PDA

View Full Version : 3 pointers



g-ride
03-23-2013, 07:20 PM
Can we please learn to defend the 3 pointer

Great season

That is all

gamagin
03-23-2013, 07:23 PM
Can we please learn to defend the 3 pointer

Great season

That is all

what are the odds of making this many shots, given their averages etc.

imo, we keep gambling that no one can make that many. this team went 2-20 from the three last game and this game 14-20. so who would have planned for that ?

the answer is every one of US on this board could have predicted it. we've seen it from the worst to the best teams we've played.

TM27
03-23-2013, 07:26 PM
The crazy thing is that most d1 basketball players can make an uncontested 3pt. Watch warmups of any game anywhere and you will see even the bench players filling it up.

Some of those shots were contested, many of them were not. Not to mention closing out with short, unathletic guards lets opponents shoot right over the top of them. Gonzaga is who they are.

Blitzing-Zag
03-23-2013, 07:27 PM
We've never been able too before, so why would it start in the most important game of the year?

g-ride
03-23-2013, 07:30 PM
Cause we get burned every time by 3s. Southern was able to compete cause they could make 3s

GorgeZag
03-23-2013, 07:30 PM
In the 14 years I've been lucky enough to follow the Zags they have NEVER been able to guard the 3.
Barkley said it best: foot speed. We just can't recruit it.

ZaginLaw
03-23-2013, 07:33 PM
The 3's are just an excuse.

We make those bunnies and learn to hit FT's and the outcome is different. In the NCAA's you can't make that many mistakes and win.

MJ777
03-23-2013, 07:33 PM
In the 14 years I've been lucky enough to follow the Zags they have NEVER been able to guard the 3.
Barkley said it best: foot speed. We just can't recruit it.

GBJ couldn't play. Few probably should have gone with KD for his length instead of DS. But in Few's defenses, DS usually facilitates the offense quite well. Maalox Moment

caduceus
03-23-2013, 07:38 PM
The crazy thing is that most d1 basketball players can make an uncontested 3pt. Watch warmups of any game anywhere and you will see even the bench players filling it up.

Some of those shots were contested, many of them were not. Not to mention closing out with short, unathletic guards lets opponents shoot right over the top of them. Gonzaga is who they are.

TM is right. Studies have shown that 3Pt% is essentially unaffected by defense. Let me say that again. A teams three-point shooting percentage is nearly if not completely independent of the opposing defense's efforts. There is no such thing as good three point defense that affects shooting percentage. There is nothing in the stats of NCAA basketball that suggests otherwise.

You can limit 3-point shooting opportunities, but defense has no perceivable effect on making treys. I will cite references if need be, but this has been discussed over and over here.

BJZags
03-23-2013, 08:00 PM
You can limit 3-point shooting opportunities,

So is that where the foot-speed thing comes in? With quicker defense on the perimeter you can deny an open look better?

Oregonzagnut
03-23-2013, 08:05 PM
Bad time for an injury to our best defender.

But isn't that why we had such depth on the bench? Yet, we pull Barham and Draino out?

few got hit with a wild card and didn't respond very well. But no matter what, WSU hit 14 threes. And crushed our momentum every time. Kelly shot 8-22. Harris shot 2-8.

Bad time to go cold from the field.

BJZags
03-23-2013, 08:13 PM
Bad time to go cold from the field.

I think their extremely physical defense had a big part in making them "cold" from the field. Our big's didn't respond positively to this reality and the shots didn't drop.

Saxon_zag
03-23-2013, 08:17 PM
Easy to shoot 3's over pangos or stockton for these decently quick athletic guards. Put them both on the court at the same time like Marky loves and opposing guards have a field day

thickman1
03-23-2013, 08:19 PM
14 threes for the Shockers, the most they've made in ten years.

zagco
03-23-2013, 08:22 PM
Draino should have had more minutes this year.

Chicken Ball
03-23-2013, 09:15 PM
TM is right. Studies have shown that 3Pt% is essentially unaffected by defense. Let me say that again. A teams three-point shooting percentage is nearly if not completely independent of the opposing defense's efforts. There is no such thing as good three point defense that affects shooting percentage. There is nothing in the stats of NCAA basketball that suggests otherwise.

You can limit 3-point shooting opportunities, but defense has no perceivable effect on making treys. I will cite references if need be, but this has been discussed over and over here.
Three poiNt defense is about preventing three point shots, not making people miss Te ones they take. We don't discourage three pint shots; as a result, sometimes we get badly burned by teams having a hot night. need to do better on this.

Zags11
03-23-2013, 09:21 PM
TM is right. Studies have shown that 3Pt% is essentially unaffected by defense. Let me say that again. A teams three-point shooting percentage is nearly if not completely independent of the opposing defense's efforts. There is no such thing as good three point defense that affects shooting percentage. There is nothing in the stats of NCAA basketball that suggests otherwise.

You can limit 3-point shooting opportunities, but defense has no perceivable effect on making treys. I will cite references if need be, but this has been discussed over and over here.

