"Arizona is just not a great shooting team..."

eoe · Post by **eoe** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:19 am

Arizona FG %- 50.1% (8th in NCAA)
Arizona 3Pt %- 38% (2nd in Pac-12)
Arizona PPG- 76.1 (2nd in Pac-12)
Arizona Scoring Margin- +16.6 (2nd in Pac-12)

How much more will we have to listen to this bullshit?

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:38 am

Well we aren't a great jumpshooting team. Easy to have a high fg % when you mostly just score the hall from within 3 feet of the basket.

77HoyaCat4Ever · Post by **77HoyaCat4Ever** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 1:24 am

ASUHATER! wrote:Well we aren't a great jumpshooting team. Easy to have a high fg % when you mostly just score the hall from within 3 feet of the basket.

If you can consistently get higher percentage shots then you have a better offense

Reydituto · Post by **Reydituto** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:29 am

ASUHATER! wrote:Well we aren't a great jumpshooting team. Easy to have a high fg % when you mostly just score the hall from within 3 feet of the basket.

38% from 3 isn't a "bad" jumpshooting team.

Like SHB says, you can tell which announcers (and posters) do their homework, and which ones regurgitate preseason screeds. UA is a better shooting team, and a better offensive team, than people think, or thought they would be before the season. Just because UA doesn't have that feared, dead-eye perimeter shooter, doesn't mean as a team they can't shoot well.

luteformayor2 · Post by **luteformayor2** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 5:40 am

It's not about our FG % this year because we are vastly improved. The thing keeping us from higher scoring games is rebounding and turnovers. It will only get better.

KenPom jumped us up another 3 spots after last nights game.

CBCat · Post by **CBCat** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:09 am

Yeah all of the above and what i'm seeing is we can still be so much more aggressive offensively, really every player from Tarc hitting the open baby 5 footer to 1-4 guys slashing etc, FOR ALL 40 minutes. It's been rare a since Miller has been here it's happened see Duke 2011 but the scary thing for all teams is we can get soooo much better and we seem to be going that way each game.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:16 am

Offense looked very good in spots. RHJ has stopped shooting threes. Stan is being a man in the paint. TJ was terrific. Where has that been? Tarc picking his spots better. And ....

FREE THROWS!

Easy to keep a lead with those falling, especially the front ends.

HiCat · Post by **HiCat** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:27 am

EUGENE, Ore. (AP) With all the offensive weapons that No. 7 Arizona possesses, point guard T.J. McConnell figured it was only a matter of time before he would be called on to score.

McConnell took advantage of Oregon's defensive tactics Thursday night for a season-high 21 points, and all five Wildcats scored in double figures during an 80-62 victory over the Ducks.

''I kind of knew when Pac-12 play started that they were going to try to force me to score,'' McConnell said. ''When I was driving they kind of stayed on their man, so it freed up the shot for me and I just knocked them down tonight.''

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketb ... _ARIZ@OREG

cats101 · Post by **cats101** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:38 am

The spacing of the offense has been terrific lately. Oregon through multiple zones yesterday and RHJ (although still outta control at times) and Stanley were great at slashing and getting to the basket. Time to pick a new flaw from Arizona, especially if TJ can continue to play like he did yesterday imo

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:39 am

Well, we currently rank 79th in 3pt%, so I think "Arizona is just not a great shooting team..." is pretty accurate, don't you?

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:47 am

I think they mean distance shooting when they say that. It isn't great, but it is pretty good. Not a volume shooting team from deep. Maybe the FT percentage colors this, too.

The beef is: Why don't they say, "Arizona is a pretty good shooting team"? Rather than phrase it with a negative.

After all, there few great shooting teams.

Olsondogg · Post by **Olsondogg** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:20 am

It's been repeated all year...by the "experts". I've tried to point out the idiocy of the comments to no avail. I a comfortable knowing that this is Miller's best offensive team that hasn't hit it's stride yet.

This team will be so fun to watch down the stretch. If we can maintain this "horrible" shooting all year then good things will come.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:28 am

They don't say "horrible."

Olsondogg · Post by **Olsondogg** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:29 am

True. But anyone who's anyone knows anything under 52% is horrible.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:40 am

Like I said, don't think they're referencing dunks, putbacks and the like.

