The CardBoard
WBB: Three point shooting - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Three point shooting (/thread-15384.html)


WBB: Three point shooting - 81alum - 01-09-2018

Just glanced at the season statistics to date and discovered some surprising numbers.  Among those players who have taken 20 three point shots or more this year (that excludes Moschkau, Coffee, Fingall) here are their shooting percentages:

.345 (10/29) Sniezek
.338 (24/71) Williams
.333 (12/36) Smith
.308 (12/39) Romano
.290 (18/62) Wilson
.241 (14/58) Carrington
.229 (8/35) McPhee

Now, consider these numbers in light of the fact that nearly every team has played zone against us and dared us to shoot treys.  And consider them in light of Tara's decision lately to start Sniezek and Williams.  Our top three point shooter has made 24 treys this year.  Oregon's Ionescu has made 52 treys shooting at .451, and she is their second best three point shooter--Bando has 43 treys shooting at .461.  Their third and fourth best shooters are similar to William's numbers. 

Last year Karlie ended up at .485 with 96/198, Bri was at .328 with 39/119, and McPhee was at .299 with 35/117.

In short, we simply do not have the three point shooting that is needed to punish the zone.  Williams is up to Roberson's level of a year ago, McPhee is significantly worse than a year ago, and there is nobody individually or in combination who can begin to replace Karlie's production.  I think it is probably this lack of three point production more than the the Princeton that is convincing other teams to play zone.  You may recall that last year the scouting report was to smother Karlie and dare someone else on Stanford to beat them--and we would bemoan the fact that Karlie could only get off 2-3 shots in a game.  How much easier it is to defend the three when we do not have anyone like Karlie.

My guess is that our poor three point shooting caught our coaches by surprise this year.  We were told many times that in practice we were a great three point shooting team.  Carrington and McPhee can be tamed by preventing them from driving, even if it means leaving them open occasionally for a three point attempt.  The surrounding cast has not stepped up.  Anna Wilson is capable--she had that extraordinary game against Ohio State in which she was 7/8 from three point range.  But that was almost half of her production for the year.

Sniezek right now is giving me the most hope.  Her willingness against ASU to shoot the three ball, and make them repeatedly, could give her the confidence she needs to become a much better offensive point guard.  That was a very encouraging blip in an otherwise negative afternoon.  But who would have thought that Sniezek would become our leading three point shooter!

Re: WBB: Three point shooting - 2006alum - 01-09-2018

Great analysis. The only caution I'd add is that we're extrapolating from relatively small n's. Prior to the Arizona trips, Sniezek was .272 (6/22) and McPhee was .304 (7/23), so this is all pretty marginal in terms of differences.

To me, what's really key is how much defenses can expect to see a three-point threat, and here's the problem:

Last season, Karlie was making 2.52 treys per game (on 5.21 attempts).
This season, even including the Arizona games, Sniezek makes .625 treys per game (on 1.8 attempts).
By contrast, McPhee makes 1.14 treys (albeit on 5 attempts).

So while Marta has a higher success rate post-Arizona, McPhee is going to make twice as many treys per game as Marta is, so if you're a defending team, you're still more worried about McPhee than Sniezek. And because Sniezek isn't thought to shoot much, I suspect her attempts have come from much more open shots than McPhee gets to see. From the last few defenses we've faced, it's clear to me that the scouting report is to put their best defenders on McPhee and to double-team her the second she tries to enter the lane.

Now I agree that if Sniezek has our best trey shooting percentage, she should definitely be taking more shots, but I guess I would caution against extrapolating much out in terms of whether this is untapped potential or just a bit of fluky statistics. Based on the recruiting intel on the Hull twins, I suspect we're going to have much better trey threats next year when we have a few true wing players again. So this is probably a problem we have only for this year. (And hopefully Moschkau will continue to develop, since I think she also has a lot of potential as a Bonnie-esque wing).

If anything, my takeaway from the Arizona trip in terms of where our offense is chronically weak is that we need our team to develop at least one player with a really strong pull-up jumper. We haven't had that since Amber graduated and Lili left. It's the major offensive weapon missing from both McPhee and Carrington's arsenal, and it makes them much easier to defend because once they start to move toward to the basket, the defenders know to swamp the paint. When they're not drawing the fouls (and the refs were really stingy calling defensive fouls against both of them in both games), they're double- or triple-teamed and making a really low percentage play. I actually can't remember Williams attempting the shot either, so unless I'm miss-remembering, our primary offensive threats are all limited to the trey or the layup.

