Jump to content

3-Point Shooting This Year


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

It worked 1 year.  If it continues to work year after year for teams like this who end up in the final 4 then you might be on to something.  But overall you need a decent to above average offense with an average defense.  Usually its high octane offenses with ok defenses that win it all

If by 'worked' you mean won a National Championship, then I guess it only worked 1 year, but UVA has been one of the best teams on college basketball for about 6 years. If we're judging everything by the national title then basically nobody's system works except for 1 team a year. 

And as mentioned above, UVA had one of the best offensives in the country based on efficiency. They played a really slow pace, but they were extremely effective at it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BGleas said:

If by 'worked' you mean won a National Championship, then I guess it only worked 1 year, but UVA has been one of the best teams on college basketball for about 6 years. If we're judging everything by the national title then basically nobody's system works except for 1 team a year. 

And as mentioned above, UVA had one of the best offensives in the country based on efficiency. They played a really slow pace, but they were extremely effective at it. 

What i am saying is its not the norm.  The norm if for a team to have an above average to high octane offense with a decent to above average defense.  With that combination, you have a shot.  Very rarely do the defensive minded only team make it very far in the tourney.  You have to be able to score points.  UVA is a rare combination of being great at defense and as mentioned, although not prolific at scoring, they are very good when they do.  They averaged 72 points a game which isn't too bad when you're the best defense in the country

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

What i am saying is its not the norm.  The norm if for a team to have an above average to high octane offense with a decent to above average defense.  With that combination, you have a shot.  Very rarely do the defensive minded only team make it very far in the tourney.  You have to be able to score points.  UVA is a rare combination of being great at defense and as mentioned, although not prolific at scoring, they are very good when they do.  They averaged 72 points a game which isn't too bad when you're the best defense in the country

I think where wires are getting crossed is, are you talking about total points or efficiency? Again, UVA was the #2 efficient offense in the country. I would not call them a defensive-focused team, I would call them a pace-focused team. You don't finish #2 in offensive efficiency if you're not focusing on that aspect of the game, so IMO their offense was pretty 'high octane' within the parameters of the style they played. 

I'd also look to the Butler teams that went to the championship game as pace-focused teams that wanted to slow you down, defend and score efficiently. I think even the Duke team that beat Butler in the title game would fall under that category. I'm not analytics guys, but in a search it looks like that Duke team finished #1 in offensive efficiency, #5 in defensive efficiency and #229 in adjusted tempo. 

The UConn team that beat Butler was similar, though not as strong, as they ranked #19 in both offensive and defensive efficiency, but #221 in adjusted tempo. 

I think it's more about efficiency than anything else. Play fast or play slow, but you better be efficient on both ends. If you play fast but your defensive efficiency is terrible you're not going to win, and vice versa. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BGleas said:

I think the point though is that Virginia's offense was very far from mediocre, it was one of the best in the country evidenced by their #2 ranking in efficiency. They just played a really slow tempo which brings them down in terms of 'total rankings'. 

Again, my focus was the defensive stats. The 2 previous years, UVA was 58th in offensive efficiency and 2nd in defensive efficiency and went 31-3. Even with the upset loss to UMBC that's great. The year before that, 100th (offense) and 6th (defense) and finished 23-11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

What i am saying is its not the norm.  The norm if for a team to have an above average to high octane offense with a decent to above average defense.  With that combination, you have a shot.  Very rarely do the defensive minded only team make it very far in the tourney.  You have to be able to score points.  UVA is a rare combination of being great at defense and as mentioned, although not prolific at scoring, they are very good when they do.  They averaged 72 points a game which isn't too bad when you're the best defense in the country

Last year, Texas Tech was #1 in defensive efficiency and #77 in offensive efficiency. For several years running, including a Final Four trip the Grinch coached Wisconsin the same way. 

I get what you are saying, but there are more examples than what you might think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

Again, my focus was the defensive stats. The 2 previous years, UVA was 58th in offensive efficiency and 2nd in defensive efficiency and went 31-3. Even with the upset loss to UMBC that's great. The year before that, 100th (offense) and 6th (defense) and finished 23-11.

I gotcha. I think as UVA is a testament too, and we see it if you look at past champions,  the majority of the time you have to be efficient at both ends to win a title. They definitely improved offensively the last three years, to the point where their offensive efficiency was equal to their defensive efficiency. That's a big reason they got over the hump. 

It think a big part in that was getting to the point where Guy, Jerome and Diakite were jrs/RS jrs and Hunter was a sophomore. I know UVA made some tweaks to their offense, but it was also just a matter of guys getting older and playing together for 2-3 years in a system that had been developed over 6-7 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Steubenhoosier said:

Last year, Texas Tech was #1 in defensive efficiency and #77 in offensive efficiency. For several years running, including a Final Four trip the Grinch coached Wisconsin the same way. 

I get what you are saying, but there are more examples than what you might think

Those Wisconsin teams didn’t make the Final Four until they put top 5 offenses on the floor, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steubenhoosier said:

Last year, Texas Tech was #1 in defensive efficiency and #77 in offensive efficiency. For several years running, including a Final Four trip the Grinch coached Wisconsin the same way. 

I get what you are saying, but there are more examples than what you might think

I will agree here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FW_Hoosier said:

Those Wisconsin teams didn’t make the Final Four until they put top 5 offenses on the floor, though.

Agree with your point. 