Respectfully disagree. You tighten the arc, you don't sag. I have shot tons of 3s in my life. It is harder to get going with man in my pocket. Now when you get hot, it doesn't matter.

caduceus
03-23-2013, 09:27 PM
Respectfully disagree. You tighten the arc, you don't sag. I have shot tons of 3s in my life. It is harder to get going with man in my pocket. Now when you get hot, it doesn't matter.

No. You obviously don't know the data. Read what I wrote. Three-point defense has no statistical influence on the opposing team's three-point shooting percentage. Your anecdotal evidence proves nothing.

Zags11
03-23-2013, 09:39 PM
No. You obviously don't know the data. Read what I wrote. Three-point defense has no statistical influence on the opposing team's three-point shooting percentage. Your anecdotal evidence proves nothing.

Read what you said wrong. oops

Now reading on poor 3pt defense. It said collapsing in the paint, sagging and doubling down will allow higher 3pt ratio.

Zags11
03-23-2013, 09:47 PM
In other words, you’d be better off assuming teams have no control over three-point defense than assuming swings over a two or three game stretch say anything about one’s defense. I’m willing to concede the Boeheim zone has some influence, but it’s small. And I remain convinced that Ray Giacoletti had it completely backwards. If you want to keep opponents from making three-point shots, your best move is to prevent them from taking those shots.

kenpom.com

Zags11
03-23-2013, 09:47 PM
To illustrate why a team might have little control over its opponents’ three-point shooting, consider a ball screen situation. If a defender goes under a ball screen, the ballhander, assuming he’s a good shooter, will be inclined to shoot. If the defender goes over the screen, the ballhandler’s response will not be to shoot a more difficult shot, it will be to not shoot at all. In this way, defensive strategies tend to impact the number of threes taken and not the percentage of threes made. By the end of the season, opponents have taken a mix of open and contested shots based on their own decisions, and from the defense’s point of view the distribution of these decisions isn’t going to differ much from team to team. Thus, the resulting rankings of defensive 3P% are largely random, influenced some by opponents shooting ability.

gamagin
03-23-2013, 09:49 PM
TM is right. Studies have shown that 3Pt% is essentially unaffected by defense. Let me say that again. A teams three-point shooting percentage is nearly if not completely independent of the opposing defense's efforts. There is no such thing as good three point defense that affects shooting percentage. There is nothing in the stats of NCAA basketball that suggests otherwise.

You can limit 3-point shooting opportunities, but defense has no perceivable effect on making treys. I will cite references if need be, but this has been discussed over and over here.

But I think tm and others have been suggesting for a long time that gu has chronically failed to defend the trey, among other things. U saying it doesn't matter. Or am I misunderstanding ? Tnx

Zags11
03-23-2013, 09:52 PM
But I think tm and others have been suggesting for a long time that gu has chronically failed to defend the trey, among other things. U saying it doesn't matter. Or am I misunderstanding ? Tnx

Read above. Caud is saying % wont change. Fron kenpom.com and what i wrote b4 its bout defense strategy.

deathchina
03-23-2013, 10:19 PM
Mark Few's defensive philosophy is to pack the paint and protect the rim. He'd rather get beat from outside than inside. Anyone who plays Gonzaga knows this, they come into games anticipating getting FREQUENT and OPEN 3 point looks. I don't think it's shocking that teams often have great outside shooting nights against us. Smart offense is taking what the defense gives to you. We give them 3's.


I'm not gonna doubt Mark Few's judgement on this subject, clearly he has a great track record and knows how to win TONS of basketball games.

I just remember hearing a former pro talking about how defense in the NBA had improved dramatically from the 70's and 80's to now. He was saying how back in the day, the defensive gameplan centered around "who are we going to let shoot". But now, teams try to take away everything...

Maybe we don't have the manpower to defend the perimeter...we certainly have had our share of slow footed guards, and we tend to recruit the offensively skilled player over the defensive guy...And Gonzaga has always been know first and foremost for great offensive execution.

Just sad to go down in such a predictable manner.

gamagin
03-23-2013, 10:43 PM
Mark Few's defensive philosophy is to pack the paint and protect the rim. He'd rather get beat from outside than inside.

Agree with your entire, well stated, analysis. Thanks. But re: the above, I believe vs. WSC, MF was right. Everything worked. but The plan went south when we missed 10-12 points ( conservatively) worth of what normally would have been bunnies. Layins or stuffs. even a few uncontested layins that normally go in. And WSC made way more treys than anyone expected.

But given the same situation, I think MF is correct to play the odds that lay ins will beat treys most of the time. Of course, when the new wrinkle (failure to finish at the net) happens, the blame, IMO, is misdirected to a poor three defense instead of the real cause -- failure to finish at the net.

We had the shots & missed too many. WSC took 24-27 treys and made 12 of them. 6 in a row at one stretch.

So who had the better plan ? I'd say GU/few did. Who executed better, even using the more difficult route ? WSC. Game WSC.

deathchina
03-23-2013, 10:53 PM
I think you can blame some of the missed bunnies by our team on not being used to the intensity of WSU's defense, and not just bad luck. We haven't played a team that contested us at the rim like that since Butler, and we weren't great offensively in that game either.

