Geo and Eugene took 31 out of 61 shots

[Greene Rice FIG]

it is nuts that we have a higher % on 3 point shots than 2 point jumpers.

I wonder if that is consistent with NCAA norms

 

[kcg88]

it is nuts that we have a higher % on 3 point shots than 2 point jumpers.

I wonder if that is consistent with NCAA norms

Did some back-of-the-napkin math because the site I'm using doesn't have raw numbers on the 353-team page, only percentages. So this is just taking percentages without regard for true volume...1-4 (25%) and 50-100 (50%) would show as an average of 37.5% here. So not a perfect measure, but:

Combined 2P%: 36.7%
Combined 3P%: 34.2%

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

that is crazy, confirms what we thought, but to see it like that.

18 foot shot probably is the worst shot in basketball.

I'd love to see analysis, which i know you don't have, of 3s on the line vs. 3 feet back.

 

[JQRU91]

We have 5 guys who have attempted a meaningful amount of 3 pointers

.441
.435
.418
.366
.160

Problem is that shooting threes can be a streaky thing, and when the outside shots aren't falling, we don't have much of an offense.

 

[RickB113]

but this was always the issue for this year. Year 3 was going to be a year that the team was full of youth and needed to replace Freeman/Sanders....we accelerate the timeline by losing Sanders early. He would have given maybe an extra few wins but also less development for the rest. This team was always going to be in the 11-14 range in wins this year. Its very young and while the talent is upgraded, its not developed yet. The panic would be for next year if this team is struggling to get over 500

That is total nonsense with Sanders by the way. This team would be soooo much better with him. Enough with that though because he is not here. If we win 11 games this year the chances of us going over .500 next season are very slim save we bring in another big time scorer.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

That is total nonsense with Sanders by the way. This team would be soooo much better with him. Enough with that though because he is not here. If we win 11 games this year the chances of us going over .500 next season are very slim save we bring in another big time scorer.

our improved offensive efficiency would help the argument that we are better without him

 

[RickB113]

our improved offensive efficiency would help the argument that we are better without him

Not everything is about the numbers. Let's see how those offensive efficiency numbers look in a few months.

 

[bac2therac]

That is total nonsense with Sanders by the way. This team would be soooo much better with him. Enough with that though because he is not here. If we win 11 games this year the chances of us going over .500 next season are very slim save we bring in another big time scorer.

no it wouldnt...because the freshmen would hardly play and they would not develop so next year you would be starting this year all over again. Sanders would have the team better in certain games....but having Corey Sanders last year didnt help in losses to Stony and Hartford at home did it? RU would win a few more games but where would that get them.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

I have been complaining about Baker and Eugene having the ball in their hands too much and taking too many shots. In those attempts Baker has been far better than Sanders was. Step back 2s or long range 3s have been more efficient than Sanders penetration. Stats bare that out. The argument comes at the defensive end.