Olsondogg · Post by **Olsondogg** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:56 am

That's fine Gumby. I take issue with the way it is presented. Our offensive numbers (and defensive numbers) closely resemble another PAC team, even though our AdjO is slightly better--Utah. However, the Utes have played exactly 3 games away from their comfy confines and are 1-2 in those games--losing to a team UA beat, SDSU. They've started the conference season undefeated as well, with all their games at home. The intro into the game recap on ESPN reads as this:

Utah has turned the tables on the Pac-12.

During their first year in the league, the Utes struggled to score points and stay competitive against virtually every team they faced. These days, it's the rest of the Pac-12 struggling to keep pace with Utah.

Now for the most part I don't care when I read shit like this, because at least it is another PAC team. But I still find it annoying how the script for writing about the cats is "point out the defense, focus on what offensive stat wasn't good".

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:00 am

Puerco wrote:Well, we currently rank 79th in 3pt%, so I think "Arizona is just not a great shooting team..." is pretty accurate, don't you?

79th out of 350, right?

That puts us in the top 25% of all D1 teams. By no means is that bad. As Gumby said, it's definitely "not great" but it is "pretty good", which begs his question, why frame it as a negative? Because the media needs story lines. Describing things as "pretty good" just doesn't drive the ratings and clicks that being negative does.

PieceOfMeat · Post by **PieceOfMeat** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:50 am

I find it a little funny when people take umbrage with a phrase such as "not a great shooting team". Especially when it's true. 79th in 3pt %? yeah, that's not great. I really don't care if they could have phrased it "well, they're a decent shooting team" or "they're a better than average shooting team" or "they're in the top 25% of 3pt shooting".

This feels like one of those situations where a famous athlete takes someone's phrase and uses it as the motivation they need cause they're bored with being great. "Oh, you said you didn't like my hairstyle? That must mean you think I suck. That's it, I'm kickin your ass on the court tonight!" I kind of hope the team gets as riled up about the phrase as the fans do, and use it to improve and take home the trophy.

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:53 am

PieceOfMeat wrote:I find it a little funny when people take umbrage with a phrase such as "not a great shooting team". Especially when it's true. 79th in 3pt %? yeah, that's not great. I really don't care if they could have phrased it "well, they're a decent shooting team" or "they're a better than average shooting team" or "they're in the top 25% of 3pt shooting".

This feels like one of those situations where a famous athlete takes someone's phrase and uses it as the motivation they need cause they're bored with being great. "Oh, you said you didn't like my hairstyle? That must mean you think I suck. That's it, I'm kickin your ass on the court tonight!" I kind of hope the team gets as riled up about the phrase as the fans do, and use it to improve and take home the trophy.

I think the OP probably meant to say "good outside shooting team". That's the dialogue we keep hearing. Our 3 point percentage in the top quartile would seem to indicate we are at least "good".

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:12 am

PieceOfMeat wrote:I find it a little funny when people take umbrage with a phrase such as "not a great shooting team". Especially when it's true. 79th in 3pt %? yeah, that's not great. I really don't care if they could have phrased it "well, they're a decent shooting team" or "they're a better than average shooting team" or "they're in the top 25% of 3pt shooting".

This feels like one of those situations where a famous athlete takes someone's phrase and uses it as the motivation they need cause they're bored with being great. "Oh, you said you didn't like my hairstyle? That must mean you think I suck. That's it, I'm kickin your ass on the court tonight!" I kind of hope the team gets as riled up about the phrase as the fans do, and use it to improve and take home the trophy.

Ah, but when you hear "Arizona is not a great shooting team", it's usually followed by "... so they'll have to rebound and defend if they want to remain in the top blah blah blah...". So they're definitely presenting it as a negative aspect of the team. When in truth our shooting is better than last year. Last year that phrase was a lot more true than this year, but as others have pointed out it's now a stigma and evidence for those talking heads who don't want to change their tune that Arizona won't reach the potential of their collective talent.

Olsondogg · Post by **Olsondogg** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:57 am

The problem I've had all year is hearing that there's a problem with the offense.

PieceOfMeat · Post by **PieceOfMeat** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:00 am

Chicat wrote:
PieceOfMeat wrote:I find it a little funny when people take umbrage with a phrase such as "not a great shooting team". Especially when it's true. 79th in 3pt %? yeah, that's not great. I really don't care if they could have phrased it "well, they're a decent shooting team" or "they're a better than average shooting team" or "they're in the top 25% of 3pt shooting".