But at the end of the day we scored 70 points against a great defensive (and not great offensive) team....but our defense let us down and let them score 76. That WSU team is a lot of things (physical, intense, great defense), but they aren't a great offensive team.

Personally, I'd rather have seen us force them to drive more rather than give up all the 3's, if for no other reason than to not lose to the 3 point shot again. I remember thinking midway through the first half that WSU had no post game, wasn't running great sets, and if we got to 70 points we win the game. Well, instead they got hot from outside and we never took that way from them.









Agree with your entire, well stated, analysis. Thanks. But re: the above, I believe vs. WSC, he was right. Everything worked. but The plan went south when we missed 10-12 points ( conservatively) worth of what normally would have been bunnies. Layins or stuffs. even a few uncontested layins that normally go in. And WSC made way more treys than anyone expected.

But given the same situation, I think MF is correct to play the odds that lay ins will beat treys most of the time. Of course, when the new wrinkle (failure to finish at the net) happens, the blame, IMO, is misdirected to the three defense instead to the real cause of the gap in scoring. We had the shots & missed too many. Try took 24-27 treys and made 12 of me.

So who had the better plan ? I'd say GU/few did. Who executed better, even using the more difficult route ? WSC. Game WSC.

deathchina
03-23-2013, 11:22 PM
WSU 14-28 from 3
Ohio State 9-24 from 3
BYU 14-28 from 3
Syracuse 12-25 from 3
UNC 11-19 from 3
Davison 11-22 from 3


At a certain point it's not just "bad luck".

Zags11
03-23-2013, 11:28 PM
HATER CHINA!!!!!!!

52% in our losses. What about our wins? 32% is a avg for ta team in march madness tournament. I JUst wanna see how far off i am that we have a terrible 3pt defense strategy.

Arneson
03-23-2013, 11:42 PM
Wichita state will probably play its next game and shoot 15% on 3's. it's Gonzagad curse to get teams that shoot record high 3's during tourney. Also, us missing free throws has always been an issue come tournament time.

bostonzagfan
03-23-2013, 11:57 PM
Wichita state will probably play its next game and shoot 15% on 3's. it's Gonzagad curse to get teams that shoot record high 3's during tourney. Also, us missing free throws has always been an issue come tournament time.

at what point does the curse become a trend?

ZagaZags
03-24-2013, 04:23 AM
what are the odds of making this many shots, given their averages etc.

imo, we keep gambling that no one can make that many. this team went 2-20 from the three last game and this game 14-20. so who would have planned for that ?

the answer is every one of US on this board could have predicted it. we've seen it from the worst to the best teams we've played.

Teams shoot 3s very well vs Gonzaga. I don't understand it but players have career nights vs the Zags.

GrizZAG
03-24-2013, 06:39 AM
Agree with your entire, well stated, analysis. Thanks. But re: the above, I believe vs. WSC, MF was right. Everything worked. but The plan went south when we missed 10-12 points ( conservatively) worth of what normally would have been bunnies. Layins or stuffs. even a few uncontested layins that normally go in. And WSC made way more treys than anyone expected.

But given the same situation, I think MF is correct to play the odds that lay ins will beat treys most of the time. Of course, when the new wrinkle (failure to finish at the net) happens, the blame, IMO, is misdirected to a poor three defense instead of the real cause -- failure to finish at the net.

We had the shots & missed too many. WSC took 24-27 treys and made 12 of them. 6 in a row at one stretch.

So who had the better plan ? I'd say GU/few did. Who executed better, even using the more difficult route ? WSC. Game WSC.

Agree with this overview. Right on
Seems our guards have a difficult time occasionally finding the opportunity to shoot threes. Could size differential have something to do with it? Arron Brooks didn't seem to have that problem...even in NBA.

thickman1
03-24-2013, 06:57 AM
Agree with your entire, well stated, analysis. Thanks. But re: the above, I believe vs. WSC, MF was right. Everything worked. but The plan went south when we missed 10-12 points ( conservatively) worth of what normally would have been bunnies. Layins or stuffs. even a few uncontested layins that normally go in. And WSC made way more treys than anyone expected.

But given the same situation, I think MF is correct to play the odds that lay ins will beat treys most of the time. Of course, when the new wrinkle (failure to finish at the net) happens, the blame, IMO, is misdirected to a poor three defense instead of the real cause -- failure to finish at the net.

We had the shots & missed too many. WSC took 24-27 treys and made 12 of them. 6 in a row at one stretch.

So who had the better plan ? I'd say GU/few did. Who executed better, even using the more difficult route ? WSC. Game WSC.

I'll play devils advocate and say that Coach Few's plan was wrong. If just seven of those threes were twos we win the game. I believe he should guard the line hard and not play so much help defense. If guards choose to drive they still have to get up a contested runner or mid-range shot over Elias, KO, Sam, and PK. Having great depth along the front line should be used not only at the offensive end but also the defensive one. Simply allowing guards to camp along the line and chuck up threes and "playing the percentages" isn't working. I think that is fairly evident now.

