I have not gone through the tape but I am all for taking "good" 3s. Of the 60 taken last night, no doubt some number of them were not "good" 3s. Those possessions that ended in a bad 3 would have been better served if someone had taken it to the hoop or generated some other shot. Is that number 10? 15? But that is in the range of 10% to 15% of the total possessions.
I am with Mazzulla on this, in terms of the question. When asked the question about number of 3PA, there is no answer. Every miss looks bad, every make looks good. You can't say that tonight we took 60 which is wrong but if we took 50, it would have been right. I don't think there were 60 "good" 3PAs tonight, but there could be. But even if you took 50 or 40, if you only made 25%, it would still look bad.
I feel that coaches and players need to execute to find the best shot. They need to do it better than they did in game 1.
Here's my objection to "good" threes: It's taught "if it's a good three, take it". But, that ignores the reality of runs and momentum.
Let's take an example. Your team has been shooting poorly, but you hold a 9 point lead in the fourth quarter. You've just seen the opponent shave off 11 points from their deficit.
The "take good threes" strategy says keep shooting. If you get five open looks from 3PT on five straight possessions, shoot them. If they're misses, oh well, things will even out eventually.
The "you don't need to take every open shot" strategy says that momentum is a thing. With every consecutive miss, your team loses confidence and the other team gains it. It's better to work for a high percentage 2PT shot than an open but low percentage 3PT shot to "stop the bleeding".
We started the 4th quarter by not scoring for nearly four minutes. That sequence was:
Missed close 2PT
Missed 3PT
Missed 3PT
Missed long 2T
Turnover
Missed 3PT
Missed 3PT
Turnover
That's just an example of how games are lost. What would it have looked like if, instead of settling for threes, they'd attempted some drives?
I think it's worth pointing out that, while I agree with you, 'the reality of runs and momentum' is not a settled point, and perhaps it's unwise to act like it is.
To me, the question isn't about whether momentum is real or not, it is about how a "good" shot is defined. If you have a lead, and the other team is surging, it is not a good shot to jack up a 3 early in the shot clock, from the logo, with a hand in your face. But it could be a good shot if you are open off a pick and pop, in rhythm. What better way to reverse momentum than to hit a couple of 3s.
You can also argue both sides of the alternate. Sometimes it is a really good play to take it to the hoop when the other team is surging. Other times, it is dribbling into traffic, that leads to a turnover, that leads to an easy bucket the other way, that leads to even more momentum.
In that run that Roy illustrated, 4 missed 3s, 2 missed 2s, and 2 turnovers. I don't recall exactly but my guess is some of the 3s were good shots, some not. Probably the turnovers were the result of trying to take it to the hoop or otherwise forcing something. They didn't execute any of it well, not 3s, not 2s, not taking it to the hoop. But had they hit a even 1 of those 3s, much less 2 of them, it changes everything. Had they not turned the ball over twice and turned those possessions into points, much different.
Mazzulla shares some of the blame for this, I just don't think this makes him a bad coach. This kind of thing happens with every coach and every team. Sometimes it just all unravels. In the moment, the players have more control over these than the coaches. The players have to respond and execute.
Topic: Fire Joe! ... or critique Joe ... or defend Joe... or worry about Joe's coaching (Read 706472 times)