This feels like one of those situations where a famous athlete takes someone's phrase and uses it as the motivation they need cause they're bored with being great. "Oh, you said you didn't like my hairstyle? That must mean you think I suck. That's it, I'm kickin your ass on the court tonight!" I kind of hope the team gets as riled up about the phrase as the fans do, and use it to improve and take home the trophy.
Ah, but when you hear "Arizona is not a great shooting team", it's usually followed by "... so they'll have to rebound and defend if they want to remain in the top blah blah blah...". So they're definitely presenting it as a negative aspect of the team. When in truth our shooting is better than last year. Last year that phrase was a lot more true than this year, but as others have pointed out it's now a stigma and evidence for those talking heads who don't want to change their tune that Arizona won't reach the potential of their collective talent.

Fair enough. I just gave up, long ago, on expecting/hoping the talking heads could ever actually do their homework.

azpatnca · Post by **azpatnca** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:33 am

Your typical "great offensive team" has a shooting PG liki Sauim or Damon, a slasher who can't be stopped, and a gunner like Steve Kerr. So we haven't looked like that in a while. We had Gordon and Johnson who don't fit in the right boxes for simple minded analysis and now we have a 6'8 2 guard. They can't simply understand us.

One thing they will have to just get is toughness. From Gordon to KP3 to Hill to TJ to Stanley Johnson it looks like UA under Miller may never feel like the typical bb team, but it will always be made up of the toughest players in the court.

salim'sheadband · Post by **salim'sheadband** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:01 am

azpatnca wrote:Your typical "great offensive team" has a shooting PG liki Sauim or Damon, a slasher who can't be stopped, and a gunner like Steve Kerr. So we haven't looked like that in a while. We had Gordon and Johnson who don't fit in the right boxes for simple minded analysis and now we have a 6'8 2 guard. They can't simply understand us.

One thing they will have to just get is toughness. From Gordon to KP3 to Hill to TJ to Stanley Johnson it looks like UA under Miller may never feel like the typical bb team, but it will always be made up of the toughest players in the court.

The thing is that the "typical great offensive team" hasn't been typical for a long time. you're talking about 10, 20, 30 years ago. We are a typical offensive team now.

Look, if it was clear that some announcer had actually done his homework and said "Arizona isn't a great shooting team" followed up with "...but they are a good one and do have some shooters that make you pay," no one would have a problem with that. Hardly, if ever, are the terms "not great" used in combination to describe something actually considered to be good. It is, in fact, a lazy talking point meant to articulate that we are actually a poor shooting team, which simply isn't true by any metric.

Those of you, like ASUHATER, trying to distinguish the commentary by saying that "well, we aren't a great 'jumpshooting' team" - first of all, you're making some heady claims that these announcers have actually delved that deep, considering two-point jumper percentage is not a widely analyzed statistic. These guys are too lazy to even look at three-point percentage, which is usually the third stat listed on the box score.

Second of all, I'd like to see your statistics. Because the statistics I have say that we are actually 19th in the country in field-goal percentage in two-point jumpers. Past that we shoot 70% at the rim, which is 12th, and our three-point percentage has been discussed ad nauseum. So again, I'm sure Don McLean isn't checking Hoop-Math, but why even bother? Why does this continue to be the narrative? Because a few people nitpicked that at the start of the year and it's easier to simply propagate the same lazy talking points rather than actually do some research for yourself and discover they're not true.

So we're top-20 in two-point jumpers, and top quarter in three-point percentage. But we're not a great shooting team. Sure, I guess we're a good one. But maybe that should be the new normal?

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:31 pm

Olsondogg wrote:That's fine Gumby. I take issue with the way it is presented. Our offensive numbers (and defensive numbers) closely resemble another PAC team, even though our AdjO is slightly better--Utah. However, the Utes have played exactly 3 games away from their comfy confines and are 1-2 in those games--losing to a team UA beat, SDSU. They've started the conference season undefeated as well, with all their games at home. The intro into the game recap on ESPN reads as this:

Utah has turned the tables on the Pac-12.

During their first year in the league, the Utes struggled to score points and stay competitive against virtually every team they faced. These days, it's the rest of the Pac-12 struggling to keep pace with Utah.

Now for the most part I don't care when I read shit like this, because at least it is another PAC team. But I still find it annoying how the script for writing about the cats is "point out the defense, focus on what offensive stat wasn't good".

