Are we missing a defensive specialist

[Grayhead]

Who can step up to fill those shoes. Jackie Manuel was a lock down defender at the end of his career. I liked to fact that the other teams leading scorer seemed to disappear when he was playing them. We have someone who shoots lights out against us too often, and can bring us down come tourney time. Who on our bench can fill those shoes? I know the team needs to defend, but we still need one who can take it to the next level. Last night, we simply outscored FsU. If they could have defended Brice or Marcus a bit better, we could have easily lost. FSU scores 90. We average around 85. That is the only concern I have after last night's game

 

[Heelicious]

I think Roy sees Marcus as a great defender, and people on this board have said Berry can be a lock down defender much of the time, and I think Pinson and Jackson are capable of very good lock down defense. All four of these guys have shown ability to slow down or stop guys who are red hot in first half, to almost no scoring in second half.... several examples, but XRM didn't score much in second half last night.

I don't think anyone on this team is on the level of Jackie Manuel, and maybe none on this team have lightning quickness to consistently beat their guys to the spot in stopping dribble drives..... plus the way they call ticky tack stuff on drives now makes it hard to play lock down defense. But the four guys I mentioned are good enough to help us win any game we play.

I just wish as a team we'd be better about not waiting for a guy go like 5-6 from three in a first half, before we decide to not leave him to double some guy in the lane.

 

[coryfly]

I don't think we have a lock down guy. Not many teams do though. Berry is a very good defender. Britt is becoming a pretty solid on the ball guy actually, though off the ball he still struggles. Pinson isn't as good there as I thought he would be but he seems to be struggling overall the last few games for whatever reason.

 

[GoNtheDistance]

we don't have a lock down defender. Marcus is a solid, consistent defender. He takes away passing lanes and makes it tough on his man to penetrate, taking away angles. Berry does a lot of the same although he still has the occasional mental lapse where you wonder what the hell he was doing. Britt is a serviceable defender against similarly talented guards. Against a really good guard, he'll get ate up. Theo is kind of the X factor and somewhat unknown how good he really is. Some games, he looks like a terror on the defensive end making things extremely hard for the opposition, then other games, he plays flat footed and gets beat consistently off the dribble. His length gives other teams trouble but his lack of consistency is aggravating.

 

[GoNtheDistance]

overall, I do think we have the pieces to be a really solid defensive unit that rebounds well. We are definitely good enough defensively to cut down the nets. Whether we buckle down or not is another story because we can score in bunches.

 

[gary-7]

Who can step up to fill those shoes. Jackie Manuel was a lock down defender at the end of his career. I liked to fact that the other teams leading scorer seemed to disappear when he was playing them. We have someone who shoots lights out against us too often, and can bring us down come tourney time. Who on our bench can fill those shoes? I know the team needs to defend, but we still need one who can take it to the next level. Last night, we simply outscored FsU. If they could have defended Brice or Marcus a bit better, we could have easily lost. FSU scores 90. We average around 85. That is the only concern I have after last night's game

If you look at our starting lineup, plus Theo, Hicks and Big Joel, we have a team that can defend well. JB and Marcus have been very good together, JJ is improving, Meeks is crafty and Brice can protect the rim. All that's been missing is communication, especially from "behind". We sometimes leave our guards hanging by not calling out screens, or not seeing man-and-ball and helping when the guards force sideline/baseline the way they're taught.

We have to remember, sometimes guys are just gonna make shots. F$U's shot selection was not always optimum but they made a lot. you can't always have a Dudley Bradley or Bobby Jones (they're as rare as hen's teeth), but we have some stout defenders. One more thing, don't concern yourself with an opponent scoring a lot of points as long as we score several more --- we are a tempo-based offense that scores a lot, which the means the other guys are gonna have more possessions. Just because one team allows in the 60s per game doesn't necessarily make them a better defensive club than one that allows in the 70s. History shows that if we average 90+ a game, few are gonna be able to keep up with us, and that in itself means we're playing enough defense to get our transition game going.

 

[IDUNK4HEELS]

Britt had been outstanding the last couple of games playing defense...While Berry was out of the game early in the second half Britt pretty much shut Ratham-maye down. Replay does not lie. Britt was in his face.

 

[Spaceytoyz]

Tokoto would have completed this team

 

[Grayhead]

Gary I see what you are saying. But you also said we played the bulk of the night in half court. I really wish we had one guy whose primary job is to stop the other leading scorer. As I said before, they still scored 90. We average 85ish. If Brice had played normal, where would the other points have come? This is no knock on the team. A lock down guy could have stopped Texas.

 

[Canadian Heel]

Kenny Williams looks like he could really harass a hot 3 point threat if given that assignment.

 

[ChiShankCity]

If you look at our starting lineup, plus Theo, Hicks and Big Joel, we have a team that can defend well. JB and Marcus have been very good together, JJ is improving, Meeks is crafty and Brice can protect the rim. All that's been missing is communication, especially from "behind". We sometimes leave our guards hanging by not calling out screens, or not seeing man-and-ball and helping when the guards force sideline/baseline the way they're taught.

