Stop shooting 3s. Stop shooting 3s. Stop shooting 3s.
- Thread starter TheBoris
- Start date
Kind of have to when the defense is packing 4 in the paint. Have to hit 3s to win in NCAA in the 21st century.
They shot 43.5% from 3. You take that every game.
3 pt shooting wasn't the problem. 3pt making was, especially in the 1st half.
Three point shooting was never the problem in this game, even when they weren't falling early.
The 3 point shot looks that we were getting were the better option for most of the night. Our looks inside were poor, due to suffocating defense. Louisville was forcing our hand to shoot the 3 and too often we hesitated and shot without confidence. This team has to be prepared to knock down 3s or else we won't be able to get the ball inside. You have to take what the defense is giving you and be able to be more than one dimensional.
I'll let Boiler Daddy answer this, but won't be surprised if he doesn't mention turnovers and timid play. That said beter first half shooting would have definitely helped.
Gee, you think?? C'mon to say our poor shooting wasn't a problem is just being dumb. Of course turnovers were terrible but his statement was "poor 3 point shooting was never a problem last night even when they weren't falling". What??
Because they were good shots. Even good shooting teams will have stretches when they hit 2 out of 8 instead of 3 or 4 out of 8. It really isn't a big deal.
On the other hand, Purdue had some really sloppy play early that was much more concerning than the outside shooting.
I'm sorry but that is just plain wrong. When a team shoots as poorly as we did in that first half it is a problem. It doesn't matter if you are heaving half court shots or missing layups. If you are missing shots it's a problem.
We had turnovers and we were sloppy, both were problems. We were missing shots and that was a problem too. I don't know how something so obvious could be debated but I guess it can because here we are. I think maybe you are trying to say shooting poorly wasn't our biggest problem. With that I completely agree. But to say our poor shooting was never a problem at all is wrong.
In the first half, Purdue was:
- 4/12 from 3 for 12 points on 12 shots
- 7/28 from 2 for 14 points on 28 shots
Three point shooting was well within the acceptable range in the first half, but the offense was a mess, otherwise.
1. 33% is not in the acceptable range.
2. I believe we were 2/10 at one point which is when the game got away.
There were a lot of things wrong with that 1st half and poor shooting was one of them.
yeah, the last two games we shot over 50 percent from 3 but we should stop shooting them. sometimes i look and other times i just wonder about people
I took his comment to mean in order to not run up the score.
Love that our 3's are falling this year (most of the time). Still need to find some balance and ways to score when they are not falling. Really fun to see us lighting it up from downtown so often, and especially Vince draining 4 of 5 to hopefully boost his confidence going forward!
Boric isn't available to reply. He's currently applying his genius to the design of ugly leather football helmets
33% from beyond the arc is the equivalent to 50% from 2-pt land. Basketball 101: making threes opens up the post and discourages doubleteams.
Last edited:
How was the pre-game and everything else? I'm interested in how the Big Apple experience was yesterday (early morning now) for Boilers fans such as yourself. Sorry if this was already discussed in another thread.
Can we please bump this thread early and often this year. Just a comically bad take. Purdue is now 4th in the country in 3P %.
Go back and read the thread. I was making a comment to a person who said poor 3 point shooting was never a problem in the game. We were 2/10 at one point in the first half and it hurt us. Not really sure why people have trouble separating games or portions of games. If you think our shooting wasn't a problem in the 1st half of the UL game then I don't know what to tell you.
As far as the last two games, shooting has been no issue. Basketball 101: Every game is a new one and has to be judged on it's own merits.
My point was and is that you don't just give up on good shots because they are not falling. Even great shooting teams are going to go through bad statistical stretches because of randomness. It is good that Purdue didn't stop shooting threes when they were 2/10, because they were something like 8/13 from that point forward.
We're going to shoot 3s until we get hot. Then we're going to shoot some more.
My stat professor actually used free-throw percentage of a player in a game is an example of why you shouldn't base future strategy on a small sample size. The argument went something like this, if you have a 90% free-throw shooter, and they are one of three for the first three free throws, what is the chance that they will make their next one? The answer is 90% probability - despite their three previous shots, because those first three are statistically less significant than their overall average. I think he used free-throw shooting as an example because it factors out defensive schemes. His point was that people place too much attention on short term streaks and small sample sizes which are subject to greater volatility from randomization.
Agree to a certain extent, but see what others may be pointing out also
If you take into account psychology, the hot hand aspect, etc (plus things like defense/opponent/matchup etc as mentioned above) that can affect it as well, versus complete randomness.
As we shot a poorer ~33% in the first half, then 50+% after the break.
Hot hand can trump a player's overall long term statistics, as seen even in basketball (specifically second FTs after making vs missing the first), baseball stat categories etc.
On the other hand, basketball is a psychological game and this needs to be taken into account as well as statistics. If a guy is 0-3 in his last three attempts, you don't assume those are more important than the longterm average. But if it seems like he's 0-3 because he has lost confidence, or has gotten in his own head, then I say foul away!
For the last time, I'm not the one that said stop shooting them! Read the thread!
I said that the fact that we were 2/10 at one point in the first half was a problem and it hurt us. I was commenting on your statement that poor shooting was never a problem in the UL game. I never once said we should stop shooting 3's I simply said we need to make more of them and that shooting 2/10 put us in a bad spot in the 1st half that we never recovered from. I'm not opposed to shooting a lot of 3's, we have good shooters and we should shoot them when open. But if we go 2/10 and are getting our asses handed to us it is a problem. Doesn't mean we should stop shooting them, but it is a problem until we make more of them. Hopefully this makes it clear what I was, and wasn't saying.
At IU that's a 400 level course. 100 level are things like where to put the air etc.
I think you are missing a bigger problem in that game....our bigs were 5/16 from 2 pt range and we were 9/30 from 2 for the game. A much bigger problem in my opinion. The hole was dug by awful execution by our front court (scoring and TO) than going 2 from 8 from 3.
This has been covered several times already in this thread. Go back and read the whole thread and you will see that. No need to re-hash again. 1st half was a complete cluster ****, period.
I reread the thread. Basically one could insert "2 point shooting" and "dribbling" and "passing" for 3 point shooting in the OP title. So Purdue should have stopped dribbling, passing and shooting in the game because at points of the game they were problems. You may not be intending to defend the OP suggestion but you certainly appear to be and the OP suggestion is flat out wrong.
It would appear that both Pig and Dry are correct. In the first half, both the interior and perimeter play sucked.
Similar threads