Yeah, I went over that.

Reydituto · Post by **Reydituto** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:31 pm

Puerco wrote:Well, we currently rank 79th in 3pt%, so I think "Arizona is just not a great shooting team..." is pretty accurate, don't you?

No.

SHB nails it. People usually say that in a pejorative fashion. The meaning conveyed is that just not a great shooting team gets heard as "a bad shooting team", and that isn't accurate either. Also, Ranking 79th puts you in the Top 25th Percentile, which ain't chopped liver, and neither is 37.0 3P%. As others have said, why frame it as a negative?

I don't have an issue taking umbrage at a lazy and slanted narrative, that could be fairly framed in a neutral or even positive manner. I get that UA was the pre-season favorite, the hype train started rolling down the tracks, and things have happened since then (Utah, UNLV loss) to alter the the narrative. But no one likes to say they were off in their pre-season assessment, so they shift the tone of the narrative to blame the team instead.

luteformayor2 · Post by **luteformayor2** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 8:29 pm

Arizona v Kentucky

FG: .500 to .458
3pt: .370 to .340
FT: .669 to .667

We are better in every shooting statistic other than points per possession than the almighty, espn jacked, kentucky.

EVCat · Post by **EVCat** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 11:37 pm

Like with most things national media, it is a lagging talking point. No one pays attention to the Cats like local media/fans. So they heard Seth Greenburg say on a pre-season show that "Arizona's shooting is what will limit them in the postseason" and they regurgitate it. They probably still think we are a dominating rebounding team, too.

I read about putbacks and dunks being why we shoot 50%, but then I think "but we aren't all that great on the boards this year, and we had more of an aerial show last year." The difference is we have been better mid range, and off the dribble runners. Those are shots. That is shooting. We aren't above 50% purely because of dunks and putbacks. We have clearly been better scoring inside the arc with pull-ups and runners. We dunked and put back a ton last year, too, but we didn't hang out in the top 10 in fg%. We are clearly shooting the ball much better...and shooting is not defined simply by "behind the line drawn to award one more point for the shot."

But, ultimately, whatever they want to say is fine. We are a poor shooting, great rebounding team with suffocating defense and a freshman who flies through the air for spectacular dunks. OK. I mean, it was just 10 months ago that this was an accurate statement.

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 12:13 am

Chicat wrote:
Puerco wrote:Well, we currently rank 79th in 3pt%, so I think "Arizona is just not a great shooting team..." is pretty accurate, don't you?
79th out of 350, right?

That puts us in the top 25% of all D1 teams. By no means is that bad. As Gumby said, it's definitely "not great" but it is "pretty good", which begs his question, why frame it as a negative? Because the media needs story lines. Describing things as "pretty good" just doesn't drive the ratings and clicks that being negative does.

I'd put forward that being ranked 79th in the nation in any category shouldn't even be considered 'good'. We're talking about 350 teams, but the bulk of those teams are the likes of Quinnipiac.

I'd also put forward that Arizona is an elite team, and if you as an analayst have to point out a weakness on an elite team's offense, well for Arizona that would be distance shooting, right? Unless you just want them to slobber all over us like they do UK.

I'm also thinking that when an announcer points out that we're not a great shooting team, they're doing that within the frame of reference of a small number of teams competing for the national championship.

But why don't we turn the tables? Instead of complaining, why don't we all do our own analysis of the Cats, blemishes and all, within the frame of reference of winning the national championship. What are our strengths and weaknesses? Are we a juggernaut, a lock to win the whole thing? Or are there areas in the O. or the D which make you nervous?

I'll put some thought into this and write something up today or more likely tomorrow unless y'all think it's a stupid idea and would rather just complain about the sportscasting community.

EVCat · Post by **EVCat** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 12:18 am

But Quinnipiac is playing mostly other Quinnipiacs. So the level of overall talent isn't really an issue. It's the comparable talent against opponent. If Quinnipiac, or some other random funny-named school was #1 in the nation in FG%, it wouldn't be because they had the greatest shooters in the history of basketball. It'd be because they were a great shooting team against their usual level of competition. And, many times, these kinds of categories have teams in the top percentages that couldn't actually hang playing against top teams. They can just make shots against their level of competition

In that respect, the 350 teams all really have a pretty level playing field for being a "top percentage in (X) category" contender. NAU used to rule the top 10 of FG% under Howland and the early days of Adras. Because, against their schedule, they were superior shooters. That works both ways...the FG shooting percentage rankings aren't an indicator of best basketball team...there will be some major programs in the 200s and some minor programs in the top 50s. Teams like the funny named example given aren't the teams that make up the lower 250.