Will so teams drive and kick? Absolutely, but having the length of our interior is a luxury that I don't feel we used properly. At least make them drive and kick and try to recover 1-1.

GUDan07
03-24-2013, 07:37 AM
You can say that the three point defense is not an issue all you like, but the numbers say otherwise. Below are the three point statistics for the games in which we were eliminated from the tournament over the past 6 years. In all but '12 the opponent shot at lest 48% from three and made at least 11 3s.

Year 3P-Made 3P-Attempt Percentage
13 14 28 0.50
12 9 24 0.38
11 12 25 0.48
10 11 19 0.58
9 11 22 0.50
8 14 28 0.50

* Apologies for the appearance of the data. It looks different when I post it and I don't know how to format it better.

thickman1
03-24-2013, 08:49 AM
what hurts the most is that Wichita State is not a 3-pt shooting team by nature. They shoot 33.7% from behind the arc.

Percentages for last night and season:
Baker (4/6 last night, 66%) - Season: 34%
Cotton (2/3, 66%) - Season: 36%
Early (4/7, 57%) - Season: 31%
Van Vleet (2/4, 50%) - Season: 43%
Armstead (1/6, 17%) - Season: 35%
White (1/1, 100%) - Season: 12%

GeorgiaZagFan
03-24-2013, 09:04 AM
WSU 14-28 from 3
Ohio State 9-24 from 3
BYU 14-28 from 3
Syracuse 12-25 from 3
UNC 11-19 from 3
Davison 11-22 from 3


At a certain point it's not just "bad luck".

You've got Jimmer and Curry for two of those ...and a dominant Carolina and Syracuse team that blew the Zags out for the other two. So the ONE game that you can point too ...OSU 9-24 is NOT outrageous ..if WSU does that we win .....

MJ777
03-24-2013, 09:05 AM
what hurts the most is that Wichita State is not a 3-pt shooting team by nature. They shoot 33.7% from behind the arc.

Percentages for last night and season:
Baker (4/6 last night, 66%) - Season: 34%
Cotton (2/3, 66%) - Season: 36%
Early (4/7, 57%) - Season: 31%
Van Vleet (2/4, 50%) - Season: 43%
Armstead (1/6, 17%) - Season: 35%
White (1/1, 100%) - Season: 12%

I'm beginning to believe that WSU thought that they had little chance to win unless they could make a good percentage of 3s and they knew the shots would be available. Zags still should have won. Make 3 more FTs, 2 more lay ups or dunks and get 1 more stop. And 1 less brain cramp. Shoulda, shoulda, would of. Ughhh.

GeorgiaZagFan
03-24-2013, 09:08 AM
You can say that the three point defense is not an issue all you like, but the numbers say otherwise. Below are the three point statistics for the games in which we were eliminated from the tournament over the past 6 years. In all but '12 the opponent shot at lest 48% from three and made at least 11 3s.

Year 3P-Made 3P-Attempt Percentage
13 14 28 0.50
12 9 24 0.38
11 12 25 0.48
10 11 19 0.58
9 11 22 0.50
8 14 28 0.50

* Apologies for the appearance of the data. It looks different when I post it and I don't know how to format it better.

TOTALLY irresponsible statistics ---Curry and Jimmer are two of the opponents ....and dominant Carolina and Syracuse teams that made many of their threes during blowouts. The OSU 9-24 is what Wichita should have shot and we win!!!!

surfmonkey89
03-24-2013, 09:15 AM
TM is right. Studies have shown that 3Pt% is essentially unaffected by defense. Let me say that again. A teams three-point shooting percentage is nearly if not completely independent of the opposing defense's efforts. There is no such thing as good three point defense that affects shooting percentage. There is nothing in the stats of NCAA basketball that suggests otherwise.

You can limit 3-point shooting opportunities, but defense has no perceivable effect on making treys. I will cite references if need be, but this has been discussed over and over here.

We currently rank 103rd in 3pt defense, just behind Seattle U and just ahead of Akron.

[Source (http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1/current/team/518/p3)]

The thing that jumps out is 3pt FG attempted. Look at our number! It's pretty obvious that our opponents know our weakness. It's just too bad our staff refuses to address it.

thickman1
03-24-2013, 09:35 AM
We currently rank 103rd in 3pt defense, just behind Seattle U and just ahead of Akron.

[Source (http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1/current/team/518/p3)]

The thing that jumps out is 3pt FG attempted. Look at our number! It's pretty obvious that our opponents know our weakness. It's just too bad our staff refuses to address it.