I think the disconnect for me in this conversation is that a 'top offense' doesn't necessarily means high scoring, it means efficiency. Virginia was #185 in points per game, but they were #5 in ppp and #2 in offensive efficiency. That's an excellent offensive team IMO. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Agree with your point. 

I think the disconnect for me in this conversation is that a 'top offense' doesn't necessarily means high scoring, it means efficiency. Virginia was #185 in points per game, but they were #5 in ppp and #2 in offensive efficiency. That's an excellent offensive team IMO. 

 

Yep, they were also 7th in 3FG% and 38th in overall FG%.  They were definitely an excellent offensive team last year... However, that was a change from previous years, where they ranged from mediocre to above average.  I think the adjustments to their offensive approach put them over the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BGleas said:

I gotcha. I think as UVA is a testament too, and we see it if you look at past champions,  the majority of the time you have to be efficient at both ends to win a title. They definitely improved offensively the last three years, to the point where their offensive efficiency was equal to their defensive efficiency. That's a big reason they got over the hump. 

It think a big part in that was getting to the point where Guy, Jerome and Diakite were jrs/RS jrs and Hunter was a sophomore. I know UVA made some tweaks to their offense, but it was also just a matter of guys getting older and playing together for 2-3 years in a system that had been developed over 6-7 years. 

This is what I was thinking, that it was really the veteran team development as opposed to some change in the offensive system — I don’t really know as I am not very familiar with that team’s offensive development, but that’s my thinking based on the player development and continuity. 

It’s another example of the veteran team’s success in the tourney and regular season 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

This is what I was thinking, that it was really the veteran team development as opposed to some change in the offensive system — I don’t really know as I am not very familiar with that team’s offensive development, but that’s my thinking based on the player development and continuity. 

It’s another example of the veteran team’s success in the tourney and regular season 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.roanoke.com/z-no-digital/offseason-adjustments-gave-virginia-s-offense-more-options-production/article_d4f670ce-880a-5919-8b49-f870cb4f1135.amp.html

I read a number of articles like this after they won the title last season.  They kept the slow pace, but it sounds like they really overhauled their whole offensive approach after the UMBC loss two seasons ago.  Props to Tony Bennett — that kind of flexibility is the sign of a really good coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FW_Hoosier said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.roanoke.com/z-no-digital/offseason-adjustments-gave-virginia-s-offense-more-options-production/article_d4f670ce-880a-5919-8b49-f870cb4f1135.amp.html

I read a number of articles like this after they won the title last season.  They kept the slow pace, but it sounds like they really overhauled their whole offensive approach after the UMBC loss two seasons ago.  Props to Tony Bennett — that kind of flexibility is the sign of a really good coach.

Ah they installed a motion offense with ball screens, as in a common offense, and as the article stated the primary reason for success was their talent - but yes it makes sense they would try to change it up after losing to s 16 seed and scoring in the 50s, lol - but point taken, adjustments can be necessary 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Ah they installed a motion offense with ball screens, as in a common offense, and as the article stated the primary reason for success was their talent - but yes it makes sense they would try to change it up after losing to s 16 seed and scoring in the 50s, lol - but point taken, adjustments can be necessary 

I don’t think the offense being “common” necessarily makes it any less of a change from what they’d been doing previously (and calling it “common” may be simplifying things a bit).  But I agree that of course the primary reason any team wins a championship is its talent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FW_Hoosier said:

I don’t think the offense being “common” necessarily makes it any less of a change from what they’d been doing previously (and calling it “common” may be simplifying things a bit).  But I agree that of course the primary reason any team wins a championship is its talent. 

As the article states it’s one of the most popular concepts in college ball — it is common. The article slso stated the primary reason their o was so effective was their talent. Like I said mixing it up and adjusting can be good — and they went from a top 30 o to at much higher o. But to just talk about adjustments is to ignore everything else the article itself points out. Their players, already the primary reason for offensive success grew. With that the staff adjusted the o, after a disaster ending, to better suit certain players, a good thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually really enjoy Virginia, and think a slow pace and great defense with efficient offense is the best recipe in CBB, but let's not ignore the fact that they won their last three games on an incredible play, a blown call and a blown call(s) that arguably cost TTech the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For our 3 point shooting, the biggest thing I want to start seeing is guys being ready to shoot. We got some open looks last year, but too often when we'd kick it out, guys would have that, oh crap I need to shoot it look to them. I would say Green is really the only one who constantly looks like he wants to shoot it. Sometimes too often, but you never doubt his confidence.

I remember at least twice we ran baseline out of bounds plays to get Rob a 3 coming off a screen. You could really see his confidence when he shot. Much higher elevation, smooth shot, and splashed them. One was against Purdue I think. We need to get our guys confident enough that they don't think about the shot and just do it in rhythm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leathernecks said:

For our 3 point shooting, the biggest thing I want to start seeing is guys being ready to shoot. We got some open looks last year, but too often when we'd kick it out, guys would have that, oh crap I need to shoot it look to them. I would say Green is really the only one who constantly looks like he wants to shoot it. Sometimes too often, but you never doubt his confidence.

I remember at least twice we ran baseline out of bounds plays to get Rob a 3 coming off a screen. You could really see his confidence when he shot. Much higher elevation, smooth shot, and splashed them. One was against Purdue I think. We need to get our guys confident enough that they don't think about the shot and just do it in rhythm.

I think this goes hand in hand with my comment that we need to have our wings and guards constantly moving off screens and rubs to get to that catch and shoot spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...