ADVERTISEMENT

Now do we understand why 3s matter?

R

RocknRollface

HB Legend
Dec 21, 2011
13,974
17,072
113
Do we get it now?

Is there any further explanation needed as to why "talent disparity" and "physically dominated" are stupid takes?

There were so many terrible takes on here about talent that just ignored Iowas abnormally bad shooting.

This team is small, so when they make 3s they win, when they don't they don't win.

Its really just that simple.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: KcTo, amahawk, EvilMonkeyInTheCloset and 2 others
RocknRollface said:
Do we get it now?

Is there any further explanation need as to why "talent disparity" and "physically dominated" are stupid takes?"

This team is small, so when they make 3s they win, when they don't they don't win.

Its really just that simple.
Click to expand...
🤔🍺
 
Mohawkeye said:
Except we could have shot the 3 poorly and stills won. The difference to me was rebounding, hustling and defending.
Click to expand...
Against a team as low on talent as Isu you are correct.

Im still on the Duke game. I don't care about Isu. They are irrelevant.

If Iowa shot the ball like this against Duke its a comfortable win and there's no stupid takes about being physically overmatched.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: EvilMonkeyInTheCloset, WadeLookingbill and Rifler
It was the differential from 3.

'clones 3/22 for a dismal 13.6%- 9 points
Hawks 12/23 for an outstanding 52%- 36 points

In a good game Hawks would hit more like 40%. Tonight was exceptional.
Likewise, as much as isu is not a great shooting team, would still expect them to be closer to 25% than 10%.

That kind of disparity was very much unexpected. Nor is it likely to be replicated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvilMonkeyInTheCloset and MilleGinja
SDHawkDoc said:
It was the differential from 3.

'clones 3/22 for a dismal 13.6%- 9 points
Hawks 12/23 for an outstanding 52%- 36 points

In a good game Hawks would hit more like 40%. Tonight was exceptional.
Likewise, as much as isu is not a great shooting team, would still expect them to be closer to 25% than 10%.

That kind of disparity was very much unexpected. Nor is it likely to be replicated.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Nor is Iowa likely to go 3 for 17 often.

Iowa is built to shoot 3s.

If they have a bad game from 3 they're probably going to lose.

Theres no need to imagine other reasons beyond bad shooting.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: EvilMonkeyInTheCloset, Bishop1971 and WadeLookingbill
ROHawk 44 said:
If I'm faster taller and stronger than you, you won't shoot well against me no matter how great of a shooter you are. You will be facing an up hill battle to knock down a bunch of 3s.

You are treating 3 pt shooting like it's free throw shooting.
Click to expand...
The majority of 3 pt shots are not contested.

That is a statistically documented fact.

Most of Iowas 3 point shots against Duke were not contested.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: EvilMonkeyInTheCloset
ROHawk 44 said:
If I'm faster taller and stronger than you, you won't shoot well against me no matter how great of a shooter you are. You will be facing an up hill battle to knock down a bunch of 3s.

You are treating 3 pt shooting like it's free throw shooting.
Click to expand...
Kind of agree. I think @RocknRollface is over simplifying it a bit. I mean he’s right if we go 12-23 every game we’re going to be hard to beat. I just don’t think he’s giving enough credit to the length of Duke and their talent. Either way, credit to the hawks tonight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvilMonkeyInTheCloset, HawkLogic, EduNeerHawk and 1 other person
RocknRollface said:
Do we get it now?

Is there any further explanation needed as to why "talent disparity" and "physically dominated" are stupid takes?

There were so many terrible takes on here about talent that just ignored Iowas abnormally bad shooting.

This team is small, so when they make 3s they win, when they don't they don't win.

Its really just that simple.
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight. You're suggesting that when Iowa makes their shots, they win and when they miss their shots they lose. Seems a bit farfetched. Let me noodle on that awhile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvilMonkeyInTheCloset, Bishop1971 and RocknRollface
jonesy5960 said:
So let me get this straight. You're suggesting that when Iowa makes their shots, they win and when they miss their shots they lose. Seems a bit farfetched. Let me noodle on that awhile.
Click to expand...
Im suggesting that breakdowns of the Duke game that focused primarily on physicality and talent were ignoring the obvious.

