diggerfoot
Humanity Hiker
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1,567
- Reaction Score
- 8,784
I don't expect this post to turn pessimists into optimists, just to temper expectations of "certain" doom to "possible" doom based on the reality that you never know what will happen with an alternative scenario.
Take the Notre Dame game, for example. They made 65% of their threes while playing without two key starters. Yet if we look at likely scenarios that does not spell doom as much as some might think. We pretty much had our way on offense in the paint. If Reimer and Turner played perhaps we score a few less points. Past history suggests we still might get at least 80 points, but that seemingly makes for a tighter game. Except ....
Notre Dame likely would have run more offense through the post if Reimer and Turner played. Even if that shift produced 65% shooting as well, that would be less scoring for Notre Dame, but they likely would not have increased their two-point shooting from 41% to 65% even with their two posts in the game. In terms of likely scenarios, whatever Notre Dame might have gained on defense with Reimer and Turner they would have lost on offense for that particular, unusual game (unusual, unless you think their hot hand was due to our defense not just being lax, but pathetic compared to all their other opponents).
Ah, but why not stick with the three-pointer even with their starting posts in the game, after seeing how well they were shooting (not just the younger Mabrey by the way)? Did you see how some of those threes were made? The person we think is the best three-point shooter ever usually took her threes one of two ways. KML's feet were squared and set, perhaps receiving a kick out, or she took one step forward into her shot, perhaps as a trailer. She did not take step back threes, a la Notre Dame in that game. She did not take turn around threes, a la Notre Dame. She did not take threes slightly off balance on one foot. When she took shots with the clock winding down I don't recall her hitting them with increased accuracy. Notre Dame had no reason to believe that the type of three-pointers they were taking were a significantly higher percentage shot than running a balanced offense with their posts.
There were, of course, a few normal threes. From what I recall, the normal threes came after offensive rebounds, to me a bigger concern from that game than the threes they were hitting. Ah, but if we are going with "what if" for Turner and Reimer, then let's include "what if" for Butler. Any current player might be called to guard the perimeter after a rotation, because any player could in theory, even Stewart and Tuck. Butler no doubt would be tasked with "staying home."
From what I've seen so far I've been impressed more by how smoothly the team works even with two key freshmen than concerned about DePaul's threes from downtown or Notre Dame's rushed threes. Who knows for sure what really would happen with any alternative scenario, but there is at least some chance that something plays out better rather than worse.
Take the Notre Dame game, for example. They made 65% of their threes while playing without two key starters. Yet if we look at likely scenarios that does not spell doom as much as some might think. We pretty much had our way on offense in the paint. If Reimer and Turner played perhaps we score a few less points. Past history suggests we still might get at least 80 points, but that seemingly makes for a tighter game. Except ....
Notre Dame likely would have run more offense through the post if Reimer and Turner played. Even if that shift produced 65% shooting as well, that would be less scoring for Notre Dame, but they likely would not have increased their two-point shooting from 41% to 65% even with their two posts in the game. In terms of likely scenarios, whatever Notre Dame might have gained on defense with Reimer and Turner they would have lost on offense for that particular, unusual game (unusual, unless you think their hot hand was due to our defense not just being lax, but pathetic compared to all their other opponents).
Ah, but why not stick with the three-pointer even with their starting posts in the game, after seeing how well they were shooting (not just the younger Mabrey by the way)? Did you see how some of those threes were made? The person we think is the best three-point shooter ever usually took her threes one of two ways. KML's feet were squared and set, perhaps receiving a kick out, or she took one step forward into her shot, perhaps as a trailer. She did not take step back threes, a la Notre Dame in that game. She did not take turn around threes, a la Notre Dame. She did not take threes slightly off balance on one foot. When she took shots with the clock winding down I don't recall her hitting them with increased accuracy. Notre Dame had no reason to believe that the type of three-pointers they were taking were a significantly higher percentage shot than running a balanced offense with their posts.
There were, of course, a few normal threes. From what I recall, the normal threes came after offensive rebounds, to me a bigger concern from that game than the threes they were hitting. Ah, but if we are going with "what if" for Turner and Reimer, then let's include "what if" for Butler. Any current player might be called to guard the perimeter after a rotation, because any player could in theory, even Stewart and Tuck. Butler no doubt would be tasked with "staying home."
From what I've seen so far I've been impressed more by how smoothly the team works even with two key freshmen than concerned about DePaul's threes from downtown or Notre Dame's rushed threes. Who knows for sure what really would happen with any alternative scenario, but there is at least some chance that something plays out better rather than worse.