3-pointers

[MU82]

Unfortunately, the easiest prediction going into the game was that we would get murdered in the 3-point category. At .437, Creighton was one of the best teams from long range in the nation and, at .311, we were one of the worst. 

Well, Creighton ended up plus-33. You cannot win with a 3-point disparity like that.

It was almost comical to hear the play-by-play guy say four or five times, "That's Jake Thomas ... he's Marquette's shooter."

He would have had to say that about a half-dozen Creighton guys! They will launch 3s anytime in any situation from anywhere inside of 27 feet ... and they stand a darn good chance of making them when they do.

It's one thing to give Derrick no respect when he's standing outside the arc. Creighton dared every single guy on the team other than Jake to shoot. Juan must have had six or seven wide-open looks in his 14 minutes. Todd ... JJJ ... Jamil ... they didn't respect anybody, and we couldn't make them pay for that lack of respect. You need more than one shooter at this level. And if you only have one, you need him to be better than Jake.

Think about this: We played on the road in a great home-court-advantage building for our opponents and they only attempted 4 FTs -- and we still got crushed! I'm not sure I ever saw a game in which our opponent attempted only 4 FTs, and I'm certain I never saw a game in which we were the road team and that happened.

Of course, Creighton only took 4 FTs because they were content to bomb us out of the building from 3-point land.

Duane Wilson was a great shooter in high school. Maybe he, JJJ and a couple of next year's freshmen will give us a chance to match a 3-point-shooting opponent. I sure hope so, because it is extremely difficult to win in today's college basketball without being able to make 3-pointers.

Looking back, it's amazing last season was as successful as it was given our 3-point woes. Then again, opponents had to at least respect Jamil, Vander and Junior. And each of those three delivered some amazing clutch 3s that decided huge games.

Of course, until we play Creighton again, we won't play another team as 3-point crazy (and 3-point capable) as them. So we might lose the 3-point battle by "only" 21 points or 18 points or 15 points. That's still a ton of points to give away, and if this turns out to be the less-than-satisfying season that appears inevitable, that will be a big reason.

[WarriorFan]

Of course, until we play Creighton again, we won't play another team as 3-point crazy (and 3-point capable) as them. So we might lose the 3-point battle by "only" 21 points or 18 points or 15 points. That's still a ton of points to give away, and if this turns out to be the less-than-satisfying season that appears inevitable, that will be a big reason.

My only disagreement is that we probably lose to Butler for the same reason.  I think I counted 5 straight possessions yesterday against Nova when they shot 3's, and they shot 28 for the game. 

[Jay Bee]

Whatever, Bub. You're misunderstanding things.

Creighton's shooting & overall offense has only been worse than last night one time all year.

MU's defense isn't the problem & 3 pointers should not be the focus either.

MU's issue is that they are playing offensive groupings that are designed for failure. Much of it is addressable.

[real chili 83]

Whatever, Bub. You're misunderstanding things.

Creighton's shooting & overall offense has only been worse than last night one time all year.

MU's defense isn't the problem & 3 pointers should not be the focus either.

MU's issue is that they are playing offensive groupings that are designed for failure. Much of it is addressable.

Agreed.  We are sooo close, yet so far.  Frustrating that we have, by far, the best athlete on the floor, yet come up short.

All this pain so far this year will make our end of the season success feel so much better. 

With a little home cookin' on Saturday, we find our mojo.

Lots of basketball to be played.

[bilsu]

I wonder what would of happen, if we had played McDermott straight up. Sure he might of gotten 40 points, but playing a solid team defense instead of collapsing multiple palyers on McDermott would not of given the other Creighton players wide open threes. However, we did hold Creighton significantly below their team scoring average.

[Jay Bee]

I wonder what would of happen, if we had played McDermott straight up. Sure he might of gotten 40 points, but playing a solid team defense instead of collapsing multiple palyers on McDermott would not of given the other Creighton players wide open threes. However, we did hold Creighton significantly below their team scoring average.

Again, MU held Creighton to their second worst offensive efficiency all season.

Unfortunately we turned the ball over a ton & couldn't make a damn shot.

[The Equalizer]

I wonder what would of happen, if we had played McDermott straight up. Sure he might of gotten 40 points, but playing a solid team defense instead of collapsing multiple palyers on McDermott would not of given the other Creighton players wide open threes. However, we did hold Creighton significantly below their team scoring average.

I'm not sure its a huge success to say we "held" Creighton below their average.  

First, as with our season-to-date averages, much of Creighton's year-to-date average is based on running up the score against cupcakes.  I should hope that we play better defense than Chicago Sate (against whom CU scored 90 points) or Arkansas Pine-Bluff (88 points).  

Second, for much of the 2nd half Creighton was burning clock while nursing a double-digit lead--that contributed as much to their low scoring as our defense did.

Third, our offensive ineptitude also contributed--we often went deep into the shot clock ourselves before getting a good look--that results in fewer posessions and lower scoring games.

