Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="oldhusky, post: 4537377, member: 9844"] I think when you are trying to judge a team's shooting ability, or a player's for that matter, I would look more at their 3pt % and FT%. The overall FG%, 2PT%, effective FG%, and even TS (true shooting) % all incorporate scoring elements in addition defining pure shooting ability. South Carolina is probably at least an interesting counter to this argument. For a top ranked team, they are not really a good "shooting" team at all. They show that it is possible to be a very good offensive team without being very good at all at shooting. If you combine mediocre shooting with getting 50% of the offensive rebounds you have a great offensive team. They outrebound their opponents by 20 a game and could win most games even if they shot 40%. I believe their two-point percentage is pretty good, but 3pt and FT not so much. Boston in particular can score inside a variety of ways, and Cardosa as well, but their 2pt percentage is greatly enhanced by just getting a ton of offensive rebounds and putting back a point blank shot over a shorter defender. Statistically a player that can make 60% of their offensive rebound putbacks is as good a "shooter" as a 3pt shooter who makes 40%. There are several ways to become an effective offensive team, pure shooting ability, scoring ability to get good high % shots, offensive rebounds, the ability to draw fouls, and limit turnovers are all part of the mix. South Carolina's style of just overpowering teams with superior tall and physical players might not be pretty or even good for basketball but it can work at least if you are fortunate to have two superstar huge C's. If we had Paige, Azzi, and Caroline healthy this year, the two contrasting styles would have a chance to go head to head. Both styles can work. We may bemoan how we can possibly counter twin towers like Boston and Cardosa, but next year they might be reacting the same way to our super backcourt combo. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach