Ken Pomeroy Blog item on 3 pt production

[SFHoya99]

and its inherent inconsistency. He's absolutely right, and I'd extend it to all forms of jump shooting.

That said, I still maintain that for a team that obstensibly has less talent, inconsistency is preferred to consistency.

kenpom.typepad.com/

kenpom.com/stats.php?s=14

[TBird41]

I must have missed your earlier argument SF, but why is it better for a lesser talented team to choose inconsistency over consistency? Is it b/c they aren't likely to get the consistently made shots (layups+dunks) against more talented teams?

[SFHoya99]

I had big thread before the Pitt game on why taking a lot of threes was good for us right now (and was somewhat vindicated). My main argument was simply that if you can't get a high percentage two, a low percentage three was better than a low percentage two. And since we are shooting better than a low percentage from three, we aren't taking too many.

I did admit that a three-based offense was more inconsistent, but argued that since our team was not going to be favored much, inconsistency is okay.

Any time you are the lesser team in anything, it is better to be erratic, because teams are not evaluated in margin of victory, but wins and losses.

Think of a team's results on a scale of 1-10 where a 10 performance is the best.

Let's say GU is a 7 on average. And in the BE, most teams are 8's, 9's and maybe a 10 or so.

If GU is consistent, maybe we play like a 6-8 (average of 7).

And let's say that Syracuse is a 9, and is also consistent -- 8 to 10.

There are nine possible combinations of those two -- and only one the 8 v 8 matchup that could really yield a GU win.

But let's say we're inconsistent: we range from from 4-10.

There are then 21 possibilities, and in six of them, we are tied or better.

So being inconsistent gives us a 2 in 7 chance of being in the game/winning, and being inconsistent gives you a 1 in 9 chance.

Basically, if you are a favorite most of the time, consistency is good.

If you are an underdog most of the time, inconsistency will favor you, because who cares how much you lose by?

(OTOH, the best solution is a balanced offense where you hit threes well AND do the dirty work inside).

[hoyadrummer]

To put it another way, would you make the following trade:

Our approximately 20 close losses over the past few years for 10 close wins and 10 blowout losses?

I know I would.

[TBird41]

Thanks SF-that's pretty much what I thought-and I agree w/ you on all of it-the three gives us a shot to win right now, b/c we can't play straight up w/ the more talented teams yet.

[SFHoya99]

As an aside, I also think that GU has vastly underused the 3 over time. It's a nice weapon.

[the_way]

SFHoya99 said:

I had big thread before the Pitt game on why taking a lot of threes was good for us right now (and was somewhat vindicated). My main argument was simply that if you can't get a high percentage two, a low percentage three was better than a low percentage two. And since we are shooting better than a low percentage from three, we aren't taking too many.

I did admit that a three-based offense was more inconsistent, but argued that since our team was not going to be favored much, inconsistency is okay.

Any time you are the lesser team in anything, it is better to be erratic, because teams are not evaluated in margin of victory, but wins and losses.

Think of a team's results on a scale of 1-10 where a 10 performance is the best.

Let's say GU is a 7 on average. And in the BE, most teams are 8's, 9's and maybe a 10 or so.

If GU is consistent, maybe we play like a 6-8 (average of 7).

And let's say that Syracuse is a 9, and is also consistent -- 8 to 10.

There are nine possible combinations of those two -- and only one the 8 v 8 matchup that could really yield a GU win.

But let's say we're inconsistent: we range from from 4-10.

There are then 21 possibilities, and in six of them, we are tied or better.

So being inconsistent gives us a 2 in 7 chance of being in the game/winning, and being inconsistent gives you a 1 in 9 chance.

Basically, if you are a favorite most of the time, consistency is good.

If you are an underdog most of the time, inconsistency will favor you, because who cares how much you lose by?

(OTOH, the best solution is a balanced offense where you hit threes well AND do the dirty work inside).

SFHoya99. I like you. You provide great insight on this board. Don't take this wrong way, but, with what you just described, eh, I don't think you will be a Division I head or assistant basketball coach anytime soon. Don't quit your day job. ;D

[SFHoya99]

I could never be a coach. Simply don't know enough about actually playing.

However, despite common thought, being a top level player really doesn't help much with analysis.

That said, drummer explained it much better in about six words.

[SaxaCD]

He might never be a coach with that analysis, but he could certainly be a bookie!!! And that generally pays better, anyway.

[hoyarooter]

SFHoya99 said:

As an aside, I also think that GU has vastly underused the 3 over time. It's a nice weapon.

I concur! With some of the abysmal shooting teams we have had in the past (including Coach E's best shooting team ever last season), it would have been just as easy to miss a wild 3 point shot as a wild 2 point shot!