Why don’t we find some midrange shots | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Why don’t we find some midrange shots

And he would've had 23,000 if he learned to shoot the 3 better.
And Mariano Rivera would have had 300 wins as a starter if he learned to have more stamina

If you are effective/elite at certain things you don’t cut off your nose to spite your face. Analytics arent the end all be all
 
And Mariano Rivera would have had 300 wins as a starter if he learned to have more stamina

If you are effective/elite at certain things you don’t cut off your nose to spite your face. Analytics arent the end all be all

No one said "don't take mid-range shots"... the mid-range shot that Whaley took at the end of the game was great. It came within the flow of a Pick n Roll if I remember correctly.

The idea is that we shouldn't draw up plays to FIND a mid-range shot when a 3 or a layup is so much more effecient... it's just a secondary option.

If they close out hard on a shooter, a 1 dribble pull-up is fair game if the rim is covered. If in a pick n roll, a mid-range shooter like Whaley can't get to the rim, a short corner jumper is fair. Etc.

Most college coaches aren't saying "never take a mid-range" they're just drawing up plays to prioritize other shots.

Every one of you old farts furiously masturbating at pictures of mid-range jumpers seem to think that we're all saying NEVER take them, and that's simply not the case. It's a huge strawman.
 
Whaley passed from inside the arc, twice, in the same possession. Not sure why he doesn’t have a little jump hook yet.
Not sure why passed on those 2 shots. His willing to take wide open 3s but not a jump shot in the paint?
 
Some dork will chime in with analytics of why it's a bad shot to take and totally miss the point that made shots are better than missed shots.

Ah yes, our offense is bad so let’s scheme to get more of the lowest percentage look in basketball. Everyone knows that teams like Baylor, Villanova and Gonzaga rely on the mid range to open up their offense.

Like moths to a flame.
 
Post/ handle

When you’re hitting 50% from two and 30% from three, “analytics” favor the two.

the math makes it closer than you may think. 6 of 20 is 18 points on those 20 shots. That said I believe we shot over 60% from two. It’s likely we won’t improve over 60%, so we need to knock down 1 or 2+ more threes. It changes the game for us. If Polley hits his threes he plays, if not he has to sit. I’d like to see Akok get more shots over the course of the game, if he can be consistent in knocking those down. Hawk is a freshman, you expect ups and downs.
 
No one said "don't take mid-range shots"... the mid-range shot that Whaley took at the end of the game was great. It came within the flow of a Pick n Roll if I remember correctly.

The idea is that we shouldn't draw up plays to FIND a mid-range shot when a 3 or a layup is so much more effecient... it's just a secondary option.

If they close out hard on a shooter, a 1 dribble pull-up is fair game if the rim is covered. If in a pick n roll, a mid-range shooter like Whaley can't get to the rim, a short corner jumper is fair. Etc.

Most college coaches aren't saying "never take a mid-range" they're just drawing up plays to prioritize other shots.

Every one of you old farts furiously masturbating at pictures of mid-range jumpers seem to think that we're all saying NEVER take them, and that's simply not the case. It's a huge strawman.
And you’re doing the same exact thing you’re accusing me and the others of doing. We aren’t saying to draw up only mid range shots and not shoot 3s. You take the best percentage shot in the flow of the offense and sometimes that’s the mid range

Was Rip and the pistons dumb?


During the Pistons’ six-season stretch of ECF appearances, the University of Connecticut product made 47.5 percent of his two-point shots while also shooting 46.3 percent from the field.

Secondly, Pistons fans will never forget the dynamic duo that he formed with fellow Pistons backcourt mate Chauncey Billups.

To no surprise, the three seasons when Rip proved to be the most efficient from two-point range (from 2005-06 until ‘07-08 when he shot no worse than 48.3 percent on his mid-range shots), his backcourt partner Billups put together the three finest seasons of his NBA career as a facilitator.



