Gatens is shooting 29% from 3 since traveling to The Barn

[SteveGarvey]

Gatens was a decent 3 pt shooter the first 2 seasons....not this year tho and it has really hurt this team. He now is even missing ft's. If he doesn't turn things around, Fran will have to significantly reduce his minutes next year since 3 pt and ft shooting was his forte. He doesn't bring much else to the table, imo. I appreciate his hanging in there when others left, but this is about winning vs. losing and the health of the Iowa bball program. Fran/Iowa shouldn't have to overcome keeping Archie around for another year and having to play Gatens as additional impediments to progress for the program.

I agree, the sooner Lick's players are turned over, the better.

He was 5 for 6 from the line last night. Give him a break on the FT shooting

 

[JHHawk]

He was 5 for 6 from the line last night. Give him a break on the FT shooting

Matt is only at 87% for the year,and has missed 9 free throws this year....clearly grounds for dismissal.

 

[storminspank]

I know you are probably not trying to single out Matt,and he has shot poorly for him the last 13 games,but the end result of your simply pointing out the facts is a thread full of comments ripping on Matt. So,maybe you could have mentioned this important fact in the opening comment?

I know some will call me a defender of Matt,and I am guilty as charged.
He is not shooting well,and I am surprised,but I still think he is giving it his full effort,and solid defense as Fran has pointed out and still have faith he will have a good senior campaign if he stays healthy.


Last year was easier,because we blamed the coach,who is being paid millions of dollars. That is always my preference...blame the guys getting paid. This year? Still a honeymoon for Fran...who I like. So that leaves the players...unfortunately. Circular firing squad...reload!

I basically posted the message, backed with stats, to show that Matt is slumping right now. I agree with putting blame on the coaches when it's their blame. I am also try not to rip on a player, "oh he's worthless, oh that guys sucks, etc..." But I do think you can look at what a player is doing and try to figure out why a person is struggling, why a team is struggling. It's ok to say, you know maybe this guy needs to shoot less or maybe this guy needs to sit more. That's all this thread was meant to do. You bring up blaming coaches, but you cannot blame Fran when Matt misses wide open trey after wide open trey... a shot that Gatens used to make.

 

[Mac50702]

Gatens is a good shooter for us when we dont need him. If we were up by 10 he would be hitting all of his unnecessary 3s, but since we were down and we needed him he couldnt hit anything. I think this is more of a mental and confidence issue with Matt.

 

[DuffMan]

Gatens is a good shooter for us when we dont need him. If we were up by 10 he would be hitting all of his unnecessary 3s, but since we were down and we needed him he couldnt hit anything. I think this is more of a mental and confidence issue with Matt.

This is a bad argument. Things like this get way overblown (much like the Jeter vs Arod in the clutch thing). Not to metnion I could probably count on one hand the number of times Matt has made a three when we are up ten, mainly becuase we are never up ten.

 

[EddyP]

If Eddy agrees with me I need to rethink my position.

Don't be so hard on yourself. Just because you are wrong in politics and most officiating calls doesn't mean you can't occasionally be right....errr correct.

 

[ICbornNraised]

This is a bad argument. Things like this get way overblown (much like the Jeter vs Arod in the clutch thing). Not to metnion I could probably count on one hand the number of times Matt has made a three when we are up ten, mainly becuase we are never up ten.

It's not a bad argument at all IMO. I think its exactly what is going on. It's mental. I bet he drains 3's all practice long, and that's why Fran keeps going to him in big situations. When he misses, he loses all his confidence.

Question. Is Gatens any better after losing that weight?

 

[tm3308]

This is a bad argument. Things like this get way overblown (much like the Jeter vs Arod in the clutch thing). Not to metnion I could probably count on one hand the number of times Matt has made a three when we are up ten, mainly becuase we are never up ten.

He makes them when it doesn't matter. We may be down 10 points in the first half, but he'll hit those at a good clip, because there isn't nearly as much pressure at that stage of the game. But when it gets down to crunch time, he's really struggled.

 

[ICHAWK]

Question. Is Gatens any better after losing that weight?

That article/response to the article was a complete joke. There were people on this board thinking Gatens was going to be putting up like 20 points a game and dunking on people. Sometimes Fran blows a little smoke to give his players some confidence. Maybe Fran was still trying to feel out the fan base and wanted to stay as positive as possible. Now I do believe Fran when he talks about guys he recruited though... ie... Basabe, Cartwright, White, Ogelsby. I live close enough to have seen Ogelsby play but never made the effort, kind of wish I did to see what type of athleticism/lenght/shot he has.

I saw Matt play at the high school level when he was lighter and he was not dunking at will like Fran made it sound. Matt can dunk in a practice situation when there is no one challenging the rim of course. He rarely dunks later in games when his legs are more tired at that.

Gatens still does not elevate well at all.

I think Gatens has been taking it to the lane better this year than last. Hard to say if that is weight related of offensive scheme related.

I think Matt's defense has improved some from last year. I would bet shedding a few extra pounds did help his lateral quickness some. He is not a great defender but he is a bit better at keeping guys somewhat in front of him.

