Ted Valentine refing MIch/Mary in Mich tonight.
- Thread starter DanL53
- Start date
Teddy V and Izzo are tough to beat @ MSU.
Posted this in another thread, but here is where it's being discussed:
#3 MD 67- @MI 70
The Tuesday B1G upset.
Possibly Zak Irvin's best game to date? Came in averaging 9pts/25% from 3. Led all scorers with 22, hitting 3/7 from 3. Statistically, that's where MI won the game, at the 3 point line, hitting 12/29 for 41% themselves and holding MD to 6/24 for 25% from 3.
http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=400839366
I feel good about this outcome for 2 reasons:
1) MD loss when Iowa's in the B1G hunt
2) MI strength is 3pt shooting. MI and IA are 2/3 in the league in 3pt shooting. But while IA is 2nd in 3pt D, MI is 10th.
http://www.bigten.org/library/stats/mbb-confldrs.html
On the other hand, MI is going to be riding high after this win, and have 2 more days than Iowa to get ready for the @IA game on January 17. Win or lose @MSU, it's going to be difficult to not have a little letdown for the next game, even for seniors.
#3 MD 67- @MI 70
The Tuesday B1G upset.
Possibly Zak Irvin's best game to date? Came in averaging 9pts/25% from 3. Led all scorers with 22, hitting 3/7 from 3. Statistically, that's where MI won the game, at the 3 point line, hitting 12/29 for 41% themselves and holding MD to 6/24 for 25% from 3.
http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=400839366
I feel good about this outcome for 2 reasons:
1) MD loss when Iowa's in the B1G hunt
2) MI strength is 3pt shooting. MI and IA are 2/3 in the league in 3pt shooting. But while IA is 2nd in 3pt D, MI is 10th.
http://www.bigten.org/library/stats/mbb-confldrs.html
On the other hand, MI is going to be riding high after this win, and have 2 more days than Iowa to get ready for the @IA game on January 17. Win or lose @MSU, it's going to be difficult to not have a little letdown for the next game, even for seniors.
Uthoff and Baer seem to be key to our 3pt defense with their perimeter shot blocking. Clemmons really looked good defensively vs MSU 1st go around. Hope the 3pt shooting defense stays with us. Sometimes influenced by just who you play and how hot they are.
There is pretty good evidence that opponent 3 point percentage has little to do with your defense. Sometimes when opponents shoot poorly from 3, it's because they are bad shooters. Other times it's bad luck. It's generally not related to the quality of your own defense, or at least as much as most fans think.
Or to put it another way, it's more like opponent FT shooting than 2 point shooting. Whether they miss or not is mostly out of the control of a defense.
Many teams are consistently good at 3pt D, or improve dramatically one year to the next. Yeah, sometimes teams just have a good/bad game, but D has something to do with it too.
Defending shooters is mostly making them shoot out of rhythm or moving them off their favorite spots. Impressive that UM could beat the Turtles without their best player. Is Lavert (sp?) out for Sunday? UM used basically a 6-man rotation.
This post had me looking online to see if they posted anywhere who the game officials would be. I found nothing. Anyone else know if there's a place to look?That's scary. He's in Michigan two days before our game.
That is not true. There are almost no teams that are consistently good at 3 pt D year after year. It's a lot of random variation. The number of teams that rank in the top 20% year after year nationally you can probably count on 1 hand (out of 351 teams).
Teams dramatically improve from one year to the next for the same reason they dramatically worsen. Luck. You have a lot more control over whether or not your opponent decides to shoot a 3 pointer than if it goes in once they shoot it. Why? Because teams usually don't shoot a 3 unless it is open (aside from a few late shot clock heaves).
That is complete nonsense that a team can't play good defense at the 3 PT line. Of course they can.
Right or wrong (I don't know or care to research it), I think what he's trying to say is very specific to 3pt shooting percentages. A team that plays very good D at the 3 point line will likely greatly reduce the # of 3pt attempts their opponent takes, the question is will it significantly impact their shooting percentage on the ones they do take.
A guy like Uthoff can certainly be an x-factor here with his ability to quickly close out and block/impact shots at the 3pt line, guys often think they're open but he has a knack for getting a hand on a fair amount of those type shots.
Last edited:
I'm saying that there is overwhelming evidence that a team's defense has very little influence on the percentage of 3 point shots their opponents make. You have far more influence over whether or not they attempt the shot than whether or not they make it after taking it.
