reading the wall of text about Pete Newell's teams.

In the end the question is going to be whether Fox can find players. Early indications is that this is going to be why he is here just 3 years and we get to try again. Because at this point we put o

---

Yeah - I was just trying to make a joke about Fox without an 'O' is FX and that a game score of 50-40 with an 11 minute scoring drought is indicative of lack of O. I really didn't dive deep into the coaching correlation, so glad that you did. What I saw on TV - did match with your in person observations.

---

Being there helped. On TV, for example, because they don't show everything it sometimes isn't clear how hard Matt is working to free himself. Last night I saw him moving ALOT to get open. The Paris "hero ball" actually comes out of a set play - a high screen with Paris either using it and going with his right or refusing and initiating a ball reversal. It was actually there ALOT during the first half - they took it away with a high hedge off the scrreen in the second and our bigs (Lars, grant) just were not good on the roll and paris is a bit too short to pass over that when the other team has length. Didn't fault him for it.

---

Good post SCT

Agree that Paris's drives were good in first half, but the problem was UCLA adjusted and shut it down.

Also agree that Bradley left it all on the court and was competing and leading to the 1 minute mark

TheSouseFamily said:

---

Saw it a little differently than SCT. Sadly, I don't have the intestinal fortitude to re-watch the game for another look but I saw a lot of very poor quality shots against UCLA. Granted, I also saw some missed open jumpers as well but overall shot quality was pretty bad. How many times did we have to hoist a prayer as the shot clock wound down? Our half court offense looked horrendous last night, possibly the worst all year. UCLA forced us to start possessions away from the basket and as the possession went on, we got moved further from the bucket. No aggression or assertiveness in the attack. When we went through the 10 minute stretch of no scoring, I kept yelling at the screen to attack the bucket and draw a foul. When the shooting is off in any given game, you attack, draw fouls and score that way. The fact that we played the first 30+ minutes of the game without a foul shot tells me everything I need to know about how assertive we were on offense. Only Bradley seems to have an attack mode in his game right now.

---

Poor shooting seems to be endemic in the college game this year. I wonder if the new 3 point line is causing adjustment problems.

Its causing players to step out of bounds.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

Saw it a little differently than SCT. Sadly, I don't have the intestinal fortitude to re-watch the game for another look but I saw a lot of very poor quality shots against UCLA. Granted, I also saw some missed open jumpers as well but overall shot quality was pretty bad. How many times did we have to hoist a prayer as the shot clock wound down? Our half court offense looked horrendous last night, possibly the worst all year. UCLA forced us to start possessions away from the basket and as the possession went on, we got moved further from the bucket. No aggression or assertiveness in the attack. When we went through the 10 minute stretch of no scoring, I kept yelling at the screen to attack the bucket and draw a foul. When the shooting is off in any given game, you attack, draw fouls and score that way. The fact that we played the first 30+ minutes of the game without a foul shot tells me everything I need to know about how assertive we were on offense. Only Bradley seems to have an attack mode in his game right now.

---

Interestingly, during that stretch I saw a decent number of times where the right answer was to shoot earlier. Grant passed up at LEAST 3 outside shots (again, perhaps he should have with his shot off but better than having KK heave it at the last minute).

Anyway, the bottom line is that this is NOT a good shooting team and doesn't play offense well. I am going with player skill rather than Fox but that isn't an endorsement.

Meanwhile I get to live in a town where people are crowing about SDSU being undefeated - - in a league where the second place team got beat by.....Cal ;-)

Grant has clearly been in a funk. He seems susceptible at times to getting caught up in his head and over-thinking things. Case in point during the UCLA game: after a dreadful SC game and first half of the UCLA game, he was clearly doubting himself. He passed up an open 3 and at the timeout, Fox yelled "shoot the ball". So a few possessions later with those words ringing in his head, the ball was rotated to him and he forced up a contested 3 which missed badly. That probably just further compounded the ruckus in his head. He's a talented guy and probably too smart and thoughtful for his own good (on the basketball court, at least). He just needs to shut the brain down and play. Maybe even consider some of the sports performance meditation classes that a lot of nba players use like the Jason Kidd peak performance series on the Calm app (LeBron just signed a partnership with Calm as well).

TheSouseFamily said:

---

Grant has clearly been in a funk. He seems susceptible at times to getting caught up in his head and over-thinking things. Case in point during the UCLA game: after a dreadful SC game and first half of the UCLA game, he was clearly doubting himself. He passed up an open 3 and at the timeout, Fox yelled "shoot the ball". So a few possessions later with those words ringing in his head, the ball was rotated to him and he forced up a contested 3 which missed badly. That probably just further compounded the ruckus in his head. He's a talented guy and probably too smart and thoughtful for his own good (on the basketball court, at least). He just needs to shut the brain down and play. Maybe even consider some of the sports performance meditation classes that a lot of nba players use like the Jason Kidd peak performance series on the Calm app (LeBron just signed a partnership with Calm as well).