I think the only reason this is brought up as a minor annoyance is because we are, in fact, a pretty good shooting team this year, and if you want to find this team's weakness, look on the boards, or on defending athletic 3/4 players. Or even FT shooting, which is getting better. Those are legit "this could limit Arizona" factors. Our shooting, because we don't rely on the 3 point shot, and score pretty consistently, is just not this team's weakness right now. It was last year. So the focus on this part of our game is evidence of "lazy" reporting, or at least time-lagged reporting.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:06 am

EV did a nice job with that response. To add to it, as he mentioned there are small schools both behind the Cats and in front of them in those rankings. In the top 10 of 3pt shooting percentage you have teams like UC Davis, Iona, Idaho, Lafayette, Eastern Washington, Denver, and The Citadel.

If you wanted to just talk major conference teams, Arizona would appear to come in at #21 out of about 100 teams in 3pt percentage. That's a better ranking than 79th out of 350 and maybe a more true estimation of what kind of team this is shooting from distance. And I would definitely say I consider that "good".

CBCat · Post by **CBCat** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:59 am

EVCat wrote:Like with most things national media, it is a lagging talking point. No one pays attention to the Cats like local media/fans. So they heard Seth Greenburg say on a pre-season show that "Arizona's shooting is what will limit them in the postseason" and they regurgitate it. They probably still think we are a dominating rebounding team, too.

I read about putbacks and dunks being why we shoot 50%, but then I think "but we aren't all that great on the boards this year, and we had more of an aerial show last year." The difference is we have been better mid range, and off the dribble runners. Those are shots. That is shooting. We aren't above 50% purely because of dunks and putbacks. We have clearly been better scoring inside the arc with pull-ups and runners. We dunked and put back a ton last year, too, but we didn't hang out in the top 10 in fg%. We are clearly shooting the ball much better...and shooting is not defined simply by "behind the line drawn to award one more point for the shot."

But, ultimately, whatever they want to say is fine. We are a poor shooting, great rebounding team with suffocating defense and a freshman who flies through the air for spectacular dunks. OK. I mean, it was just 10 months ago that this was an accurate statement.

haha yeah exactly.

p.s. we are definitely a better "shooting" team than last season. We're already in every game whether behind and we've also proven we can come back in a game under Miller pretty well, knock down free throws like Men and wow.

EastCoastCat · Post by **EastCoastCat** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:46 am

EVCat wrote:But Quinnipiac is playing mostly other Quinnipiacs. So the level of overall talent isn't really an issue. It's the comparable talent against opponent. If Quinnipiac, or some other random funny-named school...

Love the Quinnipiac references...might be a funny named school out here (both my in-laws and sister in-law went there) but they are a hockey powerhouse.

salim'sheadband · Post by **salim'sheadband** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:52 am

luteformayor2 wrote:Arizona v Kentucky

FG: .500 to .458
3pt: .370 to .340
FT: .669 to .667

We are better in every shooting statistic other than points per possession than the almighty, espn jacked, kentucky.

Worth noting too that Kentucky's PPP is raised by its incredible offensive rebounding percentage which, because offensive rebounds count as one possession, make its offense seem better than it is.

Now, for what it's worth, I agree with this method of calculating it - the possession doesn't end until you rebound the ball. But Kentucky can go miss, offensive rebound, miss, offensive rebound, make a 2, and it counts a 2 PPP. If you took that metric away, I'm sure we would have a better PPP than Kentucky, especially since our offensive rebounding is (somewhat inexplicably) mediocre.

Against a team that does rebound a lot better (FWIW our defensive rebounding percentage is elite), Kentucky's offense is limited.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:30 am

salim'sheadband wrote:
luteformayor2 wrote:Arizona v Kentucky

FG: .500 to .458
3pt: .370 to .340
FT: .669 to .667

We are better in every shooting statistic other than points per possession than the almighty, espn jacked, kentucky.
Worth noting too that Kentucky's PPP is raised by its incredible offensive rebounding percentage which, because offensive rebounds count as one possession, make its offense seem better than it is.