It's like FT defense. It's pretty obvious to everyone that teams can't defend a FT attempt. I mean the guy either makes it or misses it. Yet, to this point SMU's opponents have made 59.7% of their FTs and Marquette's opponents have made 77.2%. Is SMU better at psyching them out? Have they simply fouled worse shooters? Have they simply had some luck on their side? Probably all of the above. But if you follow them from this day forward, SMU and Marquette are likely to have nearly equal opponent FT percentages allowed the rest of the season.
wow where to start...I've never heard of FT defense...that's a new one.
a team's defense has very little influence on the % of 3 point shots? ever hear of the 30 sec shot clock? with a good defense..you force your opponent to take or jack up very low % shots....which is better than turning the ball over on a shot clock violation...at least you have a chance at an offensive rebound.
I don't think your coach would agree with your overwhelming evidence theory that his players defense has little influence on the % of 3 point shots.
ya Melo wasn't so elite in this game
... he seemed to be somewhat Melo ... everyone has down games (even some of the best)...credit Michigan's guards...I thought Walton had a really good game. I'm sure Melo will return to form...I don't care what any coach thinks or says. The evidence is overwhelming. Variation within a season and from season to season proves that most of your opponents 3 point percentage is a combination of how good your opponents are at shooting 3s and luck. That's about it. There are a small handful of coaches that have had some ability to influence opponent 3 point shooting with their defense, but that's about it. Somewhere around 80-90% of your opponent's 3 point shooting percentage is based on factors outside the control of a defense.
You can either compare numbers from within a season (say the first 9 games of Big Ten play vs the 2nd 9 games of Big Ten play) or from season to season and find the same thing.
Let's use Tom Izzo as an example. I think we'd all agree he's a good coach and usually has good defenses. His teams rank in opponent 3 point percentage nationally going back by year...3, 45, 104, 22, 15, 270, 101. 3rd best nationally so far this year, but all over the board in previous seasons. Is it likely his opponents continue to shoot 26% behind the arc the rest of the year? Not really.
How about Thad Matta? Another coach that has had consistently great defenses over the years. Opponent 3 point percentage rank going back...145, 67, 5, 95, 85, 148, 145, 208, etc.
Bo Ryan...299, 308, 152, 8, 11, 299, 184, etc.
There aren't many team level stats that show variation from very best to very worst nationally for coaches (and everything in between) from year to year.
My point about bringing up opponent FT% is to point out how the variation there is nearly identical to the variation in opponent 3 point shooting. Yet we all understand FT shooting by the opponent can't be defended yet we still think 3 point% can be defended.
The math is crystal clear.
What a defense can influence is the number of 3 point shots attempted. Because if you are tightly guarded behind the line, you won't attempt the shot. So teams that really cover perimeter shooters and instead allow more chances inside just won't give up as many 3 point attempts. But if a guy is open enough to want to take the shot, you can't alter the chances of it going in once he decides to shoot (aside from blocking the shot which almost never happens on a 3).
Block (and Kenpom) is correct in this one. Teams have very little (not zero mind you) control of opponent three-point percentage. They do have some control over attempts, however.
Ken Pomeroy is a stats guy, not a coach. In his world he has found, and been arguing, that statistically there is no evidence that defending the three point shot is any more valuable than a mythical free throw shot defense, other than to limit the opponent's attempts.
However. In the practical sense let's see a team sag into and remain in a zone and invite other teams to take all the wide open threes they want. Does anyone think the stats will hold up?
Something in the formula's Pomeroy is using is off. Something not accounted for. The year to year comparisons? Is it possibly the changes in college teams, year to year? The half a year to half a year comparisons? Are we looking at different opponents? Whatever it is, something is blatantly wrong in Kenpom's stats. All one has to do is watch Uthoff or Baer block a three point shot, or watch a team fire off a hurried shot before the clock runs out, to know defense plays a part.
However. In the practical sense let's see a team sag into and remain in a zone and invite other teams to take all the wide open threes they want. Does anyone think the stats will hold up?
Something in the formula's Pomeroy is using is off. Something not accounted for. The year to year comparisons? Is it possibly the changes in college teams, year to year? The half a year to half a year comparisons? Are we looking at different opponents? Whatever it is, something is blatantly wrong in Kenpom's stats. All one has to do is watch Uthoff or Baer block a three point shot, or watch a team fire off a hurried shot before the clock runs out, to know defense plays a part.
Ken Pomeroy is a stats guy, not a coach. In his world he has found, and been arguing, that statistically there is no evidence that defending the three point shot is any more valuable than a mythical free throw shot defense, other than to limit the opponent's attempts.
However. In the practical sense let's see a team sag into and remain in a zone and invite other teams to take all the wide open threes they want. Does anyone think the stats will hold up?
