Why do so many seem to think we have such great shooters?
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 28, 2010 3:54 PM PST
Email
PrintWe all lament the Cougs' lack of effectiveness against the 2-3 zone, but I find interesting the number of readers of this site who have repeatedly expressed that they are confounded by this, "given how well we shoot from beyond the arc."
On the surface, this seems like a reasonable theory, since WSU has shot 37.8 percent from 3-point range this year -- good for 50th nationally. Consequently, a lot of you are waiting for the game when we inevitably bust out and kill the zone.
I don't buy it. Count me among those who think zoning the Cougs is a great strategy for the opponent.
When talking about WSU's long-range shooting, the first image most people have is of Klay Thompson raining 3s on the opposition. And there's a reason for that -- the stellar team 3-point percentage was largely built on Klay's shooting during the nonconference schedule.
And this is where I think this whole "we are a great 3-point team" argument falls off a cliff. Outside of Klay, who else on this team would you qualify as a great long-range shooter?
Nikola Koprivica? Sure, he's shooting an absurd 50 percent from 3-point range, but let me ask you this: Is there a person on the planet -- even Nik -- who thinks this is his true talent level? Would you consider him a "shooter"? I sure wouldn't, and the fact that he's averaging less than three attempts per game suggests Ken Bone doesn't, either. Standing wide open, I've gotten to a point where I like my chances with Nik. But I certainly don't want him jacking up five or six 3s a game, which would inevitably mean taking some contested shots.
Reggie Moore? Until last weekend, when he went 8-for-14, he was shooting 33 percent on the year (15 of 45). Maybe this past weekend is what he's actually capable of, but his stroke looks inconsistent to me. Besides, settling for a lot of 3s is exactly what opponents want him to do, because they know he's most dangerous in the lane.
Xavier Thames? He's only taken 17 3-point shots and hit ... four.
Abe Lodwick? Sweatpants all-star.
Mike Harthun? In a year-and-a-half, I have yet to see this so-called stroke of his.
What I'm driving at is this: While all of these guys are OK out there -- and I don't mind any of them (even Harthun) taking a wide-open 3 -- I certainly don't want to see any of them standing around and firing away against a zone. There's really only one guy who's actually good enough to shoot the opposition out of a zone, and that's Klay Thompson. But when teams are generally doing what UCLA did to him on Saturday, which is sending two defenders at him every time he touches the ball, the odds of that happening aren't great. It's resulted in Klay shooting 25 percent -- 14 of 56 -- in Pac-10 play.
I'm absolutely with Bone that the Cougs need to make more 3s to be more effective against opposing zones; I'm just not going to hold my breath that it's going to happen unless we do a better job of moving the ball in and out of the zone in order to free up some wide-open looks for guys who are merely above average 3-point shooters.
I would actually be more surprised by that occurrence than what has happened so far.
The good news, of course, is that the Huskies run very little zone. If we can handle their ball-pressure and not turn it over a bunch, scoring should be pretty easy. When that happens, expect them to drop into the zone. And while it's not a very good zone, just how we handle it very well could determine the outcome of the game.
Let's just hope it's not determined by a bunch of average shooters jacking up -- and missing -- a lot of 3s.
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree with everything you wrote
I think Thompson by himself can make WSU better than average. But, he has been in a slump for a while and is shooting something like 25% in Pac 10 play. I really think he is better than that, but until he actually does it, it doesn’t matter. Please break out Klay.
Well obviously I disagree as I am of the position we are a solid
3-pt shooting team. We obviously don’t have the depth, but we have capable 3-pt shooters.
I agree that Nik is shooting out of his mind, but his shot works when he is on and he is definitely on. Moore, when is 33% such a bad thing? I agree the high arcer doesn’t look pretty but he has a shooter’s touch. KT, no need to comment. Lodwick is a capable shooter, he just needs someone to kick him in the head and tell him to shoot 5-10 times a game.
Thames is a question mark, but that’s ok as he is a back up guard. Capers is Capers and we know what he can’t do.
I would ask you to run the numbers if KT is shooting is normal % during the Pac-10 and where we would be? He is actually drowning us right now because of the number of 3s he takes and misses, but if my life depended on a guy out of the Pac taking a 3 for me, KT is the guy I am going with.
The problem isn’t shooting as it is confidence and essentially relying on KT too much. I have seen Lodwick pass up many 3s in the zone to get the ball to KT. That is our problem not our shooting!
33 percent is not good
To exceed the expected performance from a 2-point shot, it’s gotta be 38 percent or above, I believe.
Besides, I think you’re making your point for me. I agree they’re all capable. But this isn’t a stable of shooters like you might find here. That team scares me from outside. We only have one guy who scares opponents.
To expand on the point about Reggie
He shoots 50 percent on his 2s, plus shoots 80 percent on FTs. His FTR is 76.6. Right?
Let’s say Moore puts up 20 2-point shots. You can expect that roughly 13 of those would end up being shot attempts, and 7 would end up in trips to the FT line. Based on his percentages, his “expected” output on those 20 shots would be 24.2 points.
To equal that output on 20 3-point shots, he’d have to hit at a 40 percent clip. Because he doesn’t use his outside shot to set up his drive, the only way it’s worthwhile for him to shoot out there with regularity is if you think he can hit 40 percent of them. Otherwise, he’s hurting the team.
Hold on a second. If you want to debate whether he should be taking
2s instead of 3s, I am with you. However, you are mixing up the issues aren’t you. The question is whether we have good 3 pt shooting. You are saying that he needs to shoot better at the 3 than at the 2 to be a good outside shooter. That doesn’t make sense. Sure maybe to be an effective scorer overall, but again we are dealing with a zone defense where penetration should be limited and outside shooting available. I agree that I would rather have Reggie penetrating and creating either with the pass or getting to the line (something I continued to harp on under the Bennett regime that they didn’t recruit these type of PGs).
Again, what the numbers are saying aren’t telling you the whole story. We have guys electing not to shoot to defer to the golden child. The problem is that KT is in a slump and until others on the team decide to assert themselves offensively from the 3, including Lodwick, we will continue to struggle the majority of the time with the zone. I say majority because KT will definitely have his games (he has to with his sweet stroke).
I would also like to see Thames jack it up. He can shoot. Now Capers, leave him to clean up the glass.
by ptowncoug3012 on Jan 28, 2010 9:24 PM PST up reply actions
He's saying
Shooting the 3 also negates Moore’s biggest weapon: getting to the lane. In order to balance all of this out, he needs to hit at a 40% clip which isn’t realistic.
If you want us to live and die by the three, fine, but you’re ignoring that we’ve gotten here not because of the three but because we drive and get to the line.
The numbers tell us all we need to know. You’re looking at guys who if they shot more would regress to the mean. Nik will not continue his numbers, he will regress. In order to be effective we need to not rely on the three, but instead find better shots.
Which gets at the heart of why a zone is bad for us
Shooters are deferring to Klay. Whether Abe can shoot at a better clip then he is (11 for 30 on the year, which is mediocre) doesn’t matter if he won’t shoot against the zone.
Reggie’s best weapon is driving, but a zone that dares him to shoot and collapses on his drives can take him out of his game. Also hurting his drives is that our inside guys aren’t used to playing with a PG that can pass with the pace he does on a drive. Casto especially has to have his hands ready, and not at his sides. He has decent hands but too often isn’t anticipating the pass when his man bails for Reggie. This keeps him from catching and going right up, leading to the crab dribble, pump fake, pump fake, force it up shot.
And finally, we have Klay. As the recognized “shooter” on the team, the guys in the zone will run at him the moment the ball goes his way. He doesn’t get an open look.
Zones are working because they are taking us out of our game, which clearly should be driven by Reggie’s drives, Klay getting open shots or lanes as a result, and Nik and D filling in. Instead, zones lead to Klay forcing shots, Reggie not getting into the lane, Nik hitting at an absurb 50% (bright spot) and D getting frustrated.
The problem isn't not wanting to shoot
Against the zone, our problem comes down to ball movement. The way to beat a zone is not to pass around the perimeter, or to try risky skip passes. These lead to shots that aren’t open or, in the case of skip passes, turnovers.
