3pt shooting

[Eurostar]

At the beginning of this season, our perceived lack of 3pt shooting was a huge issue. I think one of the lost stories of this year is how much better our guys are at shooting the long ball than we thought. Here are the stats on this year vs. last year:

Wallace: 48.1%
Green: 42%
Summers: 35.6%
Sapp: 31.9%
Ewing: 52.9%
Crawford: 38.7%
Overall: 37.7% with 6.6 made per game

Cook: 43.7%
Wallace: 40.8%
Owens: 37.9%
Green: 31.5%
Bowman: 28.6%
Overall: 35.5% with 6.8 made per game

[ExcitableBoy]

Good point Eurostar. Two things in particular stand out:
1. Wallace & Green have improved a lot. Green had what most would consider an off year last year (if those exist) but 42% from 3 is pretty oustanding for a 6-8 guy who plays 'forward'
2. The Ewing-Sapp-Crawford trio has filled the three point void left by Cook-Owens-Bowman about as well as we could have hoped.

[prhoya]

Slightly better as a team... good jump for JW and great for JG (knock on wood!!!!)... great work over the summer, guys...

As for the team stat, last year we were hot and cold from the 3s. We shot too many hurried 3s when the shot clock was about to expire. This year we're looking for (and creating) better shots, although once or twice per game we run the clock out or throw up a hurried one. Congrats overall! Great news for next year with another season under the belt for this group and the recruits coming in...

[SFHoya99]

One other note...

Egerson's departure took his three point shot out of the rotation. Rivers is a worse three-point shooter, but he's not shooting at nearly the rate Egerson was.

I wonder if it is any coincidence that since then the offense has gotten even better but the defense has slipped a bit?

[GIGAFAN99]

sfhoya99 said:

One other note...

Egerson's departure took his three point shot out of the rotation. Rivers is a worse three-point shooter, but he's not shooting at nearly the rate Egerson was.

I wonder if it is any coincidence that since then the offense has gotten even better but the defense has slipped a bit?

Has the defense slipped? Teams are shooting exactly the same from deep in-conference as they did OOC (31%). But they're shooting better from two (42.4% versus 38.2%) but we're playing better teams now.

We were forcing 13.6 tos per game. In conference, we're at 12.6.

Given that we're playing better opponents consistently in-conference I think our defense hasn't lost much of anything.

[SFHoya99]

In terms of Pomeroy's defensive efficiency, something has slipped. After Notre Dame and Villanova, we were at our peak -- ranked in the 20s. Since then, we've slipped to 42nd. Some of that is the hot shooting of Pitt and Cincy, but we haven't had a really great defensive game in a while. Part of that may be that we haven't needed one except against Pitt.

[GIGAFAN99]

sfhoya99 said:

In terms of Pomeroy's defensive efficiency, something has slipped. After Notre Dame and Villanova, we were at our peak -- ranked in the 20s. Since then, we've slipped to 42nd. Some of that is the hot shooting of Pitt and Cincy, but we haven't had a really great defensive game in a while. Part of that may be that we haven't needed one except against Pitt.

No I know Pomeroy slipped but this is where Pomeroy kind of fails to capture everything. I mean it can be argued our best defensive game of the season was without Egerson (Notre Dame) where we put a very good offensive team in absolute lockdown.

Pitt and Cincy were kind of run and gun, open jump shot, not much defense sort of games. I don't believe our offensive efficiency is as good as those games anymore than I believe our defense is that bad. Pom only adjusts for pace and not style of play. I think you can argue that those games both sides were conceding more looks and looking to outscore the opponent.

Functionally though, our defense on a regular night looks about the same. That's all I'm saying.

[Dhall]

I think it's tough to argue that we are playing better teams in conference. Rutgers, Seton Hall, Depaul and Cincinnati are atrocious. Nova, ND and Pitt are obviously better but on balance I'd say our OOC and BE schedules are about on par with each other so far.

[Cambridge]

gigafan99 said:

sfhoya99 said:

In terms of Pomeroy's defensive efficiency, something has slipped. After Notre Dame and Villanova, we were at our peak -- ranked in the 20s. Since then, we've slipped to 42nd. Some of that is the hot shooting of Pitt and Cincy, but we haven't had a really great defensive game in a while. Part of that may be that we haven't needed one except against Pitt.

No I know Pomeroy slipped but this is where Pomeroy kind of fails to capture everything. I mean it can be argued our best defensive game of the season was without Egerson (Notre Dame) where we put a very good offensive team in absolute lockdown.

Pitt and Cincy were kind of run and gun, open jump shot, not much defense sort of games. I don't believe our offensive efficiency is as good as those games anymore than I believe our defense is that bad. Pom only adjusts for pace and not style of play. I think you can argue that those games both sides were conceding more looks and looking to outscore the opponent.

Functionally though, our defense on a regular night looks about the same. That's all I'm saying.