This. We have a HUGE front line. Start guarding the arc and let teams try and drive for runners and or mid-range. I guess I'd rather get beat by a team on the blocks than behind the arc because history shows that when GU goes down it is because a team gets hot behind the arc. When's the last time GU got beat by a team in the paint?

vandalzag
03-24-2013, 09:56 AM
Problem is that nobody knows what the game plan was, but I will bet the farm the staff did not say close out late on the 3's. Even Few said after the game they lost shooters at times which he could not understand. I do think that the philosophy of over helping and sagging on the weak side leaves the zags open to 3pt shot. I would venture this evolved from the days where we had limited front court depth and we had to protect the bigs. Losing Bell killed, because that meant we had to put Pangos on one of the shooters and he is limited on his ability to closeout. Stocks maybe gave up 1 legit 3 the whole game (will not count the shot clock prayer which could not have been defended much better).

Game plan for beating WS all year was to force them to be shooters and beat them on the boards. Sometimes you have to tip your hat to other team and give credit for hitting the shots.

GeorgiaZagFan
03-24-2013, 10:45 AM
Problem is that nobody knows what the game plan was, but I will bet the farm the staff did not say close out late on the 3's. Even Few said after the game they lost shooters at times which he could not understand. I do think that the philosophy of over helping and sagging on the weak side leaves the zags open to 3pt shot. I would venture this evolved from the days where we had limited front court depth and we had to protect the bigs. Losing Bell killed, because that meant we had to put Pangos on one of the shooters and he is limited on his ability to closeout. Stocks maybe gave up 1 legit 3 the whole game (will not count the shot clock prayer which could not have been defended much better).

Game plan for beating WS all year was to force them to be shooters and beat them on the boards. Sometimes you have to tip your hat to other team and give credit for hitting the shots.

exactly - the Zags didn't lose it as much as Wichita State played the game of their life and won it.

Zags11
03-24-2013, 12:26 PM
exactly - the Zags didn't lose it as much as Wichita State played the game of their life and won it.

YAAAAWN. How long are we gonna make excuses for poor 3pt defense strategy? Sorry, its the same old. We cant, wont defend the 3pt line.

team6
03-24-2013, 12:34 PM
YAAAAWN. How long are we gonna make excuses for poor 3pt defense strategy? Sorry, its the same old. We cant, wont defend the 3pt line.

WSU got a lot of open looks against Pitt too and look what happened, bad luck can happen more then once... Plus look at all the teams the Zags played this year, they all lost in the first round except Butler and they lost in the second round. Expectations may have been too high.

Zags11
03-24-2013, 12:37 PM
Bad luck can i agree but every yr for past 5 is still luck? If it helps the masses then cool.

team6
03-24-2013, 12:39 PM
Bad luck can i agree but every yr for past 5 is still luck? If it helps the masses then cool.

For the last 5 years? You are in the clouds we should not of won every game we lost the last 5 years. Ohio state did not win last year because of 3's.

Edit: This was the first time in the last five years we lost to a team we were better than. So don't bring up the last five years.

Zags11
03-24-2013, 12:44 PM
WSU 14-28 from 3
Ohio State 9-24 from 3
BYU 14-28 from 3
Syracuse 12-25 from 3
UNC 11-19 from 3
Davison 11-22 from 3


At a certain point it's not just "bad luck".

Team, I never thought we should of beat Cuse or NC. Look and explain how its still bad luck? 32% is what a tournament team shoots from 3s. In our last 5 tournament losses, opponents shot 52% from 3.

Again, that isn't "bad luck ".

team6
03-24-2013, 12:47 PM
Team, I never thought we should of beat Cuse or NC. Look and explain how its still bad luck? 32% is what a tournament team shoots from 3s. In our last 5 tournament losses, opponents shot 52% from 3.

Again, that isn't "bad luck ".

Look at the other games too, don't bring up just the teams we lost to in the tourney! Please what about the West Virginia game last year? What about The florida state game before Syracuse.. It's easy to pick and point to the games where it happened but you have to look at all the games in the tourney.

MDABE80
03-24-2013, 12:50 PM
I don't know if i'm correct but looking back, we must have the worst 3 pt defense in the history of the NCAA tounament. Seriiously!! lol..........

Not bad during the season but we stink it up in the tournament.
Yesterday fully though...look at these percentages.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=330822250

Amazing how they shot. Unconscious really. We cannot win games shooting 35% when the other team hits 50%....more than half of which are 3 pointers. You know fellas/gals.....that's collectively better than Jimmer did. Sh*t...we got beat not so much because of bad defense. Nope.....we got beat because of unconscious shooting on WSU's part. They just got hot at the right time which is how highly rated teams lose in the tournament.

Slightly telling figure......you think we're alone losing asa no1 seed in the round of 32? Not quite. SInce the field of 64 became roughly 30 years ago, it's happened 20 times. Yep no 1 seeds don't get past the round of 32. Including us....in the past 10 years, it happens 40% of the time. Because the other team gets hot and shoots the lights out. WSU shot better yesterday that any other game in their entire season.!

What I don't understand is why we're being singled out as unique! Bias in the media I'd guess.

team6
03-24-2013, 12:53 PM
I don't know if i'm correct but looking back, we must have the worst 3 pt defense in the history of the NCAA tounament. Seriiously!! lol..........

