Patterns of losing

[heavy g]

How do we play when we struggle?
-We take lots of threes and miss them
-We do not get the ball in the paint or draw fouls
-We commit a lot of turnovers
-We allow a lot of easy layups

Against UNC, we went 6-9 on 3s in the first half, and 2-15 in the second. While watching our offense while it was "clicking", I noted we had only attempted 3 threes in the first 15+ minutes of the game.

It is plain to me that we need to stop shooting so many from beyond the arc. I don't care how "open" we appear to be. A three should be an opportunistic thing, a momentum shifter. Not the bread and butter of one's offense. Our players are plenty talented enough to work the ball around and get a 15 foot jumper or better most of the time. I hope we start focusing more on that and less on bombing in the weeks to come.

[jv001]

How do we play when we struggle?
-We take lots of threes and miss them
-We do not get the ball in the paint or draw fouls
-We commit a lot of turnovers
-We allow a lot of easy layups

Against UNC, we went 6-9 on 3s in the first half, and 2-15 in the second. While watching our offense while it was "clicking", I noted we had only attempted 3 threes in the first 15+ minutes of the game.

It is plain to me that we need to stop shooting so many from beyond the arc. I don't care how "open" we appear to be. A three should be an opportunistic thing, a momentum shifter. Not the bread and butter of one's offense. Our players are plenty talented enough to work the ball around and get a 15 foot jumper or better most of the time. I hope we start focusing more on that and less on bombing in the weeks to come.

You forgot about the offense we run where we dribble, dribble, dribble then end up taking a 3 pointer. Inside out is the best offense. Go Duke!

[Matches]

Don't *most* teams do those things when they lose?

Not trying to be flip, but of course we don't play as well in the games we lose as we do in the games we win. We've had a lot of very good teams over the years who relied heavily on 3-pt shooting. This year's edition isn't as proficient beyond the arc as some of those teams, to be sure, but it's also not as proficient in other areas (low post play). I'd hate to see a team that struggles at times on offense anyway take a weapon - any weapon - out of its arsenal. I do not know offhand how many 3s we shot against UNC but I recall only a few that were bad shots.

[rsvman]

...A three should be an opportunistic thing, a momentum shifter. Not the bread and butter of one's offense....

Without touching specifically on THIS Duke team, I think an argument could be made that the thought quoted is not true. Let's say a team shoots 38% from behind the arc (an arbitrary number, just for the sake of argument). In order to make the same number of points and have the same offensive efficiency, that same team would have to shoot 57% on non-three point shots.

38% is not an unreasonable 3-point percentage (many teams shoot this well or better). 57% is a pretty darn good clip from inside the arc (most teams do NOT do this well).

So, I would argue that if you're getting layups and slamdunks you should definitely avoid the three, but if you're shooting 12-19 foot jump shots you're probably better off shooting 3's (unless your 3-point shooting is atrocious, and we've been pretty close on several occasions this season).


It's an argument for another day, but in my opinion the 3-point shot actually has too MUCH reward, not too little.

[CameronCrazy'11]

The biggest thing that sticks out to be is that we sometimes just refuse to try to push the ball into the paint, and our offense gets nowhere. Maybe there's some reason we stop doing this that I'm missing. But it seems like whenever we're aggressively driving inside we start winning, and whenever we just kind of kick it around on the perimeter we start losing. I don't ever remember us being aggressive about getting the ball inside but still getting beaten.

[Kedsy]

The biggest thing that sticks out to be is that we sometimes just refuse to try to push the ball into the paint, and our offense gets nowhere. Maybe there's some reason we stop doing this that I'm missing. But it seems like whenever we're aggressively driving inside we start winning, and whenever we just kind of kick it around on the perimeter we start losing. I don't ever remember us being aggressive about getting the ball inside but still getting beaten.

Ah, but are you observing a cause or an effect? If you assume the players are intelligent and are taking what the defense is giving them, it follows that perhaps when they don't push the ball into the paint it's because the opponent is doing a good job taking away the driving lanes and the interior passing lanes. In order to do that they may have to allow some open threes, so the players attempt to take advantage of that. If the opponent plays passive defense or attempts to stop the three point shot, they leave open the lanes and we attempt to take advantage of that.