We have to remember, sometimes guys are just gonna make shots. F$U's shot selection was not always optimum but they made a lot. you can't always have a Dudley Bradley or Bobby Jones (they're as rare as hen's teeth), but we have some stout defenders. One more thing, don't concern yourself with an opponent scoring a lot of points as long as we score several more --- we are a tempo-based offense that scores a lot, which the means the other guys are gonna have more possessions. Just because one team allows in the 60s per game doesn't necessarily make them a better defensive club than one that allows in the 70s. History shows that if we average 90+ a game, few are gonna be able to keep up with us, and that in itself means we're playing enough defense to get our transition game going.

It's true that it's a make or miss game... But I'll beat this horse to death and then some....

We absolutely have to limit opponent's 3 point attempts. It doesn't take a defensive specialist to simply stick to 3 point shooters. Allowing 20 3-point shots in a game is a problem. We're really bad defending the 3 percentage wise in the first half of the season when we played a ton of inferior opposition. So I'm guessing we're probably going to be somewhat poor defending the 3 for the rest of the season.

The 3 point defense is the ONLY thing really missing on our defense.

2pt% D ranks 53rd nationally
Opponent's FTA/FGA ranks 39th nationally
Opponent's off reb% ranks 48th nationally

But...

37% of our opponent shots at 3's (238th nationally)
39.2% 3 point defense (321st nationally)

I would argue that 3's are the most efficient shot in basketball today if you combine volume and effective FG percentage. But the 3 most efficient spots to score in basketball are: layups, free throws and 3's. The 3 is probably the most debilitating to a defense.

If our 3 point defense is top 150, I think we'd have a borderline top 20 defense. And that, at minimum, is usually what's required to win a championship.

 

[Bubspub88]

Ironic in that for the last few years especially with Tokoto the criticism of Roy was that he started a sg who could not shoot. Some of the defensive numbers are due to those inferior teams having to jack up high volume to have a shot. I think the long ball defense will get better as we play against more name opponents and there is more focus. Even in the title years there was always some games where a guy went crazy on us (Tyrese Rice of BC comes to mind) from deep.

 

[gary-7]

Tokoto would have completed this team

How?

 

[GoNtheDistance]

Tokoto would have gotten in the way on the court just like he did last year. Doesn't move without the ball, dribbled east and west. He was atrocious for floor spacing. And I haven't event started on how much of a cancer he was in our locker room.....

I'll give you Tokoto and a pack of gum and say thanks.

 

[thaUNCshow]

Britt did a pretty damn good job on XTM in the 2nd half. You could tell he was getting frustrated.

Tokoto was long and athletic, that doesnt make him a defender. Sam Dekker and that guy from Arkansas had career nights against him in the tournament. Plus I would rather not see him and his pull up jumpers getting thrown at the rim anymore

 

[TarHeaven]

I'll pass on Tokoto also. Always a Heels but better for both that he moved on. And we may not have the glue guy on defense that Jackie or Giniard was but the team defense so far has actually been better than most years. That's even better to me than having one lock down defender.

 

[DSouthr]

It's true that it's a make or miss game... But I'll beat this horse to death and then some....

We absolutely have to limit opponent's 3 point attempts. It doesn't take a defensive specialist to simply stick to 3 point shooters. Allowing 20 3-point shots in a game is a problem. We're really bad defending the 3 percentage wise in the first half of the season when we played a ton of inferior opposition. So I'm guessing we're probably going to be somewhat poor defending the 3 for the rest of the season.

The 3 point defense is the ONLY thing really missing on our defense.

2pt% D ranks 53rd nationally
Opponent's FTA/FGA ranks 39th nationally
Opponent's off reb% ranks 48th nationally

But...

37% of our opponent shots at 3's (238th nationally)
39.2% 3 point defense (321st nationally)

I would argue that 3's are the most efficient shot in basketball today if you combine volume and effective FG percentage. But the 3 most efficient spots to score in basketball are: layups, free throws and 3's. The 3 is probably the most debilitating to a defense.

If our 3 point defense is top 150, I think we'd have a borderline top 20 defense. And that, at minimum, is usually what's required to win a championship.

No, 20 3pt attempts by an opponent is not a problem, 20 3pt makes could be...

Teams are going to shoot a lot of treys against us because we play at a higher pace than most and we are a very high scoring team. When we play each team has more shot attempts because of the pace, the more shots you take the more you are going to make combined with the fact that if a team is putting a lot of points up and you find yourself in a hole then you resort to treys to make up the difference (many times a mistake to do so).

This harpie jag you are on about 3pt shots, again I advise you, watch the freakin games and don't worry so much about the stat sheets! XRM made a couple crazy treys on the move from about 40+ feet out and scored 30, his team lost to us by 16? What are you worried about more, our losses or our wins?

If you worried about our losses then lets look at them. First, loss to NI, a good team that has more than just the win against us to hang on to but in that game we melted on the road at the end eary in the season. The problem was not that we gave up to many treys, the problem was we didn't close that game out when we had a 16pt lead late in the second half, foot came off the accelerator to soon. I should not have to explain to you that this happens to teams, think they have the game wrapped up, intensity drops, and all the sudden the opponent is back in the game and they just can not reboot what got them that big lead. Texas, another true road game, we got nipped at the end by 1 and while they did hit a lot of tuff treys, not wide open looks by majority but tuff hand in face treys (which happens when players get hot) but we lost that game because our front court did not get it done on the boards.

And no, the trey is NOT the most efficient shot in the game, a dunk or lay up is because many times the dunk or lay up also grants you the and 1, gets your opponents in foul trouble as well as allowing you the score. Our offense is geared more for those very type of scoring ops, not often do you see the 3pt shooter marching to the foul line after his shot.

