Michigan attempted 35 threes.

Donate To GopherHole
G

Go Gophs eh?

Active member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,257
Reaction score
0
Points
36
and only made 12. gophs are gettin better. not to mention they grabbed 11 rebounds the whole game! go gophers go!
 

Live by the three, die by the three.
 

That was their hope. It almost worked.
 

Go Gophs eh? said:
and only made 12. gophs are gettin better. not to mention they grabbed 11 rebounds the whole game! go gophers go!
Click to expand...

The only problem is that 12 of 35 is 36 points on 35 shots- so that has the same effectiveness as shooting 50%+ on two point shots. The 3 can be devestating if you can't stop it. We counteracted by being incredible on the boards tonight. Good win.
 



bga1 said:
The only problem is that 12 of 35 is 36 points on 35 shots- so that has the same effectiveness as shooting 50%+ on two point shots. The 3 can be devestating if you can't stop it. We counteracted by being incredible on the boards tonight. Good win.
Click to expand...

I used to think that but it's not the same. A 3-point shooting team doesn't get to the foul line nearly as often as a team that works it down low more. There's also a less chance for offensive rebounds if you're shooting a lot from the outside. Michigan had 9 free throws and 3 offensive rebounds tonight. Michigan leads the Big Ten in 3 pointers attempted this year but they are second to last in offensive rebounds, and easily last in free throw attempts.

The Gophers have much more of an inside game and they lead the league in free throw attempts by a larger margin. We just need to make more now.
 

it also means that they almost scored nothing inside the paint, which is the highest percentage shot in basketball.
 

It was either Tubby or Jim Jackson who said it was the stopping of the penetration that improved the defense of the threes. if they can't get close to the basket, they can't kick it out for an easy three. They were still bad defending the three in the man to man, especially at the beginning of the game.
 

bga1 said:
The only problem is that 12 of 35 is 36 points on 35 shots- so that has the same effectiveness as shooting 50%+ on two point shots. The 3 can be devestating if you can't stop it. We counteracted by being incredible on the boards tonight. Good win.
Click to expand...

How were the Gophers "incredible" on the boards? The reason for the large rebounding discrepancy was the Gophers effectiveness shooting the ball combined with our offensive sloppy play. We ended up shooting 60+ percent from the field but also committed 17 turnovers. Because we attempted fewer shots than them but converted a high rate, there simply weren't many rebounds for them even to get. Also, by forcing them to shoot lower-percentage three point shots, and since they only turned the ball over 7 times, they attempted far more shots, so there were more rebounds for us to grab.

Rebounding margin generally has very little to do with how well a team boxes out on the boards. It is much more about how good/bad your shot selection is compared to your opponents.
 



Actually, 12 for 33 is pretty good. That is 36 points from 33 shots. To accomplish that with only two-poing shots would mean going 18 for 33, or 55%, which is great! It truly is an all or nothing approach though as giving the ball back to Gophers 21 times on missed 3 pointers is like a turnover almost.
Either way, we played better and that was great to see them do on the road, which is never easy in the Big Ten
 

My bad math as it was 12 for 35 not 33. Also I missed the post by bga1 that stated the same thing as I. Sorry bga1
 

josh087 said:
How were the Gophers "incredible" on the boards? The reason for the large rebounding discrepancy was the Gophers effectiveness shooting the ball combined with our offensive sloppy play. We ended up shooting 60+ percent from the field but also committed 17 turnovers. Because we attempted fewer shots than them but converted a high rate, there simply weren't many rebounds for them even to get. Also, by forcing them to shoot lower-percentage three point shots, and since they only turned the ball over 7 times, they attempted far more shots, so there were more rebounds for us to grab.

Rebounding margin generally has very little to do with how well a team boxes out on the boards. It is much more about how good/bad your shot selection is compared to your opponents.
Click to expand...

What you just said explains some rebounding differentials. But not this one. 37-11 is an amazing differential no matter how you cut it. We only missed something like 15 shots yet we got 11 offensive rebounds. They missed about 30 shots and got only 3 offensive rebounds.
 

josh087 said:
How were the Gophers "incredible" on the boards? The reason for the large rebounding discrepancy was the Gophers effectiveness shooting the ball combined with our offensive sloppy play. We ended up shooting 60+ percent from the field but also committed 17 turnovers. Because we attempted fewer shots than them but converted a high rate, there simply weren't many rebounds for them even to get. Also, by forcing them to shoot lower-percentage three point shots, and since they only turned the ball over 7 times, they attempted far more shots, so there were more rebounds for us to grab.

Rebounding margin generally has very little to do with how well a team boxes out on the boards. It is much more about how good/bad your shot selection is compared to your opponents.
Click to expand...

Let's take away raw numbers. The Gophers grabbed 83% of all possible defensive rebounds and more than 50% of all offensive rebounds. You see that maybe every 5 years.
 



From the Barn said:
Let's take away raw numbers. The Gophers grabbed 83% of all possible defensive rebounds and more than 50% of all offensive rebounds. You see that maybe every 5 years.
Click to expand...

Has dboy unbunnied all of this? Are you guys sure we didn't actually get outrebounded (after unbunnying)?
 

There's truth to that, but when the other team only grabs 11 rebounds in the entire game, you're probably doing a pretty good job of rebounding. I guess maybe "incredible" is too strong but it's not an outrageous statement. Just curious though, how would you describe it? Hopefully it's not something like "logical" or "expected".

josh087 said:
How were the Gophers "incredible" on the boards? The reason for the large rebounding discrepancy was the Gophers effectiveness shooting the ball combined with our offensive sloppy play. We ended up shooting 60+ percent from the field but also committed 17 turnovers. Because we attempted fewer shots than them but converted a high rate, there simply weren't many rebounds for them even to get. Also, by forcing them to shoot lower-percentage three point shots, and since they only turned the ball over 7 times, they attempted far more shots, so there were more rebounds for us to grab.

Rebounding margin generally has very little to do with how well a team boxes out on the boards. It is much more about how good/bad your shot selection is compared to your opponents.
Click to expand...
 

From the Barn said:
Let's take away raw numbers. The Gophers grabbed 83% of all possible defensive rebounds and more than 50% of all offensive rebounds. You see that maybe every 5 years.
Click to expand...

Fair points. I wasn't trying to say that they weren't boxing out or being aggressive down low. I just thought the way the game was played determined a lot of the disparity. Almost 70% of Michigan's shots in the game were from three, so they weren't going to get a lot of offensive rebounds. Certainly you have to make a concerted effort on the boards to put up the numbers they did yesterday.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom