Defense against the THREE - last in WCC so far

[ZagsGoZags]

The other 8 WCC teams, rounding off, range from opponents shooting 30%to .37 percent on 3-pt attempts

a range of 7 percent

GU is 'holding' opponents down to 44% 3-point shooting, which means the distance between us and the 'pack of leading 8', i.e. next to worse team (Pepperdine) is the same as the entire range for the rest of the league

now one might immediately say we play a harder schedule, which we do,
however, not too much harder SO FAR. Our WCC brethren have played against Kentucky, Arizona, Wisconsin, U of W, WSU, UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, New Mexico, and won in some cases.

I have never been bent out of shape over our 3-pt defense as most others on the board have been, have never brought it up before, because when we win I think we give those three shot attempts in exchange for getting something more valuable - perhaps collapsing to close lanes

But I do hope by January we will be in the middle of the WCC, rather than WAY behind everyone else

http://www.wccsports.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2011-2012/confldrs.html

[caduceus]

I think it's too early in the season to make really meaningful comparisons. Let's compare LMU ("best" WCC 3pt defense) vs. GU ("worst" WCC 3pt defense) defensive stats:

           GU      LMU
          ==============
3p FG%   43.6%    29.7%
3PFG/GM   [B]8.5      6.0[/B]
3PFA/GM  19.5     20.2

So basically, opponents have made 2.5 more 3-pointers per game against GU compared to LMU. The entire conference is separated only by that range. If we had held opponents to 1.5 fewer 3-pointers a game, we'd be in the middle of the WCC pack.

I'm sure there are other factors that maybe others can nuance, but I feel the jury's still out on this one.

Every coach has to bargain one aspect of the game for another (unless you're loaded with talent like NC or Duke and the likes), and I'm quite sure that Few is well aware of all the little factors that affect his winning percentage. Perhaps he's made the calculated decision, for example, that stopping passes into the paint is worth more than shutting down the arc. I'd say that's a fair gamble since you both stop the high percentage shot as well as limit their trips to the FT line. Given Few's winning percentage, I think he knows what works for him. Play to your strengths given the players that you have, and minimize the chances in the long run to get burned. Of course, this means that your probably gonna get burned by a hot potato once in a while (e.g. vs. Syracuse/Virginia/etc.). That's basketball.

It'll be interesting to see how these numbers move in the next month against better competition.

[Therunner]

So basically, opponents have made 2.5 more 3-pointers per game against GU compared to LMU. The entire conference is separated only by that range.

That's still a 7.5 pt differential.

Not really a big deal vs a W. Michigan, yet pretty big deal vs a Mich St.

[kclubfounder]

Just finished watching my tape of UNLV knocking off North Carolina.

I wonder if I were to wander over to the UNC chat sites if I would find anyone complaining about guarding the 3?

[willandi]

How many of those threes against us, both made and attempted, are the result of Gonzaga having a reasonably large lead and owning the paint? At some point the other team has to believe that their best (and possibly) only chance of getting back in the game is via the three.
What is the won-loss record of our wcc brethren. If we trail the league in 3 pt defenese, and are 4-0, and they are leading the league and are 3-1 or 2-2, I like our record better. And we while we haven't yet played the meat of our schedule, our opponents weren't patsies either. But for a bounce here or there, a little more discipline and they could have better records.
Now we get to some meat. If we go 4-1 or 5-0 and are still allowing 44%, then we are doing what coach Few wants. At some point somebody will go off and beat us based on threes. It is still a pick your poison. Somebody beat UNC yesterday (the losers). It can happen.
If we win the WCC and/or the WCC tourney we will get to the dance, and will have had a successful year, no matter what the 3 pt percentage against is. If we get to the 2nd weekend, it is fabulous, and anything beyond is frosting on the cake.

[mcdiehard]

Certainly cause for concern, but at this point, I'm going to chalk most of the difference up to small sample size. The spread at the season's end last year was 32% (USF) to 37% (Pepperdine), with the Zags checking in at #7, just 0.7% ahead of Pepp.

Overall scoring defense is a more important stat, IMO. Zags finished first in the conference last year.

[bartruff1]

Yawn....

4-0...

[MickMick]

4-0...

Exactly.


What was the average of all opponent's FG% again?


High 40's?
Low 40's?

[BobZag]

The other 8 WCC teams, rounding off, range from opponents shooting 30%to .37 percent on 3-pt attempts

a range of 7 percent

GU is 'holding' opponents down to 44% 3-point shooting, which means the distance between us and the 'pack of leading 8', i.e. next to worse team (Pepperdine) is the same as the entire range for the rest of the league

now one might immediately say we play a harder schedule, which we do,
however, not too much harder SO FAR. Our WCC brethren have played against Kentucky, Arizona, Wisconsin, U of W, WSU, UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, New Mexico, and won in some cases.

I have never been bent out of shape over our 3-pt defense as most others on the board have been, have never brought it up before, because when we win I think we give those three shot attempts in exchange for getting something more valuable - perhaps collapsing to close lanes

But I do hope by January we will be in the middle of the WCC, rather than WAY behind everyone else

http://www.wccsports.com/sports/m-ba.../confldrs.html

Quite telling. Good post. If the staff continues to ignore this, Zags will have limited success, plain and simple.

[maynard g krebs]

The sample size is too small to be statistically relevant.

The 44% is 2 percent lower than it was before the last game. It will continue to go down even if the Zags do nothing different, based simply on the laws of probability.

[roxdoc]

Sample size may be too small for this year, but since this has been a festering problem for many years it suggests that the coaches may be keeping the status quo.

I agree with BobZag, if untended, this problem will be our limit. "Our shooters may be better than your shooters" most of the time, but it only takes a very few exceptions at the wrong time to dash the high hopes of us Kool Aid guys!!

[MickMick]

Sample size may be too small for this year, but since this has been a festering problem for many years it suggests that the coaches may be keeping the status quo.

I agree with BobZag, if untended, this problem will be our limit. "Our shooters may be better than your shooters" most of the time, but it only takes a very few exceptions at the wrong time to dash the high hopes of us Kool Aid guys!!

Welcome to the world of NCAA russian roulette. It is how North Carolina, UConn, and Syracuse get beat. The chamber was "loaded" at that particular time.

Two factors that help GU:

1) They can score from the perimeter on a hot night and upset a great team for the same reason that GU can get beat. In other words, a level playing field.

2) They have Rob. A great "equalizer" for many reasons.

[Zag79]

this team is good.

[Oregonzagnut]

True Dat!!!

this team is good.

This is very true, but we are not as good as we OR they think. I have learned something about our perimeter defense, they don't care as much about it as we think they should.

Fact is, it has not been our staffs primary concern. Obviously. We have improved in most other areas and Pangos, Bell and Stockton are not capable of the defense needed to get much better. Our youth and athleticism are not enough yet.

So as fans, maybe we should focus ont he fact that our frontcourt is better based on the vastly improved skills that our PGs now have to feed them.

I for one, am happy with our backcourt so far, and IMO, most national championship coaches must commit to the inside 2 pt shot and bet on the cold streaks from the outside. The final four teams are big inside teams for the most part. So we need to just assume our staff is taking a different path than the previous "decade of excellence".

It is the right path and most proven path, IMO. Even tough we get beat sometimes by the 3 pt shot. Badly even.

[bigblahla]

OZN,

Did you really want to include "Pangos, Bell and Stockton are not capable of the defense to get much better." That is an absolute limiting the players on the team you are supposed to be a fan of.

Sorry but there are a handful of fans who seem to post without thinking. I'm a fan of the players on our team and a Zag fan. Would you look each of the aforementioned players in the eye and say this to their face.

Read another one yesterday by another poster stating Mike Hart was "terrified of the offensive end". That is one of the most stupid statements I've ever read here. Would the poster say that to Mike's face.

For all those who feel the need to post statements like the ones above I ask you to please read what you write before posting and although you may be anonymous the young men you're writing about aren't.

More important if you want the rest of us to take you seriously make your case but choose your words carefully as the above statements I find inflammatory and really have to restrain myself from responding in like.

Talking roundball about improvements that can be made by individuals or our team in general can be done without the personal jabs like the ones above.

Posting here is a privilege treat it as such make your point without degrading the young men who choose to come here, wear GU Blue and represent the program and school we all love.

Just my opinion.

Go!! Zags!!!