H.O.R.S.E?

[pulaski74]

Let me say that I am not a bb guru by any means, but I watch alot of cbb and nba. Seems to me that the players have outgrown the 3pt shot. They are burying 30 footers w/ a hand in their face, I have no stats to back this up, just feels to me like an old fashioned game of horse. Watched Evansville and Indiana state off the dvr and Ind state at one time was like 14 of 20. Just my feelings but I don't enjoy watching 3pt. contests. Any thoughts?

 

[Brooky03]

I don't mind it, especially at small schools like that. If you can make 14-20, I think you'd be crazy to venture into the paint.

I have more fun watching 30-footers go in than watching fundamental post moves for a layup.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Let me say that I am not a bb guru by any means, but I watch alot of cbb and nba. Seems to me that the players have outgrown the 3pt shot. They are burying 30 footers w/ a hand in their face, I have no stats to back this up, just feels to me like an old fashioned game of horse. Watched Evansville and Indiana state off the dvr and Ind state at one time was like 14 of 20. Just my feelings but I don't enjoy watching 3pt. contests. Any thoughts?

It's getting to be time to move the line back. It's too easy for college kids, I agree.

 

[Brooky03]

It's getting to be time to move the line back. It's too easy for college kids, I agree.

What's been the impact to 3 point percentages since it was moved back a few years ago? I'm just curious if moving it back again would have a significant impact.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

What's been the impact to 3 point percentages since it was moved back a few years ago? I'm just curious if moving it back again would have a significant impact.

Good question. I think the distance it was moved back wasn't significant enough to really impact the percentages though. That's just a guess on my part.

 

[Brooky03]

Good question. I think the distance it was moved back wasn't significant enough to really impact the percentages though. That's just a guess on my part.

That's my assumption, too. I think it was extended just 1 foot. I'm in favor of extending it to at least FIBA range.

 

[upperdeck]

the issue isnt really the hand in the face, its how balanced you are for most of these guys. you let them get set and shoot when comfortable the better shooters dont care how contested the shot is.

 

[Coach Orange]

What's been the impact to 3 point percentages since it was moved back a few years ago? I'm just curious if moving it back again would have a significant impact.

This is a good question. A bigger issue that would be addressed by moving the line back (preferably to the NBA distance) is offensive spacing. Defenses wouldn't be able to pack the lane with help defenders as easily because the offense would theoretically be spaced even further around the new arc. Dribble-drive space, post-move space, and cutting space would be enlarged, especially if the lane was widened to the NBA dimensions, too.

I wonder if the Orange could really play 2-3 zone exclusively with the arc moved back much further, though. As it is, good passing teams space the zone well and use overload situations to their advantage. Syracuse's defenders would be required to cover even more ground in their rotations, especially the wing defenders, who are already taxed by the current spacing.

 

[jgeorge322]

It's getting to be time to move the line back. It's too easy for college kids, I agree.

ditto, move it back. not only is the shot becoming too easy, it will open up space and make for a better game.

 

[Forloveoforange]

From day one, its been a math problem. The shot should never have been worth 3 points, but you can't have 1/2 points (or 2.8 points), because most people aren't that good at math, and there has never been 1/2 points. The governing bodies want simple math before fairness. We can't expect that a 50% increase in shot value is the right amount, just because its the only easy way to value it.

 

[pulaski74]

the issue isnt really the hand in the face, its how balanced you are for most of these guys. you let them get set and shoot when comfortable the better shooters dont care how contested the shot is.

Well if thats the case why bother closing out, just look for the long rebound. I see what you are saying and it's what I was trying to post, that it is too easy for todays players.

 

[MikeSU02]

Let me say that I am not a bb guru by any means, but I watch alot of cbb and nba. Seems to me that the players have outgrown the 3pt shot. They are burying 30 footers w/ a hand in their face, I have no stats to back this up, just feels to me like an old fashioned game of horse. Watched Evansville and Indiana state off the dvr and Ind state at one time was like 14 of 20. Just my feelings but I don't enjoy watching 3pt. contests. Any thoughts?

I'm less concerned about the actual shots that are taken versus the ball movement and spacing on the floor.

A deeper three means more spacing on the floor, which I would like. It would also make the corner three a better shot than a three from the top of the key because its a shorter shot.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Percentages are going up across the board. It's not just college. High School and NBA are higher now too. It's like kicking in football. It gets better every year.

The first year the three pointer was instituted in the NBA, the percentage was 28%, now it's 35.

 

[pulaski74]

Percentages are going up across the board. It's not just college. High School and NBA are higher now too. It's like kicking in football. It gets better every year.