By contrast, ASU was killing us with their mid-range jump shot throughout the game. Fingall and Smith are the only ones I can think of who regularly attempt the mid-range jump shot, and both of them are doing it from the high post off a pass, rather than creating the jumper from a pull-up position off their own dribble.

Re: WBB: Three point shooting - qwerty49 - 01-09-2018

Excellent posts, 81 and 2006.

I think by now it’s clear we are offensively challenged this year. The posts need a lot of work and the shooters don’t appear to exist.

Two players who supposedly have the ability to make 3’s —Moshkau and Jerome — don’t show up on 81’s list because they haven’t gotten the playing time.

At the beginning of the season there was a hint we’d be running more this year — what happened? I think we had a glimmer of that very early on but it’s appears to have evaporated since. Of course, the running game starts with rebounding so maybe I’ve answered my own question.


Re: WBB: Three point shooting - 81alum - 01-09-2018

While ASU left me hopefull about Sniezek--it was the third game in a row in which other players assisted her into three point attempts--often on inside/out or cross court passes into her chest which almost forced her to shoot.  And they have begun to go in. 

However, I'm actually using her as an example of what is wrong with our game.  If Sniezek is leading our three point shooting--even statistically--then it is a sign that every other shooter is well off the mark.  We can wish that McPhee and Carrington could match their slashing with three point shooting--but they never really have--it has been McPhee's weakness ever since she arrived.  And so we need a couple of other players who can be reliable three point shooters on the perimeter to punish teams that sag into the lanes to stop McPhee's slashing.  She needs to be able to slash, turn and pass to an open three point shooter.  But not only is there no Karlie, there is barely anybody who is enough of a threat to keep the defenses honest.  Williams and Wilson are our best hopes, but neither has been consistent throughout a game of late.


Re: WBB: Three point shooting - JJJ - 01-09-2018

My optimistic hope is that Williams and Romano fill the role of long-distance sharpshooter. (one can dream, right?)

Re: WBB: Three point shooting - TheFarm07 - 01-10-2018

All great points on this thread and the stats seem to confirm our suspicions, that our shooting, especially long-range is just not that good this year.

Though we are starting to implement the elbow jumper a little more with Fingall and occasionally Smith, we still tend to rely on three point shooting to counter the zone and when we are shooting so poorly, that's the defense opposing coaches go to. It's no wonder that we faced zones so much, even from teams not traditionally known to implement them (ASU for instance). Tara boasted about our shooting before the season and opponents have challenged the team to live up to her praises and unfortunately, we have not.

I don't think beyond Amber and Lili, we had any other players hitting mid range jumpers more than rarely over the last few years. Did Toni Kokenis hit many mid range jumpers, I can't remember? It's either posting up, a la Appel or the Ogwumike sisters, driving to the basket like McPhee and DiJonai or three point shooting (the Samuelson sisters). I know midrange jumpers are not very efficient (not as high percentage shots as layups and shots in the paint and doesn't score you as many points as beyond the arc), but when teams are clogging the lane and our long range shooting is so off, we must find another way to score points.

I looked up our team field goal percentage (40.2%) this year, which is 184th in the country. Oregon State and Oregon by the way are 3rd and 4th nationally.

As for our 3-point shooting prowess, it is 29.8%, which is good for 237th nationwide

Out of curiosity, here is how we ranked (nationally) over the last few years:
  2016-17: FG% - 44.5% (30th), 3P% - 35.6% (34th) (If you take away Karlie's contribution, 3-pt shooting drops to 30.2%, which would sink us to 227th)
  2015-16: FG% - 42.6% (58th), 3P% - 36.8% (17th)
  2014-15: FG% - 43.5% (39th), 3P% - 37.8% (9th)
  2013-14: FG% - 47.0% (8th),  3P% - 36.2% (26th) (Chiney's senior year--take away her 60.1% FG%, team production drops to 41.5% and to 115th)
  2012-13: FG% - 45.5% (5th),  3P% - 31.9% (95th)
  2011-12: FG% - 45.6% (8th),  3P% - 31.1% (128th)
  2010-11: FG% - 49.2% (3rd),  3P% - 36.1% (21st)
  2009-10: FG% - 46.3% (5th),  3P% - 33.8% (89th)

Re: WBB: Three point shooting - BobK - 01-10-2018

Great posts but if we don't get out scored 22-2 on second chance points against ASU we are 4-0 in league play.

Re: WBB: Three point shooting - qwerty49 - 01-10-2018

(01-10-2018, 12:46 PM)BobK link Wrote:Great posts but if we don't get out scored 22-2 on second chance points against ASU we are 4-0 in league play.