No, you do not want to give shooters wide open consistent looks from beyound the arch, specifically on the drive & kicks back out to the squared up shooters. It is no secret that we do need to constantly work on our defense for the high screens, guards have to work consistently to not allow the drive that forces defense to collapse and grants the open squared up trey but that is more our bigs not always having their timing down right on the hedge and at times our guards not fighting thru the screen and at other times not really doing a consistent job of watching the passing lanes. But you would have to actually watch the game more than the stat sheet to see that, wouldn't ya...

We are what, 2-0 vs top 20 teams this season, one of those being against the other team getting nods for being preseason #1 (Md) and FSU, if we are such a poor team in any aspect then explain your doom & gloom about teams taking 3pt shots against us framed in the light of our not only winning both of those games but winning them easy?

I wonder, where does the phrase live by the 3 die by the 3 come from? Ask Md & FSU, pretty sure they can tell ya there Mr guru...

 

[DSouthr]

How?

He would not have gary, you & I both know that...

No offense to JP intended but his fit on this team IMO would have been a problem, unless he got his head wrapped around coming off the bench. Clearly he didn't like that notion so he entered the draft. gary & I harped on this last season, sort of like jung harps on 3pt shots LOL, but this team NEEDED to move Marcus off the point to allow him more freedom to look for his own scoring. Now that to often happened but it resulted in the 2 guard at the time JP, becoming the defacto PG and JP was a wing (a 3 or what we used to call small forward) not a PG. We didn't need a small forward playing the point, what we needed is what I called for early the summer before last season began, a true PG playing the point in Joel Berry. We didn't get that till late in the season and we never started that last season. JP needed to either start ahead of or back Jackson up at the wing last season. I would have preferred to see Joel start at the point game 1 last season and bring Jackson off the bench if Roy did not feel great about starting 2 frosh on such an experienced team. Our floor balance would have been so much better but clearly Roy felt he needed to start Jackson and didn't feel comfortable starting 2 frosh with all that experience to call on. Not saying I am smarter than Roy but I think all of us can look back now and determine that what gary & I harped on was pretty accurate. I just feel Roy made a mistake but I understand why he went the direction he did. he was trying to carve a way to weave Theo in and felt that had to be the 3 backing up Justin and that forced JP to the 2.

JP on this team takes someone's PT, who would that be, clearly it would have either been the same situation we had last season (have to believe Roy would have not done that) or he would be taking Theo's time at the wing backing up Justin. I like Theo getting the PT he is because the kid really needs it to develope and in some ways gives us more intangibles than JP did.

 

[ChiShankCity]

No, 20 3pt attempts by an opponent is not a problem, 20 3pt makes could be...

Teams are going to shoot a lot of treys against us because we play at a higher pace than most and we are a very high scoring team. When we play each team has more shot attempts because of the pace, the more shots you take the more you are going to make combined with the fact that if a team is putting a lot of points up and you find yourself in a hole then you resort to treys to make up the difference (many times a mistake to do so).

This harpie jag you are on about 3pt shots, again I advise you, watch the freakin games and don't worry so much about the stat sheets! XRM made a couple crazy treys on the move from about 40+ feet out and scored 30, his team lost to us by 16? What are you worried about more, our losses or our wins?

If you worried about our losses then lets look at them. First, loss to NI, a good team that has more than just the win against us to hang on to but in that game we melted on the road at the end eary in the season. The problem was not that we gave up to many treys, the problem was we didn't close that game out when we had a 16pt lead late in the second half, foot came off the accelerator to soon. I should not have to explain to you that this happens to teams, think they have the game wrapped up, intensity drops, and all the sudden the opponent is back in the game and they just can not reboot what got them that big lead. Texas, another true road game, we got nipped at the end by 1 and while they did hit a lot of tuff treys, not wide open looks by majority but tuff hand in face treys (which happens when players get hot) but we lost that game because our front court did not get it done on the boards.

And no, the trey is NOT the most efficient shot in the game, a dunk or lay up is because many times the dunk or lay up also grants you the and 1, gets your opponents in foul trouble as well as allowing you the score. Our offense is geared more for those very type of scoring ops, not often do you see the 3pt shooter marching to the foul line after his shot.

No, you do not want to give shooters wide open consistent looks from beyound the arch, specifically on the drive & kicks back out to the squared up shooters. It is no secret that we do need to constantly work on our defense for the high screens, guards have to work consistently to not allow the drive that forces defense to collapse and grants the open squared up trey but that is more our bigs not always having their timing down right on the hedge and at times our guards not fighting thru the screen and at other times not really doing a consistent job of watching the passing lanes. But you would have to actually watch the game more than the stat sheet to see that, wouldn't ya...

We are what, 2-0 vs top 20 teams this season, one of those being against the other team getting nods for being preseason #1 (Md) and FSU, if we are such a poor team in any aspect then explain your doom & gloom about teams taking 3pt shots against us framed in the light of our not only winning both of those games but winning them easy?

I wonder, where does the phrase live by the 3 die by the 3 come from? Ask Md & FSU, pretty sure they can tell ya there Mr guru...

3point attempts per field goal attempts (3PA/FGA) is a tempo free stat. Doesn't have much to do with how fast we play. 3PA allowed per game is a tempo dependent stat, but not 3PA/FGA.