“That was a kid getting the opportunity to play with the GOAT, the guy you looked up to as a kid. One that sticks out for me is playing against him in practice. People look at my mid-range game and say I have one of the best of all time, but a lot of that came off of being in the practices with MJ. I remember one time I was playing against him and he took two hard dribbles to the basket and pulled up and he was like ‘Rip, add that to your game.’ That’s the hardest play in the game of basketball to guard. And I was like, why? And he was like, because as a defender they are backpedaling so he can’t jump to the highest point to block your shot. He’s always off-balance and you’re always on-balance. People all across the league kept hitting me up like, ‘How did you get your medium-range game so good?’ From the tools of Michael Jordan. From the opportunity to be around him for the two years I was in Washington.”
 
.-.
And you’re doing the same exact thing you’re accusing me and the others of doing. We aren’t saying to draw up only mid range shots and not shoot 3s. You take the best percentage shot in the flow of the offense and sometimes that’s the mid range

Was Rip and the pistons dumb?


During the Pistons’ six-season stretch of ECF appearances, the University of Connecticut product made 47.5 percent of his two-point shots while also shooting 46.3 percent from the field.

Secondly, Pistons fans will never forget the dynamic duo that he formed with fellow Pistons backcourt mate Chauncey Billups.

To no surprise, the three seasons when Rip proved to be the most efficient from two-point range (from 2005-06 until ‘07-08 when he shot no worse than 48.3 percent on his mid-range shots), his backcourt partner Billups put together the three finest seasons of his NBA career as a facilitator.



“That was a kid getting the opportunity to play with the GOAT, the guy you looked up to as a kid. One that sticks out for me is playing against him in practice. People look at my mid-range game and say I have one of the best of all time, but a lot of that came off of being in the practices with MJ. I remember one time I was playing against him and he took two hard dribbles to the basket and pulled up and he was like ‘Rip, add that to your game.’ That’s the hardest play in the game of basketball to guard. And I was like, why? And he was like, because as a defender they are backpedaling so he can’t jump to the highest point to block your shot. He’s always off-balance and you’re always on-balance. People all across the league kept hitting me up like, ‘How did you get your medium-range game so good?’ From the tools of Michael Jordan. From the opportunity to be around him for the two years I was in Washington.”

Rip shot an efg% of 52% from 3 for his career and 46% from 2 (including layups). So, if you want to get real technical about it... he probably should have prioritized the 3 more.

I suspect we're probably not as far apart in our vision of playstyle as we think when it comes down to it.
 
Rip shot an efg% of 52% from 3 for his career and 46% from 2 (including layups). So, if you want to get real technical about it... he probably should have prioritized the 3 more.

I suspect we're probably not as far apart in our vision of playstyle as we think when it comes down to it.
You’re not accounting for volume but we probably are very similar in what we want to see happen
 
Whaley passed from inside the arc, twice, in the same possession. Not sure why he doesn’t have a little jump hook yet.

yes, and I was borderline screaming at the TV for him to shoot it. But, he did have a nice 15' from the baseline in the second half.
 
Whaley passed from inside the arc, twice, in the same possession. Not sure why he doesn’t have a little jump hook yet.
Whaley's passing on the two close-in shots was concerning. We seem to want a more difficult shot for an easy one???? At least he might have been fouled or Euro stepped for two. How much more open do you need to be??? Perhaps the coach has a tight collar on him. It seems that we do pass on a lot of open shots. The first half had a nice offensive flow to it, the second reverted to half-court run down the clock for a desperation shot that allowed the game to get close.
 
Whaley passed from inside the arc, twice, in the same possession. Not sure why he doesn’t have a little jump hook yet.
Whaley's passing on the two close-in shots was concerning. We seem to want a more difficult shot for an easy one???? At least he might have been fouled or Euro stepped for two. How much more open do you need to be??? Perhaps the coach has a tight collar on him. It seems that we do pass on a lot of open shots. The first half had a nice offensive flow to it, the second reverted to half-court run down the clock for a desperation shot that allowed the game to get close.
 
