Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="nelsonmuntz, post: 4498165, member: 833"] I don't disagree with most of this, but this is not what I was debating in the first page of this thread. I was disagreeing with the assessment that Marquette's shots were low expected PPP vs. a generic 3 pointer. Every team smothers the three point line. Hurley is so afraid of 3 pointers that he is risking blowing a once in a lifetime combination of talent because he refuses to play Clingan and Sanogo on the court at once. The incremental 3 point attempt is likely to be heavily contested and a VERY LOW expected PPP shot. Like .6 or so low. We don't need more shots like that. I have not found a stats dataset that looks at the world this way, but I believe that wide open inside-out kickouts for catch-and-shoot with the 3 point shooter facing the basket are at least 10 points higher in terms of accuracy than a lot of the other contested chuck-and-duck 3 attempts that pass for college offense today. And I think those Catch-and-Shoot, face the basket 3's are a hugely disproportionate share of made 3's relative to total 3's made. I bet the shooting percentage on the good 3's is closer to 50% for good 3 point shooters, and the percentage on the bad 3's is probably around 20%. Pullup 3's after 3 or more dribbles running towards the basket are a lot like turnovers they are such low percentage shots. When I say I want more 2 attempts, I want to pull the defense into the paint to defend size and make it more likely that we will have more catch-and-shoot while facing the basket 3 attempts. UConn does not need more 3 attempts. It needs more good 3 attempts. I wouldn't think this position was so controversial, but I want to get more high percentage 2's and more high percentage 3's. Most current analytics will tell you to do the opposite. It wants fewer 2's, and treats all 3's as identical. The data just isn't there yet to support, or disprove, my position. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach