History says 3-point shooting will end Marquette early
Written by: Mark Strotman
For this year's Marquette team, 3-pointers haven't been all that memorable. To be exact, there have been just 132 "memories." Yes, Junior Cadougan's buzzer-beater against Connecticut to send Marquette's Big East opener to overtime is included in that number. ... Continue reading → (http://painttouches.com/2013/03/19/history-says-3-point-shooting-will-end-marquette-early/)
(http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=painttouches.com&blog=28348875&post=6403&subd=painttouches&ref=&feed=1)
http://painttouches.com/2013/03/19/history-says-3-point-shooting-will-end-marquette-early/
Quote from: PaintTouchesSays on March 19, 2013, 12:30:06 PM
History says 3-point shooting will end Marquette early
Written by: Mark Strotman
For this year's Marquette team, 3-pointers haven't been all that memorable. To be exact, there have been just 132 "memories." Yes, Junior Cadougan's buzzer-beater against Connecticut to send Marquette's Big East opener to overtime is included in that number. ... Continue reading → (http://painttouches.com/2013/03/19/history-says-3-point-shooting-will-end-marquette-early/)
(http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=painttouches.com&blog=28348875&post=6403&subd=painttouches&ref=&feed=1)
http://painttouches.com/2013/03/19/history-says-3-point-shooting-will-end-marquette-early/
Minor quibble: MU is a 3 seed, Davidson a 14.
Major quibble: While you compare MU's three-point shooting this year with previous Sweet 16 teams that shot poorly from outside, I'd be interested in knowing how those same teams fared inside the arc and in overall offensive efficiency.
I think that MU's overall efficiency, despite their poor three-point shooting, makes them a bit of an outlier ... maybe more than a bit. As such, I'm not we can glean all that much from historical comparisons because there probably aren't many - if any - truly comparable teams.
History says 3-point shooting will end Marquette early
Written by: Mark Strotman
For this year's Marquette team, 3-pointers haven't been all that memorable. To be exact, there have been just 132 "memories." Yes, Junior Cadougan's buzzer-beater against Connecticut to send Marquette's Big East opener to overtime is included in that number. So ... Continue reading → (http://painttouches.com/2013/03/19/history-says-3-point-shooting-will-end-marquette-early/)
(http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=painttouches.com&blog=28348875&post=6403&subd=painttouches&ref=&feed=1)
http://painttouches.com/2013/03/19/history-says-3-point-shooting-will-end-marquette-early/
Well, that's not very encouraging.
My kingdom for a 3 point shooter that hits at 40%+. Go get him Buzz.
Well, seems like a bad 3-pt shooting team is due then.
It really is hard to fathom why we are that poor at shooting threes. Decent high school players shoot better than this team does, and the college line is only slightly further. It really is strange, particularly given that MU generally moves the ball around pretty well and the 3 taken are pretty good looks. Like free throws, made 3s often seem to be contagious, so hopefully a couple guys knock them down early Thursday and get some positive mojo going.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 19, 2013, 12:53:59 PM
My kingdom for a 3 point shooter that hits at 40%+. Go get him Buzz.
There are two incoming freshmen that could potentially hit that figure.
Its really interesting when you look at the numbers. Based on this articule, you might think that MU has really poor 3 point shooting in their losses.
MU averaged about 30% during their losses as well. When you do look at the numbers for MU, you see a far greater statistic tied to MU wins is FT% and attempts. Like I said in another post, stick to the gameplan and do what we do best. Get the paint touches, get to the line, and make the smart pass and we will win.
Frack you history.
Quote from: StillWarriors on March 19, 2013, 12:56:05 PM
It really is hard to fathom why we are that poor at shooting threes. Decent high school players shoot better than this team does, and the college line is only slightly further. It really is strange, particularly given that MU generally moves the ball around pretty well and the 3 taken are pretty good looks. Like free throws, made 3s often seem to be contagious, so hopefully a couple guys knock them down early Thursday and get some positive mojo going.
The way Buzz constructed this team, the current batch of seniors was made up of much needed front court size and a point guard. The current juniors included someone who was considered an OK outside shooter who ended up not panning out and transferring. (Jamail) The current bunch of sophomores included two players with decent outside shooting reps but have been inconsistent at best from deep (Juan and Todd).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 19, 2013, 12:53:59 PM
My kingdom for a 3 point shooter that hits at 40%+. Go get him Buzz.