Our current roster isn't built like modern NBA or top college teams. It's built like an old school Big East team.

And this is a very fair criticism on building the roster. UConn doesn't have shooters. Polley's regression, Hawkins freshmen jitters, Gaffney's inability to stay on the floor have all hurt with shooting and putting a team on the floor that can go 4 out or 5 out.
 
.-.
RJ: 45% from 2 (45% efg), 32% form three (48% efg)... 45% of his shots are 3s.--favors the 3.

Tyrese: 58% from 2 (58%), 36% from 3 (54%), 26% of his shots are 3s.--favors the 2.

Andre: 51% from 2 (51%), 44% from 3 (66%), 24% of his shots are 3s.--favors the 3.

Akok: 45% from 2, 56% from 3 (85% efg), 37% of shots are 3s-- favors the 3.

Whaley: 56% from 2, 31% from 3 (46% efg), 24% of shots from 3--favors the 2.

Gaff: 38% from 2, 35% from 3 (53% efg), 42% of shots from 3--favors the 3.

Polley: 46% from 2, 30% from 3 (45%), 72% of shots from 3--favors the 2

Hawkins: 37% from 2, 33% from 3 (49% efg), 46% of shots from 3--favors the 3

TEAM: 49% from 2 (49% efg), 34% 3 FG (51% efg), 35% of our shots are from deep.

So... as a team, we are actually making a slightly better % effectively. Analytics DON'T actually favor the 2 point shot as you claim, but only slightly. You really should look up these numbers before unequivocally stating the numbers favor 2 point shots.

I think the balance we're striking is about right though. About 1/3 shots we're taking are 3s. Considering we are (disappointingly) unwilling to run in transition again at the rates we need to, this seems about right. Currently, we're 227 in pace. Considering the supposed emphasis on running... this isn't a good sign that coach is putting his money where his mouth is.

This doesn't account for the potential to draw fouls at all. The guys who are better shooters are generally gettinghigher volume (outside of the probable outliers like Jackson.) If anything we should be seeing a few more 3s from Rese, but he's so solid drawing fouls, it probably evens out... and obviously less volume from Polley at this point... he's a disaster.

We're cutting Polley's minutes in half, and a slight regression to the mean shooting it away from being a team that strongly, strongly favors the 3 point shot.

Don't worry @UConnStats , I've got your back, lol.
Outstanding post! When people talk about analytics favoring the three what they’re really talking about is the combination of point value and accuracy, but, as I know you know, there is much more to an analytical analysis than that. Credible three point shooting opens up the paint which allows that to be a higher percentage shot. Forcing people to guard you out to the arc opens up opportunities for a player to drive by his man. A big problem for AJ last year was his lack of a credible three point shot which allowed defenders to sag off of him, which interned took away his ability to drive to the basket. There’s a ying and the yang to it.

Anyway, reread my post and realize that it’s accurate. Last night we shot 30% from three and 50% from two. At those percentages the three pointer isn’t a better shot. I’m guessing that you are using season to date figures to come up with the 34%. At 34% vs 49% the three-point shot is more efficient. But giving you understand how to do this analysis, I’m guessing that you already know that. So, you’re trying to call me out by changing the numbers were talking about is a little disingenuous. You’re better than that. That said, excellent post with really interesting information.
 
Would like to see this team increase %'s made at all levels--Even at a modest rate. Theory(which shot is the better shot) vs reality (roster construction-personnel) seems to be the issue. FTs will win some games for us this year because our D will keep us in games.

FWIW. Dan Hurley has yet to say to our shooters-Stop taking threes. So it appears to me that the staff is willing to roll the dice on 20+ 3 pt shot attempts/game (my guess-not fact) and let the results be what they are.