The first year the three pointer was instituted in the NBA, the percentage was 28%, now it's 35.

Yeah, when your first option on a run out is a pull up three, thats simply amazing. Of course now alot of kids can't make a lay up

 

[dollarbill44]

This is a good question. A bigger issue that would be addressed by moving the line back (preferably to the NBA distance) is offensive spacing. Defenses wouldn't be able to pack the lane with help defenders as easily because the offense would theoretically be spaced even further around the new arc. Dribble-drive space, post-move space, and cutting space would be enlarged, especially if the lane was widened to the NBA dimensions, too.

I wonder if the Orange could really play 2-3 zone exclusively with the arc moved back much further, though. As it is, good passing teams space the zone well and use overload situations to their advantage. Syracuse's defenders would be required to cover even more ground in their rotations, especially the wing defenders, who are already taxed by the current spacing.

I really don't know that it would change SU's zone strategy. Guys are moving farther out to neutralize the zone as it is and occasionally hitting long-range 3s. It would, however, move the easier 3 pt shots a little farther away from the basket, so it might actually help SU slightly.

 

[Coach Orange]

I really don't know that it would change SU's zone strategy. Guys are moving farther out to neutralize the zone as it is and occasionally hitting long-range 3s. It would, however, move the easier 3 pt shots a little farther away from the basket, so it might actually help SU slightly.

Good call on the three-point shots. It's the reason that Coach Boeheim claims to play zone at this point--defending the three-pointer. We agree on that. However, I'm thinking about how more distance would potentially pose problems for the interior defense.

In Boeheim's zone, the wing/forwards' responsibility is to guard the offensive wing/corner players as the ball is reversed. If the ball is passed to the wing on his side, a forward defends that until the ball-side guard bumps him to the corner. Then, he guards the corner shooter or short-corner post until the ball is reversed again. If the ball is entered into the high post, though, our center is responsible for that, and the wings are responsible for the post player on their side of the floor (if there is one) or the shooter on their side. If a wing has to cover a post spot in that situation, the guard on that side is responsible for the wing/corner.

That said, here's an example defensive situation: let's say the ball is entered into the high post. If the player receiving it can't make plays from there, no problem. We currently tend to leave that player unguarded or lightly guarded, daring him to shoot or drive from there. I doubt that changes with a pushed-back arc.

On the other hand, if that player is solid from there, the center has to get out on him quickly, the wings have to instantaneously identify whether they are responsible for the post or the wing, and the guards have to be ready to cover their wing areas if the forward on their side is sucked into the post.

Imagine if the offense overloads the ball side with a corner shooter, a slot/wing, and post player. If the ball is passed into the high post (to the weak-side post) and SU's center (Coleman/Lydon) rotates out to guard, it would be very difficult for an Orange forward (say Richardson) to get from his corner responsibility to the low-post player and get inside defensive position. That is a high-low waiting to happen every time. That happens now without the extra space for the forwards to navigate.

Let's say Richardson gets position to deny the high-low. This leaves the corner shooter open. Cooney or G have to rotate to him in a hurry, but having to guard the slot/wing further out will mean more close-out distance to cover. That is a wide-open catch-and-shoot three-pointer or a shot-fake-to-baseline-drive opportunity waiting to happen. In the latter case, we're likely playing 4-on-5 defensively.

If the post and the corner are taken away, who has the ball-side slot/wing? The backside guard does, as he has to rotate over from the elbow area. This player probably has the shortest rotation to cover, but doing so often discombobulates the zone, and he would now have to get out three or so extra feet to challenge a shot. Even if he does, our guards have a long way to recover to their normal spots.

In short, this play, one that some teams currently employ effectively to attack the interior of our zone, would likely be more troubling with the NBA arc. The high ball screen, the quick-reversal-dribble-drive-into-the-seam-from-the-wing, and the screening-the-weak-side-forward/lob-pass-or-skip-pass-to-the-corner-shooter plays would also be harder to defend.

What moving the line back would do is open up more area inside the arc for opponents to make plays. As a result, smart teams would likely force the zone out of whack more than they already do through post entries and dribble drives. Remember the old adage: "Spacing is offense and offense is spacing." I agree we would probably still sell out to disrupt the three-point shots, and players shooting longer shots may miss more. Nevertheless, good shooters already hit NBA-range threes against our defense (as you so correctly pointed out). By setting up their offenses at the NBA arc, opponents would spread our base defense wider. Consequently, the interior defense would likely be more exposed by fundamentally sound, patient teams.