Duane Wilson hit 58% from three this year. Fifty. Eight. Ever seen him shoot? Picture perfect form with crazy range. Makes from the kickout or off the bounce. Jajuan Johnson was 4/5 from three in the state championship game en route to tournament MVP. Additionally, both of these players are explosive athletes, not just your average spot-up (dare I say traditional) shooter. Dawson is said to have a nice stroke from beyond the arc. You been paying attention to who we
already have coming in? Buzz got not just him, but them.
The hole in Strotty's theory is if three point shooting % were so important to this team, how did MU end up with a three seed?
Quote from: Jajuannaman on March 19, 2013, 01:15:57 PM
Duane Wilson hit 58% from three this year. Fifty. Eight. Ever seen him shoot? Picture perfect form with crazy range. Makes from the kickout or off the bounce. Jajuan Johnson was 4/5 from three in the state championship game en route to tournament MVP. Additionally, both of these players are explosive athletes, not just your average spot-up (dare I say traditional) shooter. Dawson is said to have a nice stroke from beyond the arc. You been paying attention to who we already have coming in? Buzz got not just him, but them.
JJJ needs some work on his form. He has the Vander Elbow out in a lot of his form. But his outside game has been taking a meteoric rise.
Quote from: LittleMurs on March 19, 2013, 01:16:05 PM
The hole in Strotty's theory is if three point shooting % were so important to this team, how did MU end up with a three seed?
That was my question.
No disagreement that, for a good team, this squad is unusually bad at shooting threes.
But it seems to be they've consistently been able to overcome that to the extent they're one of the most offensively efficient teams in the nation. I'm wondering if the same is true for the teams he's comparing to MU, and if not, is the comparison really valid?
Quote from: Jajuannaman on March 19, 2013, 01:15:57 PM
Duane Wilson hit 58% from three this year. Fifty. Eight. Ever seen him shoot? Picture perfect form with crazy range. Makes from the kickout or off the bounce. Jajuan Johnson was 4/5 from three in the state championship game en route to tournament MVP. Additionally, both of these players are explosive athletes, not just your average spot-up (dare I say traditional) shooter. Dawson is said to have a nice stroke from beyond the arc. You been paying attention to who we already have coming in? Buzz got not just him, but them.
I'm hopeful, very hopeful, that it translates to the college level. I think we have missed the ability to stretch the defenses. Our ability to get to the paint and be fouled has often made up for it. Having someone be able to keep a defense honest from the outside or against a zone would be nice. I'm looking forward to watching the entire new class.
Quote from: JakeBarnes on March 19, 2013, 01:19:07 PM
JJJ needs some work on his form. He has the Vander Elbow out in a lot of his form. But his outside game has been taking a meteoric rise.
From the videos I've seen, it looks like he brings the ball up on the left side of his head and then pulls his hands across to the right side before releasing. It's not super orthodox, but if it works...
Quote from: LittleMurs on March 19, 2013, 01:16:05 PM
The hole in Strotty's theory is if three point shooting % were so important to this team, how did MU end up with a three seed?
It's no secret that 3 point shooting and unforced turnovers are this team's achilles heels. That's where our vulnerability lies. He also states that we made up for it with unreal 2P% and excellent offensive rebounding in conference play. Let hope we can continue to accentuate the positives and have our negatives not be so negative. If we can, S16 is our floor. If not, we can lose to anyone. Not exactly earth-shattering, but it's the truth.
The lack of 3-point shooting -- or, more accurately, the disparity between Marquette's 3-point ability and that of its opponent -- has been something that concerned me months before the season even started.
I frankly am amazed that we won 14 BE games and 23 overall shooting 30% from behind the arc while allowing our opponents to make 61 more treys than we did for the season.
It's a testament to Buzz's coaching and our players' hard work (and talent) that we have achieved all we have.