So it may be what you're observing is when the other team plays great defense, we have trouble scoring if we're not hitting our outside shots. Which is probably true of most teams.

That said, we scored 87 points against UNC. I don't think it was the offense that was the problem.

[Fish80]

Without touching specifically on THIS Duke team, I think an argument could be made that the thought quoted is not true. Let's say a team shoots 38% from behind the arc (an arbitrary number, just for the sake of argument). In order to make the same number of points and have the same offensive efficiency, that same team would have to shoot 57% on non-three point shots.

38% is not an unreasonable 3-point percentage (many teams shoot this well or better). 57% is a pretty darn good clip from inside the arc (most teams do NOT do this well).

So, I would argue that if you're getting layups and slamdunks you should definitely avoid the three, but if you're shooting 12-19 foot jump shots you're probably better off shooting 3's (unless your 3-point shooting is atrocious, and we've been pretty close on several occasions this season).


It's an argument for another day, but in my opinion the 3-point shot actually has too MUCH reward, not too little.

Somebody, maybe Pomeroy, has done an analysis of the break even percentages between 2 point and 3 point shots. It's not as simple as 50% of 2 equals 33% of 3. Lots of other variables come into play: long rebounds and break aways, offensive rebounds, probability of traditional 3 point play, etc.

Comparing the percentages is a reasonable starting point, but it is by no means the complete analysis.

One of the key things the 3 does is force the defense to come out and open up the paint. Then in theory by shooting a good percentage on 3's you can shoot an even higher percentage on 2's. :D

[Zeke]

One thing that has distressed me about this year's team and actually for the last couple years is that they really don't run a 1/2 court offense very often. It's great when the 3's are dropping but that is an inconsistent shot. I've thought that this years team would be determined by how well Zoubek does. As of now he's playing 9-15 minutes a game, does pretty well to very well when he's in there, gets almost no passes into the post, and pretty much gets his points on rebounds.
Our 3 point shooters are very iffy if they are guarded closely, but yet that's what they seem to go to. 3's are great when they drop (late 1st half against UNC) but kill you if they are not (Clemson and 2nd half UNC). IMO the road to the ACC lies through Brian. He needs to play fairly well - not great but fairly well, needs more minutes, and needs more touches when he is playing.

[Newton_14]

One thing that has distressed me about this year's team and actually for the last couple years is that they really don't run a 1/2 court offense very often. It's great when the 3's are dropping but that is an inconsistent shot. I've thought that this years team would be determined by how well Zoubek does. As of now he's playing 9-15 minutes a game, does pretty well to very well when he's in there, gets almost no passes into the post, and pretty much gets his points on rebounds.
Our 3 point shooters are very iffy if they are guarded closely, but yet that's what they seem to go to. 3's are great when they drop (late 1st half against UNC) but kill you if they are not (Clemson and 2nd half UNC). IMO the road to the ACC lies through Brian. He needs to play fairly well - not great but fairly well, needs more minutes, and needs more touches when he is playing.

But to me that is the big misconception about this years team. It is not about taking too many 3's and missing them. The only game this year that applies to is the Michigan loss. People falsely assume (even the TV analysts) that this team wins or loses based on 3 point success. It is simply not true. In the Clemson game, they only attempted 13 three-pointers. What gets this team in trouble is they stop moving, and stop attacking the basket. In the 1st half last night they attacked the basket a lot, especially in the last 10 minutes and scored a lot as well as drawing fouls. They also mixed in 3's by 4 different players in the rythym of the offense on connecting plays. They scored 52 points with 18 coming on 3's. And lots of guys contributed.

In the 2nd half they once again stopped doing that. I would just love to see 2 halfs of basketball where they have a balanced attack with attacking the basket and take about 8 to 11 three pointers in the natural flow of the offense and with kickouts.

[buddy]

I agree that lack of movement is a killer for this team. Great Duke teams always made more FTs than their opponents shot. But to do that, you have to attack the basket, and have the lead going into the last three minutes of the game (when the bonus and double bonus allow common fouls to result in foul shots). Lack of movement means that threes are not taken in the offense, but are forced out of desperation or discouragement. Too many times this team makes one pass and tries a three in a scramble situation (think Kyle), or settles for a three late in the shot clock. I think it was Jon who said that in the second half we were watching UNC instead of playing them. Whether it is fatigue (physical or mental), or lack of ability (which I doubt) we don't seem to get as much movement as we should. Also, our offensive spacing left much to be desired last night. Too many times we had all five players on one side of the court. That clogs the court for offense, but also makes defense easy. It seems when we are not getting runouts we have difficulty scoring. And no one gets tons of runouts against quality opposition.

