JoePgh
Cranky pants and wise acre
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 3,756
- Reaction Score
- 22,102
The Mercer postgame thread is now closed, but one of the early comments made in that thread was that UConn's field goal make percentage of 44.8% (in round numbers, 45%) meant "in polite terms" that the offense needs improvement. Apparently the poster felt that against an overmatched opponent, anything less than a 50% shooting percentage is a negative indicator for the quality of UConn's offense. His post got a number of Likes, so it appears that many Boneyarders agreed with him.
A number of responses were made, including that South Carolina shot a similarly low percentage against its much weaker first-round opponent. The original poster replied to that with a comment to the effect that SC's offense also needs improvement, but it is less urgent for them because their defense is so much better than UConn's (a dubious claim in my mind). Another response was that SC faced Mercer last year in the NCAA first round, and was much less successful offensively than UConn was yesterday. A third response was that the relatively low shooting percentage was the result of "rust" after an 11-day layoff.
While all of these responses have validity, I think some additional points need to be made. One very significant fact is that UConn's shooting percentage in the first half of yesterday's game was in fact greater than 50%: UConn was 15-for-29 in the first half, or 52%. The second half was not as good (15-for-38, or 39%), despite the 20-0 third quarter. For the game, UConn was 30-for-67. The higher shooting percentage in the first half casts some doubt on the "rust" theory, but it does mean that the UConn offense was humming at a normal rate until the game was basically decided.
The other point is that if you watch the game (as I did both live and on replay), it is very apparent that UConn's shooting percentage was heavily affected by missed layups and missed uncontested putbacks. In the second half, I counted at least six FGA attempts by UConn in this category. If the total for the entire game was more than 7 (and I think it was probably in the 10-12 range), then deducting these from the total of 67 shot attempts would bring the shooting percentage above 50% for the game.
But how can you justify such a deduction? Layups and putbacks are part of a team's offense, so an inability to hit these shots may imply that this part of the "offense" needs improvement. But usually when people talk about an offense needing improvement (or being seriously deficient, which is what the poster really meant), they mean that the team is not getting open for good shots, or the wrong people are taking them, or that bad shots are being taken. If a large portion of the misses are simply missed layups and the like, then none of those things are true about UConn's offense against Mercer. All you can expect of a coaching staff is to run an offensive scheme that gets a shooter open for a shot that is in her range -- and a layup opportunity is the best example of the success of the designed offense, regardless of whether it is made. That was happening, and the "adjusted" shooting percentage reflects that.
Now, if someone wants to complain that the UConn offense had too many turnovers (16), I would agree with that, provided that it is also noted that UConn had a 23-8 margin over Mercer in points off turnovers. But against that kind of an opponent, a turnover total closer to 10 would be a reasonable expectation.
A number of responses were made, including that South Carolina shot a similarly low percentage against its much weaker first-round opponent. The original poster replied to that with a comment to the effect that SC's offense also needs improvement, but it is less urgent for them because their defense is so much better than UConn's (a dubious claim in my mind). Another response was that SC faced Mercer last year in the NCAA first round, and was much less successful offensively than UConn was yesterday. A third response was that the relatively low shooting percentage was the result of "rust" after an 11-day layoff.
While all of these responses have validity, I think some additional points need to be made. One very significant fact is that UConn's shooting percentage in the first half of yesterday's game was in fact greater than 50%: UConn was 15-for-29 in the first half, or 52%. The second half was not as good (15-for-38, or 39%), despite the 20-0 third quarter. For the game, UConn was 30-for-67. The higher shooting percentage in the first half casts some doubt on the "rust" theory, but it does mean that the UConn offense was humming at a normal rate until the game was basically decided.
The other point is that if you watch the game (as I did both live and on replay), it is very apparent that UConn's shooting percentage was heavily affected by missed layups and missed uncontested putbacks. In the second half, I counted at least six FGA attempts by UConn in this category. If the total for the entire game was more than 7 (and I think it was probably in the 10-12 range), then deducting these from the total of 67 shot attempts would bring the shooting percentage above 50% for the game.
But how can you justify such a deduction? Layups and putbacks are part of a team's offense, so an inability to hit these shots may imply that this part of the "offense" needs improvement. But usually when people talk about an offense needing improvement (or being seriously deficient, which is what the poster really meant), they mean that the team is not getting open for good shots, or the wrong people are taking them, or that bad shots are being taken. If a large portion of the misses are simply missed layups and the like, then none of those things are true about UConn's offense against Mercer. All you can expect of a coaching staff is to run an offensive scheme that gets a shooter open for a shot that is in her range -- and a layup opportunity is the best example of the success of the designed offense, regardless of whether it is made. That was happening, and the "adjusted" shooting percentage reflects that.
Now, if someone wants to complain that the UConn offense had too many turnovers (16), I would agree with that, provided that it is also noted that UConn had a 23-8 margin over Mercer in points off turnovers. But against that kind of an opponent, a turnover total closer to 10 would be a reasonable expectation.