The long distance 3's is a valid point, but it's a make or miss game... Meaning, there is an element of randomness to all of this. I would rather have that bit of randomness be a 2-point shot vs a 3-point shot.

And even if layups are the most efficient shot in basketball... I think 3's compromise your defense more. It's worth 50% more than 2's and if your defense is ever stretched, then it compromises more. Also, you're probably going to get many more 3-point shots vs layups during a game, so in terms of volume, I don't think it's really close. But I could be wrong.

UNI and Texas are ok. They're borderline NCAA tournament teams IMO. I have little problem with us losing a couple games... That was going to happen. But the way we lost is really the only way we could lose those 2 games. Giving up a ton of 3 point shots and allowing a lot of makes.

No team in the country will 2-point us to death. We're too good offensively to allow that to happen. My primary argument and why I think shutting off 3 point shots is going to determine how far we're going to go is it's a make or miss game. Once the ball is in the air on a perimeter shot, no one has control if it's going in. I'd rather take the randomness out of 3-point attempts by not allowing those shots.

And yes, there is the phrase "live by the 3, die by the 3".... I would rather the "live by the 3" not being an option by not allowing those shots.

 

[mikeirbyusa]

Tokoto would have completed this team

Or wrecked it? He did what was best for him if he was un-willing to accept a reduced role.

 

[coryfly]

Yeah, I think it is difficult to control what percentage a team shoots from 3. It is possible to at least somewhat limit how many a team takes.

 

[DSouthr]

3point attempts per field goal attempts (3PA/FGA) is a tempo free stat. Doesn't have much to do with how fast we play. 3PA allowed per game is a tempo dependent stat, but not 3PA/FGA.

The long distance 3's is a valid point, but it's a make or miss game... Meaning, there is an element of randomness to all of this. I would rather have that bit of randomness be a 2-point shot vs a 3-point shot.

And even if layups are the most efficient shot in basketball... I think 3's compromise your defense more. It's worth 50% more than 2's and if your defense is ever stretched, then it compromises more. Also, you're probably going to get many more 3-point shots vs layups during a game, so in terms of volume, I don't think it's really close. But I could be wrong.

UNI and Texas are ok. They're borderline NCAA tournament teams IMO. I have little problem with us losing a couple games... That was going to happen. But the way we lost is really the only way we could lose those 2 games. Giving up a ton of 3 point shots and allowing a lot of makes.

No team in the country will 2-point us to death. We're too good offensively to allow that to happen. My primary argument and why I think shutting off 3 point shots is going to determine how far we're going to go is it's a make or miss game. Once the ball is in the air on a perimeter shot, no one has control if it's going in. I'd rather take the randomness out of 3-point attempts by not allowing those shots.

And yes, there is the phrase "live by the 3, die by the 3".... I would rather the "live by the 3" not being an option by not allowing those shots.

OK, lets take a different tact here, lets say a team hits 15 treys in a game and the opposition does snot hit a single one, that means the one team has a 15 point advantage. Problem is how many college teams have you seen hit 15 more treys in a game than the opponents? So the one team is making 2s at a much higher make % than the team shooting the treys. A team shooting 39% (the bench mark you offer for hitting treys) over all for a half or a game is not going to win many games. Those teams shooting fewer treys wi8ll shoot a much higher % because they are taking higher % make shots as Dean Smith taught for so many very successful years both with and without the 3pt shot in the game.

3pt shots tend to be streaky, sure a guy like XRM can heat up and drop 2 or 3 quickly on your but those higher % shots are far less streaky (thus the phrase live or die by the 3). A team that consistently shoots 50% for the game is most times going to beat a team shooting more treys but over all shooting below 40% and especially if the team shooting more 2s controls the glass. The bonus point does not matter if your team is hitting their bunnies and cashing from the foul line. Brice takes 28 shots and makes 15 of them, I don't see many kids taking 18 treys and making anywhere close to 15 of them, you don't see them do that consistently shooting off a rack of balls much less being defended. You are trying to apply theroy to a game that is played in reality and that is the problem. Look at the teams that have shot 35% from trey against us this season, how many beat us, how many did we win? How many of those treys were contested, a contested trey is not the same as a wide open look kicked back out to a squared up shooter. Texas hit a lot of treys but many of those were contested. XRM hit 2 on the move from about 40 feet, good result but a really bad shot unless the shot clock is winding down.

That is why they play the games and simulations do not dictate who the champs are else Ky would be the defending champs right now and not duke. I get your point, I don't agree with it, the fad in todays game is to feature the small guys in the NBA and those fads bleed back down to the college game. But give me a big man dominated team that is efficient scoring in the paint and I will take that 10 out of 10 times to win in college. Timely 3pt shooting is a big time asset but college games are won inside the paint by the team that defends the paint, controls the glass, gets high % shots near the rim and hits their free throws. I believe that and will always believe that. If 50% of your shots in a game are treys, you are going to struggle...You may catch fire every now & then but over all you are going to struggle. Live by the 3 & die by the trey...

 

[mikeirbyusa]

Some are selling us short. With the new rule changes it's very difficult to be a "defensive stopper". Britt has played some very good D as has Theo. Brice was a MAN against all those trees at FSU, hoping we see this more-more. Sometimes you simply must say "good shot" or "good play".