When other threads ask why some are so worried as we head into the NCAAs, this 3-point situation is Reason No. 1 for me. Three-point shooting often is the great X-factor in tournament games. Running into a hot 3-point team is almost like running into a hot goalie in hockey; that one factor can and often does determine the outcome of a game regardless of other factors. It's not easy to win a game if you are outscored by 12, 18, 24 points (or more) from the 3-point line.
Think about the 02-03 Warriors: They shot 40% from 3-point range for the season. And as great as Wade was and as solid a big man as Jackson was, it was the 3-point shooting of Diener and Novak that saved the season against Holy Cross and Missouri.
Let's say Davidson has a great game, as Holy Cross did. If we need to hit some 3's to stay in it and eventually win it, who on this team are you confident can step up as Diener did in '03? How about if we have a wild offensive game against Butler in the next round; if we need to hit some OT 3's to take it, who on this team can step up as Novak did against Mizzou in '03?
The answer, of course, is nobody. And that is the worry, at least for me.
Some of my fellow Scoopers have said on other threads that if we need heroics to beat a 14 seed, we didn't deserve to win anyway. Well then, I guess the 2003 team didn't "deserve" to beat Holy Cross. Look throughout history at all the early-tournament close calls eventual Final Four teams had.
I know ... whatever happens happens, so there's no use worrying about it. Hello! Fans worry! That's part of our job description. And this is my big worry.
Thanks, Mark, for supplying numbers to help fortify my angst!!
Quote from: Pakuni on March 19, 2013, 12:44:06 PM
Major quibble: While you compare MU's three-point shooting this year with previous Sweet 16 teams that shot poorly from outside, I'd be interested in knowing how those same teams fared inside the arc and in overall offensive efficiency.
I think that MU's overall efficiency, despite their poor three-point shooting, makes them a bit of an outlier ... maybe more than a bit. As such, I'm not we can glean all that much from historical comparisons because there probably aren't many - if any - truly comparable teams.
exactly.
I'd be interested in seeing how those teams stack up when controlled for overall offensive efficiency.
Quote from: LittleMurs on March 19, 2013, 01:16:05 PM
The hole in Strotty's theory is if three point shooting % were so important to this team, how did MU end up with a three seed?
MU has done well in other areas to offset our inability to shoot, but it also means our margin for error is small and our options limited. Makes it more difficult to come back if you can't shoot 3's, makes life difficult against a zone, etc.
Remember in the Cincinnati game we trailed huge but decided in that second half we were finally going to make some 3's. We made seven 3's in the second half and roared back into the game (we made only 12 shots the second half and 7 of them were 3's). If we didn't, we would have lost that game by 15 to 20 points.
For the life of me I don't know why teams just done zone us to death.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 19, 2013, 01:28:20 PM
For the life of me I don't know why teams just done zone us to death.
Did you see what MU was able to do against Cuse's zone?
That's why.
MU doesn't have stereotypical "zone busters" but guys like Davante and Jamil can really take advantage of those spaces in the middle of a zone.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 19, 2013, 01:28:20 PM
Remember in the Cincinnati game we trailed huge but decided in that second half we were finally going to make some 3's. We made seven 3's in the second half and roared back into the game (we made only 12 shots the second half and 7 of them were 3's). If we didn't, we would have lost that game by 15 to 20 points.
Here's hoping that we all of a sudden
"decide" to make some 3's in the tourney. If I'd have know that all I had to do was decide to make them, I coulda played in college myself!!
Quote from: Pakuni on March 19, 2013, 01:33:37 PM
Did you see what MU was able to do against Cuse's zone?
That's why.
MU doesn't have stereotypical "zone busters" but guys like Davante and Jamil can really take advantage of those spaces in the middle of a zone.
Yes, tradeoffs with everything. DG and JW took advantage of that in the Cuse game. I would still zone MU. Partly to slow the game down, partly to get us confused and throw the ball around where we are prone to potential turnovers, and partly to preserve energy on the defensive end. The downside is you give up a lot of rebounds when you do this. The strategy will be interesting to see unfold.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 19, 2013, 01:28:20 PM
For the life of me I don't know why teams just done zone us to death.