Not bad during the season but we stink it up in the tournament.
Yesterday fully though...look at these percentages.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=330822250

Amazing how they shot. Unconscious really. We cannot win games shooting 35% when the other team hits 50%....more than half of which are 3 pointers. You know fellas/gals.....that's collectively better than Jimmer did. Sh*t...we got beat not so much because of bad defense. Nope.....we got beat because of unconscious shooting on WSU's part. They just got hot at the right time which is how highly rated teams lose in the tournament.

Slightly telling figure......you think we're alone losing asa no1 seed in the round of 32? Not quite. SInce the field of 64 became roughly 30 years ago, it's happened 20 times. Yep no 1 seeds don't get past the round of 32. Including us....in the past 10 years, it happens 40% of the time. Because the other team gets hot and shoots the lights out. WSU shot better yesterday that any other game in their entire season.!

8-9 seeds don't have to shoot lights out against 1 seeds, look at Temple they are shooting 12% from 3. They might still loose but they are outplaying Indiana and honestly should win.

MJ777
03-24-2013, 12:57 PM
8-9 seeds don't have to shoot lights out against 1 seeds, look at Temple they are shooting 12% from 3. They might still loose but they are outplaying Indiana and honestly should win.

WSU did shoot lights outs and yet Zags still had a great chance to win. But too many missed bunnies (I know tough D or hacking) and too many missed FTs along with a few too many brain farts. I guess coach should of had his team run WSU off the 3 pt line and taken their chances letting them shoot twos.

Zags11
03-24-2013, 01:02 PM
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=330822250

5th ap #1 to lose in 2nd rd since 1985. Thats huge. Abe, 20 times out of 30 yrs. There are 4 #1 seeds a yr. So, 16% of the time.

Zags11
03-24-2013, 01:04 PM
Team, we also let Southern shoot 40 + % from 3. So, you can have examples for everything. Point is when we get blitzed out of march, its usually 3pt defense.

team6
03-24-2013, 01:07 PM
Team, we also let Southern shoot 40 + % from 3. So, you can have examples for everything. Point is when we get blitzed out of march, its usually 3pt defense.

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, we obviously need to defend the 3 better. And Indiana did end up wining, but that game showed us that top teams can loose by other means then just the 3. I want our 3 point defense to get better but I honestly don't feel that's why we lost yesterday I felt it was more on our offense. But it for sure didn't help I will admit that. And as far as past years in the tourney most of the times we simply lost because the other team was just better.

Zags11
03-24-2013, 01:11 PM
Yes I agree some teams are just better. I accept that. WSU, OSU (IMO) wasnt. It is disheartening to lose same way though. This was 1 of the toughest tournament losses I endured. Nevada, Wyoming and UCLA also come to mind.

Zags11
03-24-2013, 01:13 PM
The better teams usually pull it off. GeorgeTown bombs out too. We are 4-3 as a top 3 seed, and just 1 sw16 in that seeding.

MDABE80
03-24-2013, 01:13 PM
8-9 seeds don't have to shoot lights out against 1 seeds, look at Temple they are shooting 12% from 3. They might still loose but they are outplaying Indiana and honestly should win.

No doubt. They should have shot better. They didn't..just like us at 35%. You don't score, or shoot poorly, you go home. Simple.

MJ777
03-24-2013, 01:14 PM
Yes I agree some teams are just better. I accept that. WSU, OSU (IMO) wasnt. It is disheartening to lose same way though. This was 1 of the toughest tournament losses I endured. Nevada, Wyoming and UCLA also come to mind.

My Worst Loss Ranking

1. UCLA
2. WSU
3. Nevada
4. Wyoming
5. Texas Tech
6. Ohio State

team6
03-24-2013, 01:15 PM
The better teams usually pull it off. GeorgeTown bombs out too. We are 4-3 as a top 3 seed, and just 1 sw16 in that seeding.

This I completely agree with, we are absolutely horrible when playing with a top 3 seed. It almost makes me wish we could somehow get that 10 seed again, we always seemed to do good with a 10 seed.

edit: but our record is 5-4 (1-1 as 1 seed, 1-1 as 2 seed, 3-2 as 3 seed)

MDABE80
03-24-2013, 01:24 PM
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=330822250

5th ap #1 to lose in 2nd rd since 1985. Thats huge. Abe, 20 times out of 30 yrs. There are 4 #1 seeds a yr. So, 16% of the time.

Stepping back though, no 1's don't get past the round of 32 ..........20/30 in terms of years. This tournament has one.......us. I was thinking of the "overall" in terms of years. It's just not unusual. This tounament isn't so unusual losing a no 1 seed prior to the round of 16.

MJ777
03-24-2013, 01:28 PM
Stepping back though, no 1's don't get past the round of 32 ..........20/30 in terms of years. This tournament has one.......us. I was thinking of the "overall" in terms of years. It's just not unusual. This tounament isn't so unusual losing a no 1 seed prior to the round of 16.

Kansas could join the Zags today. They are from the weak Big 12 that the Zags beat up.