 

[ChiShankCity]

OK, lets take a different tact here, lets say a team hits 15 treys in a game and the opposition does snot hit a single one, that means the one team has a 15 point advantage. Problem is how many college teams have you seen hit 15 more treys in a game than the opponents? So the one team is making 2s at a much higher make % than the team shooting the treys. A team shooting 39% (the bench mark you offer for hitting treys) over all for a half or a game is not going to win many games. Those teams shooting fewer treys wi8ll shoot a much higher % because they are taking higher % make shots as Dean Smith taught for so many very successful years both with and without the 3pt shot in the game.

3pt shots tend to be streaky, sure a guy like XRM can heat up and drop 2 or 3 quickly on your but those higher % shots are far less streaky (thus the phrase live or die by the 3). A team that consistently shoots 50% for the game is most times going to beat a team shooting more treys but over all shooting below 40% and especially if the team shooting more 2s controls the glass. The bonus point does not matter if your team is hitting their bunnies and cashing from the foul line. Brice takes 28 shots and makes 15 of them, I don't see many kids taking 18 treys and making anywhere close to 15 of them, you don't see them do that consistently shooting off a rack of balls much less being defended. You are trying to apply theroy to a game that is played in reality and that is the problem. Look at the teams that have shot 35% from trey against us this season, how many beat us, how many did we win? How many of those treys were contested, a contested trey is not the same as a wide open look kicked back out to a squared up shooter. Texas hit a lot of treys but many of those were contested. XRM hit 2 on the move from about 40 feet, good result but a really bad shot unless the shot clock is winding down.

That is why they play the games and simulations do not dictate who the champs are else Ky would be the defending champs right now and not duke. I get your point, I don't agree with it, the fad in todays game is to feature the small guys in the NBA and those fads bleed back down to the college game. But give me a big man dominated team that is efficient scoring in the paint and I will take that 10 out of 10 times to win in college. Timely 3pt shooting is a big time asset but college games are won inside the paint by the team that defends the paint, controls the glass, gets high % shots near the rim and hits their free throws. I believe that and will always believe that. If 50% of your shots in a game are treys, you are going to struggle...You may catch fire every now & then but over all you are going to struggle. Live by the 3 & die by the trey...

My argument against yours here is the math. And sorry to be so numbers driven here but these are the facts.

3's are worth 50% more than 2's. So to compare 2pg FG% vs 3pt FG% as apples to apples is wrong. Since 3's are worth 50% more than 2's, they need to be treated as such in terms of FG%. That's where effective FG% comes into play since it accounts for the 50% difference.

So here's the break down.

30% 3pt% = 45% 2pt

35% 3pt% = 52.5% 2 pt

40% 3pt% = 60% 2 pt

45% 3pt% = 67.5% 2pt

That's purely in terms of FGA. I realize that and-1's are more common from 2's... But I would expect maybe 1 of 15 2's on average lead to and-1's??? Not completely sure but that's my guess.

So let's take your Brice Johnson example. He takes 28 shots and makes 15 of them. That's 53.5% on 2's. That means a 36% 3 point shooter is shooting a higher percentage purely in terms of efficiency and points-per-shot.

"Texas hit a lot of treys but many of those were contested. XRM hit 2 on the move from about 40 feet, good result but a really bad shot unless the shot clock is winding down."

Spot on... But this is my point. Once the ball leaves the hand, it's make or miss and nothing is in a player's control after the ball leaves the hand on a perimeter shot. My argument is the only way of eliminating that randomness from 3 is to not allow 3 point shots.

 

[dadika13]

Spot on... But this is my point. Once the ball leaves the hand, it's make or miss and nothing is in a player's control after the ball leaves the hand on a perimeter shot. My argument is the only way of eliminating that randomness from 3 is to not allow 3 point shots.

Completely disagree. You're assuming the percentage is the same for open vs. contested 3's and that is just not the case. There is a reason that teams shoot lower 3 point % against better defensive teams, it isn't about the "player's control". It's about having a hand in his face.

Prime example: Kansas is #1 in the country in 3 point % this year. Michigan St., however, is #8 defending it as opponents are shooting just 27%. In their game in November against each other, Kansas shoots 2 for 10 from 3. Coincidence? I think not.

Want another one? Akron is #2 in 3 point defense. Arkansas is #11 in shooting it at 41%. They played and Akron held them to 30% from 3. Again, coincidence?

Good defense is the best way to stop a 3 point shooting team.

I won't even get into the argument that 3 point misses lead to long rebounds to guards which start fast breaks because that just cripples the whole "don't allow 3 point shots" theory.

 

[ChiShankCity]

Completely disagree. You're assuming the percentage is the same for open vs. contested 3's and that is just not the case. There is a reason that teams shoot lower 3 point % against better defensive teams, it isn't about the "player's control". It's about having a hand in his face.

Prime example: Kansas is #1 in the country in 3 point % this year. Michigan St., however, is #8 defending it as opponents are shooting just 27%. In their game in November against each other, Kansas shoots 2 for 10 from 3. Coincidence? I think not.

Want another one? Akron is #2 in 3 point defense. Arkansas is #11 in shooting it at 41%. They played and Akron held them to 30% from 3. Again, coincidence?

Good defense is the best way to stop a 3 point shooting team.

I won't even get into the argument that 3 point misses lead to long rebounds to guards which start fast breaks because that just cripples the whole "don't allow 3 point shots" theory.

I'm not assuming anything. I know that a contested 3 is less likely to be made vs an open 3. My point is everything post shot is just make/miss. There's a randomness to it.

