The 3-point-shot-training analytics computer.

[RC66]

Interesting NY Times article on the coach of the midmajor-dominant Florida Gulf Coast wbb program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/sports/ncaabasketball/forecast-at-florida-gulf-coast-raining-3s.html?_r=0

(That mid-major team is playing tonight for its 6th straight Atlantic Sun Conference championship, and is also, incidentally, and for what it is worth, our first round NCAA opponent in a recent Crème Bracketology post.)

So, the midmajor FCGU gets into the NCAAs every year … but not past the first round.

Nevertheless, here are a few of the questions that this article aroused in me…

Do we have that machine?

Do we, in general, have that kind of commitment to individual player (as opposed to team) development?

The Times columnist says about Smesko, the coach: "He crunches statistics, shunning midrange shots in favor of layups and 3-pointers." Is this the "new game" that suggests to many posters here that the game "has passed CVS by?"










This post was edited on 3/11 7:36 PM by RC66

Link to New York Times Article

 

[BeKnighted]

Re: The 3-point shot traning analytics computer.

There's some statistical analysis out there that's been gaining currency, particularly in the NBA, that says that the best shots are layups and 3-pointers, and that nearly anything in between is a bad idea.

All things being equal, I think this makes sense, but all things are equal only rarely. There's no doubt that an open 3 just past the arc is a better shot than an open 2 just inside the arc, for instance, but teams often guard the 3 and leave the mid-range jumper open. For a player like Kahleah, the mid-range jumper probably is a more efficient shot in a lot of cases.

That said, I still wish that the team would work on developing credible 3-point shooting from Kahleah and Tyler, in particular. The further out teams have to guard them, the more things open up closer to the basket for everyone else.