The upside: not every team has the personnel to consistently execute these fundamental plays every season, and even fewer can do it every night.

 

[dollarbill44]

Good call on the three-point shots. It's the reason that Coach Boeheim claims to play zone at this point--defending the three-pointer. We agree on that. However, I'm thinking about how more distance would potentially pose problems for the interior defense. In Boeheim's zone, the wing/forwards' responsibility is to guard the offensive wing/corner players as the ball is reversed. If the ball is passed to the wing on his side, a forward defends that until the ball-side guard bumps him to the corner. Then, he guards the corner shooter or short-corner post until the ball is reversed again. If the ball is entered into the high post, though, our center is responsible for that, and the wings are responsible for the post player on their side of the floor (if there is one) or the shooter on their side. If a wing has to cover a post spot in that situation, the guard on that side is responsible for the wing/corner. That said, here's an example defensive situation: let's say the ball is entered into the high post. If the player receiving it can't make plays from there, no problem. We currently tend to leave that player unguarded or lightly guarded, daring him to shoot or drive from there. I doubt that changes with a pushed-back arc. On the other hand, if that player is solid from there, the center has to get out on him quickly, the wings have to instantaneously identify whether they are responsible for the post or the wing, and the guards have to be ready to cover their wing areas if the forward on their side is sucked into the post. Imagine if the offense overloads the ball side with a corner shooter, a slot/wing, and post player. If the ball is passed into the high post (to the weak-side post) and SU's center (Coleman/Lydon) rotates out to guard, it would be very difficult for an Orange forward (say Richardson) to get from his corner responsibility to the low-post player and get inside defensive position. That is a high-low waiting to happen every time. That happens now without the extra space for the forwards to navigate. Let's say Richardson gets position to deny the high-low. This leaves the corner shooter open. Cooney or G have to rotate to him in a hurry, but having to guard the slot/wing further out will mean more close-out distance to cover. That is a wide-open catch-and-shoot three-pointer or a shot-fake-to-baseline-drive opportunity waiting to happen. In the latter case, we're likely playing 4-on-5 defensively. If the post and the corner are taken away, who has the ball-side slot/wing? The backside guard does, as he has to rotate over from the elbow area. This player probably has the shortest rotation to cover, but doing so often discombobulates the zone, and he would now have to get out three or so extra feet to challenge a shot. Even if he does, our guards have a long way to recover to their normal spots. In short, this play, one that some teams currently employ effectively to attack the interior of our zone, would likely be more troubling with the NBA arc. The high ball screen, the quick-reversal-dribble-drive-into-the-seam-from-the-wing, and the screening-the-weak-side-forward/lob-pass-or-skip-pass-to-the-corner-shooter plays would also be harder to defend. What moving the line back would do is open up more area inside the arc for opponents to make plays. As a result, smart teams would likely force the zone out of whack more than they already do through post entries and dribble drives. Remember the old adage: "Spacing is offense and offense is spacing." I agree we would probably still sell out to disrupt the three-point shots, and players shooting longer shots may miss more. Nevertheless, good shooters already hit NBA-range threes against our defense (as you so correctly pointed out). By setting up their offenses at the NBA arc, opponents would spread our base defense wider. Consequently, the interior defense would likely be more exposed by fundamentally sound, patient teams. The upside: not every team has the personnel to consistently execute these fundamental plays every season, and even fewer can do it every night.

It won't change anything for our defense if we don't go out any farther than we do now. The 3 or line won't be farther than 22 feet and we already go out that far.

 

[FrancoPizza]

From day one, its been a math problem. The shot should never have been worth 3 points, but you can't have 1/2 points (or 2.8 points), because most people aren't that good at math, and there has never been 1/2 points. The governing bodies want simple math before fairness. We can't expect that a 50% increase in shot value is the right amount, just because its the only easy way to value it.

One solution: 2 pt FG become 4 pts. 3pt FG become 5 pts. FTs become 2 pts.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

We wouldn't guard everyone out to an extended 3 pt line. Those are shots we want some guys to take.

 

[Forloveoforange]

One solution: 2 pt FG become 4 pts. 3pt FG become 5 pts. FTs become 2 pts.

Well, that would make things better, and I had thought of that, too. But, what are the odds of this being the new scoring system?

 

[Coach Orange]

We wouldn't guard everyone out to an extended 3 pt line. Those are shots we want some guys to take.

That's true, which is why I said that not all teams have the personnel every year to take advantage of the extra spacing.

 

[pulaski74]

Good call on the three-point shots. It's the reason that Coach Boeheim claims to play zone at this point--defending the three-pointer. We agree on that. However, I'm thinking about how more distance would potentially pose problems for the interior defense.