Long rebounds is a valid point. But to us, I think we're really good offensively... No team in the country is going to beat us shooting 2's. Teams will beat us if they shoot a high volume of 3's.

I'm willing to bet every game we lose, our opponent will have shot more than 20 3's.

 

[Grayhead]

Circus shots are going to happen. We have guarded those quite well. Stopping dribble penetration to kick out to a three is a factor. Seems like at this point, teams are able to test us. I assume that by end of acc we will cut that even more. The point of this thread was to address if we had someone who could develop into a stopper. Personally, I think theo could be the answer. We need offensive production from everyone else on the floor. He has not come completely into his scoring ability. But focusing on defense will help him now and at the next level. Hard to work on shooting mechanics during the season

 

[Heelicious]

You can do almost anything you want with stats.... here are some on the 3 point discussion, that I think somewhat refute Sjung and support DSouthr

We are 8-2 in games where teams shot 20+ threes; 6-0 in games where they shot <20. So shooting 20+ did help a couple teams, but I agree it had more to do with rebounding, and inside play in these games.

Our opponents points per FGA in the 20+ 3 games was 1.27; for the <20 3 games it was 1.19.... not a huge difference....

In the opponents' 20+ 3s games, they shot 39% from 3; 42% from 3 for the <20 3s per game teams. So, being more selective and not jacking a high volume will tend to increase your percentage....

If shooting threes at a high volume is the answer, why not coach a team to pass the ball around to ONLY shoot threes in a game, to take Sjungs point to an extreme? It'd be interesting to see the result.

Note: in 5 of the last 7 games (exceptions are UNCG and FSU) - opponents have taken fewer than 20 threes. That can mean a few things...
1) we're more focused on denying the three, and

2) we are facing better opponents (in ACC play), who resort to more intelligent sophisticated offenses, with talented bigs, so they are less likely to rely on jacking threes while the bigs camp out in the lane to rebound and throw it out for another jacked up 3.

But most of all, I agree with people who say you have to watch the games and situations.... I've just shown almost anyone can twist and select stats to make their case.

But Roy has already said several times that "we aren't getting where we want unless we commit to - and learn to - play better defense and stop people" Players have said it too. They get it.

I thing Sjungs thing about needing to be top 20 defense is questionable. I wonder if the '05 and '09 teams had top 20 defenses.... I doubt it. Just like this '16 team, naysayers equated high scoring at times for "Heels have no heart, can't/won't play defense". BS. In both title years Roy made a focus on defense especially in later stages of ACC and NCAA tourney play, and the Heels clamped down and got it done, against the likes of MSU and Illinois in '05, LSU in '09.

But Roy's teams are never going be based on trying to slow down/shorten the game and keep a team under a certain point total. And if the opponent wants to jack up 30+ 3's, have at it. Good luck.

And I am happy with / agree with Roy's / Dean's defense /offense / tempo philosophy

 

[JuleZ '02 HEEL]

Funny you should ask ...

 

[UNCbeliever]

What we need is for every player to buy into team defense and play hard every possession.

 

[gary-7]

My argument against yours here is the math. And sorry to be so numbers driven here but these are the facts.

3's are worth 50% more than 2's. So to compare 2pg FG% vs 3pt FG% as apples to apples is wrong. Since 3's are worth 50% more than 2's, they need to be treated as such in terms of FG%. That's where effective FG% comes into play since it accounts for the 50% difference.

So here's the break down.

30% 3pt% = 45% 2pt

35% 3pt% = 52.5% 2 pt

40% 3pt% = 60% 2 pt

45% 3pt% = 67.5% 2pt

That's purely in terms of FGA. I realize that and-1's are more common from 2's... But I would expect maybe 1 of 15 2's on average lead to and-1's??? Not completely sure but that's my guess.

So let's take your Brice Johnson example. He takes 28 shots and makes 15 of them. That's 53.5% on 2's. That means a 36% 3 point shooter is shooting a higher percentage purely in terms of efficiency and points-per-shot.

"Texas hit a lot of treys but many of those were contested. XRM hit 2 on the move from about 40 feet, good result but a really bad shot unless the shot clock is winding down."

Spot on... But this is my point. Once the ball leaves the hand, it's make or miss and nothing is in a player's control after the ball leaves the hand on a perimeter shot. My argument is the only way of eliminating that randomness from 3 is to not allow 3 point shots.

Here's where you have to be careful about oversimplifying numbers:
What you are not factoring in are the sheer number of misses, and the negative effect those have.
You correctly point out that in straight numbers 35% from 3 = 52.5% from 2.
Fair enough, BUT... that just counts the points you get for makes. Even if you shoot 35% from 3 you are still missing nearly 2/3 of those shots!... and that is a bad thing, because now you just increased the number of possessions for your opponent, whereas on 52.5% 2-pt shooting you are missing less than half your shots... AND shots taken in the paint draw more fouls and have a better chance of put-backs.

Bottom line is the 3-pointer is a worthwhile shot for the reasons you mentioned (plus it can open up the paint, but over-reliance can bite you in the ass.

 

[mikeirbyusa]

Funny you should ask ...

Lucas just has a way doesn't he JuleZ?