I still believe this roster has unrealized potential (due to its speed/athleticism) to run more and create offense off of their defensive talents. AJ is beginning to show signs of being a major disruptor/contributor in this scheme. Takes some of the pressure off of our shooters when they don't have their A game.
 
the math makes it closer than you may think. 6 of 20 is 18 points on those 20 shots. That said I believe we shot over 60% from two. It’s likely we won’t improve over 60%, so we need to knock down 1 or 2+ more threes. It changes the game for us. If Polley hits his threes he plays, if not he has to sit. I’d like to see Akok get more shots over the course of the game, if he can be consistent in knocking those down. Hawk is a freshman, you expect ups and downs.
Yep. look at it this way, in last nights game over 20 shots the percentages we were shooting two point shots would have yielded two more points then three-point shots. That’s not a huge difference, but the point stands that people who hammer the phrase “analytics“ as a basis for the three-point shot always being a better alternative than a two point shot don’t really understand what analytics are. Shooting three-pointers are more efficient, as long as you can shoot them at some reasonable rate. 30% or less isn’t reasonable.
 
Outstanding post! When people talk about analytics favoring the three what they’re really talking about is the combination of point value and accuracy, but, as I know you know, there is much more to an analytical analysis than that. Credible three point shooting opens up the paint which allows that to be a higher percentage shot. Forcing people to guard you out to the arc opens up opportunities for a player to drive by his man. A big problem for AJ last year was his lack of a credible three point shot which allowed defenders to sag off of him, which interned took away his ability to drive to the basket. There’s a ying and the yang to it.

Anyway, reread my post and realize that it’s accurate. Last night we shot 30% from three and 50% from two. At those percentages the three pointer isn’t a better shot. I’m guessing that you are using season to date figures to come up with the 34%. At 34% vs 49% the three-point shot is more efficient. But giving you understand how to do this analysis, I’m guessing that you already know that. So, you’re trying to call me out by changing the numbers were talking about is a little disingenuous. You’re better than that. That said, excellent post with really interesting information.

It doesn't make sense to use the statistics from one game to begin with. Coach didn't know we were going to shoot 30% from 3 at the under 12 timeout. You have to use your historical data and keep fighting for the shots that have been best for your team historically.
 
I don’t know if anyone watched the Villanova-Xavier game last night, but there’s a whole lot of suckage going on from behind the arc for many teams lately.

Xavier shot 6-23, including something like 0-15 in the 2nd half. Villanova shot 6-21. And that was a good shooting night for Villanova compared to their previous couple of games.

I guess my point is even “great” shooting teams can have multiple game stretches where they are bad shooting teams.

I expect at some point (hopefully soon of course!) Polley, Hawkins, and RJ are going to work out of their collective funks.

In the meantime, I really wish Jackson & Whaley would shoot more 3s. And more close range dunks, please.
Good points....and X was winning at the half when they shot 6-9 from 3....going 0 fer didn't help...hell, going 0-15 on a 6 point shot doesn't help. other than opening up the paint for better 2 pt shots, I don't understand how shooting a lot of 3's that don't go in helps the final tally. Nova was 1-10 in the first half and 5/11 in the second....so 3's do work....but only if they go in!
 
Last edited:
.-.
It doesn't make sense to use the statistics from one game to begin with. Coach didn't know we were going to shoot 30% from 3 at the under 12 timeout. You have to use your historical data and keep fighting for the shots that have been best for your team historically.
Fully agree, but that’s not what you said. You restated the narrow premise of my post to a broader one that was disprovable, and then disproved it. That’s a little dishonest. No worries, it really doesn’t bother me. I’m just letting you know I saw what you did. But again, I appreciate the work you did and the broader discussion.

As I’m sure you know, Hurley engages an analytics company, so he is getting far more nuanced information. But, as a fan, I will still say this is a team that will benefit from a higher percentage of mid range shots than the typical mix based upon our personnel. We are fast enough, athletic enough, and long enough to make that work. Would I rather be a better three-point shooting team? Absolutely, the math definitely favors that. But at this point, that’s not who we are. As we are seeing with Villanova this year, you have to adapt your identity to your personnel and even a good model won’t work if you don’t have the players to execute it.
 