Is there another team in the country that faced more zone defenses this season than MU? Everyone played zone against MU this year.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 19, 2013, 02:06:56 PM
Yes, tradeoffs with everything. DG and JW took advantage of that in the Cuse game. I would still zone MU. Partly to slow the game down, partly to get us confused and throw the ball around where we are prone to potential turnovers, and partly to preserve energy on the defensive end. The downside is you give up a lot of rebounds when you do this. The strategy will be interesting to see unfold.
I'm not sure we'll see it Thursday. From all accounts I've seen, Davidson plays man defense 95 percent of the time. I'd be real surprised if they try to fundamentally change who they are - especially when they're already defensively suspect and a mediocre rebounding team.
But you never know.
Have to look at eFG%, defense, other areas, etc. Yes, Louisville was bad from 3 last year, but they also had the best defense in the nation. MU doesn't :(
But.. MU's offense is actually very good this year.
Plenty of crappy 3-point shooting teams have done well in the tourney... Two years ago when UNC ended MU's season, they were a 'poor' 3FG shooting team..
I would think being a bad 3-point shooting Cinderella would be tough as the trey can be an equalizer.. but,.. overall MU's 3-point shooting isn't a fact that dooms them. A bit of a statistical stretch made in the article.
Also.. might be some bad data in there? Does that chart say 2003 Marquette had a 31.8% 3FG?
"I frankly am amazed that we won 12 BE games and 23 overall shooting 30% from behind the arc while allowing our opponents to make 61 more treys than we did for the season."
You must be even more amazed that we won 14 BE games not 12......
;D
Quote from: Pakuni on March 19, 2013, 02:12:55 PM
I'm not sure we'll see it Thursday. From all accounts I've seen, Davidson plays man defense 95 percent of the time. I'd be real surprised if they try to fundamentally change who they are - especially when they're already defensively suspect and a mediocre rebounding team.
But you never know.
Agree, especially this time of year. Teams generally play to their comfort zones and what brought them to the dance. I was surprised that more teams during the season didn't mix more zone in there.
Well, all I can say we better practice shooting 3s!
Quote from: Pakuni on March 19, 2013, 01:33:37 PM
Did you see what MU was able to do against Cuse's zone?
That's why.
MU doesn't have stereotypical "zone busters" but guys like Davante and Jamil can really take advantage of those spaces in the middle of a zone.
Don't forget Steve Taylor! He's perfect for the FT line role vs. a 2/3 and has had some real nice plays from that position in some key spots this year. Come to think of it, is there ANYTHING Steve Taylor can't do? Maybe guard a 1 or 2 or assume the Marcus Jackson point forward role, but that's about all I can think of. I think I'm in love... wait what were we talking about?
Quote from: Jajuannaman on March 19, 2013, 02:50:36 PM
Don't forget Steve Taylor! He's perfect for the FT line role vs. a 2/3 and has had some real nice plays from that position in some key spots this year. Come to think of it, is there ANYTHING Steve Taylor can't do? Maybe guard a 1 or 2 or assume the Marcus Jackson point forward role, but that's about all I can think of. I think I'm in love... wait what were we talking about?
I remember hearing something about this Steve Taylor person of whom you speak, but can't be completely certain of his existence.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on March 19, 2013, 02:50:36 PM
Come to think of it, is there ANYTHING Steve Taylor can't do? Maybe guard a 1 or 2 or assume the Marcus Jackson point forward role, but that's about all I can think of. I think I'm in love... wait what were we talking about?
Yes, a couple of things... Providing help defense, on-ball defense, knowing what defense MU is in off an in-bounds. I understand the praise for him, but I can't overlook the negatives.
For most part, he's been a step slow in providing help defense (although improving). Furthermore, he's had number of mental breakdowns (in limited minutes) where he is in the wrong defense off an in-bounds. This has led directly to the opponent flashing open for an uncontested dunk. Its breakdowns like this that limit his minutes.
With that said, I do think he should play more. 15 minutes a game make senses. The article Paint Touches had recently on individual defensive stats was pretty eye-opening, and showed why Steve hasn't seen a large increase in minutes.
Most coaches take players and jam them into a system. Buzz sees what he has and "builds a new house" each year to take advantage of his players strengths. In year two, the only two things we did well offensively was protect the ball and shoot the three, so we penetrated with an eye to kick it out, not to finish. This year we take the mid range shot or try to finish at the rim rather than kicking the ball out, taking two things we're not so good at (passing and shooting from deep) out of the equation. Buzz has won with midgets and bigs, shooters and attackers, etc. If he get a roster without major holes, look out.