 

[ChiShankCity]

Here's where you have to be careful about oversimplifying numbers:
What you are not factoring in are the sheer number of misses, and the negative effect those have.
You correctly point out that in straight numbers 35% from 3 = 52.5% from 2.
Fair enough, BUT... that just counts the points you get for makes. Even if you shoot 35% from 3 you are still missing nearly 2/3 of those shots!... and that is a bad thing, because now you just increased the number of possessions for your opponent, whereas on 52.5% 2-pt shooting you are missing less than half your shots... AND shots taken in the paint draw more fouls and have a better chance of put-backs.

Bottom line is the 3-pointer is a worthwhile shot for the reasons you mentioned (plus it can open up the paint, but over-reliance can bite you in the ass.

Everything you're saying is valid, but still doesn't counter that we allow way too many 3 point makes and takes.

Unless people are so worried about our big guys getting into foul trouble, so we should allow more 3's to avoid that likelihood, then I'm not sure what the debate is. Our clear weakness is defending the 3 and that's pretty significant because you can be beaten by the 3. We won't be beaten by 2's.

The other issue is we're not allowing 35% on 3's. If we were, we'd be better defensively. We're allowing 40% on 3's. So if the trend of allowing that kind of efficiency and quantity from 3, we'll probably run into issues in the tournament.

And someone previously asked if we were good defenses during Roy's title winning seasons.
2005 - 12th nationally in defensive efficiency
2009 - 21st nationally in defensive efficiency

And due to how much parity is in college hoops this year, I don't see a team outside the top 30 in defense winning it. The hope countering that is Duke last year. They were 57th in D efficiency heading into the tournament and won.

 

[Archer2]

You can do almost anything you want with stats.... here are some on the 3 point discussion, that I think somewhat refute Sjung and support DSouthr

We are 8-2 in games where teams shot 20+ threes; 6-0 in games where they shot <20. So shooting 20+ did help a couple teams, but I agree it had more to do with rebounding, and inside play in these games.

Our opponents points per FGA in the 20+ 3 games was 1.27; for the <20 3 games it was 1.19.... not a huge difference....

In the opponents' 20+ 3s games, they shot 39% from 3; 42% from 3 for the <20 3s per game teams. So, being more selective and not jacking a high volume will tend to increase your percentage....

If shooting threes at a high volume is the answer, why not coach a team to pass the ball around to ONLY shoot threes in a game, to take Sjungs point to an extreme? It'd be interesting to see the result.

Note: in 5 of the last 7 games (exceptions are UNCG and FSU) - opponents have taken fewer than 20 threes. That can mean a few things...
1) we're more focused on denying the three, and

2) we are facing better opponents (in ACC play), who resort to more intelligent sophisticated offenses, with talented bigs, so they are less likely to rely on jacking threes while the bigs camp out in the lane to rebound and throw it out for another jacked up 3.

But most of all, I agree with people who say you have to watch the games and situations.... I've just shown almost anyone can twist and select stats to make their case.

But Roy has already said several times that "we aren't getting where we want unless we commit to - and learn to - play better defense and stop people" Players have said it too. They get it.

I thing Sjungs thing about needing to be top 20 defense is questionable. I wonder if the '05 and '09 teams had top 20 defenses.... I doubt it. Just like this '16 team, naysayers equated high scoring at times for "Heels have no heart, can't/won't play defense". BS. In both title years Roy made a focus on defense especially in later stages of ACC and NCAA tourney play, and the Heels clamped down and got it done, against the likes of MSU and Illinois in '05, LSU in '09.

But Roy's teams are never going be based on trying to slow down/shorten the game and keep a team under a certain point total. And if the opponent wants to jack up 30+ 3's, have at it. Good luck.

And I am happy with / agree with Roy's / Dean's defense /offense / tempo philosophy

One of the best posts I've read here recently Heelicious. Couldn't agree more.

To address a point above your post, giving up 90 points was a direct result of us scoring 106, many on quick scoring fastbreaks. I'll take 106-90 all day long.

No, our defense isn't where Coach or our fans want it to be. But it's getting better and our offensive efficiency is better than it's been in several years. It's our ace in the hole. The last couple of years we've struggled to score for long stretches, those are much rarer now. We have several guys who can score 18 on a given night. That makes us hard to guard.

We still give up too many three point attempts. On that, we can agree. But I firmly believe we'll be a very solid defensive team by tournament time. If we can get Kennedy back soon, I likes our chances!

 

[gary-7]

Everything you're saying is valid, but still doesn't counter that we allow way too many 3 point makes and takes.

Unless people are so worried about our big guys getting into foul trouble, so we should allow more 3's to avoid that likelihood, then I'm not sure what the debate is. Our clear weakness is defending the 3 and that's pretty significant because you can be beaten by the 3. We won't be beaten by 2's.

The other issue is we're not allowing 35% on 3's. If we were, we'd be better defensively. We're allowing 40% on 3's. So if the trend of allowing that kind of efficiency and quantity from 3, we'll probably run into issues in the tournament.

And someone previously asked if we were good defenses during Roy's title winning seasons.
2005 - 12th nationally in defensive efficiency
2009 - 21st nationally in defensive efficiency

And due to how much parity is in college hoops this year, I don't see a team outside the top 30 in defense winning it. The hope countering that is Duke last year. They were 57th in D efficiency heading into the tournament and won.

Sorry bro but heres where the actual game of Basketball comes in. You don't "stop" people from taking 3s. In fact in all of basketball 3s are the easiest shots to get up. They might not all be good looks but you can sure as hell get em up. And THAT is what is happening.
Most 3s we contest. Sometimes they make em anyway.