---

Not too oversimplify, but after watching Grant for a quite a while now there is one basic difference that dictates whether his shot falls or not. When he receives the ball standing still and is squared up he is deadly. When he tries to shoot off the dribble or with any type of lateral movement it disrupts his shot. A couple of games where he received the ball inside the zone with his back to the hoop, he is fine making a turnaround as long as his feet are squared up to the hoop.

Interesting observation, RW. I'll key in on that more. Getting your footwork square really applies to all shooters, especially catch and shoot guys who aren't creating their own looks. I seem to recall when he catches, dribbles once and shoots that his footwork seemed ok but I could be wrong. I'd say though that shooting with your feet right is just as much a function of the offense, spacing, ball movements as it individual skill. It's tough to get your feet square in tight windows and right now; I don't see enough good clean shots that allow guys to get set. Far too many frantic attempts at the end of the shot clock.

I agree that this can apply to all shooters but depending on the type of shot the player has this factor can be weighted heavier to some. In Grant's case, his shot is so mechanical that I think it makes a bigger difference than others.

Depends on what getting your "feet square" means

Many great shooters don't square their feet to the basket

To do so really makes it hard to get your elbow online to the hoop

HoopDreams said:

---

Depends on what getting your "feet square" means

Many great shooters don't square their feet to the basket

To do so really makes it hard to get your elbow online to the hoop

---

What I mean "feet square" is feet pointing toward the goal, feet about shoulder width apart; slight bend in the knees and staggered positioning with the shooting/dominant foot slightly in front of the other foot. If you're loaded and balanced like that, it can accommodate different release points, release angles, lift heights and so on. Good shooting always starts with the feet. If your feet are parallel or staggered with the 'non-dominant foot ahead of the dominant foot, it's almost impossible to shoot well. That's a bunch of different mechanics you've got to get right in less than a second.

socaltownie said:

---

TheSouseFamily said:

---

Saw it a little differently than SCT. Sadly, I don't have the intestinal fortitude to re-watch the game for another look but I saw a lot of very poor quality shots against UCLA. Granted, I also saw some missed open jumpers as well but overall shot quality was pretty bad. How many times did we have to hoist a prayer as the shot clock wound down? Our half court offense looked horrendous last night, possibly the worst all year. UCLA forced us to start possessions away from the basket and as the possession went on, we got moved further from the bucket. No aggression or assertiveness in the attack. When we went through the 10 minute stretch of no scoring, I kept yelling at the screen to attack the bucket and draw a foul. When the shooting is off in any given game, you attack, draw fouls and score that way. The fact that we played the first 30+ minutes of the game without a foul shot tells me everything I need to know about how assertive we were on offense. Only Bradley seems to have an attack mode in his game right now.

---

Interestingly, during that stretch I saw a decent number of times where the right answer was to shoot earlier. Grant passed up at LEAST 3 outside shots (again, perhaps he should have with his shot off but better than having KK heave it at the last minute).

Anyway, the bottom line is that this is NOT a good shooting team and doesn't play offense well. I am going with player skill rather than Fox but that isn't an endorsement.

Meanwhile I get to live in a town where people are crowing about SDSU being undefeated - - in a league where the second place team got beat by.....Cal ;-)

---

Interesting that there are 3 so-called mid-majors in the top 10 (and 2 in the top 5). Wonder how often that has happened.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Depends on what getting your "feet square" means

Many great shooters don't square their feet to the basket

To do so really makes it hard to get your elbow online to the hoop

---

...feet about shoulder width apart; slight bend in the knees and staggered positioning with the shooting/dominant foot slightly in front of the other foot.

---

I agree with your bold statement above.
But I wouldn't call that 'feet square' which is why I made the comment

thx for the clarification

There are different footwork fundamentals for the many different shot situations a player will encounter in a game. There are also different footwork fundamentals for different types of shots. The discussion began with discussion of Antricevich's jump shots, but much of the response is more applicable to the set shot, now mostly used only to shoot free throws, where there is time to set up without outside factors like defenders or a time clock causing the shooter to adapt and use different fundamental response. In the free throw or set shot, the orthodox set up is square to the basket, usually with the dominant foot toeing the line, and the other foot a little farther back from the line. Many good FT shooters set up with both feet toeing the line, and not just Rick Barry with his underhand style, Here is a video of Mark Price, one of the all time great shooters, on free throw shooting:

The jump shot requires a lot of different footwork fundamentals to match the particular shot situation. Here is Price again, where the first clips in the video show his footwork in different situations:

To break a couple of these footwork situations down, let's look at Klay Thompson's jump shot in two situations,starting at 2:00 in the video, moving to his left, and moving to his right: Note that he does not set up to shoot with his dominant foot forward in both situations:

Thompson's jump shot, like Price's is more of a traditional jump shot. With the modern jump shot of Steph Curry, we have a radical way of shooting, which is almost a set shot released more quickly with a little jump of only a few inches. Many players and young kids are trying to copy this shot. Note in this video, starting at about 0:50, how Curry does not square up to the basket, and both of his feet are turned to the left and are parallel to each other:

I'm amazed that the 3-point shot has been around since the 1980s, and there are still occasions were a player looks down at his feet to see where the line is, and make sure he is behind it. Once he does that, the odds for making the shot go way down, IMO, because he should be concentrating on the basket, not his feet, and his normal rhythm has been interrupted.

