MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jul 16, 2006 18:39:16 GMT -5
No, but you and others don't seem to value such an idea either since its never mentioned by those of you who think we need to replace all the three point shooting that we lost with the senior class with more three point shooting. That's how it comes across to me. I can understand that. Based on what i saw last summer I do indeed think he can knock down threes regularly. But I don't want him becoming DJ and forsaking all else for fool's gold. My report on Ewing praised his effectiveness from behind the three point line. But I showered even more praise on his mid-range game. His ability to drive and pull up for a short jumper of for a nice assist. His ability to post up and score or get a rebound for a putback. His ability to get to the hole and get fouled. His ability to run the floor like a wind during a fast break and finish unlike some of the departed seniors. The ability to hit the 10 to 14 foot jump shot. As unrealistic as it was when I saw Ewing last summer I projected him as a Pippen and Grant Hill type (without the handle). And no one ever thinks of Pippen and Hill for their three-point marksmanship. Those guys had efficient games. I'll take them over players who always settle for the three-point jumpshot when open. Just as you don't recall saying there was anything wrong with driving to the hole, I don't recall writing that there was anything wrong with taking an open three. But that should not be what Ewing looks for every time he is floating on the perimeter. He should look for the higher percentage jumpshot even more and he should even look to drive the ball and attack the basket when he is left open to. He would be too one dimensional if he settled for the long ball repeatedly when left open, especially when that's not his best offensive weapon. Hell, Iverson can hit three point shots at times when left open but his game is far more efficient when he takes the midrange pullup jumper. No, the reason why mid-range shots are dead is because of stupidity. It has been the complaint for well over a decade now that players are settling for three point attempts and that has hurt the quality of the game. In the past defenses closed out just as much on a shooter taking a midrange shot but guys still took them and made them. The difference now is that players are seduced by that extra point (more points for the team, more points for the players if they connect). A two point jump shot is not sexy; its not Sports Center worthy. And yet it is still a more practical shot. And as I pointed out earlier Ewing's height and lift keeps him from being in danger of having his shot blocked even when he's 14 feet and in. This isn't Tony Bethel who may need that extra feet of space to get his attempt off against a charging defender. This is a 6-7 to 6-8 leaper who can hang in the air a bit. Seriously, I can't even believe we are debating this.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 16, 2006 18:54:19 GMT -5
Really though, the three point line is so close that it is probably wrong most of the time to pass it up for a 15 footer - you won't score as many points that way on the average if you are any kind of shooter.
You argument that last years offensive efficiency was a mirage makes no sense - it's a fact, based on how many points we scored per possesion. Regardless of how we did it or how long it took, it happened. I know GIGA is usually too much of a homer to analyze things objectively, but I figured MCI would agree that the offense will take a hit unless we get some solid 3 point shooting out of the Sapp/Ewing/Summers/3rd guard group.
If the opposing SG and SF are constantly sagging, not only will it hurt Jeff and Roy, but it will make it harder for Sapp and Ewing to drive or get backdoor cuts. Being a good 3 point shooter makes it easier to drive to the hole or get an open midrange jumper. That doesn't mean we need to replace all the 3 point shooting we lost, but we need more than Wallace and Jeff.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 16, 2006 18:55:53 GMT -5
I have no problem with the mid-range game, but the truth is that 19' isn't that far away from 15-16 feet. If you make a significantly larger % of 15 footers, that's great. If you don't, you're giving away points.