Something in the formula's Pomeroy is using is off. Something not accounted for. The year to year comparisons? Is it possibly the changes in college teams, year to year? The half a year to half a year comparisons? Are we looking at different opponents? Whatever it is, something is blatantly wrong in Kenpom's stats. All one has to do is watch Uthoff or Baer block a three point shot, or watch a team fire off a hurried shot before the clock runs out, to know defense plays a part.
You are incorrect in your understanding. KenPom has not shown "there is no evidence...other than to limit attempts". There is evidence of a very small effect. Not no effect, just a very small one.
Your argument about a zone defense is also incorrect. Teams play zone all the time. And while zone defenses give up more 3 point attempts, they don't give up a higher percentage of 3 point makes. In fact the one coach with perhaps the most evidence for holding down opponent 3 point percentages more than any other is none other than Jim Boeheim, aka the guy that has probably played man to man defense on fewer possessions than any other in the last decade. Since 2009, Syracuse has ranked outside the top 50 only one time (out of 350+ teams) in lowest opponent 3 point percentage.
I'm also not sure why you are so convinced that "something is blatantly wrong in KenPom's stats". They are assuredly 100% correct. The only question is how and why, not what the actual math shows. He's simply measuring opponent 3 point shooting on a team level basis and he has compared it between different seasons and within the same season. He's right. We just need to describe why the data is what it is. Why don't teams have more control over opponent 3 point shooting? Why does it vary so much for a given team even within the same season?
You are also correct that you can watch a team defend well and hurriedly take a desperation 3 at the end of the shot clock. Defense does matter. It's just that the effect is so small that most of the variation you see between teams is simply luck. How many end of shot clock desperation 3s does Iowa force in an average game? 1? 2? Out of 10 or 20 or 30 3 point attempts? And sometimes those desperation ones actually go in. So while they are less likely, those misses just don't play a big role in opponent 3 point percentage. Your opponent will shoot a 3 when they get a look that they normally get. Individual players and teams have different thresholds for when they will shoot it, but that's their variation not your defense.
You can limit the number of 3s your opponent takes, you just can't do a lot to change their chances of making it after they decide to take it.
Last edited:
Here you go block. I picked the most disgusting video I could find of Syracuse and their zone. If you watch it, you'll find the words "Matching Up", meanwhile you'll see they don't sag back and give up open three pointers. I wonder why?
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...F9DE1D14B0294C52C273F9DE1D14B0294C&FORM=VIRE1
I picked the most disgusting video I could find of Syracuse and their zone. If you watch it, you'll find the words "Matching Up", meanwhile you'll see they don't sag back and give up open three pointers. I wonder why?http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...F9DE1D14B0294C52C273F9DE1D14B0294C&FORM=VIRE1
Here you go block.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...F9DE1D14B0294C52C273F9DE1D14B0294C&FORM=VIRE1
I'm sorry, you implied some teams would play a zone and intentionally give up open 3 point shots. Since obviously nobody in the country intentionally sags in and gives up lots of open shots I merely brought up the coach/school most famous for playing a zone defense.
And if you'd like to know probably the biggest reason Iowa's opponents haven't shot well on 3s this season: they have played poor shooting opponents for the most part. National ranks in 3 point percentage by game for Iowa opponents: 156, 288, 184, 198, 26, 175, 230, 71, 37, 119, 12, 112, 21, 117, 109. UMKC, W. Illinois, Drake, Notre Dame, and MSU are the only opponents to crack the top 100 nationally in 3 point shooting as a team. Even ISU has been way down shooting this season.
From 3 years ago...
------------Thru 12/4--------------------After 12/4
--------Top 20----Bottom 20-----Top 20------Bottom 20
2012--45.2-------23.8------------- 34.8---------32.9
2011--44.6-------24.7--------------34.6---------33.3
2010--45.1-------24.6--------------35.4---------34.0
2009--44.5-------23.9--------------34.3---------34.2
Avg---44.9--------24.3--------------34.8---------33.6
Sorry for the dashes to try to make it format right visually
So if you take the best teams in defending 3 point percentages and compare them to the worst, why do they perform nearly equal the rest of the season?
------------Thru 12/4--------------------After 12/4
--------Top 20----Bottom 20-----Top 20------Bottom 20
2012--45.2-------23.8------------- 34.8---------32.9
2011--44.6-------24.7--------------34.6---------33.3
2010--45.1-------24.6--------------35.4---------34.0
2009--44.5-------23.9--------------34.3---------34.2
Avg---44.9--------24.3--------------34.8---------33.6
Sorry for the dashes to try to make it format right visually
So if you take the best teams in defending 3 point percentages and compare them to the worst, why do they perform nearly equal the rest of the season?
