Seriously, Pomeroy is a genius. (He's worth the $20 subscription- I highly recommend it.) I love that he actually researches stuff, and gives me all the information I need to know to prove my points. People hate when I try to prove points using statistics. Who cares about the facts, after all? Well, Pomeroy lays out some very interesting facts about three point percentage defense.
So first, take a second and go subscribe.....
http://kenpom.com/register.php
Now that you're back, head back over there for the article. (You can read the article without subscribing, if you insist.)
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/3_point_defense_should_not_be_defined_by_opponents_3p
This article states clearly that it basically does not matter how high of a three point percentage you allow. In the end, teams basically revert to the mean on three point defense allowed.
But the key in the whole thing is how many three pointers you allow an opponent to take. THAT is how you have an impact on your opponent from three point range.
I have always included this stat in my Four Factors postgame post as a "special" fifth stat. My reasoning was always that I did not want the Mocs to shoot a lot of threes. When they get too married to the three point line, that normally spells trouble, because they don't make a really high percentage from three point range. That is a historical discussion- not necessarily one about this year's team.
What about what happened last night to Davidson against Charlotte? They did not shoot a bunch of threes, therefore they did not make a bunch. On Saturday night, they shot 50% of their shots from three point range. If the Wildcats had shot the same percentage they shot last night (45.5%) from three point range on the remainder of their threes, they would have needed to take 46.8% of their shots from three point range to win the game- a game they lost by four. In other words, Charlotte won the game by forcing Davidson off the three point line- not by defending the three well. This is the recipe for how to beat a good three point shooting team like Davidson.
So- wait? What does this mean about the Mocs old "Fire" defense? The Mocs always forced opponents to shoot a high percentage of their threes, figuring they would miss a high percentage of them. They were right.
Last year was the best three point field goal percentage by the Mocs under Shulman, when they allowed 33.5% from three point range playing FIRE. In 2008 (a year the Mocs went 18-13), they were the worst from three point range, allowing 36.3% from three point range. All of those ranked from just barely in the top half of the country to the bottom 20% in the country.
So, the Mocs have never been great at defending three pointers. But last year wasn't bad- finishing 127th nationally. But they allowed opponents to take threes on 48.9% of their possessions, which ranked 345th in the country....345th!! That means that 41% of their opponents points were from threes- good for #1 in the country. That means the Mocs gave up a higher percentage from three point range than any other team in the country.
In other words, FIRE did not particularly work. Their opponents, due to the high number of threes they were taking, were scoring, despite decent three point percentage defense. The Mocs failed to run Davidson off the three point line last Saturday night- and they could not begin to control the Davidson offense. They need to do a better job running teams off the three point line in the future if they want to have more success on the defensive side.
The reason Shulman stopped running FIRE this year was because he thought the team was too young to learn it. They are still allowing opponents to take 45.6% of their shots from three point....good for 345th in the country still. Not good. Opponents are only scoring 35.8% of their points from three point range, good for 18th in the country (18th being bad for the Mocs). So they are still allowing a huge chunk of their opponents points to come from three point range.
So what's the point? I don't know. I'm not smart enough to figure it out. Maybe the 2008 Mocs (who were 341st allowing opponents to take threes, and also allowed the highest percentage of points from three point range in the country and went 18-13) have it right. Maybe when accompanied with the right other characteristics, the Mocs can win with that set of numbers on three point defense.
But as I read what KenPom says about the best way to defend the three is to not allow your opponents to take them, and I look at the stats on that for the Mocs, I tend to think that method does not work. It's a compelling argument.
One that many Moc fans ought to want to hear.
GO MOCS!
No comments:
Post a Comment