Finally, in the first half, CU scored 37--pretty close to their season-average pace.  

And even if it was our "success" to slow the game pace, it doesn't do good to hold the opponent to  below their season average if you're going to score 22 points below your own.

[MU82]

Excellent points, Equalizer.

All the stats quoted by those defending our defense show just how deceptive stats can be.

Creighton is a great 3-point shooting team, and we let their best 3-point shooters take wide-open 3-pointers whenever they wanted.

I do agree that it probably wouldn't have mattered because we couldn't shoot to save our lives. Again.

All of which supports my original post. In today's high-level basketball, it's very, very, very rare that a team can win despite getting outscored by 15, 21, 27, 33, 39 points from 3-point range game after game.

[real chili 83]

Again, MU held Creighton to their second worst offensive efficiency all season.

Unfortunately we turned the ball over a ton & couldn't make a damn shot.

It's as simple as this.

[MU82]

It's as simple as this.

No it isn't, but you go right ahead and keep thinking it is.

Because there's no way Creighton could have scored another 10 or 15 points if it needed to instead of milking the clock for the last 10 minutes.

[real chili 83]

No it isn't, but you go right ahead and keep thinking it is.

Because there's no way Creighton could have scored another 10 or 15 points if it needed to instead of milking the clock for the last 10 minutes.

Respectfully, ???

[Lennys Tap]

No it isn't, but you go right ahead and keep thinking it is.

Because there's no way Creighton could have scored another 10 or 15 points if it needed to instead of milking the clock for the last 10 minutes.

Second lowest OFfENSIVE EFFICIENCY. Has nothing to do with points scored. So chili is right. It is as simple as that.

[MU82]

Second lowest OFfENSIVE EFFICIENCY. Has nothing to do with points scored. So chili is right. It is as simple as that.

OK. I give.

Even though my eyes, your eyes and everyone else's eyes saw players from one of the nation's top 3-point shooting teams being left open to shoot 3s at will all night long, Marquette's D was splendid because an offensive efficiency stat says as much.

Gotcha.

[Lennys Tap]

OK. I give.

Even though my eyes, your eyes and everyone else's eyes saw players from one of the nation's top 3-point shooting teams being left open to shoot 3s at will all night long, Marquette's D was splendid because an offensive efficiency stat says as much.

Gotcha.

My point wasn't that we were great on D. My point was that you were confusing points allowed with defensive efficiency. Your certainly entitled to dismiss that statistic, but it is what it is.

[Jay Bee]

No it isn't, but you go right ahead and keep thinking it is.

Because there's no way Creighton could have scored another 10 or 15 points if it needed to instead of milking the clock for the last 10 minutes.

Sorry guy, but Creighton actually had a higher offensive efficiency in the SECOND half than they did in the first half.

The truth is McDermott and Wragge were very average (players - and far below average outings for them in terms of offensive efficiency). Maginat stepped up while shooting more than usual, but still Creighton's offense had a rough game relative to what they usually do.

Marquette's offense stunk again. Defense isn't and hasn't been our issue. Crappy shooting has been an issue was again against Creighton.

3FGM disparity is a function of several factors including style of play. Go check the correlation between having a 3FGM advantage and winning and that may help you understand things better.

[MU82]

OK, let's try this:

I agree we "held" Creighton to an offensive efficiency much worse than their cupcake-enhanced efficiency going into the game. Plus, we "held" them to only 4 FTs.

And despite all this fine defense, we still lost the 3-point battle by 33 points.

Again, my original point is supported.

Whether it is by less-than-sterling defense, inept offense or Jupiter aligning with Mars, we continue to finish 15-39 points per game behind our opponent from the 3-point line. In today's college basketball, it is extremely difficult to win games when ceding the 3-point line to opponents at such a high rate.

[MU82]

Going back to this subject again!

A horrible DePaul team was beating us only because they were hitting 3s and we weren't.

Jake hits his two 3s and it was like a weight had been lifted off our guys. Momentum shifted and the whole team started playing better.

Over time, unless a team is superior in every other way, it cannot have a successful season when losing the 3-point battle by 20-plus points game after game.

[chapman]

Think it's oftentimes an easier fix defensively - we can really afford to focus more on the perimeter, because the interior defense overall is pretty good.  DePaul shot 12-34 (35%) inside the arc and got seven shots blocked...for all the rabble about Otule's bad offense today, he had three blocks and four defensive rebounds in his 16 minutes - getting a lot of blocks is almost difficult because teams do not make a lot of attempts at going inside against him.  Creighton shot better from the inside than the arc, but weren't willing to force that and still attempted more threes than twos.   

Offensively, there's got to be more of a threat on the floor so putting in the forced "Jake package" isn't the only option on the perimeter...Jake doesn't need to "step up" his shooting, he's hitting 40% - telling him to start chucking or giving him more and more screens won't solve much, got to have other options that spread the floor.  That has to come from better production from some combination of Jamil (29%), Mayo (35%), Johnson (32%).