|
Post by professorhoya on Apr 9, 2024 19:15:55 GMT -5
This was the obvious play and very well executed. Purdue had no answer. This really shows that while big men can still be valuable in the college game, there are also inherent limitations. A team cannot win by trading twos for threes. That said, Purdue was obviously a great basketball team, and Edey was a huge part of their success. Really good big men can still be really valuable in the college game, though. I do wonder what Edey's efficiency numbers look like on types of shots though. For example, what is his efficiency on post ups? I imagine not great, though probably very good simply because he's a great player and is also bigger than most of his opponents. I believe there is a stat service out there that gives those types of stats, but I do not have access to it. Are you just conveniently forgetting that UConn also has a very good traditional big man in Clingan that was able to somewhat neutralize Edey. Something DJ Burns, Middlebrook and Diarra could not do. The narrative you are spinning doesn’t work
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,208
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyarooter on Apr 9, 2024 19:42:01 GMT -5
But UCONN only made 6 threes. So it's not like Purdue was trading 2s for 3s. That's why people need to watch the games and not just look at statistics. UCONN had a phenomenal gameplan. They decided to not let anybody but Edey beat them, knowing they could use Clingan and Johnson to wear down Edey over 40 minutes and that by not allowing 3s, it would be next to impossible for Edey to win the game by himself. And UCONN was correct. I was surprised not to see Painter adjust more, and he's an excellent coach. He just kept dumping it down to Edey, seemed like he fell in love with the idea of Clingan/Johnson getting into foul trouble. But the problem for Painter was, by the time those two UCONN centers got into foul trouble, the game was already over. But Purdue only made 1 three. Maybe "people" should look at the math before they start criticizing. Purdue was 1-7 from three point range. They scored 3 points from three point range. Connecticut went 6-22. They scored 18 points from three point range. 18 minus 3 is 15. In this instance, that happens to be Connecticut's winning margin. You think it mattered, perhaps? I realize that part of the 1-7 was Connecticut's strategy and great defense, of course. Purdue had to counteract that strategy, but they did not. Perhaps they couldn't because Connecticut is too good. But, instead, Purdue chose to shoot mostly twos, even though they are one of the best three point shooting teams in the country. Connecticut shutting that down essentially turned them into a two-point only team. It's hard to win that way--which was my point. I really don't think this argument holds water. First, they said on the broadcast that Purdue was the best three point shooting team in the country, probably because teams attempted to neutralize Edey and left the shooters open. UConn refused to do that and played great defense, but the reason I question your argument is that UConn attempted 15 more 3's than Purdue. Sure they made five more, but if Purdue (other than Edey) could have made any shots inside the arc (and I presume they must have taken more 2's than UConn), it would have been a much closer game. UConn is just a great defensive team and deserves full credit. But just suppose that for the 15 3's Purdue didn't take, they had made six more 2's. We have a very different game.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,379
|
Post by drquigley on Apr 9, 2024 20:00:09 GMT -5
But Purdue only made 1 three. Maybe "people" should look at the math before they start criticizing. Purdue was 1-7 from three point range. They scored 3 points from three point range. Connecticut went 6-22. They scored 18 points from three point range. 18 minus 3 is 15. In this instance, that happens to be Connecticut's winning margin. You think it mattered, perhaps? I realize that part of the 1-7 was Connecticut's strategy and great defense, of course. Purdue had to counteract that strategy, but they did not. Perhaps they couldn't because Connecticut is too good. But, instead, Purdue chose to shoot mostly twos, even though they are one of the best three point shooting teams in the country. Connecticut shutting that down essentially turned them into a two-point only team. It's hard to win that way--which was my point. I really don't think this argument holds water. First, they said on the broadcast that Purdue was the best three point shooting team in the country, probably because teams attempted to neutralize Edey and left the shooters open. UConn refused to do that and played great defense, but the reason I question your argument is that UConn attempted 15 more 3's than Purdue. Sure they made five more, but if Purdue (other than Edey) could have made any shots inside the arc (and I presume they must have taken more 2's than UConn), it would have been a much closer game. UConn is just a great defensive team and deserves full credit. But just suppose that for the 15 3's Purdue didn't take, they had made six more 2's. We have a very different game. It wasn't that Purdue didn't want to take ore than 7 threes but that UConn kept them from doing so. The Purdue coach said after the game that every time a guy who could shoot threes got the ball there was a UConn guy in his shorts. Hurley also said afterwards that that was the plan. Let Ebey get hos 30 but don't let Purdue shoot threes. There was no way in this game that Purdue would be able to take 15 more threes.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Apr 9, 2024 21:14:18 GMT -5
But Purdue only made 1 three. Maybe "people" should look at the math before they start criticizing. Purdue was 1-7 from three point range. They scored 3 points from three point range. Connecticut went 6-22. They scored 18 points from three point range. 18 minus 3 is 15. In this instance, that happens to be Connecticut's winning margin. You think it mattered, perhaps? I realize that part of the 1-7 was Connecticut's strategy and great defense, of course. Purdue had to counteract that strategy, but they did not. Perhaps they couldn't because Connecticut is too good. But, instead, Purdue chose to shoot mostly twos, even though they are one of the best three point shooting teams in the country. Connecticut shutting that down essentially turned them into a two-point only team. It's hard to win that way--which was my point. I really don't think this argument holds water. First, they said on the broadcast that Purdue was the best three point shooting team in the country, probably because teams attempted to neutralize Edey and left the shooters open. UConn refused to do that and played great defense, but the reason I question your argument is that UConn attempted 15 more 3's than Purdue. Sure they made five more, but if Purdue (other than Edey) could have made any shots inside the arc (and I presume they must have taken more 2's than UConn), it would have been a much closer game. UConn is just a great defensive team and deserves full credit. But just suppose that for the 15 3's Purdue didn't take, they had made six more 2's. We have a very different game. It was a great strategy but they were only able to employ it because they had 7-2 280 lbs Donovan Clingan who has strength/size and athleticism. If you have someone like 6-10 240 lbs Middlebrooks (to small) of NC State, 6-10 210 lbs Diarra (too skinny) and 6-9 275 lbs (too slow and short) DJ Burns that stratega just doesn’t work because Zack will easily score, get the orb or get fouled. Samson had five fouls in five minutes for UConn. The strategy only works cause you have Clingan. Perdue actually was able to also neutralize UConns 3 or specialists. Spencer was limited to 4 threes and only made one and Karaban was 1-6. Their 3 pt marksmen were a combined 2-10 or 20 percent. These guys usually shoot 38% and 44% from three. But the game was really lost on Purdues inability to box out and give up offensive rebounds. 14 offensive rebounds for UConn, 12 when the game really mattered. That and Perdue couldn’t get anything in transition. The length, athleticism and size of the UConn wings (with the exception of cam spencer) prevented fast breaks from happening or being successfully finished. Even with the trading 2 for 3s they would have been. In the game like they were in the first half if they had taken care of the defensive boards and transition.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,541
|
Post by DanMcQ on Apr 10, 2024 20:42:53 GMT -5
Big East NCAA payouts
|
|