In Boeheim's zone, the wing/forwards' responsibility is to guard the offensive wing/corner players as the ball is reversed. If the ball is passed to the wing on his side, a forward defends that until the ball-side guard bumps him to the corner. Then, he guards the corner shooter or short-corner post until the ball is reversed again. If the ball is entered into the high post, though, our center is responsible for that, and the wings are responsible for the post player on their side of the floor (if there is one) or the shooter on their side. If a wing has to cover a post spot in that situation, the guard on that side is responsible for the wing/corner.

That said, here's an example defensive situation: let's say the ball is entered into the high post. If the player receiving it can't make plays from there, no problem. We currently tend to leave that player unguarded or lightly guarded, daring him to shoot or drive from there. I doubt that changes with a pushed-back arc.

On the other hand, if that player is solid from there, the center has to get out on him quickly, the wings have to instantaneously identify whether they are responsible for the post or the wing, and the guards have to be ready to cover their wing areas if the forward on their side is sucked into the post.

Imagine if the offense overloads the ball side with a corner shooter, a slot/wing, and post player. If the ball is passed into the high post (to the weak-side post) and SU's center (Coleman/Lydon) rotates out to guard, it would be very difficult for an Orange forward (say Richardson) to get from his corner responsibility to the low-post player and get inside defensive position. That is a high-low waiting to happen every time. That happens now without the extra space for the forwards to navigate.

Let's say Richardson gets position to deny the high-low. This leaves the corner shooter open. Cooney or G have to rotate to him in a hurry, but having to guard the slot/wing further out will mean more close-out distance to cover. That is a wide-open catch-and-shoot three-pointer or a shot-fake-to-baseline-drive opportunity waiting to happen. In the latter case, we're likely playing 4-on-5 defensively.

If the post and the corner are taken away, who has the ball-side slot/wing? The backside guard does, as he has to rotate over from the elbow area. This player probably has the shortest rotation to cover, but doing so often discombobulates the zone, and he would now have to get out three or so extra feet to challenge a shot. Even if he does, our guards have a long way to recover to their normal spots.

In short, this play, one that some teams currently employ effectively to attack the interior of our zone, would likely be more troubling with the NBA arc. The high ball screen, the quick-reversal-dribble-drive-into-the-seam-from-the-wing, and the screening-the-weak-side-forward/lob-pass-or-skip-pass-to-the-corner-shooter plays would also be harder to defend.

What moving the line back would do is open up more area inside the arc for opponents to make plays. As a result, smart teams would likely force the zone out of whack more than they already do through post entries and dribble drives. Remember the old adage: "Spacing is offense and offense is spacing." I agree we would probably still sell out to disrupt the three-point shots, and players shooting longer shots may miss more. Nevertheless, good shooters already hit NBA-range threes against our defense (as you so correctly pointed out). By setting up their offenses at the NBA arc, opponents would spread our base defense wider. Consequently, the interior defense would likely be more exposed by fundamentally sound, patient teams.

The upside: not every team has the personnel to consistently execute these fundamental plays every season, and even fewer can do it every night.

point well taken, but the post was just about it's too easy, saying that majority of teams I've watched would rather launch a 3 than a layup

 

[PeteCalvin]

What's been the impact to 3 point percentages since it was moved back a few years ago? I'm just curious if moving it back again would have a significant impact.

By moving it back you are simply encouraging the 'nation of chuckers' that Steph Curry has created.

There is A LOT of bad three point shooting at the HS level. I don't know where these shooters come from, but it's not this area.

 

[Brooky03]

By moving it back you are simply encouraging the 'nation of chuckers' that Steph Curry has created.

There is A LOT of bad three point shooting at the HS level. I don't know where these shooters come from, but it's not this area.

There isn't much talent coming from CNY high schools in any sport haha. Well, maybe field hockey and lacrosse.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

By moving it back you are simply encouraging the 'nation of chuckers' that Steph Curry has created.

There is A LOT of bad three point shooting at the HS level. I don't know where these shooters come from, but it's not this area.

Don't put this on Steph. The move to the 3 point line started long before he even got out of high school himself.

When I was a kid, we would take foul shots to figure out teams for pickup ball. When I moved to Vermont, the 3 line became the shot to determine if you played or sat. So I worked on that shot, and can say I'm a decent 3point shooter when my shoulder isn't acting up too badly. It's all about focus and practice. Now everyone shoots the 3. It used to be reserved for the guards and small forwards, but PG to C, everyone 'chucks' it up there as you say.