However, the way to break a zone is to exploit it’s distinct weaknesses. We thrive on screens and dribble penetration in our normal offense. Throw all of that out against a zone. A zone requires specific positioning, followed by cuts to the basket and off-ball movement. The weaknesses are simple.
The high post is one, right at the foul line. It causes either the anchor to come out, or the 2 in the 2-3 to sag. Either way this leaves a shooter open if they sag, or a cutting lane if the anchor moves. In the latter, the wings cut straight to the basket, the high post feeds them and hello bucket. Additionally, you can send a cutter down the baseline, as well. If they are too slow to defend the high post, the guy shoots it from there.
Another is the baseline to the left and the right of the anchor. This causes the anchor to leave the middle of the lane. At this point you send a cutter right down the middle of the lane to the bucket.
Instead of passing it around with no purpose, they need to actually work to find their shots. They won’t be able to penetrate as usual and instead need to become a better passing team and to work better without the ball. It’s not about wanting to shoot or shooting over it, it’s about creating better shots in the zone. If you can break it down, the zone won’t extend as far out anymore, allowing your shooters to put up easier shots as the game progresses and that’s where you won’t see guys afraid to pull the trigger on an open shot.
by Brian Floyd on Jan 28, 2010 10:15 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I agree
Our offense breaks down against the zone. A zone thrives on guys standing around and passing back and forth, which is exactly what we do. It breaks down on people moving, as that exploits the weakness of defenders that are trying to watch the whole play and not monitor just their man and the ball.
I couldn’t tell you what our zone “offense” is at this point. Normally, you can identify a play or two. I’ve seen us try the high post with a few different people. Capers has done decently with the ball in his hands there. I haven’t seen a lot of baseline movement or cutters, which is something I personally like. Maybe because that was one of my roles back in the good old days, but floating and cutting in the holes on the baseline would be effective with Klay or Capers.
We just seem so lost out there. And forgive me if my posts are rambling tonight. I’m using Cougcenter as a break from end of semester grading of papers, and my brain is a bit fried.
That's actually what this post was in the first place!
Reading essay after essay numbs your brain after a while. I realized it was time to take a break when I read an essay and couldn’t convince myself to leave any more than two comments.
So we are defining a poor shooting 3-pt team as
one that has a combined 2pt% and FTR that makes the person a better scorer shooting inside the arc than outside. Is that what we are defining as a good 3-pt shooting player? Shoot if everyone has to shoot 40% to be a good 3-pt shooter there won’t be any good 3 pt shooters.
I see what you are saying that Moore is more effective offensively taking it to the hole, but again the question is are we a good 3-pt shooting team. You are essentially arguing no because our guys like Moore have a good 2pt% and good FTR which results in needing him to shoot a higher 3pt % in order to be considered a good 3 pt shooter. I am sorry that doesn’t make sense.
by ptowncoug3012 on Jan 29, 2010 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
I addressed the team below
It’s not whether he’s considered a “good” 3-point shooter. It’s whether his shooting percentage is a net asset to the team. In Reggie’s case, he has to be shooting at least 40 percent to make that happen. But for the other guys, it’s around 36.5 percent.
And remember, that’s just the break even point. For it to be truly positive, we’re talking 37 percent or greater — back to around my original 38 percent figure. How many guys on our team do you think are going to make them at that rate if they’re shooting significantly more than they do now? Maybe Abe?
The best analysis includes numbers and eyeball. Our shooters, outside of Klay, don’t pass the eyeball test to be jacking up a combined 20 3s in a game. If they did, they’d be doing it, because that’s the way Bone loves to play. Instead, we’re only shooting 3s on 28 percent of our possessions — 262nd nationally.
Quick correction
It’s not 28 percent of our possessions. It’s 28 percent of our field goal attempts. Sorry.
You are arguing that we "could" have a good three point shooting team.
If certain guys pull the trigger more. The problem is they do not and I doubt Abe will suddenly start jacking up more threes. Nuss is saying that we don’t have a good three point shooting team right now.
