Basketball Expectations

[zephyr]

Another point on this. We return exactly two whole guys (Russell, Marquetti) who shot over 35% from 3pt range. If we continue the trend of high usage from the outside, we may be in for some disappointment. That is not to say we can't have guys improve but we will have to be able to generate offense from everywhere, not just the perimeter.

Goes back to having the personnel to match the analytics. Don't think we have that next year.

[Boomer]

Well the Cajuns are hitting the threes at a very good rate. To qualify open vs contested is a straw man. Of course contested shots aren’t often the best option. It’s also a false qualifier to say open vs contested because in theory you avoid contested shots period, and being open isn’t the result of an either/or situation.

...I remember when my daughter played and would get a few offensive boards.....I would call the inside the land of the Giants.....if she went back up with an inside shot a six 2-4 girl would definitely reject it and as defenders naturally faded in our all conference guard positioned for an open 3......near the end of the year Wash was getting some rejects or being forced into bad shots inside.....probably an outside pass would get a 3 point attempt with limited defense contesting!

[zephyr]

...I remember when my daughter played and would get a few offensive boards.....I would call the inside the land of the Giants.....if she went back up with an inside shot a six 2-4 girl would definitely reject it and as defenders naturally faded in our all conference guard positioned for an open 3......near the end of the year Wash was getting some rejects or being forced into bad shots inside.....probably an outside pass would get a 3 point attempt with limited defense contesting!

Again, this is apples to oranges. Express literally said a contested 3 is better than an open mid range shot. I don't think any coach out there would support that scenario. An open 3 shot by Cedric Russel or Frank Bartley versus anything shot by Justin Miller regardless of range is preferable.

[talktomewillis]

Let's remember something.

33% from three is worth as much as 50% from two.

[zephyr]

Let's remember something.

33% from three is worth as much as 50% from two.

And lets remember that if we don't have the personnel to hit from 3, it doesn't matter. If this particular team were to shoot the number of 3's we shot last year, we won't shoot 33%. Let me ask you this, if Justin Miller had the ball would you rather him shooting a little baby hook from 6 feet in the lane or a contested 3? Remember, he's not very good at either one but he shot like 28% from 3 last year and many of those shots were wide open.

[talktomewillis]

And lets remember that if we don't have the personnel to hit from 3, it doesn't matter. If this particular team were to shoot the number of 3's we shot last year, we won't shoot 33%. Let me ask you this, if Justin Miller had the ball would you rather him shooting a little baby hook from 6 feet in the lane or a contested 3? Remember, he's not very good at either one but he shot like 28% from 3 last year and many of those shots were wide open.

I was referring to this past season. There was a debate about the shooting from a year ago and it seemed as though some suggested 45-50% mid range was better than 33% from three.

It isn't.

[Cajunsmike]

I was referring to this past season. There was a debate about the shooting from a year ago and it seemed as though some suggested 45-50% mid range was better than 33% from three.

It isn't.

Simple math says you have to be above 50% from two to better 33% from three. However percentage on "contested" threes is likely to be well below thirty percent. I would always take an open three vs an open mid range shot (8 to 18 feet is the way I define it). In today's game however, coaches are adjusting and running guys off the three point line. You have to adjust accordingly.

[CajunAmos]

A nice article on the subject.

https://www.rockchalktalk.com/2016/2...ll-selfs-teams

[Turbine]

Let's remember something.

33% from three is worth as much as 50% from two.

Almost.

If two teams shot 100 times each, the 50% two-point shooting team will win 100-99

Simple math says you have to be above 50% from two to better 33% from three.

Not so simple math says you got it backwards.

[Ragin4U]

A nice article on the subject.

https://www.rockchalktalk.com/2016/2...ll-selfs-teams

The article touches two basic truths that the debate between 2 and 3 point value leaves out. Defense and rebounding.
Shorter shots=shorter rebounds which should equal more offensive rebounds but shooting more 3's creates more space for the defense to defend. Do those things cancel and we are left with "shoot more 3s"?