[shotrocksplitter]

This game is a game of runs. It's about limiting the opponent's runs, and forcing as many of our own as we can.

What ruins Duke is games (especially like last night) where we give up a long stretch against us. We missed plenty of 3's in the first 10 minutes of the 2nd half, but the game wasn't over until the 14-0 run.

It doesn't really matter how we get our points as long as the game is back-and-forth at worst. Duke will get its runs, but if the other team can counter with bigger/more stretches of domination, Duke loses.

[heavy g]

Think of going inside like running the football in the NFL. It may not work out every time, but you need to "open up the passing game" and "wear the opposing defense down". We simply give up on it too easily. I don't agree with the argument that we're taking "what the defense gives you". You can always get the ball inside one way or another if you are committed to doing so. (and have reasonable talent).

I also don't completely buy into the FG percentage argument. As pointed out earlier, there are many other factors including rebounds, fastbreak opportunities etc. For me the biggest x factor is lack of drawing fouls. Players in foul trouble have a LOT harder time defending the drive, the paint, rebounding, and sometimes even playing offense.

Commit to the run and you will be rewarded over time. We should not be taking 24 threes against Carolina.

Pointing out our final score as proof that the offense is working fine is pretty shaky. If UNC scores at a rapid clip, we will probably score more as an indirect result whether we are playing good offense or not (number of possessions/ time of possession etc)

[Kedsy]

Commit to the run and you will be rewarded over time. We should not be taking 24 threes against Carolina.

Didn't the old 49ers West Coast Offense more or less debunk this theory?

Also, Duke averages 21 three attempts per game, which I think is down from previous years. It's not like they were jacking them up at an abnormal rate against UNC.

[Edouble]

Think of going inside like running the football in the NFL. It may not work out every time, but you need to "open up the passing game" and "wear the opposing defense down". We simply give up on it too easily. I don't agree with the argument that we're taking "what the defense gives you". You can always get the ball inside one way or another if you are committed to doing so. (and have reasonable talent).

I agree with this. I don't think you even have to shoot the ball if you get it inside, but when you move the ball through the post, it opens things up in a different way than if you just pass it around the perimeter and drive and kick.

However, if you do feed the post, eventually there will be a match-up where you like the player who gets the ball to shoot. Why can't we post Z on Deon during the times that Hans was covering Singler out on the perimeter? Maybe that only happened when Dave was in the game, I'd have to check the tape.

[Reddevil]

[QUOTE=Kedsy;258131]Didn't the old 49ers West Coast Offense more or less debunk this theory?

I don't think so. The dink and dunk screens and slants were really extended hand-offs, and they always gave you a healthy dose of Roger Craig up the middle.

I do think the team is at it's best when they work inside out though. Whether it is through a drive or a pass inside, the old draw and kick creates really good looks for the shooters, and tends to get the opponents in foul trouble. This team can be very good, but sometimes it looks like they are waiting for some one to step up.

[Zeke]

But to me that is the big misconception about this years team. It is not about taking too many 3's and missing them. The only game this year that applies to is the Michigan loss. People falsely assume (even the TV analysts) that this team wins or loses based on 3 point success. It is simply not true. In the Clemson game, they only attempted 13 three-pointers. What gets this team in trouble is they stop moving, and stop attacking the basket. In the 1st half last night they attacked the basket a lot, especially in the last 10 minutes and scored a lot as well as drawing fouls. They also mixed in 3's by 4 different players in the rythym of the offense on connecting plays. They scored 52 points with 18 coming on 3's. And lots of guys contributed.

In the 2nd half they once again stopped doing that. I would just love to see 2 halfs of basketball where they have a balanced attack with attacking the basket and take about 8 to 11 three pointers in the natural flow of the offense and with kickouts.

Good point! I agree that the player and ball movement stops, unfortunately it is replaced with ill advised 3 point attempts