I would love Ewing to drive more than DJ, but I have a feeling he'll drive about as much as Bowman, who I think had a good mix if too flat of a shot. If Ewing can drive the lane and draw FTs like Iverson or Wade, he'd be an idiot to settle for any jumper. But I'm not sure he'll be that good at it. I haven't seen his handle.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 16, 2006 19:07:51 GMT -5
How well did it work out for them in the end? The Mountaineers would have killed for a guy who could have drive to the hole routinely. As highly as I think of Ewing I still think when it comes to jumpers he should take the Grant Hill-Scottie Pippen approach: take the mid-range jumper. The 15 footer. With his height he will be able to get that shot off even if defenses have less of a distance to race out to reach him. This worked for Wade playing alongside Shaq. The three pointer is a low percentage shot. Guys like Wade and (Hill at one time) were more efficient by not taking too many long range bombs. What's the big deal by NOT taking a bunch of three point shots all game long. If III wanted primarily a three-point shooting team then he has recruited a lot of the wrong players. But I think (as he himself said) that he knows how to tweak the offense to fit the STRENGTH of his players rather than to fit the scheme of a particular offense. Did I say there was anything wrong with driving to the hole? Giga made a ludicrous argument that no one but Jeff and Jon should shoot ANY threes. I disagreed. Aren't you the guy who claims that Ewing has a good 3 point shot? Good enough to shoot 35%+? Then why give up the open shot, which, by the way, is worth THREE points. The reason why mid-range shots are dead is that for an extra three or four feet and probably less defensive pressure, I can get a WHOLE EXTRA POINT. And Giga, where has anyone said that the only way to attack a zone is to shoot over it, or that no one wants people to drive? YOU ARE MAKING UP COUNTERARGUMENTS. You said that Jeff and Jon should be the only ones making threes. That's just silly. No I said the following: "Jeff and Jon should shoot more threes than the rest of the team combined." That means those two should take more than half our threes. Who's making up counterarguments SF? Hibbert's career 3-pt FGAs + Ewing's career 3-pt FGAs = 7 (SEVEN!!!!) So I want two guys who are 149-398 combined over 4 years to take more threes than two guys who are 3-7 (Hibbert and Ewing), one guy who was 9-44 as a freshman, and a bench that will be Macklin, Summers, Spann(?), and one of our back-up guards. If thinking two guys who have combined for 149 made threes should take more outside shots than 6 other guys who have made a combined 20 career threes is nuts, then I'm happy to be nuts. Oh yeah and if Bowman's brilliant three-point shooting set up one throw dribble outside of Fairfield I'd be floored. The guy couldn't hit the broad side of a barn for the last two months.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jul 16, 2006 19:10:07 GMT -5
Yeah, fine. As you know you can move defenses and be as effective in scoring if the jump shots your team takes is within the three point line. You're relying on some efficiency stats and buying into the notion that the offense was one of the most effective when it can be argued that the team lost games it should have won because it seemed more interested in eating clock than it was in moving the ball quickly to get the best possible shot as fast as possible. Hey, if it takes 32 seconds before there is a good luck then its understandable. But time and time again when a good look with 25 or more seconds lef on the shot clock is passed up only to take a possibly worse shot with five or so seconds left, well, then you can throw out those pretty efficiency numbers. In those scenarios the team is limiting its opportunities and taking a greater chance by holding on to the ball more.
By the way I'm not advocating taking bad shots or bad quick shots. I'm advocating taking a good shot when the opportunity arises, regardless of how many ticks of the shot clock is left. Florida was a very efficient team too without having to milk every bit of time during possessions. I do believe the Hoyas play the right way, just too often not at the right speed. When the guys get more aggressive to go along with that offensive scheme then watch out. But until then we are winning just as much at times on slowing the game down, decreasing possessions and frustrating the other team as we are on the efficiency of our offense. And if it wasn't for Jeff's superb passing and Roy's terrific fg %, the offense of last season would have been far, far less efficient. Those two guys, especially Roy's stepped up play, were the main reason for the team being so effective. Without Roy's growth as a player last season's team is probably not much more successful than the team of III's first season as Gtown coach.
I respect efficiency. There is some truth is what the numbers say. I think I can see it and spot efficiency in a player's game. But I'm one of those who reject this geeky trend of baseball-like fascination with stats and numbers. Two mathematicians came out with a book recently that suggested during his MVP season in 2001, Iverson was the around the 280th most efficient player in the NBA. Whatever. Play with the numbers all you want but such a suggestion is nonsense to those who watched what Iverson did that season. At times there is a diference between efficiency and effectiveness in a game.
Does that sound crazy? Maybe?
