Let's do the math.
If you shoot 33.3% from three, that is the same as shooting 50% from two.
Over the course of the season, we're shooting a very good 50% from two. Which means if you give up ten more three-pointers to you opponents than you take (as we did today against Sac State), they have the advantage if they make 33.3% of their shots. Today they did, 34.6%. Thursday they did not, 26%.
I'm not complaining about our three-point defense, it is very good, 29.5% on the season. It's just that when you're taking so many fewer three's (about 70 going into today's game, on top of the ten today), your defense HAS to be good to be the equalizer. If it's not, as it wasn't today, you're probably gonna lose.
But what about our offense? On the season we're shooting about 50% from two but 35.3 from three. Which means that for every 100 shots taken, we're likely to do better from three than we are from two by about six points.
Big deal, you say. Six points. How much would I have liked to have an extra six points on the board over the course of this season?
But the frustrating thing is, we have several players shooting 40% or better. Even Vazquez with an off-day from three is still above 40%. So are Kyle Owens, Eddie Egun, Cameron Parker and Brandon Whitney. And Robbie Beasely might be right up there too with more attempts. He looks like a very good shooter, a la his free throw percentage.
I'm just saying we pass up a lot of good looks from three, especially from Vazquez. If he's open, TAKE THAT SHOT! There is no better shot.
Two other things another 80 three-point shots would do for us over the course of the season.
It'd give us more in-game practise. We might improve our overall percentage.
But it'd keep us in games that we trail late and seem out of reach with two-pointers.
Sure, it's a risk. As they say, you "live and die" by the three-ball.
But it seems to me, over the course of this season, we're mostly dying. I wish the three-point shot were a greater part of our game.
If you shoot 33.3% from three, that is the same as shooting 50% from two.
Over the course of the season, we're shooting a very good 50% from two. Which means if you give up ten more three-pointers to you opponents than you take (as we did today against Sac State), they have the advantage if they make 33.3% of their shots. Today they did, 34.6%. Thursday they did not, 26%.
I'm not complaining about our three-point defense, it is very good, 29.5% on the season. It's just that when you're taking so many fewer three's (about 70 going into today's game, on top of the ten today), your defense HAS to be good to be the equalizer. If it's not, as it wasn't today, you're probably gonna lose.
But what about our offense? On the season we're shooting about 50% from two but 35.3 from three. Which means that for every 100 shots taken, we're likely to do better from three than we are from two by about six points.
Big deal, you say. Six points. How much would I have liked to have an extra six points on the board over the course of this season?
But the frustrating thing is, we have several players shooting 40% or better. Even Vazquez with an off-day from three is still above 40%. So are Kyle Owens, Eddie Egun, Cameron Parker and Brandon Whitney. And Robbie Beasely might be right up there too with more attempts. He looks like a very good shooter, a la his free throw percentage.
I'm just saying we pass up a lot of good looks from three, especially from Vazquez. If he's open, TAKE THAT SHOT! There is no better shot.
Two other things another 80 three-point shots would do for us over the course of the season.
It'd give us more in-game practise. We might improve our overall percentage.
But it'd keep us in games that we trail late and seem out of reach with two-pointers.
Sure, it's a risk. As they say, you "live and die" by the three-ball.
But it seems to me, over the course of this season, we're mostly dying. I wish the three-point shot were a greater part of our game.