CougCenter WSU's second main blog
by Craig Powers on Jan 28, 2010 9:47 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think I'm mixing the issue at all
I was trying to show that 33 percent isn’t good. I think I did that.
I could do the same math for the team as a whole, which makes 50 percent of its 2s with a just under 50 percent FTR and 72 FT%. In that case, 20 shots would be expected to yield 15 shots and five trips to the FT line. The “expected” point production would be 22 points.
On 20 3s, you’d have to shoot 36.5 percent to reach the same expected point production.
Point is, there’s a threshold where you break even. 33 percent is most definitely below it.
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 28, 2010 10:26 PM PST up reply actions
beating a zone is all about patience
of which we have none.
Patience, ball movement, and ball control
Which go hand in hand, really
by Brian Floyd on Jan 28, 2010 10:33 PM PST up reply actions
All of which can be learned
Thank goodness. This is why I’m not a fan of any non-matchup zone: It can be beaten by virtually anybody executing well. And I’m of the opinion that the more we see it, the better we’re going to get at beating it. I honestly feel like all this zone in the conference is a bit of a fad that will go away once teams start figuring out how to beat it.
It seems to me that the lack of talent might have something to do with it.
The conference doesn’t have as many talented defenders as it has had, and since there are really only a couple of teams with decent offenses, lazy defense works. Since the pac10 has so many talented coaches, they are figuring out that zone is the way to win this year.
As the conference improves, I see schools other than OSU and ASU going away from the zone again.
by displacedcoug on Jan 29, 2010 11:33 AM PST up reply actions
Oh, it's definitely the lack of talent
Every team except for maybe Cal has major flaws in its offense which can be exploited.
Beating the Zone
Yikes…. this stuff is NOT rocket scinece and as a Basket Ball strategist I contend that the way to beat the zone is well known:
1.) The easiest way to beat any defense is to score in transition. Once a 2-3 zone sets up, the offense’s job becomes much more difficult.
2.) A 2-3 zone defense will break down if the ball handler can get to the middle of the floor. All the defenders must collapse, which will leave passing lanes open for a teammate cutting to the basket or setting up for an outside shot.
3.)The zone must shift every time the ball is passed. When the ball is passed around the outside of the 2-3 zone defense the defense will be temporarily out of position while they shift from one side to the other.
4.) Defenders must focus on the ball at all times. When the defenders on the baseline are watching the ball, an offensive player can cut between defenders and will be open in the lane for a pass.
5.) By placing a player at the free throw line, the zone must concentrate on him. If he can receive an entry pass he will be open to shoot, drive or pass to a cutting teammate.
6.) The easiest play to run against a 2-3 zone defense is to set a pick on the defender covering the wing on the baseline. Send a cutter along the baseline and pass him the ball after the passes the pick. This will leave the cutter open for a perimeter shot.
Now the hard part is getting players to show the patience to make one of these 6 options actually work, yet again, I contend that Wazzu has shown its ability to do just this time and again during the season.
The real question that I have for everyone out there is how does Wazzu make up for it’s defensive shortcomings so as to win games down the stretch? To wit, the fact that we do not have the coveted ‘big man’ to clog the middle with and try to force fit a forward into this role.
What Wazzu needs to do is work on it’s own zone defense to make up for this shortfall (ala’ Bennett Ball) and let the offense take care of it’s self. I can’t tell you how many times this season I have watched good WSU defense get into the last few seconds of the short clock only to commit a foul and bail out the other team.
As we all know by now, great defense is what wins championships and I believe that this team is that close to turning the proverbial corner if only they would knuckle down on their defense.
This weekend will be very telling in that regards, for if we try to run with the Dawgs, we will get blown out at Hec Ed. If we play under control and keep the game under 70, I believe it will totally frustrate the Huskies and they will buckle. Patience is a virtue.
Go Cougs!!
Yes, Basketball Strategist
No, there is no money in this and that’s why I keep my day job (and a night job as well).
But really, what does anyone out there think about the Lady Cougs chances tonight?
I want this 28 game losing streak to come to end (at the hands of June, who used to take glee in perpetuating it, eh?).
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on CougCenter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
