The pros and cons of forcing 3pt shots

[bga1]

There has been an ongoing discussion about our defense and the tendency to allow the opponents three point shots. No question about it, our interior defense is good with all the size we have. On the perimeter we aren't very quick when we go with a big lineup.

I have seen posts on here where people say- our 3 point defense isn't bad it's 3rd in the Big Ten percentage wise. And that's true we "allow" 33% makes. However, that means that it's essentially like shooting 50% from the 2 point shots- effectively. The response to that is that forcing the threes reduces the foul shot opportunities that the other team gets. And that might be true to an extent.

Watching last nights game where we caused only 5 turnovers and got zero steals I realized another deficit of the strategy (intentional or not) of allowing huge quantities of open threes. When a team determines to just wait for the first open three they rarely turn it over. So we are getting the combination of allowing 50% effectiveness on shooting and low turnovers.

We aren't just a little unusual. We are amazing in our propensity to offer threes. During Big Ten play the average Big Ten team is allowing around 16 attempts- whereas we are allowing or offering 25 attempts. Other teams are getting about 12 more points per games from threes than we are. A pretty big hurdle if you also are not getting turnovers.

Overall it just doesn't seem to be sound strategy in todays game. Hate to bring up the Grinch and the Badgers but they are a team that consistently over achieves versus expectations and they offer half the threes:

Wisconsin 3 point defense: Made 3's - 53 Attempts- 170 %- .315
Minnesota 3 point defense: Made 3's - 115 Attempts- 348 %- .330

 

[ruppertflywheel]

Agree.

I wonder where we rank nationally? Even with Nolan playing we still gave up too many three's. Although I will say this, the range of some of the 3-point shooters now is amazing. Battle launched a couple that were in the ozone.

 

[sal]

Without looking at any stats, I would guess that our points in the paint allowed stat is just as lopsided. Conventional wisdom would say limit points in the paint, dominate down low and you win games. 3 pointers continue to be an issue with this team.

 

[josh087]

These are all good points. The key to good defense is
1) Forcing tough shots
2) Rebounding
3) Creating turnovers
4) Not fouling

Because of our limited depth we have gone almost exclusively to zone, thus taking away our ability to create turnovers. However, because of our strong interior defensive presence and height, teams are almost abandoning the inside game in favor of bombing away from 3, which helps our rebounding and fouling. But, when you allow teams to shoot 33% from three-point range you are effectively not forcing enough tough shots.

We are only good in two of these areas with the zone defense - and because of our offensive struggles it is just not going to be a formula that works in our favor very often.

 

[march madness]

With our big men we should over play the guards.

We have the best shotblocking team in the big ten and one of the best in the country. But teams don't even need to take it inside when they can just rotate it on the perimeter against our zone and get a nice 3pt look.

Our oversized lineup is beyond slow and its dumb.

 

[bga1]

Without looking at any stats, I would guess that our points in the paint allowed stat is just as lopsided. Conventional wisdom would say limit points in the paint, dominate down low and you win games. 3 pointers continue to be an issue with this team.

Honestly - I think if there were no three point shot in college buckets we would be about 10-4 in the Big Ten. Tubby's defenses work perfect for basketball prior to the 3 point shot.

 

[Mulligan]

Our oversized lineup is beyond slow and its dumb.

First adjective is the accurate one. The defense is being broken down. When it is, the defense can't adjust quickly enough. Somebody else has to cover, leaving another open spot. Add in the factor of hesitation because you know the other guy can blow by you, and they really look passive. Has little to do with dumb; everything to do with lack of quickness IMO. It's as unfair to ask Colton to play on the perimeter of the zone as it is to ask Blake to handle the ball as much as he does.

 

[bga1]

First adjective is the accurate one. The defense is being broken down. When it is, the defense can't adjust quickly enough. Somebody else has to cover, leaving another open spot. Add in the factor of hesitation because you know the other guy can blow by you, and they really look passive. Has little to do with dumb; everything to do with lack of quickness IMO. It's as unfair to ask Colton to play on the perimeter of the zone as it is to ask Blake to handle the ball as much as he does.

Well... if they lack the quickness to do what they are doing... then isn't it "dumb" to run this defense with this personnel? Maybe we should switch up the lineup? Tubby did do this at about the 10 minute mark of the second half for a while. However, I think we can be just about guaranteed that he'll go the first 7 minutes (his recent trend) with the skyscraper lineup.

 

[Duthasmon Smith]

The problem with the zone is how far Colt or Ralph get sucked into the middle on penetration and then the kick out leaves them exposed. With Trevor in the middle as our premier shot blocker, top of the key penetration needs to be met by him alone with Ralph and Trevor sinking only a few feet versus 10 feet etc. That'll cut down the WIDE OPEN looks teams get against us. At least in my world that'll fix it.

 

[Monty519]

I don't think it's lack of quickness honestly. Do they have to work harder to get to spots and contest than you would normally if you had three guards on the wing or something like that? Yes. But a lot of the looks PSU got, and just in general have been given up have been just either lack of getting the hands up to contest, or falling asleep and allowing a guy to slip free. It's not like they're not capable of defending it though. They've done well at times, they've done poorly at times, that's kind of the nature of the beast when you're shorthanded.

 

[bga1]

I don't think it's lack of quickness honestly. Do they have to work harder to get to spots and contest than you would normally if you had three guards on the wing or something like that? Yes. But a lot of the looks PSU got, and just in general have been given up have been just either lack of getting the hands up to contest, or falling asleep and allowing a guy to slip free. It's not like they're not capable of defending it though. They've done well at times, they've done poorly at times, that's kind of the nature of the beast when you're shorthanded.

Monty- they have 8 guys in the rotation. That's enough to play a zone agressively and correctly. Why are they not getting their hands up or why are they falling asleep? If it's not a lack of quickness then we have a coaching and teaching issue.

 

[Mulligan]

Well... if they lack the quickness to do what they are doing... then isn't it "dumb" to run this defense with this personnel? Maybe we should switch up the lineup? Tubby did do this at about the 10 minute mark of the second half for a while. However, I think we can be just about guaranteed that he'll go the first 7 minutes (his recent trend) with the skyscraper lineup.

Ya. I wish they'd run something else, but I guess I'm not so sure of myself to call Tubby dumb or a poor coach for doing it. That's what those guys do; think basketball. And they prepare based on what they see in practice, scouting, system, experience, etc. Trouble is, so is the other team and it's like Tubby is down a rook and a bishop in a chess match.

This zone we're playing also gives the other team that much longer to set up and run their offense. Al would make the point guard use up a lot of time, pick up his dribble, and force him into spots he didn't want to go. There's none of that now. Battle's comment at the end of the Strib story about how we're a different team now made me sick. Tubby knows this. He just doesn't have the people to do what he wants. Chip and Austin might let you do something better, but then what are you giving up elsewhere? We're in a zone on defense with the bigs partially because the bigs are our best chance to score points.