If teams never take contested 3 point shots..why sure the % is not affected..and it was the defense that helped create that..so to say the defense have little to do with the % is wrong.
There isn't a coach out there that doesn't believe defending a 3 point shot with a hand in the face doesn't lower the shot (%) ...there isn't a coach out there that doesn't believe a wide open shot from 3 increases the %. How do you limit the wide open 3? with defense....oh it doesn't always happen..screens, etc...but a hand in the face will lower the %...a wide open shot raises the %.
...for the sake of Mr Kenpom...sure the defense controls attempts...it does from 3 point..it does from 2 point....you would hope your offense doesn't take contested shots and works the ball for open attempts...wow what a novel idea.
... with a 30 sec shot clock..the offense has to take a shot at some point (otherwise its called a shot clock violation)...30 seconds of tough defense "lowers" the shooting % ..assuming the offense gets a shot off at all...
how many times have you seen the offense in panic mode (because of the defense being played) shot clock winding down...just to see the shooter jack up a shot from 3 ...result..lower %.
I really don't care what coaches believe. They are in their jobs because they are great at teaching kids how to play better, not because they have a deeper understanding or better analysis of things like this than anybody else. Whether it happens or not is a question of math, not verbal descriptions.
And do players jack up a late shot in the shot clock some times? Sure, and when it happens a lot of it can be contributed to great defense. It just doesn't happen that often and it doesn't influence overall team 3 point shooting very much.
And if all the things you said were true, how come teams that are great at defending the 3 point shot in the first half of a season become so much worse in the 2nd half of the season? And how comes teams that are so terrible in the first half become so much better in the 2nd half?
No problem. I didn't mean to imply anything, I meant to give an example to help explain my point. My point being that, as you said, nobody I their right mind offers teams the opportunity to take wide open threes all game long.
Except when dealing with a guy that can't make them.
Which oddly enough is another one of those weird things. 3pt defense doesn't lower shooting percentages, but no coach in his right mind would give up open shots, unless it's to a guy that can't hit 3's.
I wasn't responding to you in particular which is why I hadn't quoted you. It was brought up by another poster in this thread. It's how the discussion began.
Is it because of who they are playing? I'd be interested in seeing how stats were processed. I have a feeling that part of the problem is that defending the three amounts to preventing guys from hitting 55 or 60% of their wide open looks (or worse) but that because we're talking about a relatively simple task that requires 95% hustle, most teams do about as well as everybody else.
In other words:
No, it isn't anything like a free throw and yes it can be defended.
Most teams are.
Which leaves the variables to stand out as if alone but it's not as if no one defends the three, everyone is. Again, have a team leave the three point line open all game and lets see what happens.
The thing you are missing is that it is the offensive player that makes the decision on if and when to shoot the 3. A defense can try as hard as they want to defend a 3 point shot, but their opponent will only take it if it is open. That's why the defense has almost no control over the percentage of 3 point shots their opponents make. They can limit the amount the opponent takes, though. Obviously there are a few end of shot clock heaves created by the D but that is a very small relative number that doesn't impact the overall percentages much at all.
And your hypothetical about not defending the 3 point line at all basically proves the point. Everybody tries to defend everywhere. It's obvious that undefended in practice, players shoot much better than when defended in a game. The differences between team opponent 3 point percentages are almost all due to luck. The math is what it is. If a team has held their opponents to a low 3 point percentage through this point in the season, it will probably regress the rest of the year. Conversely if a team has given up a high opponent 3 point percentage, it will probably improve.
People can twist and turn their way to whatever explanation for it they want, but in the end going forward no team is much more likely than any other to hold their opponents 3 point percentage down.
We are soooooo close to something almost like agreement. Unguarded, we both say that the shooter will enjoy a higher percentage of success.
So, I put it to you, all teams defend the three pretty much equally well. More than just denying shots, but causing opponents to miss as well. That's why guys can hit a higher percentage in practice than during games.
And what is defending the three but getting a hand in a guys face. Defense 101! Of course all teams do it about equally. But, heck, in a case like Iowa's all you have to do is count the times we block the attempt to know we're doing a better job than most teams. (Probably).
What KenPom gets, is stats from a universe that I assert has the three point line covered about as well as it will be. So he sees the variances and it appears as if there is no defense, that it compares to a free throw shot.
I say wrong, in fact almost all teams are doing as well as they can...have 'em back off and see what happens.
Last thing......as far as a shooter only shooting when he is open? LOL...many of these guys have no clue when to shoot and when not.
