5 Players with Multiple 3s

[gam7]

It struck me as a bit unusual that we had five different players hit multiple three-pointers in the same game against Princeton (Smith, Singler, Irving, Curry, Dawkins). I mean, it would require a team to make at least 10 threes in the first place, which isn't exactly easy, and teams' three-pointers tend to be concentrated among fewer than 5 players. Does anyone know the last time that happened? If no one knows how to find this information quickly, I may put my crack research skills to work to see how common this is. I wouldn't be surprised if we have a number of games in which five players hit multiple 3s, and may even have a game where 6 or 7 guys (Kelly/Thornton) hit multiple 3s. Pretty impressive stuff.

[Newton_14]

So does that mean we have a decent shooting team this year??:cool:

We have had good shooting teams in the past but this is insane when you step back and think about it. To answer your question, I would think it rare, that a team have 5 guy's make multiple 3's in one game. I would think so anyway.

As long as we use those weapons appropriately, meaning we do not fall so in love with the 3 that we live or die with it, things will be fine. The really good thing about it is we also have multiple guys that can drive the ball and get points as well (Kyrie, Nolan, Kyle, Seth, to a lesser degree, Andre). If we use it properly that should provide the proper balance we need to avoid scoring droughts.

Add in dunks from steals, and a few alley-oops to the Plum's and it makes for a lethal offense!

[dbluedevil222]

It struck me as a bit unusual that we had five different players hit multiple three-pointers in the same game against Princeton (Smith, Singler, Irving, Curry, Dawkins). I mean, it would require a team to make at least 10 threes in the first place, which isn't exactly easy, and teams' three-pointers tend to be concentrated among fewer than 5 players. Does anyone know the last time that happened? If no one knows how to find this information quickly, I may put my crack research skills to work to see how common this is. I wouldn't be surprised if we have a number of games in which five players hit multiple 3s, and may even have a game where 6 or 7 guys (Kelly/Thornton) hit multiple 3s. Pretty impressive stuff.

Kentucky did it two nights before Duke. I think you've got a viewpoint, and you're trying to find stats to back it up. Not really how it works...

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=303160096

[FireOgilvie]

In 2006-07, VMI averaged over 100 points a game and attempted almost 42 3 pointers a game. They had 5 guys make multiple 3 pointers several times and in one game against Penn State, they had 6 guys with at least two 3s. Overall, they went 19-54 from 3 in that game. Oh, and Penn State won 129 -111.

http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=263640213

[ThePublisher]

This team is full of insanely good shooters. We went 72% from behind the line in the second half against Princeton. That is nonsense. That's equal to shooting 120% from inside the line if you look at the 3 being worth 33% more, which is obviously impossible. That's how impressive that is.

We have Singler, Smith, Dawkins, Curry and Irving who will all be excellent shooters. Kelly can, and will hit a lot as well. Mason can even shoot, as can Thornton. Its ridiculous really.

Are we 'cold shooting game' proof? With all this firepower we could have 3 guys with an off night and still put in a lot of 3's. The possibilities make me very excited.

[Johnboy]

Kentucky did it two nights before Duke. I think you've got a viewpoint, and you're trying to find stats to back it up. Not really how it works...

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=303160096

So, if you're trying to prove that something is statistically unusual, you wouldn't say, post to a message board asking others their opinion and/or how to research it? How does it work, then?
I mean, nice work finding one recent example, but just because Kentucky also did it this week doesn't mean it's common.

[gam7]

Kentucky did it two nights before Duke. I think you've got a viewpoint, and you're trying to find stats to back it up. Not really how it works...

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=303160096

I wasn't expressing a viewpoint; just pointing out a fact that struck me as unusual and asking whether anyone knew the last time it happened. Turns out it wasn't too long ago!

[dbluedevil222]

So, if you're trying to prove that something is statistically unusual, you wouldn't say, post to a message board asking others their opinion and/or how to research it? How does it work, then?
I mean, nice work finding one recent example, but just because Kentucky also did it this week doesn't mean it's common.

Sports fans love statistics. That's why ESPN announcers always shout off the most nonsensical stats. "John Sheyer first ever Duke player to get 1600 pts, 260 assists, 100 rebounds, 80 steals, and a 1.6 T/O ratio" (I did make that up). But you should get my point. People are obsessed with statistics. Duke's had one game. Just enjoy watching them, and please stop trying to find "numerical" evidence to prove that they have talent. All that matters is the season and the FF. I guarantee you those players could care less who averages what, as long as they win playing well (clearly this is not the case for many bball players, WFU as a recent example).

But really, after one blowout game half the people on this board are trying to find statistics to say Duke is good. Another thread focused on the last time a team has scored "97 or more pts" against Princeton, as well as winning by "35 or more." I mean, come on. I'm not pointing the finger at the originator of this thread, everyone does it, particularly sports columnists (who also tend to enjoy calling coaches racist, if I'm not mistaken).

[Johnboy]

Sports fans love statistics. That's why ESPN announcers always shout off the most nonsensical stats.

. . .

But really, after one blowout game half the people on this board are trying to find statistics to say Duke is good. Another thread focused on the last time a team has scored "97 or more pts" against Princeton, as well as winning by "35 or more." I mean, come on. I'm not pointing the finger at the originator of this thread, everyone does it, particularly sports columnists (who also tend to enjoy calling coaches racist, if I'm not mistaken).

OK,I get your point, and to an extent I agree, but this is a fan site and it's early in the season. Good luck trying to contain the irrational exuberance (and the irrational gloom when we lose). For some folks, finding bizarre stats is a big part of the fun, so asking people to please stop trying to find numerical evidence of greatness is asking people to quit having fun. What else shall we talk about around here after a game? Stats are going to be a big part of the discussion.