RJ: 45% from 2 (45% efg), 32% form three (48% efg)... 45% of his shots are 3s.--favors the 3.

Tyrese: 58% from 2 (58%), 36% from 3 (54%), 26% of his shots are 3s.--favors the 2.

Andre: 51% from 2 (51%), 44% from 3 (66%), 24% of his shots are 3s.--favors the 3.

Akok: 45% from 2, 56% from 3 (85% efg), 37% of shots are 3s-- favors the 3.

Whaley: 56% from 2, 31% from 3 (46% efg), 24% of shots from 3--favors the 2.

Gaff: 38% from 2, 35% from 3 (53% efg), 42% of shots from 3--favors the 3.

Polley: 46% from 2, 30% from 3 (45%), 72% of shots from 3--favors the 2

Hawkins: 37% from 2, 33% from 3 (49% efg), 46% of shots from 3--favors the 3

TEAM: 49% from 2 (49% efg), 34% 3 FG (51% efg), 35% of our shots are from deep.

So... as a team, we are actually making a slightly better % effectively. Analytics DON'T actually favor the 2 point shot as you claim, but only slightly. You really should look up these numbers before unequivocally stating the numbers favor 2 point shots.

I think the balance we're striking is about right though. About 1/3 shots we're taking are 3s. Considering we are (disappointingly) unwilling to run in transition again at the rates we need to, this seems about right. Currently, we're 227 in pace. Considering the supposed emphasis on running... this isn't a good sign that coach is putting his money where his mouth is.

This doesn't account for the potential to draw fouls at all. The guys who are better shooters are generally gettinghigher volume (outside of the probable outliers like Jackson.) If anything we should be seeing a few more 3s from Rese, but he's so solid drawing fouls, it probably evens out... and obviously less volume from Polley at this point... he's a disaster.

We're cutting Polley's minutes in half, and a slight regression to the mean shooting it away from being a team that strongly, strongly favors the 3 point shot.

Don't worry @UConnStats , I've got your back, lol.
You're combining cupcakes and real games....go look at the 3 in the real games....especially those we lost. MSU...12%, WV 14%, PC 27% I don't know how you can win games taking high volume 3 when you are shooting 15%?

I think what some posters are saying is if the 3 isn't working there needs to be another plan other than chuck up more threes
 
Fully agree, but that’s not what you said. You restated the narrow premise of my post to a broader one that was disprovable, and then disproved it. That’s a little dishonest. No worries, it really doesn’t bother me. I’m just letting you know I saw what you did. But again, I appreciate the work you did and the broader discussion.

As I’m sure you know, Hurley engages an analytics company, so he is getting far more nuanced information. But, as a fan, I will still say this is a team that will benefit from a higher percentage of mid range shots than the typical mix based upon our personnel. We are fast enough, athletic enough, and long enough to make that work. Would I rather be a better three-point shooting team? Absolutely, the math definitely favors that. But at this point, that’s not who we are. As we are seeing with Villanova this year, you have to adapt your identity to your personnel and even a good model won’t work if you don’t have the players to execute it.

Wasn't intentional. The point you made was just so nonsensical I figured you were typing something wrong.

By your logic, if we don't hit a 3 in the first 4 minutes, we need to totally change our game plan... it doesn't make any sense. You were using data (50% and 30%) that literally didn't exist during the game... because no one knew what our shooting %s for the game would be until it was done. Duh.

50% from 2 point land and 30% from 3 (45% efg) is still essentially equal if we're talking about a 1 game sample. That's a couple points difference after the game. And the coach certainly isn't able to use data THAT DOESN'T EXIST to create a game plan mid-half. If historically, we've been a team that benefits from the 3 (and we did even more before yesterday's game with relatively poor shooting)... then you have to roll with that through halftime before making adjustments.
 
Wasn't intentional. The point you made was just so nonsensical I figured you were typing something wrong.

