Putrid shooting was the first paragraph of a recent Star Ledger article.Defense can keep you in games but woeful offense looses games.
3 PT improvement a must in 2024-25
- Thread starter NewJerseyHawk
- Start date
Well this just goes to show that offense isn’t the answer and the game is all about defense. (Am I doing this right?)
I love how Pike has his clubs playing defense and rebounding. It is the genesis of his success. But I don't like: "Defense is who we are." We should never be 1/2 the game. It's bitten him in the butt more than once, including the last two years.
Better spacing and better (quicker) ball movement leads to higher 3 pt percentages.
I wasn't stating any point of view. When I saw that box score right after reading this thread, it made me think about this context and the need for some sort of balance between offense and defense focus.
Sorry, it wasn’t meant to be a shot at you specifically. I was just piggybacking off your post.
23 - 24 = 334
22-23 = 189
21-22 = 154
20-21 = 174 (missed it by 2 lol)
19-20 = 167
18 - 19 = 278
17 - 18 = 329
I was taking a wild swag but damn near right!
NCAA Basketball Stats - NCAA BB Team Offensive Efficiency | TeamRankings.com
NCAA Basketball offensive efficiency, by team.
www.teamrankings.com
if you go to my post above (#17) and expand on the Post from Hawk you can see exactly what you are saying there. I inserted those very numbers for each year. We got too many guys who think they an shoot the 3 taking them.
Geo was never this GREAT 3 point shooter. He was just clutch at times and that's all folks want to remember. Over the last 6 years there have been VERY FEW good years by a couple of guys.
That's unadjusted which is pointless. Use kenpom numbers.23 - 24 = 334
22-23 = 189
21-22 = 154
20-21 = 174 (missed it by 2 lol)
19-20 = 167
18 - 19 = 278
17 - 18 = 329
I was taking a wild swag but damn near right!
NCAA Basketball Stats - NCAA BB Team Offensive Efficiency | TeamRankings.com
NCAA Basketball offensive efficiency, by team.
Some unadjusted metrics work just fine to illustrate the point. The 2020-21 team made 44.9% of their shots good for a national ranking of 122. While a poor 3 point shooting team (albeit better than the current team), that team was very reliable from 2 and wasn’t badly plagued by scoring droughts. JY was huge for us in this respect.
The elephant in the room is HOW much our total shot quality is affected by an opposition that can help on the post and penetration and playing off guys ….and jamming the lanes to penetrate and interior pass…and therefore making the shots percentage we take inside the arc go down a lot
My opinion …A LOT more than what’s been talked about …and while I think we can coach the offense schemes better, I think there isn’t as much we can scheme out of this with coaching as people beliece
We had two games where we shot it well from three against major opponents …the Hall and Wisconsin . If I am coaching against us, I continue to jam the middle and help all over and let us bomb away from three as much as we want untik we proven otherwise
That …and maybe the Michigan road game …are the only games we shot our way to a win against a power 5 school.
It’s good odds against us to continue to do so….and if I’m an opposing coach against , most likely , Worse case I get into a rock fight with RU if I’m not shooting well. And if I am…I have a good chance at a W
The stats show this ….
Bingo! It is not just RU's 3-point shooting it is ALL shooting. It is true that defense can win championships, but not when you are in the bottom 1 percentile in offense. !
It’s pretty well defined the teams that win titles have a specific range of both offensive and defensive efficiency top 20 metrics by kenpom every year.
I believe there are a small handful of offensive outliers where a champion has top 20 D and maybe top 40 O, but in those cases they usually have a standout elite scorer (think Kemba) who is all American level or NBA level and elevates the offense on their tournament run.
Now this is to not to say the standard is title contender. But to KNOW for certain offense and defense need the same level of emphasis to win on high levels and then not treat them with similar importance is program building malpractice.
I believe there are a small handful of offensive outliers where a champion has top 20 D and maybe top 40 O, but in those cases they usually have a standout elite scorer (think Kemba) who is all American level or NBA level and elevates the offense on their tournament run.
Now this is to not to say the standard is title contender. But to KNOW for certain offense and defense need the same level of emphasis to win on high levels and then not treat them with similar importance is program building malpractice.
Certainly true and imo a point that illustrates the difference hats/skill sets and coach is required to have to excel.
Roster construction is a different skill than coaching (of course there is some overlap). As is managing players, team togetherness, analytical understanding, scheduling strategy, etc.
A successful coach has to be willing to improve in all these areas.
I mean it's a joke. You win the game if your points > opponent's points and you can accomplish that by raising your points or lowering the opponent's points. Each point is worth the same amount.
I wonder if Minnesota's unusually high 3 point percentage was favorably impacted by them spending zero energy on the defensive end.
is it easier to score +10 points and go from a team scoring 55 to one scoring 65 or is it easier to hold a team scoring 55 to 45? Something in me says yeah 10 is 10 but upside always seems easier than compressing when you're already fairly compressed.
Similar threads
