I guess the most classic example of my point would be of Houston in the playoffs this year. Did you see how they missed like 20 something of them in a row when if they'd have done practically anything other than that they could have gave GS more of a scare than they did. There's a legit argument to be made they should have beaten them but that old adage still applies. Live by the 3 and you can die by it too. Well Houston killed themselves with it. So you can win some games doing nothing but jacking them up at unprecedented rates sure. But its a gimmicky thing that can also make you look terrible when you lose trying it. I don't think Fran would fully advocate to the Mike Dantoni way of it. And Fran is a fairly free wheeling offensive coach. There's a certain balance to what you want to do offensively that puts the other teams on their toes. When you can post up guys occasionally and have a penetrating guard that can create or finish along with guys that can just flat out shoot it then your cooking with bacon.... If your going to be a one trick pony you better have one hell of a trick
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PEMSL
- Thread starter BILLYBOBSTEXAS
- Start date
What is your definition of "worth it"? You do realize that if you shoot the three at 33% (which generally is considered a poor three point shooting) then you are scoring points at the same rate as 49% from inside the three. And you do realize that 49.3% would put us nationally ranked at the worst at #12 in FG% and be at worst #3 in the Big 10. (Mich St at #8 - 49.6% and Purdue at #11 - 49.3%)
That outlook is a bit short-sighted, though. Shots around the rime result in FTs at a much higher rate than 3-pt FGAs, as well as better opportunities for ORBs and 2nd-chance points. So it is not quite as simple as 33%*3 > 49%*2.