We have never defended the 3 well in any season. That has been the one thing that has been consistent even in the seasons where we won 'ships. That's just one part that Roy's teams are just OK giving up. Every defense has to give up something and Roy has decided he would rather focus on helping and closing down the painted area, as opposed to playing out on the perimeter. I think that philosophy was great in the pre-3 point shot era, but the risks are a lot higher now with many teams able to knock down 3's. Most teams don't have guys that can constently knock down 3's, so if most teams are shooting in the 20/25% range were OK. The problem I saw was we weren't able to stop dribble penetration of either Felix or Taylor. That to me was a bigger issue than the 3's. Those guys got to the cup at will.
Last year we were 14th in the country in defensive 3pt percentage. So a similar roster defended the 3 pretty well last year, but we still got killed because he allowed a lot of attempts.
But our roster is flawed to defend the 3. Berry is not a really good defender and last year our defensive stats were awful when he was in the lineup. He has to play more and will be either guarding a PG that can drive by him or a SG, and Berry has a habit of getting lost off the ball o D.
If Roy's still "OK" giving up 3 point shots over layups, forget about final fours not only this year but any year in the future under Roy. The game has changed. It's not changing, it's not in the process of changing, it's not an evolutionary process of changing. It has changed (past tense).
This is basic math... I'm sure most understand, but in case some are skeptical... I'll try to simplify it.
_______
A 3pt shot is worth 50% more than a 2pt shot (if both shots are made).
The elite finishers in the NBA shoot at the most 70% from 10 feet and in. That's the equivalent of about a 46% 3 point shooter. So for an elite NBA 3 point shooter, whenever they shoot a 3, it's the equivalent of an elite finishing forward shooting a shot from 10 feet and in.
An asterisk to that is that doesn't account for and-1's which are far more likely to happen on shots near the basket vs shots from 3.
Another example... LeBron James shot a career high 78% at the rim in 2013. That's the equivalent to a 52% 3 point shooter.
______
So... The math says, the elite 3 point shooters in the NBA (45%+) are pretty much shooting layups according to the math.
What's the easiest way to counteract that? Don't allow 3 point shots.
Right now, we're allowing 38.4% on 3's. That's the equivalent to allowing 57.3% on 2's. You know what we allow from 2 right now? 43%.
If you think we have the defense that will allow, for the rest of the season, around 30% from 3, then Roy's strategy is fine. If you think we have a D that will probably allow 35%'ish for the rest of the season, then the strategy needs to change. If it doesn't we just won win big in March. We have a flawed and fairly mediocre talent roster.... The coaching can't hold it back if they hope to do anything significant.