Now, for what it's worth, I agree with this method of calculating it - the possession doesn't end until you rebound the ball. But Kentucky can go miss, offensive rebound, miss, offensive rebound, make a 2, and it counts a 2 PPP. If you took that metric away, I'm sure we would have a better PPP than Kentucky, especially since our offensive rebounding is (somewhat inexplicably) mediocre.

Against a team that does rebound a lot better (FWIW our defensive rebounding percentage is elite), Kentucky's offense is limited.

That's interesting. You'd think that every time the shot clock reset would be considered a possession for metrics purposes.

Olsondogg · Post by **Olsondogg** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 3:05 pm

Its always nice to be 14-1 and in a thread debating good versus great.

PieceOfMeat · Post by **PieceOfMeat** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:07 pm

A game like this putrid loss to OrSU isn't going to help with the perception that we aren't a great shooting team.

Top quartile or not.

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:00 am

Olsondogg wrote:Its always nice to be 14-1 and in a thread debating good versus great.

Has anyone ever told you to shut up? Bend over for karma.

Olsondogg · Post by **Olsondogg** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:56 am

lol. You have such a hard on for me and then you write that? Well done.

Oh and for the record message board comments have nothing to do with anything. Spare me your karma bullshit.

CalStateTempe · Post by **CalStateTempe** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:12 am

People has misguided notions about what Karma actually means.

thank you World Religions 400

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:20 am

Olsondogg wrote:lol. You have such a hard on for me and then you write that? Well done.

Oh and for the record message board comments have nothing to do with anything. Spare me your karma bullshit.

Do you ever not take things too seriously? You're funny.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:37 pm

"Arizona is just not a great shooting team..."

Barkley said this exact thing at halftime. Then York and TJ came out in the second half and made him look silly.

When will this myth die?

AZCatGirl · Post by **AZCatGirl** » Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:38 pm

Then the others corrected him to "Not a great three point shooting team."

Then Gabe York went nuts in the second.

PieceOfMeat · Post by **PieceOfMeat** » Sat Mar 21, 2015 10:10 pm

Chicat wrote: When will this myth die?

It won't.

Even if we win the entire thing, the narrative will be "despite not being a great shooting team, the Wildcats were able to win it all"....

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:42 am

We shot under 40%. Last night will reinforce that perception, sadly.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:23 am

Puerco wrote:We shot under 40%. Last night will reinforce that perception, sadly.

Only if the only thing you know about the game is from what you saw in the box score.

Frybry02 · Post by **Frybry02** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:37 am

Found a shot chart from last night . . .

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:17 am

Chicat wrote:
Puerco wrote:We shot under 40%. Last night will reinforce that perception, sadly.
Only if the only thing you know about the game is from what you saw in the box score.

I did not come away from that game thinking that Arizona is a great shooting team. Did you? You might be able to accurately say that we're a great scoring team, but that's not because a large percentage of our shots outside the paint fall in on the first attempt.

In the end, it doesn't really matter, does it?

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:06 am

There are various aspects to the myth. One was definitely dispelled last night which is that Arizona can't shoot threes. The other thing is that people say "poor shooting" and mean "bad on offense". Even when shots are not falling (which happens to every team) Arizona gets second chance points and breakaway opportunities off steals.

Does it matter? Probably not, and it might even work to our advantage in that teams think they can let us shoot from outside. But it chaps my ass that both CSM and the players get this "only good at defense" label which makes CSM seem like he can't draw up successful offensive plays and that the players aren't good at the aspects of the game that take the most skill and talent. Like we just recruit a bunch of linebackers and they're out there playing thug ball. It's bullshit.

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:11 am

Chicat wrote:There are various aspects to the myth. One was definitely dispelled last night which is that Arizona can't shoot threes. The other thing is that people say "poor shooting" and mean "bad on offense". Even when shots are not falling (which happens to every team) Arizona gets second chance points and breakaway opportunities off steals.

Does it matter? Probably not, and it might even work to our advantage in that teams think they can let us shoot from outside. But it chaps my ass that both CSM and the players get this "only good at defense" label which makes CSM seem like he can't draw up successful offensive plays and that the players aren't good at the aspects of the game that take the most skill and talent. Like we just recruit a bunch of linebackers and they're out there playing thug ball. It's bullshit.

Virginia just went almost 13 minutes without a FG. Remember the ball washing RockyRaccoon was giving Bennett and said Miller can't coach offense?

Login • Register