Zags11
03-24-2013, 01:39 PM
This I completely agree with, we are absolutely horrible when playing with a top 3 seed. It almost makes me wish we could somehow get that 10 seed again, we always seemed to do good with a 10 seed.

edit: but our record is 5-4 (1-1 as 1 seed, 1-1 as 2 seed, 3-2 as 3 seed)

OOPS! lol, but still is ugly. Can we get a do over?

dpouley
03-24-2013, 02:02 PM
Stepping back though, no 1's don't get past the round of 32 ..........20/30 in terms of years. This tournament has one.......us. I was thinking of the "overall" in terms of years. It's just not unusual. This tounament isn't so unusual losing a no 1 seed prior to the round of 16.

That is a somewhat skewed statistic though. Ignoring that there are four #1 seeds is not an accurate assessment of how often a #1 seed loses in the round of 32.

When discussing how frequently a #1 seed loses in the round of 32, you have to look at the fact that there are four number one seeds. The number of years that it has happened, does not accurately show how many times it has happened.

In 30 years, there have been 120 number one seeds. Only 20 of those have lost in the round of 32. That is 16% of the time.

MDABE80
03-24-2013, 02:11 PM
I think your idea has been covered in this thread dp........this tournament had 1 (us) so far. As tournaments go, it's happened 20 times before ie a no 1 seed losing in the round of 32. My point is that it happens year by year very frequently.ie this year isn't exactly shocking like the media portrays in their "sensationalist" writing.

two ways of looking at this frequent phenomenon.

webspinnre
03-24-2013, 02:17 PM
That is a somewhat skewed statistic though. Ignoring that there are four #1 seeds is not an accurate assessment of how often a #1 seed loses in the round of 32.

When discussing how frequently a #1 seed loses in the round of 32, you have to look at the fact that there are four number one seeds. The number of years that it has happened, does not accurately show how many times it has happened.

In 30 years, there have been 120 number one seeds. Only 20 of those have lost in the round of 32. That is 16% of the time.

This. When we're tossing around statistics, let's at least do our math correctly. According to this, 1 out of every 6 #1 seeds loses in this round. Sucks to be us, but not quite the utter disaster its made out to be. As we saw today, both OSU and IU almost went down as well. Brutal and crushing loss, but not on the all-time bad list for NCAA teams.

dpouley
03-24-2013, 02:21 PM
I think your idea has been covered in this thread dp........this tournament had 1 (us) so far. As tournaments go, it's happened 20 times before ie a no 1 seed losing in the round of 32. My point is that it happens year by year very frequently.ie this year isn't exactly shocking like the media portrays in their "sensationalist" writing.

two ways of looking at this frequent phenomenon.

Abe, your idea has been covered in multiple threads, because you keep repeating yourself, and repeating your analysis. The reason that media is portraying this event as something that is infrequent is because it is infrequent. They are not being "sensationalist" they are analyzing a statistic accurately.

If by two ways of looking at a phenomenon, you mean your way, and the way everyone else looks at it, you are correct.

MJ777
03-24-2013, 02:24 PM
This. When we're tossing around statistics, let's at least do our math correctly. According to this, 1 out of every 6 #1 seeds loses in this round. Sucks to be us, but not quite the utter disaster its made out to be. As we saw today, both OSU and IU almost went down as well. Brutal and crushing loss, but not on the all-time bad list for NCAA teams.

Kansas is on the ropes. They haven't made a 3 in the tournament yet. Hopefully they get blown out so they can join ours and Georgetown's and other's misery.

scott257
03-24-2013, 02:28 PM
WSU 14-28 from 3
Ohio State 9-24 from 3
BYU 14-28 from 3
Syracuse 12-25 from 3
UNC 11-19 from 3
Davison 11-22 from 3


At a certain point it's not just "bad luck".

Not knowing, I would be curious if other major programs have similar losses when their opponents are scoring at a high percentage from the three.

GeorgiaZagFan
03-24-2013, 02:35 PM
The REAL facts are this ...Wichita shot about 33% for the year from the 3-point line against defenses that are NOT as good as the Zags...(all the teams not named Creighton in their conference) So DON'T tell me they shot lights out because of our poor defense ...would GBJ have made a difference ...YES we win with his defense on the floor ..but that was not an option.

We STILL were going to win I believe until this sequence...KO gets ball down low and gets body blocked....but the ref swallows his whistle... instead of 2 FT's they get the ball throw down to a guy in the corner who takes about 5 steps and throws back out to Baker for an LONG well contested three!! 61-60 instead of 63-57 ...AND then with less than 2 secs on the shot clock ..guy fumbles the ball and hoists up a prayer ..that is answered....70-65 game over ...bad defense? NO ..their night ..it appeared to be ...

Zags11
03-24-2013, 02:41 PM
Im sure alot scott. Some lose by turnovers or cant score. Seems Few is poor 3pt d when we lose. Certain coaches lose same way. I dont fault when team is better. Just frustrating.

