9-26 From 3 pt range (34.6%)

[Orangemen]

From the best 3 pt shooting team in America.

We talked about it all day. The zone is designed to eat these kind of teams alive.

How may good looks did they get within 1 foot of the 3 pt line?

They hit, what 3-4 or more 3's from 3 feet or further behind the line.

Extend the zone, bring down the percentage.

Unless you've got Calhoun/Wright knowledge of how to attack a zone to back up that great shooting, it will be a long night.

 

[SourShoes]

*cough* Rick

 

[STEVEHOLT]

you do realize that is a pretty good percentage from deep as far as team shooting goes? the reason they lost is because of turnovers and rebounds. You can definitely attribute alot of turnovers to the solid zone defense however to state that the zone caused them to shoot like crap (which is what I am assuming you are saying" is not really true.

Again..Im NOT saying the zone defense was not good or that Florida torched it from deep, simply that their shooting percentage from three was actually OK

 

[ORANGEsPHK]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I believe Orangemen meant was that we knew that UF was a very good three point shooting team, and we played pretty good defense against the three points shot - I thought we jumped out and recovered pretty well on defense tonight. The three's that did fall were beyond what UF has done in the past games. Having said that Boynton and Walker are very, very good players - beautiful shots - but our defense kept everyone else of the UF squad ineffective.

 

[JoeSU]

you do realize that is a pretty good percentage from deep as far as team shooting goes? the reason they lost is because of turnovers and rebounds. You can definitely attribute alot of turnovers to the solid zone defense however to state that the zone caused them to shoot like crap (which is what I am assuming you are saying" is not really true.

Again..Im NOT saying the zone defense was not good or that Florida torched it from deep, simply that their shooting percentage from three was actually OK

I agree. Statistically speaking, shooting 33.3% from beyond the 3 point line generates the same number of points as shooting 50% of your 2 point shots (which ain't bad).

 

[Orangemen]

Florida was off by 20% from their normal 3 pt shooting.

They were that far off because the zone did what it always does to these kind of teams, it pushed them back 2-3 ft from their normal shooting spots.

No doubt Fl is a good 3 pt shooting team. They shot 34% on basically a bunch of nba 3's. Not bad, but also exactly what SU wanted them to do.

 

[Rocco]

Florida was off by 20% from their normal 3 pt shooting.

They were that far off because the zone did what it always does to these kind of teams, it pushed them back 2-3 ft from their normal shooting spots.

No doubt Fl is a good 3 pt shooting team. They shot 34% on basically a bunch of nba 3's. Not bad, but also exactly what SU wanted them to do.

20% off? They shot 34.6% last night and were shooting 43% before that game. My math puts that at 8.4%, not 20%. Shooting almost 35% from 3 is good.

Between Boynton and Walker, they were 9-19 from 3.

That game last night was so sloppy. The zone certainly isn't the only reason why SU won.

 

[Orangemen]

20% off? They shot 34.6% last night and were shooting 43% before that game. My math puts that at 8.4%, not 20%. Shooting almost 35% from 3 is good.

Between Boynton and Walker, they were 9-19 from 3.

That game last night was so sloppy. The zone certainly isn't the only reason why SU won.

That's not how it works.

They were off by about 8 percentage points. That not the same thing as 8%, in this case.

They shot 34%. 34/42 ~ 80%. Which means they were off by about 20%.

 

[Rocco]

That's not how it works.

They were off by about 8 percentage points. That not the same thing as 8%, in this case.

They shot 34%. 34/42 ~ 80%. Which means they were off by about 20%.

You can put your spin on it however you want. I will stick with 8.4% below their average. We are both right.

With your math, you can also say SU shot 31% better on FT's. I will say they were 19% above their average.

 

[Orangemen]

You can put your spin on it however you want. I will stick with 8.4% below their average. We are both right.

With your math, you can also say SU shot 31% better on FT's. I will say they were 19% above their average.

It's not spin, it's math.

 

[Paul S.]

You can put your spin on it however you want. I will stick with 8.4% below their average. We are both right.

With your math, you can also say SU shot 31% better on FT's. I will say they were 19% above their average.

Not a numbers guy.

 

[AZOrange]

I agree. Statistically speaking, shooting 33.3% from beyond the 3 point line generates the same number of points as shooting 50% of your 2 point shots (which ain't bad).

assuming the same number of shots from each area?

 

[JoeSU]

assuming the same number of shots from each area?

Yes, that would be the only fair comparison, wouldn't it?
If a team took 6 shots and made 2-3s (33.3%), they would have the same number of points if those same 6 shots were 2-pointers and they made 3 (50%).