There are other shots in basketball, where the dominant foot does not play a major role in footwork setting up to shoot. In the layup and the floater, or any one hand shot on the run, shot with the dominant hand, the player takes off on the opposite or non-dominant foot. Many players today prefer, instead of a layup, coming to a jump stop and doing a jump shot instead of a layup, which wastes precious time. They need to learn how to make a layup with either hand. The layup can be shot with the non-dominant hand, in which case, the player should take off on his dominant foot.

Similarly, the hook shot with the dominant hand is shot with the dominant foot raising up off the floor, and the left foot providing the base for the shot by remaining on the floor. The fadeaway hook is shot the same way, with dominant foot raised and the non-dominant foot starting on the floor, and then the muscles in the non-dominant leg propelling the player away from the basket and the defender, and both feet come off the floor, as the dominant hand shoots the shot. Of course the hook can be shot with the non-dominant hand, in which case the player raises his non-dominant foot first.

And there are other shots requiring other footwork. Footwork is being neglected to some extent today, and some players arrive in college with a lot to learn.

SFCityBear said:

---

There are different footwork fundamentals for the many different shot situations a player will encounter in a game. There are also different footwork fundamentals for different types of shots. The discussion began with discussion of Antricevich's jump shots, but much of the response is more applicable to the set shot, now mostly used only to shoot free throws, where there is time to set up without outside factors like defenders or a time clock causing the shooter to adapt and use different fundamental response. In the free throw or set shot, the orthodox set up is square to the basket, usually with the dominant foot toeing the line, and the other foot a little farther back from the line. Many good FT shooters set up with both feet toeing the line, and not just Rick Barry with his underhand style, Here is a video of Mark Price, one of the all time great shooters, on free throw shooting:

The jump shot requires a lot of different footwork fundamentals to match the particular shot situation. Here is Price again, where the first clips in the video show his footwork in different situations:

To break a couple of these footwork situations down, let's look at Klay Thompson's jump shot in two situations,starting at 2:00 in the video, moving to his left, and moving to his right: Note that he does not set up to shoot with his dominant foot forward in both situations:

Thompson's jump shot, like Price's is more of a traditional jump shot. With the modern jump shot of Steph Curry, we have a radical way of shooting, which is almost a set shot released more quickly with a little jump of only a few inches. Many players and young kids are trying to copy this shot. Note in this video, starting at about 0:50, how Curry does not square up to the basket, and both of his feet are turned to the left and are parallel to each other:

I'm amazed that the 3-point shot has been around since the 1980s, and there are still occasions were a player looks down at his feet to see where the line is, and make sure he is behind it. Once he does that, the odds for making the shot go way down, IMO, because he should be concentrating on the basket, not his feet, and his normal rhythm has been interrupted.

There are other shots in basketball, where the dominant foot does not play a major role in footwork setting up to shoot. In the layup and the floater, or any one hand shot on the run, shot with the dominant hand, the player takes off on the opposite or non-dominant foot. Many players today prefer, instead of a layup, coming to a jump stop and doing a jump shot instead of a layup, which wastes precious time. They need to learn how to make a layup with either hand. The layup can be shot with the non-dominant hand, in which case, the player should take off on his dominant foot.

Similarly, the hook shot with the dominant hand is shot with the dominant foot raising up off the floor, and the left foot providing the base for the shot by remaining on the floor. The fadeaway hook is shot the same way, with dominant foot raised and the non-dominant foot starting on the floor, and then the muscles in the non-dominant leg propelling the player away from the basket and the defender, and both feet come off the floor, as the dominant hand shoots the shot. Of course the hook can be shot with the non-dominant hand, in which case the player raises his non-dominant foot first.

And there are other shots requiring other footwork. Footwork is being neglected to some extent today, and some players arrive in college with a lot to learn.

---

this is all very interesting stuff. Thank you.

As an amusing anecdote relevant to the bolded paragraph, I was at a Cal-Stanfurd women's game many years ago, and Stanfurd lost because of this. Cal was ahead by 2 when a Stanfurd guard was wide open on the wing. She looked down at her feet, saw that she was toeing the line and jumped backwards to be behind the arc. Of course when she then started her shot, she travelled and that was the ball game.

*Maravich did not look well in his instructional videos and for good reason. He dropped dead of a malformed heart during a pick up basketball game shortly after completing the homework videos. Doctors were stumped why his heart defect hadn't killed him during childhood.
Frank Allocco used all the Maravich drills in his Excel camps.