Originally Posted by sabo2
Of the 200 minutes in a game, UD's freshman played 91 minutes. Penn took 13 more free throws and shot 55% for the game. Given all that, it was anyone's game going into the 4 minute mark. In those final minutes, we missed easy shots and had critical turnovers. Therefore, game over.
The first poster posited that 1. AG's defense is based upon giving up the three pointer and 2. that defense doesn't affect the % of threes made just the number of attempts. I believe that AG would take strong exception to the first supposition. No coach wants to give an uncontested shot of any kind. On the second point, the poster might be statistically correct. However, any player knows that a contested three is much harder to make. An uncontested three is simply a long free throw with feet planted and shoulders squared up.
In a zone uncontested threes lead to uncontested layups. Our zone is weak but it is , right now, our best option. Freshman become sophomores. Lets enjoy the ride.
|
AG's zone and AM's man to man are designed to prevent 2s, and give up contested 3s. Don't think AG would disagree with that and I know AM would definitely not disagree as part of his pack-line philosophy. Playing basketball I would agree contested shots materially harder, but that is the beauty of science. Tens of thousands of games and hundreds of thousands college 3 point shots show defense does not make much difference on 3 point %. Defense can materially change the amount of 3s a team attempts, but has a small and insignificant change in the % made. Huge sample size shows this.
Would love someone to actually read the blogs amd data and then refute it. There are some counter-arguments, but I personally believe ancedotes less and less. The science of sports has quickly trashed a lot of conventional wisdom.
Posted via Mobile Device