By your logic, if we don't hit a 3 in the first 4 minutes, we need to totally change our game plan... it doesn't make any sense. You were using data (50% and 30%) that literally didn't exist during the game... because no one knew what our shooting %s for the game would be until it was done. Duh.
Yeah, you’re throwing out strawman arguments again and then disapproving them. I will respectfully suggest you leave that silliness to the guys who have no idea what they’re talking about. But I sense that you’re a little sensitive on me spotting your manipulating the math in this so this will be my last post on this topic.

For what it’s worth, you are, in my opinion, one of the better and more knowledgeable posters on the board. I look forward to seeing what you have to say about most issues. So, from my perspective we’re good.
 
Post/ handle

When you’re hitting 50% from two and 30% from three analytics favor the two.
You can’t treat all twos the same. The average mid range shot’s probability of success is significantly lower than 50% and is actually closer to the average 3P%. You’re assuming nearly the same risk as a 3PA with 33% less of a reward. A shot close to the rim is a high probability shot in comparison. This is why the overwhelming majority of FGA should be close to the basket or from 3.
 
And you’re doing the same exact thing you’re accusing me and the others of doing. We aren’t saying to draw up only mid range shots and not shoot 3s. You take the best percentage shot in the flow of the offense and sometimes that’s the mid range

Was Rip and the pistons dumb?


During the Pistons’ six-season stretch of ECF appearances, the University of Connecticut product made 47.5 percent of his two-point shots while also shooting 46.3 percent from the field.

Secondly, Pistons fans will never forget the dynamic duo that he formed with fellow Pistons backcourt mate Chauncey Billups.

To no surprise, the three seasons when Rip proved to be the most efficient from two-point range (from 2005-06 until ‘07-08 when he shot no worse than 48.3 percent on his mid-range shots), his backcourt partner Billups put together the three finest seasons of his NBA career as a facilitator.



“That was a kid getting the opportunity to play with the GOAT, the guy you looked up to as a kid. One that sticks out for me is playing against him in practice. People look at my mid-range game and say I have one of the best of all time, but a lot of that came off of being in the practices with MJ. I remember one time I was playing against him and he took two hard dribbles to the basket and pulled up and he was like ‘Rip, add that to your game.’ That’s the hardest play in the game of basketball to guard. And I was like, why? And he was like, because as a defender they are backpedaling so he can’t jump to the highest point to block your shot. He’s always off-balance and you’re always on-balance. People all across the league kept hitting me up like, ‘How did you get your medium-range game so good?’ From the tools of Michael Jordan. From the opportunity to be around him for the two years I was in Washington.”
 

Attachments

  • 1640195814449.jpeg
    1640195814449.jpeg
    11.5 KB · Views: 150
.-.
Another factor in favor of the mid-range shot (sorry if stated before, I haven’t read all the posts) is that you are closer to basket and better able to get rebounds if the shot is missed. Plus, your made shot percentage should be higher the closer to the basket you are.
 
You can’t treat all twos the same. The average mid range shot’s probability of success is significantly lower than 50% and is actually closer to the average 3P%. You’re assuming nearly the same risk as a 3PA with 33% less of a reward. A shot close to the rim is a high probability shot in comparison. This is why the overwhelming majority of FGA should be close to the basket or from 3.
Significantly lower? I was actually going to offer a similar opinion, in the opposite direction. The worst shot in basketball is taken 1 mm inside the 3-point line. That's a 2 but not a mid-range shot, of course. Take out long-range shots inside the 3 and the true mid-range percentage is higher. I think.
 
With guys struggling to score, you’d think we’d try to run some stuff to get open looks from 13-17 feet.

Get some of the shooters feeling it early.

Everything is either at the rim/paint or beyond the arc.

Shots at the rim are contested and shots beyond the arc we can’t hit right in an empty gym.

Watch for our (lack of) midrange game tonight.

Maybe this will be a positive jinx.

Well, we did. So it seems you were spot on. If the outside stuff isn't falling, move in. Except Polley, who has never been good from 2pt range.
 