 

[Archer2]

Yes he does Mike. Nate is one of the more underappreciated guys on our team.

 

[Heelicious]

Sorry bro but heres where the actual game of Basketball comes in. You don't "stop" people from taking 3s. In fact in all of basketball 3s are the easiest shots to get up. They might not all be good looks but you can sure as hell get em up. And THAT is what is happening.
Most 3s we contest. Sometimes they make em anyway.

Gary, exactly.... how the heck do you "stop" someone from taking a three?

I mean that literally, SJung. Do we have our 5 defenders hang out at the 3 pt arc and chase, tackle, drag people inside the arc? Clear the lane for them, for a layup / dunk? Do we speak to their shooters harshly after they just took a 3? LOL what a joke.

Like Gary said, they're going to take them if they want, our job is just to make the shots as difficult as possible. (closely guarded or wrong people shooting or far out from arc or combo of these).

I haven't looked at the stats on this yet, but I guarantee and can recall several games this year where teams have cooled way off in the second half in shooting threes. XRM and Maryland immediately come to mind, but I'm sure there are several others. Why is this?
1) we adjust and make locking down that one guy a focus (yep, "dumb ol Roy" can ID the guy who is burning us, and can have us work harder on locking that guy down).

2) their hot shooter gets tired, and shots come up short / off in second half

Last thing - neither game we lost this year, did we lose primarily because of the 3.
1) UNI - dribble drive to the hole at will in crunch time for layups / dunks (enabled largely by us not having Marcus as a perimeter / guard defender)
2) Texas - beaten on the boards, second chance points

Sure 3's made a difference in these games, but if we play like we usually do in other areas, the 3s shot / made are just a supporting stat.

That's why its true that you have to watch what happens, when, within each game vs. trying to assess what will happen in the future based on some consolidated stats over 16 games, against teams of varying ability, different UNC team circumstances (who is healthy, what time of year it is, etc), and situation within (time and score) each individual games.

Is there any game this year, when it came to crunch time, when the game is being decided, and we say "if the opponents hit a few threes here they will win" and that does in fact go on to happen, because we let them take good 3 looks, they make them, and we lose? No way.

 

[DSouthr]

Gary, exactly.... how the heck do you "stop" someone from taking a three?

I mean that literally, SJung. Do we have our 5 defenders hang out at the 3 pt arc and chase, tackle, drag people inside the arc? Clear the lane for them, for a layup / dunk? Do we speak to their shooters harshly after they just took a 3? LOL what a joke.

Like Gary said, they're going to take them if they want, our job is just to make the shots as difficult as possible. (closely guarded or wrong people shooting or far out from arc or combo of these).

I haven't looked at the stats on this yet, but I guarantee and can recall several games this year where teams have cooled way off in the second half in shooting threes. XRM and Maryland immediately come to mind, but I'm sure there are several others. Why is this?
1) we adjust and make locking down that one guy a focus (yep, "dumb ol Roy" can ID the guy who is burning us, and can have us work harder on locking that guy down).

2) their hot shooter gets tired, and shots come up short / off in second half

Last thing - neither game we lost this year, did we lose primarily because of the 3.
1) UNI - dribble drive to the hole at will in crunch time for layups / dunks (enabled largely by us not having Marcus as a perimeter / guard defender)
2) Texas - beaten on the boards, second chance points

Sure 3's made a difference in these games, but if we play like we usually do in other areas, the 3s shot / made are just a supporting stat.

That's why its true that you have to watch what happens, when, within each game vs. trying to assess what will happen in the future based on some consolidated stats over 16 games, against teams of varying ability, different UNC team circumstances (who is healthy, what time of year it is, etc), and situation within (time and score) each individual games.

Is there any game this year, when it came to crunch time, when the game is being decided, and we say "if the opponents hit a few threes here they will win" and that does in fact go on to happen, because we let them take good 3 looks, they make them, and we lose? No way.

I have NEVER heard anyone suggest that you can only win by limiting how many treys the opposing team takes. I mean, I can not express how crazy that notion is. OK, so hey guys, here is how we win, every time you step across the half court line take a 3pt shot! They will not guard you way out to the half court stripe so you can shoot those all day long un-guarded! You will win because it is all about how many treys you take, who cares how many go in! RIGHT....LOL I am still pinching myself to make sure I didn't dream jung said that, but ya'll read it to yeah?

 

[HeelFan58]

3 point misses often turn into long offensive rebounds and another possession for the offense and if they ran deep into the shot clock it cuts down on our possessions so that point doesn't really hold water in all cases. We tend to play fast creating more possessions for the other team than they usually have.

 

[HeelFan58]

I have NEVER heard anyone suggest that you can only win by limiting how many treys the opposing team takes. I mean, I can not express how crazy that notion is. OK, so hey guys, here is how we win, every time you step across the half court line take a 3pt shot! They will not guard you way out to the half court stripe so you can shoot those all day long un-guarded! You will win because it is all about how many treys you take, who cares how many go in! RIGHT....LOL I am still pinching myself to make sure I didn't dream jung said that, but ya'll read it to yeah?

It's only about how many 3's you take when you excel at 3 point shooting. Obviously every team we play does not excel at 3 point shooting. The point is don't give up so many open ones. Know who the threats are.