Well, there's no second chance if there's no rebound.  And ORebs often include a lot of "hustle and determination" points.

Re: WBB: Three point shooting - 2006alum - 01-10-2018

Farm07, thanks for putting this together. It's a bit dismaying to realize how far we've fallen in our shooting ability compared to the triangle offense years. And it's fascinating to see how good we were at three-pointers Bonnie's and Amber's senior year. I would never have guessed that that was our best three-point shooting year since Wiggins graduated a decade ago. Guess having two Samuelson sisters makes a difference! (and it helps to explain why we started getting destroyed by zone defenses the following year, especially in those brutal 30-ish point offensive performances against Arizona State and UCLA.) Incidentally, I wonder what our FG% would be compared to the past if you subtracted three-point shots. I'm guessing we're doing as well as we have since Chiney graduated, and so the drop-off is due to our relatively abysmal three-point shooting.

Re: WBB: Three point shooting - chimera - 01-10-2018

In the old triangle there was plenty of inside out passes for threes that were in rhythm, really good passes that were easy to shoot from.  Now our threes don't come from passes that are that great too much of the time, which hurts our shooters.  They have to get the ball into the right position before they can shoot too often.  We do not have the deadeye shooters like we did either.  Maybe some on the team will get there.  Maybe not.

Re: WBB: Three point shooting - 81alum - 01-11-2018

The key to beating a zone has always been inside-out passing, since the zone moves around the ball, and the pass can reach the open player before the zone can react.  You know a zone offense is floundering when the ball goes around the perimeter only.

Again--not to belabor the point--where have Marta's recent treys come from?  Inside out passing.  Most three point shooters have a harder time taking a pass from the side and then squaring up to hit the trey.  But if the pass comes from in front of them they shoot in rhythm.  For a  great three point shooter this would not matter, but for Marta it really seems to.  More of this, please.

Just how mediocre are we?

We are the Pac12's 11th best scoring offense--ahead only of Arizona.  We are the Pac 12's 7th best scoring defense.  We are now up to 11th (ahead of Oregon State!) in free throw shooting.  We are the Pac 12's 11th best % three point shooting team.  We are the 10th best team in assists, 11th in steals, 11th in turnover margin, 8th in assists to turnovers, 4th in defensive rebounding percentage, 10th in offensive rebounding percentage.  Frankly, given this, we are lucky to be 3-1.

Something else has been at the back of my mind, and that is how inconsistent Lindy LaRocque was as a three point shooter.  I vividly remember her prolonged slump during her senior year and have wondered about whether this would be a help or a hindrance in her ability to coach our three point shooting.  For long stretches in her senior year the fans moaned when Tara sent her in to play, but Tara kept insisting that Lindy was like having a coach on the floor and contributed so much more than her shooting might indicate.  But Lindy's own career is pretty good proof that there is a humongous psychological aspect to three point shooting.

2008-09 .311
2009-10 .179
2010-11 .386
2011-12 .244


Re: WBB: Three point shooting - 2006alum - 01-11-2018

Those statistics are appalling, 81. Are they only from conference play? My suspicion is that our numbers are especially low because of the OOC games without McPhee and Carrington. Also, those stats don't account for strength of opposition - facing UConn, OSU twice, Baylor, and Tennessee is bound to diminish your stats.

I had forgotten that Lindy had started almost all of our 2010-11 season alongside the Owgumikes, Pohlen and Pedersen. It's interesting that she ended up losing the starting spot to Amber/Toni by the spring of 2012. I will say, those numbers aren't encouraging in terms of her being our three point shooting coach. She clearly needs to channel whatever she was doing her junior year!

As an aside, what's so odd about this season, as reflected in 81's earlier chart of recruiting points, is that on paper our team is, from the standpoint of talent, from top to bottom the strongest since that 2010-11 season. We had some really lean years there where several of our starting players had limited prospects to be significant contributors. By contrast, this year, I feel like in any given game, any of McPhee, Carrington, Smith, Williams, Dodson, Fingall, Sniezek, or Wilson can be our game changer. We just can't seem to get consistent performances. I think Farm07 put it best - last year we were more than the sum of our parts, and this year much less.

Re: WBB: Three point shooting - 2006alum - 01-11-2018

A few more interesting stats where things look a bit better: among the PAC-12, we are 2nd behind Oregon State in defensive FG%, 2nd behind Colorado in defensive 3PT%, 1st in total rebounds, 2nd behind Colorado in rebounds per game.

