homes
Well-Known Member
Huh. Doesn't make it any less inexcusable. His dismal free throw shooting cost Wisconsin the Iowa game. He's a good player; he'd be better if he was a better free throw shooter.
42% from the line
- Thread starter pekurhawk
- Start date
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
You just brought up one of the biggest problems about youth basketball. Very few kids can shoot well. The main reason is playing on standard height rims. To get the ball up, very bad habits are formed. Imagine as an adult playing on a 13 to 15 foot high rim. Completely different form to shoot.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
This is such a non starter for me. With who shot the free throws based on season averages we should have made roughly 12/19 instead of 8/19.
The only reason we were even in the game is because we were 16/30 on 3s, which is ridiculously good.
The only reason we needed to shoot that well to stay in the game is because of the turnovers and terrible defense. Turnovers and bad defense cost us this game.
The only reason we were even in the game is because we were 16/30 on 3s, which is ridiculously good.
The only reason we needed to shoot that well to stay in the game is because of the turnovers and terrible defense. Turnovers and bad defense cost us this game.
I agree. There are obviously going to be games where you shoot below your average. This was one of those games. I still say the crowd is stupid for groaning and getting into their heads even more.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
This is where you are wrong ....again. These guys live and breath basketball. Shooting doesn't happen in random occurrence. Most of the time a good or bad shooting night is dependent on what the other team is doing. The guys shooting 3s can knock them down 70% plus in Carver. When they have a bad game, the D is doing something that bothers them. The reason that Iowa shot like that is because TCU is terrible at D. Just like their opponent.
Did Jok or Bohannon even shoot an open 3 the whole game? Other than the 30 footer Bohannon made at the end?
Robowe
Well-Known Member
Actually, there have been many studies on the randomness of three point shooting and how much effect a defense can have. Here's one from kenpom:
http://kenpom.com/blog/offense-vs-defense-3point-percentage/
One thing that has been ignored in this analysis to date is the influence of luck or random variance, call it what you will. On a game level, there’s a lot of random variance in three-point shooting. So this result is not to say that a coach should pile up good shooters expecting to make a bulletproof offense. It’s simply that a good three-point offense will beat a good three-point defense over the long term. The offense controls most of what can be controlled, but randomness is a huge specter that looms over three-point shooting on a game level. Controlling for attempts, free throw shooting is most predictable, followed by two-point shooting, which is followed by three-point shooting.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
To be fair, they weren't brought in for home attendance, they were brought in for the number of asses--and I'm sure the number is considerable, given their location/market--parked in front of the large number of TV sets in the region (whether said TVs were acquired "legitimately" or not is immaterial to B1G/BTN honchos).
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but it sorta takes the dunk out of the equation...
Adam
Well-Known Member
OMG! I completely agree. Rims should be 7ft until 12 years of age. Boys and girls. Bam Bam doesn't make kids hit off of a full size tee. A lot of the good shooters had the luxury of practicing on home hoops or nice school facilities where the rims are able to be lowered. Definitely aids in the early development of correct muscle memory.
I've always thought along those lines too. If guys like Bohannon and Jok can get a shot off without getting blocked, it really doesn't matter much how close the defender is. Our main problem is how many attempt we give up.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
It was bound to happen one day.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
Can't argue with that. There is the human factor. What is not easily accounted for is what the shooter gets disrupted by. For me, I don't mind contact when shooting. Actually it raises my Adrenalin which helps. Make me jump higher...better. Take away my feet and I can miss the back board.
These shooters though spend so much time shooting, they have it down. I would still stand and say that anyone who shoots multiple 3s can easily shoot and make open shots at least 75% of the time with no one around them and no pressure. Though the O creates things, the D presents the emotional and physical barrier for most of the time.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
It's not necessarily a matter of being open. Some shooters enjoy the contact. Others shoot better when forced to put more arch on it. Some get completely destroyed when a defender takes away their feet on landing. For others it's the fingers of the defender into the rib cage that distracts them... Both of those situations are rarely called.
Robowe
Well-Known Member
Agreed somewhat. This link is a bit old (2012) but talks about what the defense can try to do - limit the attempts.
http://www.si.com/more-sports/2012/05/14/defending-three
Should coaches instruct their defenders to take the three away altogether, merely try to contest it, or goad their opponent into settling for long-distance attempts? And how should coaches digest the findings of Ken Pomeroy, who concluded this February that defenses, when examined in aggregate across Division I, don't have much control over their opponents' three-point percentage -- and that opponents have a certain situational threshold for deciding when to take a three, and after that, it's like playing a lottery? I imagine that control-freak coaches get worried by Pomeroy's data on the unpredictability of three-point percentages.
What Pomeroy believes -- we talked about this at length last week, to stave off offseason boredom -- is that the best three-point strategy, and the one a defense actually has a lot of control over, is to limit an opponent's overall number of attempts. Especially if you're the favored team. The fewer entries you allow an opponent to have in the lottery, he says, the less likely you are to get burned by an upset.
Adam
Well-Known Member
Only MSU and Ohio St can get away with having a hand on a 3pt shooter in the B1G. The NBA has proven that face guarding is the most effective method for limiting 3pt attempts and subsequent 3pt %. Cut off the shooters eyes sight of the rim and interior passing lanes and you will disrupt their entire output. It is of course easier said then done. It requires exceptional defensive awareness to stick to a shooter to even be in position to effectively face guard. It is not something that freshman are usually capable of. However I know for a fact that Fran and staff do teach the technique. You will also notice players like Clemmons, White, Uthoff, Marble all got quite good at it. We didnt have a player this season capable of this technique. Mostly because Jok as the only senior was not a good perimeter defender. He just never appeared to have the agility to accomplish it. Uhl didnt develope on schedule and Baer was a season of play away. I expect that Baer will be our lock down defender next season. I also think Uhl and Williams could surprise and take that developmental step still. Moss and Ellingson are dark horse candidates. Ultimately we need 1 lock down defender, but if we could get 2 or 3 like previous years we could end up taking a huge step defensively next season.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
As long as that lock down guy is the point of the D.
Adam
Well-Known Member
Well that's what a zone is for. You can move your best defender around based on who from the opposing team you want to impact. I too would love to be able to keep Baer around and protecting the rim, but unless a guard steps up so we don't need Baer on the perimeter I think that's where we see him next year. Just my 2 cents.
docholihawk
Well-Known Member
I think part of our defensive rebounding problem is we always want to run. Fran needs to get a couple of our bigs to stay and commit to securing the ball first. If everybody wants to run it leads to missing rebounds when you rake a half step away from the basket.
Adam
Well-Known Member
I think he did already. I don't forsee Garza sprinting the floor with Cook.