It wasn't even a physical game.

The TCU game and Duke game really were not similar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvilMonkeyInTheCloset
RocknRollface said:
Im suggesting that breakdowns of the Duke game that focused primarily on physicality and talent were ignoring the obvious.

It wasn't even a physical game.

The TCU game and Duke game really were not similar.
Click to expand...
I agree. I was being sarcastic in my response. Iowa typically plays a finesse game depending on making a decent percentage/number of 3's. They're not going to outphysical teams like TCU or Duke although I also agree the games were different. The Hawks don't have the bulk or size down low to do that, although Rebraca has played very physical at times this year as does Tony. They won't win a lot of games against good teams without shooting north of 35% from 3. Hitting 3 for 18% like they shot against Duke and TCU and they have no chance whatsoever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvilMonkeyInTheCloset
jonesy5960 said:
I agree. I was being sarcastic in my response. Iowa typically plays a finesse game depending on making a decent percentage/number of 3's. They're not going to outphysical teams like TCU or Duke although I also agree the games were different. The Hawks don't have the bulk or size down low to do that, although Rebraca has played very physical at times this year as does Tony. They won't win a lot of games against good teams without shooting north of 35% from 3. Hitting 3 for 18% like they shot against Duke and TCU and they have no chance whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Right, I got that you were being sarcastic. I was just elaborating my point.

Agree, they have to hit 35%+ to beat good teams. Its how this team is built.

Philip was awesome last night and Kris can rebound too but they're both basically playing up a position for their size.

Patrick is always going to be non physical, Sandfort and Connor are tough but a step slower than most opponents.

The strength is outside shooting.

Any time they go 3-17 its going to look similar to the Duke game and any time they hit north of %40 its probably a win.

This team will live and die by the 3 more often than not.
 
ROHawk 44 said:
If I'm faster taller and stronger than you, you won't shoot well against me no matter how great of a shooter you are. You will be facing an up hill battle to knock down a bunch of 3s.

You are treating 3 pt shooting like it's free throw shooting.
Click to expand...
Bro, we missed 5 wide open 3’s against Duke. We hit those, we win period!
We can beat anybody if we are hitting double digit 3’s. It doesn’t matter how tall the opposing player or if he’s more athletic. You have to make the open looks!
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: EvilMonkeyInTheCloset, Bishop1971 and RocknRollface
RocknRollface said:
Do we get it now?

Is there any further explanation needed as to why "talent disparity" and "physically dominated" are stupid takes?

There were so many terrible takes on here about talent that just ignored Iowas abnormally bad shooting.

This team is small, so when they make 3s they win, when they don't they don't win.

Its really just that simple.
Click to expand...
Are they still making threes? Let me know when it stops.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: skydog0784
RocknRollface said:
Right, I got that you were being sarcastic. I was just elaborating my point.

Agree, they have to hit 35%+ to beat good teams. Its how this team is built.

Philip was awesome last night and Kris can rebound too but they're both basically playing up a position for their size.

Patrick is always going to be non physical, Sandfort and Connor are tough but a step slower than most opponents.

The strength is outside shooting.

Any time they go 3-17 its going to look similar to the Duke game and any time they hit north of %40 its probably a win.