 

[mbchawk]

Duff...in his freshman season, Gatens shot 40% from 3 pt land and 94 % from the line. Also, 29 % from 3 pt land as Storm pointed out isn't even close to his avg last season and shooting so poorly from 3 pt land has been devastating to this team during that same time period.

 

[JHHawk]

Duff...in his freshman season, Gatens shot 40% from 3 pt land and 94 % from the line. Also, 29 % from 3 pt land as Storm pointed out isn't even close to his avg last season and shooting so poorly from 3 pt land has been devastating to this team during that same time period.

Gatens shot 32% from the arc last year.
Gatens is shooting 33% from the arc this year.

He is shooting slightly better this year than last. So you are wrong.

 

[tm3308]

Gatens shot 32% from the arc last year.
Gatens is shooting 33% from the arc this year.

He is shooting slightly better this year than last. So you are wrong.

He's talking about the stretch since the Minnesota game at the Barn. His shooting HAS been hurting us big time since then.

 

[Section136]

He makes them when it doesn't matter.

They are worth 3 points when there is 15 minutes left in the first half and they are worth 3 points when there is 45 seconds left in the game.

 

[storminspank]

Gatens shot 32% from the arc last year.
Gatens is shooting 33% from the arc this year.

He is shooting slightly better this year than last. So you are wrong.

He shot 32.8 last year, and he is shooting 32.9 this year. Semantics.

Shooting 32% or 33% from the 3 pt line is bad in college basketball. You need to be around the 40% for the volume Matt is shooting.

 

[DuffMan]

He shot 32.8 last year, and he is shooting 32.9 this year. Semantics.

Shooting 32% or 33% from the 3 pt line is bad in college basketball. You need to be around the 40% for the volume Matt is shooting.

In all honesty that isn't necessarily the case. It really depends on what your team overall shoots from the floor. If you factor out all of Iowa's 3 point shots they are as a team shooting about 49% from the floor. Shooting 33% from behind the arc calculates to an effective FG% of 49%.

Obviously I'd take a higher percentage but 33% is right around the break even mark.

The real problem isn't that Matt is shooting 33% from behind the arc, it's that he's our leading 3 point shooter and he's only shooting a mediocre percentage.

 

[storminspank]

In all honesty that isn't necessarily the case. It really depends on what your team overall shoots from the floor. If you factor out all of Iowa's 3 point shots they are as a team shooting about 49% from the floor. Shooting 33% from behind the arc calculates to an effective FG% of 49%.

Obviously I'd take a higher percentage but 33% is right around the break even mark.

The real problem isn't that Matt is shooting 33% from behind the arc, it's that he's our leading 3 point shooter and he's only shooting a mediocre percentage.

You are making my point. At the volume of shots Matt attempts, shooting 32.9% isn't good enough. It's just the fact of BB. Especially with the shooting woes of the teams as a whole.

 

[DuffMan]

You are making my point. At the volume of shots Matt attempts, shooting 32.9% isn't good enough. It's just the fact of BB. Especially with the shooting woes of the teams as a whole.

I'm not making your point. The reality is Matt shooting 33% from 3 is neither helping nor hurting our team to any large degree.

Would I like to see him shoot higher? Of course, but the reality is he is shooting from 3 at the exact same percentage our team is shooting from 2.

In other words if on all of Matts 3 point attmepts he had passed the ball off to someone else to shoot the net result would be exactly the same.

 

[storminspank]

I'm not making your point. The reality is Matt shooting 33% from 3 is neither helping nor hurting our team to any large degree.

Would I like to see him shoot higher? Of course, but the reality is he is shooting from 3 at the exact same percentage our team is shooting from 2.

In other words if on all of Matts 3 point attmepts he had passed the ball off to someone else to shoot the net result would be exactly the same.

It's actually hurting Iowa.
When he misses, it's a turnover, as Iowa rarely if ever gets an offensive board from that miss.

If the ball goes to Jarryd or Basabe and they get a 2 pt FG, that's a net gain.

Or if Matt is shooting 40 or 42%, the volume he takes would certainly be a welcome sight.

 

[DuffMan]

It's actually hurting Iowa.
When he misses, it's a turnover, as Iowa rarely if ever gets an offensive board from that miss.

If the ball goes to Jarryd or Basabe and they get a 2 pt FG, that's a net gain.

Or if Matt is shooting 40 or 42%, the volume he takes would certainly be a welcome sight.

Again it's NOT hurting Iowa.

If Matt shoots a 3 it goes in 33% of the time, for an equivilent FG% of 49%. If Matt passes to a teamate who takes a 2 point fg it goes in 49% of the time.

Statistically there is no net gain or loss in that situation. If Matt takes 100 3 pointers in a game and shoots 33% we score 99 points.

If the rest of the team takes 100 2 point shots and shoots 49% we score 98 points.

I agree that ideally you would like to see your best shooters in the 37%+ range. Once you get above 35% you really start to see major benefits of the 3 point line, but you don't start seeing negative overall impacts until the 3PT% falls below that 32-33% mark.

 

[storminspank]

The odds of an offensive rebounds is > on a missed 2 ptr than a missed 3 ptr though. With the shooting troubles, this is how Iowa was able to score early on in the year, they crashed the O boards.

I get what you are saying and agree with where you are going with it in regards to eFG%.