Pomeroy has raw and adjusted numbers. The adjusted numbers reflect the strenght or weakness of opposition.

[EasyEd]

I wonder what our 3-pt % would be if we subtracted those launched to avoid shot clock violations. Particularly for Jon.

[TrueHoyaBlue]

ed said:

I wonder what our 3-pt % would be if we subtracted those launched to avoid shot clock violations. Particularly for Jon.

Not sure, but I do know that if we subtract the three crowd-pleasing airballs/bricks by Sead, the % creeps over 38%.

[GIGAFAN99]

cambridgehoya said:

gigafan99 said:

No I know Pomeroy slipped but this is where Pomeroy kind of fails to capture everything. I mean it can be argued our best defensive game of the season was without Egerson (Notre Dame) where we put a very good offensive team in absolute lockdown.

Pitt and Cincy were kind of run and gun, open jump shot, not much defense sort of games. I don't believe our offensive efficiency is as good as those games anymore than I believe our defense is that bad. Pom only adjusts for pace and not style of play. I think you can argue that those games both sides were conceding more looks and looking to outscore the opponent.

Functionally though, our defense on a regular night looks about the same. That's all I'm saying.

Pomeroy has raw and adjusted numbers. The adjusted numbers reflect the strenght or weakness of opposition.

Yeah I get it. Everyone acts like if you just put pace and strength of opponent you get some perfect picture. You don't. Sometimes Roy going for the block is less valuable versus a weaker opponent because the incremental chance he'll get into foul trouble and not be able to dominate on offense is more risky. Hundreds of decisions like this exist on a game-by-game basis.

The same goes for style of play and composition of teams. I mean they do play games now and then and it can't account for everything. Check out UConn who was "projected" at 25-4 after the OOC schedule. UConn wins strictly with athleticism so it's binary essentially. Wins and losses could be called "overmatched" and "fairly matched." A lot of teams are like this. It's not like just saying #227 in efficiency and #145 in effciency are going to have X relationships to your own efficiency is an easy thing to do.

Kenpom is good at it but a lot of people should get a room with Ken. It's a nice tool but it can't account for everything, not even close. What does it even mean to fall from #24 to #42 in the span of 6 games? Were we playing worse? Are other teams playing better? Hard to say when it's a move from 89 to 91. Is that all that significant? How does that translate to the real world? Is it even perceptible?

[CO_Hoya]

I think some of the variability could be teased out of the statistics (Pomeroy does have a consistency stat on there somewhere).

Not to get all Mark Cuban, but I think one of the biggest variables not characterized by Pomeroy and others is the refs. Call / non-calls can have a strong effect on the game, and you just can't appreciate that from a box score. Just ask Cinci with regards to fouls 4&5 on Sikes

[Locker]

Pomeroy's statistical analysis is the worst -- except for all of the others.

[prhoya]

truehoyablue said:

ed said:

I wonder what our 3-pt % would be if we subtracted those launched to avoid shot clock violations. Particularly for Jon.

Not sure, but I do know that if we subtract the three crowd-pleasing airballs/bricks by Sead, the % creeps over 38%.

;D (It's still fun and he hasn't made on yet!)

[SFHoya99]

Of course statistical models don't capture everything. They aren't intended to do so. So yeah, some of it is the model is far from perfect. But some of it is the defense.

But you said so yourself:

"Pitt and Cincy were kind of run and gun, open jump shot, not much defense sort of games. I don't believe our offensive efficiency is as good as those games anymore than I believe our defense is that bad."

Pomeroy isn't saying that our team's inherent ability is changing. It is simply re-evaluating based on more information. Like it or not, you are playing worse defense if you are sacrificng giving up open shots for getting them. It's a trade-off, but it isn't like you are actually playing good defense.

We've given up a TON of open shots over the last few games. I think our defensive statistical slip has mostly to do with a couple of on fire teams, but we aren't playing as tight as before. Is that because of double digit leads as well? Sure. But regardless, it isn't as good defense.

This is why Duke destroys people when they are on. They don't let up on D. We've let up a bit, gotten unlucky a bit, maybe we miss Marc a bit...Does it means we can't play great D on Thurs? No. But it does mean we haven't played great D over the stretch.

I do think replacing Marc with Ewing/Summers shooting has helped us offensively a bit. Ewing and Summers have been very good since Marc has left. I don't think losing Marc has helped the D at all -- he was a better defensive rebounder than both and was capable of defending guards as well as forwards.

[lichoya68]

in the begining i always said we needed to find someone besides jon to hit some threes seems like we be doing ok in that KEEP IT UP SOMEBODY HIT SOME THREES BESIDES JON yupp go hoyas hit some threes vs. the johnnies

[lichoya68]

and patrick 52. % on threes GREAT SHOT SELECTION GO HOAYS GO PATRICK ;D ;D