Quote from: MuMark on March 19, 2013, 02:33:30 PM
"I frankly am amazed that we won 12 BE games and 23 overall shooting 30% from behind the arc while allowing our opponents to make 61 more treys than we did for the season."
You must be even more amazed that we won 14 BE games not 12......
;D
D'oh!! I'm sure that was my first mistake of 2013 and will be my last, too!
(I've cheated and gone back and fixed it.)
Quote from: Aughnanure on March 19, 2013, 12:54:59 PM
Well, seems like a bad 3-pt shooting team is due then.
Law of large numbers!!
If you look at our losses this year, our problem hasn't been the 3s.We've been shredded by turnovers from an aggressive defense. Davidson doesn't bring that game. In fact, their defense creates few turnovers and they allow penetration, which is our best offensive threat.
Look for us to limit their open 3s and beat them with a club when we penetrate. We'll be on the line early and often. Double digit win against a team that coasted in a lower level league.
Quote from: LittleMurs on March 19, 2013, 01:16:05 PM
The hole in Strotty's theory is if three point shooting % were so important to this team, how did MU end up with a three seed?
Answer: they were overseeded (not by a lot, mind you, but enough). They would've made life a lot easier on themselves this year if they could hit threes, games would not have been as close.
Quote from: DaCoach on March 19, 2013, 10:48:55 PM
If you look at our losses this year, our problem hasn't been the 3s.We've been shredded by turnovers from an aggressive defense. Davidson doesn't bring that game. In fact, their defense creates few turnovers and they allow penetration, which is our best offensive threat.
Look for us to limit their open 3s and beat them with a club when we penetrate. We'll be on the line early and often. Double digit win against a team that coasted in a lower level league.
WRONG....its the 3's....trust me. When 3's fall it helps every other part of their game. You could not be any more wrong.
For some teams you miss shots and it effects every other facet. The turnovers come with running that silly wheel...instead of taking their man off the dribble and hitting that pull up shot.
I think they overpass too much and need to play quicker...but that is just me. They need to pass maybe 3 times tops...and the shot should go up.
But I understand they have Bigs that need to get involved. But if they could hit that open 3 that would make the double and the triple teams non-existent on Devante and Chris.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 19, 2013, 03:29:06 PM
Most coaches take players and jam them into a system. Buzz sees what he has and "builds a new house" each year to take advantage of his players strengths. In year two, the only two things we did well offensively was protect the ball and shoot the three, so we penetrated with an eye to kick it out, not to finish. This year we take the mid range shot or try to finish at the rim rather than kicking the ball out, taking two things we're not so good at (passing and shooting from deep) out of the equation. Buzz has won with midgets and bigs, shooters and attackers, etc. If he get a roster without major holes, look out.
Lenny's...what's your point?
Forget the regular season okay? That is over...It's a new day baby. Forget what Buzz and his team did in the regular season. That is irrelevant now. This is Tournament Play now and is totally different.
It's a 6 game showdown...or countdown to the Prize. 6 games! one....two....three...four.... This is what each of them came to MU for I bet...if you asked them. Baby steps and wearing diapers are over.
In this one and done format your weaknesses will be exposed as a team. No need getting oversensitive to critique here. You better make some more adjustments or improvements to enhance your holes or you are done.
This is for all the marbles...and it is wide open. Re-ADJUST and re-focus and play to win the best way you can.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 19, 2013, 02:35:48 PM
Agree, especially this time of year. Teams generally play to their comfort zones and what brought them to the dance. I was surprised that more teams during the season didn't mix more zone in there.
I disagree...I spent the last 5 posts explaining to you that you need to adapt.
What got you to the dance is unimportant. If you want to succeed here you need to adapt.
Come out of your comfort zone. I dont think there is one dominant team in this field where they are so good at one thing they can be status quo with it.
It is time for the step up kids to arise! I have some names I could throw at you and you have some names as to who you think they might be...well, they need to answer the bell!
It's time...