Outstanding post! When people talk about analytics favoring the three what they’re really talking about is the combination of point value and accuracy, but, as I know you know, there is much more to an analytical analysis than that. Credible three point shooting opens up the paint which allows that to be a higher percentage shot. Forcing people to guard you out to the arc opens up opportunities for a player to drive by his man. A big problem for AJ last year was his lack of a credible three point shot which allowed defenders to sag off of him, which interned took away his ability to drive to the basket. There’s a ying and the yang to it.

Anyway, reread my post and realize that it’s accurate. Last night we shot 30% from three and 50% from two. At those percentages the three pointer isn’t a better shot. I’m guessing that you are using season to date figures to come up with the 34%. At 34% vs 49% the three-point shot is more efficient. But giving you understand how to do this analysis, I’m guessing that you already know that. So, you’re trying to call me out by changing the numbers were talking about is a little disingenuous. You’re better than that. That said, excellent post with really interesting information.

Yeah, and when they talk about the analytics of 3s and layups, well that is true if you have a team that can score that way. NBA teams are loaded with guys who seldom miss open 3s and who can score at the rim. College teams, not so much. This UConn team, definitely not a strength. We actually have several guys, Cole, Martin and Whaley who are quite solid with the short jumper when it is there. I'd rather Sanogo takes face up 12 footers rather than throwing blind hooks from way too far out.
 
And he would've had 23,000 if he learned to shoot the 3 better.
If is the key. If if was a 5th, we'd all be drunk.

LA shot the shot most effective for him and it worked. Ajax's effective 3 rate suggests a "balance" of 2s and 3s. No coach in their right mind should encourage this balance in a Big East game or any high stakes game. Why? This is not his shot.

Folks continue to go on about effective rate. Look at the damn game. What do you see? We have one guy on our team Right Now who most of us are comfortable with shooting the three in a clutch situation, and that's RJ. Not Polley, whose an ok player, but not clutch. Not Hawk, not yet. We are not constructed as a 3 point shooting team. Doesn't mean you don't scheme with spacing. But you don't continue to heave up shots you are not Prepared to make. It's stupid. It's why our offense lacks explosion. We should take wide-open 3s, layups obviously (when did this become a strategy by the way smh), and when mid-range is available, take it. Take the shots we can make. That simple. Put players in position to succeed. Simple.

Silly to compare Nova, Zags, NBA and teams that are constructed with balance. We are comparing our team with guys who can take and make threes and guys who can get all the way to the basket for layups. 3s and 2s. How many 3s did we have last night? How many layups/dunks?
 
If is the key. If if was a 5th, we'd all be drunk.

LA shot the shot most effective for him and it worked. Ajax's effective 3 rate suggests a "balance" of 2s and 3s. No coach in their right mind should encourage this balance in a Big East game or any high stakes game. Why? This is not his shot.

Folks continue to go on about effective rate. Look at the damn game. What do you see? We have one guy on our team Right Now who most of us are comfortable with shooting the three in a clutch situation, and that's RJ. Not Polley, whose an ok player, but not clutch. Not Hawk, not yet. We are not constructed as a 3 point shooting team. Doesn't mean you don't scheme with spacing. But you don't continue to heave up shots you are not Prepared to make. It's stupid. It's why our offense lacks explosion. We should take wide-open 3s, layups obviously (when did this become a strategy by the way smh), and when mid-range is available, take it. Take the shots we can make. That simple. Put players in position to succeed. Simple.

Silly to compare Nova, Zags, NBA and teams that are constructed with balance. We are comparing our team with guys who can take and make threes and guys who can get all the way to the basket for layups. 3s and 2s. How many 3s did we have last night? How many layups/dunks?

I don't think anyone is saying take more 3s. I think we're at a pretty reasonable balance right now. Maybe even a few less 3s if we start running more like Coach said we would. People are supporting more mid-range shots--that's the gripe.
 
.-.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,289
Messages
4,561,592
Members
10,455
Latest member
UConnGabby


Top Bottom