Re: WBB: Three point shooting - 81alum - 01-11-2018

(01-11-2018, 11:38 AM)2006alum link Wrote:Those statistics are appalling, 81. Are they only from conference play? My suspicion is that our numbers are especially low because of the OOC games without McPhee and Carrington. Also, those stats don't account for strength of opposition - facing UConn, OSU twice, Baylor, and Tennessee is bound to diminish your stats.
You found the Pac 12 site I see:
http://pac-12.com/content/womens-basketball-statistics
While it is labeled "Conference Statistics" it is definitely counting all games.  Yes, given our strength of schedule we can be forgiven for having somewhat depressed stats.  But these stats are just extremely bad.  I do hope they improve over the year.

Yes, this team seems to me to have more talent than the last couple of years, but it is not getting the results.  It reminds me a bit of the team from two years ago, which wound up 27-8, and was led by McCall, Thompson, and Karlie for the most part.  It was the worst team in recent Stanford history--lost to ASU twice--but did not sink to today's depths.  In comparing the teams you see many of the same names.  We had the same issues with Johnson and Sniezek that year as we do this year.  Smith this year is not quite as versatile and reliable as McCall that year although she is close, Williams is not as consistent as Thompson was although I think she can be, but chiefly there is no one like Karlie. 

McPhee was shooting 34% of her threes that year, by the way--which would make her so much more effective if she could muster that today.  We haven't just lost the shooting of Karlie, we have lost the shooting of McPhee.  That is how you go to 11th best in a hurry.

We really need Dodson to play alongside Smith the way Smith and McCall complemented each other the last two years,  Or Fingall.  I do remember that McCall was really not very good her freshman and even into her sophomore years.  There is still time for Dodson and Fingall to blossom.  I just wish it would happen right now.

And if Jerome could sit on the wing or corner (Bonnie style) and take and make three point shots at a 40% clip the team would be transformed.  But right now she reminds me of Taylor Greenfield, who started a few games her freshmen year but seldom turned in anything other than empty stat lines until almost the end of her senior season.  I bet Jerome will come on strong next year--her international experience should help her mature.  But she doesn't seem to be there yet.

Re: WBB: Three point shooting - M T - 01-11-2018

[I started this message on Thursday morning, but couldn't finish it until the night.  I see others have already expressed somewhat similar views.]

I'm getting pretty tired of the hand wringing and bemoaning I am hearing on this board.  Yeah, us A types tend to focus on our faults so we can improve, but, Come On!  Geez, we haven't gotten to the Final Four since when?  We call ourselves fans, not critics.  [I am calling myself out, too.  I am a critic some times as well.]

(01-11-2018, 09:01 AM)81alum link Wrote:Just how mediocre are we?

We are the Pac12's 11th best scoring offense--ahead only of Arizona.  [etc]

But, if I look at
  http://static.pac-12.com/sports/basketball-w/stats/2017-18/HTML/confonly.htm
while there is not perfect parity in strength-of-schedule, it is a lot better than hyping our statistics in games against a number of the best teams.

I see us as middle of the Pac in scoring offense, 2nd in scoring defense, etc.

While I hope the team continues to get better, there are already good developments.  I think the team has a chance to go deep in the NCAA, esp. if some current weak spots can be shored up.


Re: WBB: Three point shooting - 81alum - 01-11-2018

(01-11-2018, 09:07 PM)MT link Wrote:[I started this message on Thursday morning, but couldn't finish it until the night.  I see others have already expressed somewhat similar views.]

I'm getting pretty tired of the hand wringing and bemoaning I am hearing on this board.  Yeah, us A types tend to focus on our faults so we can improve, but, Come On!  Geez, we haven't gotten to the Final Four since when?  We call ourselves fans, not critics.  [I am calling myself out, too.  I am a critic some times as well.]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=18516.msg221003#msg221003 date=1515686470]
Just how mediocre are we?

We are the Pac12's 11th best scoring offense--ahead only of Arizona.  [etc]

But, if I look at
  http://static.pac-12.com/sports/basketball-w/stats/2017-18/HTML/confonly.htm
while there is not perfect parity in strength-of-schedule, it is a lot better than hyping our statistics in games against a number of the best teams.

I see us as middle of the Pac in scoring offense, 2nd in scoring defense, etc.

While I hope the team continues to get better, there are already good developments.  I think the team has a chance to go deep in the NCAA, esp. if some current weak spots can be shored up.
[/quote]
Thanks for helping us keep things in perspective, MT.  I have never seen a Tara team that didn't play much better in March than in November, so I expect we will see improvement.  Then there is the simple fact that the players seem like a thoroughly likable sisterhood that is worth supporting, especially when they are a bit down.  I'll try to keep it a little more positive from my end.