This team will live and die by the 3 more often than not.
Click to expand...
The biggest 3 point shooting issue the Hawks have right now is Sandfort. He's the highest volume 3 point shooter on the team and he's 3 for 24 (12%) in the last 7 games. It's one of the worst case of the yips I've ever seen. If he can't break out of this slump he's been in it's going to be tough sledding against the better teams. He's the X factor right now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ZumaHawk, RocknRollface and Bishop1971
jonesy5960 said:
The biggest 3 point shooting issue the Hawks have right now is Sandfort. He's the highest volume 3 point shooter on the team and he's 3 for 24 (12%) in the last 7 games. It's one of the worst case of the yips I've ever seen. If he can't break out of this slump he's been it's going to be tough sledding against the better teams. He's the X factor right now.
Click to expand...
Sandfort hit 1 last night and a nice midrange. Hopefully he is about done with the yips
 
jonesy5960 said:
The biggest 3 point shooting issue the Hawks have right now is Sandfort. He's the highest volume 3 point shooter on the team and he's 3 for 24 (12%) in the last 7 games. It's one of the worst case of the yips I've ever seen. If he can't break out of this slump he's been it's going to be tough sledding against the better teams. He's the X factor right now.
Click to expand...
100 percent agree.
 
RocknRollface said:
Do we get it now?

Is there any further explanation needed as to why "talent disparity" and "physically dominated" are stupid takes?

There were so many terrible takes on here about talent that just ignored Iowas abnormally bad shooting.

This team is small, so when they make 3s they win, when they don't they don't win.

Its really just that simple.
Click to expand...

I think we all know that 3's matter. It's been discussed a lot and has not been ignored as you claim.

As an example, I posted this on Wednesday in another thread:

3 Point shooting in Iowa's last 3 losses:

21% (6-29) vs Richmond
18% (3-17) vs TCU
19% (3-16) vs Duke
............................................
19% (12-62) Overall
 
RocknRollface said:
Do we get it now?

Is there any further explanation needed as to why "talent disparity" and "physically dominated" are stupid takes?

There were so many terrible takes on here about talent that just ignored Iowas abnormally bad shooting.

This team is small, so when they make 3s they win, when they don't they don't win.

Its really just that simple.
Click to expand...
And, another belief about playing better when you get angry is just absurd
 
Lone Clone said:
I knew it long before then. About the fifth time an ISU player missed a bunny or an open shot. Rebraca had a hell of a game, BTW. So did the whole team, Congrats. I hope they can do it again to somebody else.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for ISU, Iowa did 2 things they didn't do against TCU and Duke. They hit their 3's and they matched the physicality and intensity of the opponent. Hopefully it wasn’t an aberration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BirdistheWord
I think we can all agree this was a great game for recruits to be at. Loved the energy of the crowd, especially in the first half.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BirdistheWord
Steve Waite said:
Bro, we missed 5 wide open 3’s against Duke. We hit those, we win period!
We can beat anybody if we are hitting double digit 3’s. It doesn’t matter how tall the opposing player or if he’s more athletic. You have to make the open looks!
Click to expand...
Yeah well can you tell our opponents to stop doing the same thing?

It's like how dare they make open threes when we're not making them. In fact, they should just not make open threes in general, regardless of how we shoot the ball.


Yeah?.....
 
RocknRollface said:
Do we get it now?

Is there any further explanation needed as to why "talent disparity" and "physically dominated" are stupid takes?

There were so many terrible takes on here about talent that just ignored Iowas abnormally bad shooting.

This team is small, so when they make 3s they win, when they don't they don't win.

Its really just that simple.
Click to expand...
Was the basketball used at MSG the infamous Wilson basketball game?
Remember the NCAA game against Richmond?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hawkfan_08

It's okay to be happy the team won.

Replies
28
Views
2K
Iowa Men's Basketball
IChawkeye45
I
Franisdaman

Rick Pitino admits they outbid Seton Hall for transfer Kadary Richmond. "We paid him a lot of money. We gave him a very large contract."

Replies
6
Views
1K
Iowa Men's Basketball
Hawksfor3
Hawksfor3
RicoSuave102954

I Relied on a Handgun In My Nightstand for Home Defense, and It Was a Mistake. Here’s What I Do Now.

Replies
0
Views
243
Off Topic
RicoSuave102954
RicoSuave102954
A

Iowa vs. USC Pre-Game Thoughts

Replies
6
Views
1K
The Press Box
icwesthawk
icwesthawk
bcherod

The Americans

Replies
75
Views
1K
Off Topic
bcherod
bcherod
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back