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 16, 2006 19:21:40 GMT -5
Really though, the three point line is so close that it is probably wrong most of the time to pass it up for a 15 footer - you won't score as many points that way on the average if you are any kind of shooter. You argument that last years offensive efficiency was a mirage makes no sense - it's a fact, based on how many points we scored per possesion. Regardless of how we did it or how long it took, it happened. I know GIGA is usually too much of a homer to analyze things objectively, but I figured MCI would agree that the offense will take a hit unless we get some solid 3 point shooting out of the Sapp/Ewing/Summers/3rd guard group. If the opposing SG and SF are constantly sagging, not only will it hurt Jeff and Roy, but it will make it harder for Sapp and Ewing to drive or get backdoor cuts. Being a good 3 point shooter makes it easier to drive to the hole or get an open midrange jumper. That doesn't mean we need to replace all the 3 point shooting we lost, but we need more than Wallace and Jeff. Oh the attack of the objectivity police. Disagree and you're "not objective." Funny how that happens. Well then Jim Calhoun is the biggest homer ever because somehow he puts together teams that win and score efficiently without launching threes (15th in threes taken in the league). How does he do it? His teams seem to be athletic, attack the basket, and have great interior defense. I wish we had team that was tall, athletic and talented down low. We might be able to rely less on the three. Oh well, just have to settle with two lottery picks in the post, a high-flying swing guy, and a quick NYC two-guard, two blue-chip recruits at forward, and just jack threes .
|
|
tonydeals
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 325
|
Post by tonydeals on Jul 16, 2006 19:25:21 GMT -5
Great reading! Keep fighting over who should take threes...who cares as long as they go in!
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jul 16, 2006 19:35:04 GMT -5
Well then Jim Calhoun is the biggest homer ever because somehow he puts together teams that win and score efficiently without launching threes (15th in threes taken in the league). How does he do it? His teams seem to be athletic, attack the basket, and have great interior defense. Ooooh. No need to argue further. Great point.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 16, 2006 19:58:36 GMT -5
Great reading! Keep fighting over who should take threes...who cares as long as they go in! Usually arguments are too cordial on the board, so figured I'd spice things up a bit!
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 16, 2006 21:53:59 GMT -5
Well, Giga, you've mysteriously left one player off the court, since Roy+Pat+Jeff+Jon = 4 players.
Furthermore, Pat's playing time in the past isn't exactly commensurate with his expected role this year. Add in a two-guard, plus backups at 2, 3, and 1, and do you really think that? Why should anybody be paying attention to the number of shots they take if they are open.
MCI, I disagree with nothing in your post. That said, just because our offense wasn't perfect doesn't mean it wasn't very good last year.
As for the UConn argument...one, get me a PG who penetrates like Marcus Williams. Next, get me a team that plays D like them. And yet still they were at their best when Rashad Anderson was hitting and struggled when he didn't stretch the D.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 16, 2006 22:14:37 GMT -5
"So I want two guys who are 149-398 combined over 4 years to take more threes than two guys who are 3-7 (Hibbert and Ewing), one guy who was 9-44 as a freshman"
Sounds like 5. Sapp's the 9-44 if you missed it.
As for UConn, is there a reason beyond the fact that we "didn't" play D like them that we can't? Also when exactly was UConn "at its worst?" They did go 30-4 so I assume Anderson (who by the way is ONE guy, the original argument) wasn't on all the time. Must everyone have exactly Marcus Williams to play that way? What if there were a second passer on your team to break down the defense, say a really skilled power forward?
It seems like this board complained forever about not having athletic talent and now that we have athletic talent to replace some good, solid role players like Owens and Cook we don't want to change anything and are crossing our fingers someone will replace them. Here's a thought: play to your strength. I'm sure Pat's role will be different than at Indiana but Playing almost 60 games and averaging 16 minutes probably afforded him an opprtunity to get off more than 7 threes if he were really comfortable with them. Maybe he'll suddenly want to shoot threes and will hit them. But maybe he should do what he wants to do which I'm going to take a wild stab and say is "attack the rim."
|
|