NJZag
03-24-2013, 02:47 PM
I will cite references if need be, but this has been discussed over and over here.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/luke_winn/05/14/defending.three/index.html

gonwick
03-24-2013, 02:50 PM
There is a reason people have career nights against us. Even if their crazy shooting percentage is beyond our control, their ability to take those shots is not. If KD rather than a short guard was on that player as the shot clock ran out, maybe a different result. If there is nothing to be done about 3 point defense, then why pay a coach 1.5 million dollars.

Watching live, the turning point was Stockton's turnover. After Butler, I thought that he should never be on the floor in crunch time. He shouldn't be. He works hard, I'm sure, and that's great, but if he is the principal backup PG next year it is a bad sign for the year. It is almost unfair of Few to put him in that situation. Watching it live was painful. They cut to a shot of Stockton in the stands and the crowd, which loves him, bordered on taunting. Super bizarre moment, one that was undoubtedly hard for the family.



The REAL facts are this ...Wichita shot about 33% for the year from the 3-point line against defenses that are NOT as good as the Zags...(all the teams not named Creighton in their conference) So DON'T tell me they shot lights out because of our poor defense ...would GBJ have made a difference ...YES we win with his defense on the floor ..but that was not an option.

We STILL were going to win I believe until this sequence...KO gets ball down low and gets body blocked....but the ref swallows his whistle... instead of 2 FT's they get the ball throw down to a guy in the corner who takes about 5 steps and throws back out to Baker for an LONG well contested three!! 61-60 instead of 63-57 ...AND then with less than 2 secs on the shot clock ..guy fumbles the ball and hoists up a prayer ..that is answered....70-65 game over ...bad defense? NO ..their night ..it appeared to be ...

UberZagFan
03-24-2013, 03:43 PM
Whether you can statistically affect 3pt percentage or not, you can no doubt affect what you focus to stop. Whether it's changing % or not, contesting 3s either turns into less 3s taken or more difficult 3s taken which will turn into less points. 3s made at about a 35% clip are as effective as 50% from two. They shot friggin 50%. While you can blame luck on two late ones, fact is they had already drained a ton early....which gives them confidence to make those "tough" ones.

And it's been a problem for years. Thought it could have been helped this year with a GLE defending the perimeter but that was never developed. The fascination with Stocks and Drags doing well in WCC made one forget what was needed in March.

Oh, and please quit with the bad offense comments. For as poor as GU's O was, the D was that much worse. For gosh sakes, they shot 50% from the field and from 3 and scored 76 points....all from a team that up until then was offensively challenged at best and just plain bad at worst.

Zags11
03-24-2013, 03:49 PM
Uber, Where was GLE? That might have helped on d. His length and athletiscm would of seriously helped.

Zag4Hire
03-24-2013, 04:14 PM
My Worst Loss Ranking

1. UCLA
2. WSU
3. Nevada
4. Wyoming
5. Texas Tech
6. Ohio State

The loss last night from a holistic perspective is far greater than all those losses in my mind. True the instant reaction from the UCLA game is hard to trump but to think what Gonzaga had on the line and the fall-out from this loss from a national perspective is far greater. Yeah, New Mexico stunk and Georgetown bombed but Gonzaga was the #1 team in the land and got a #1 seed, both issues being hotly debated. For national media people who threw in their lot with Gonzaga or weren't outright attacking Gonzaga have to feel like they won't stick their neck out again or may shy away from supporting Gonzaga. For the haters, they are loving it and can't wait to bring it up again and again. For the NCAA committee, hard to see a mid-major bringing that kind of record to the table anytime soon and Gonzaga will serve as a tale of woe. Also to think, a #1 seed and what looked to be a great road to the first FF appearance.

Being slighted can work wonders for inspirational purposes. Heck, Oregon is playing out of their minds right now. Perhaps it would have been better to get a #2 seed and to feel like they were dissed. Heck even a #3 seed if it would have lit a fire under them. The guys looked very tense and didn't play even a 'B' game in either night. Ah what's done is done but this one will sting for quite some time.

livelaughzag
03-24-2013, 10:34 PM
I'm beginning to believe that WSU thought that they had little chance to win unless they could make a good percentage of 3s and they knew the shots would be available. Zags still should have won. Make 3 more FTs, 2 more lay ups or dunks and get 1 more stop. And 1 less brain cramp. Shoulda, shoulda, would of. Ughhh.

In HS we played in the state tournament matched up against a superior team in pretty much everything. Our coaches told us if we could see the hoop shoot and then crash the boards. We shot a crazy percentage, way above season average and long story short, we won that game.

Next game was same thing, we were the underdogs, facing a better team. We took same ill advised shots, shot a normal percentage and lost.

If I coached against the Zags and didn't have the athletes to match up, I'd do the same thing. Throw in the fact that 3pt defense is GU's achilles heel, it's a no brainer.

UberZagFan
03-24-2013, 10:53 PM
Uber, Where was GLE? That might have helped on d. His length and athletiscm would of seriously helped.

He was no where to be found...but don't blame that on the coaching staff...they did all they could to develop him....he just couldn't practice well.