Syracuse- Wisconsin and the 3 point line

[wilt the stilt]

I thought Syracuse played a way better game in the sense they penetrated the defense better and took way better shots. They scored 3 times as many points inside the perimeter and almost lost. The last play was exactly the a microcosm of the game. Wisconsin never got the ball inside the 3 point line and they only needed a basket to pull ahead. Something is wrong when you really breakdown a defense better and you get much better shots and you almost lose.

[bigwillq]

1. That's the way the game goes sometimes.

I thought both teams played really well. Those 3s really kept Wisconsin in the game. There's no such thing as almost lose. You either do or you don't. Syracuse didn't.

[Scuba]

2. "Something is wrong...". Really, what? I thought it was a terrific game by both teams...

.... different philosophies adapted to different athletes, well coached, well played.


What did you think was wrong?

[wilt the stilt]

4. In basketball

one is supposed to get as close to the basket as possible. penetration is the real key to the game and it collapses the defense. Wisconsin couldn't even threaten a low post when they only needed 2 points. That is pathetic.

[JonLP24]

5. I think I'm misunderstanding you

but there was a guy wide open to the right side of the goal but the guy with the ball failed to spot him and kicked it out to the guy way behind the line. I do agree whatever that was, is pathetic.

[wilt the stilt]

7. Everyone thought that the 3 point goal would increase scoring

The results are just the opposite. How many times have you seen people taking 3 pointers on fast breaks. If you go for the easy layup you all game you will probably actually score more points as the layup is probably close to 100%. Secondly, there is way more standing around chucking up a 3 pointer which is a lower percentage than a mid range jumper.
Finally, there are very few fast break teams.

[JonLP24]

12. 3-point shot in college basketball is a flaw

Generally players aren't as good as NBA players so you often see teams blow their chance at winning(in a close game) or blow a lead by abusing the 3-point shot.

NBA it isn't so bad IMO because there are deadly shooters but still teams make bad decisions by choosing a 3-point shot over something that will improve their odds of scoring on the possession. Plus I was a big Reggie Miller fan and like Ray Allen a lot too.

I remember you posting a video which was analysis of the deciding game of the NBA Finals between 76ers and the Blazers but I didn't(and still don't) have a clue what your reference to the 3-point shot was about especially since the guy breaking down the game didn't even mention it. He did compare that 76ers team to last year's Heat and the Blazers to the Mavericks but I didn't think that was it. The Heat don't shoot very many 3-pointers(they are 25th in 3-point attempts per game), probably a contributing factor as to why they are one of the best teams in the NBA or that they don't have great 3-point shooters besides Chalmers and James Jones. Lebron James is actually pretty good from behind the arc this season.

[wilt the stilt]

16. if you rewatch the video

you will see the speed of the game is faster. The players aren't faster but the game is faster. More people are cutting and better quality shots are taken. Now players park themselves at the three point line and it becomes pretty boring. have you ever tried to cover a guy who never stops. pain in the butt. When I didn't play the point I was that guy. I prided myself on being in great shape and wearing people out.

watch it again also Walton is the incredibel and the best passing center ever. He was a guard until 10th grade.

bballbreakdown iis a very interesting site and "Breaks of the Game" is the best sports book ever.

[JonLP24]

17. I agree with that

One of my favorite things about Reggie Miller was he wasn't a "parker". He did more moving without the basketball of any player I've seen or he was the one that was most apparent to me.

On edit-I forgot to say what I wanted to say which was I ran around from end line to side line to side line a lot when I played(never played organized basketball, just pick up games).

[Scuba]

6. Here and all this time I thought the object was to score more points than your opponent....

... I'll have to look into that "get as close as possible" thing, but I don't recall any such rule.



That said, Bucky's last possession did not flip my flapjacks.

[wilt the stilt]

8. why is it so important that the point guard penetrates

at all level of the game(High school, college and pro). Why does everyone want a point guard that can penetrate. It is because it collapses the defense.

[JonLP24]

3. Can't count on teams shooting 3s that consistently

I do agree that Syracuse looked a lot better than Wisconsin but those 3s were what kept it close.

[Scuba]

9. "A lot better"? They were one point better over 40 minutes of play and nearly lost.

[wilt the stilt]

10. That is the point of the thraed

have you ever played basketball?

[Scuba]

14. Not at that level, but yes, I've played a lot of basketball....

... I'm one who will defend Wisconsin's style of play.




Remember, the "clearout" nearly ruined the NBA.

[wilt the stilt]

15. the you should know

that the threat of penetration opens you up for a jumpshot and when you beat your man everyone has too pick you up. The essence of basketball in a nutshell

[Scuba]

18. Yes, it would have been great if Taylor or Wilson had penetrated...

... especially since nobody else on the floor had the chops for it. Evans is athletic enough, but not a great ball handler. Taylor was the Badgers' guy. It didn't happen, but that's sports.

The Badgers have played this way all season; it was good enough to get them in the tournament, again, and into the Sweet 16, again.

I wouldn't trade Bo Ryan's program for all the "one-and-dones" in college hoops.

[JonLP24]

11. It's hard to explain

Syracuse just looked a lot more efficient. A few stats that best shows what I mean is points in the paint. Syracuse outscored Wisconsin 30 to 10. ESPN--Wisconsin only scored two paint points in the second half and did not attempt a shot in the paint in the final 14 minutes of the game. Me--It takes real skill to score like that inside.

Numbers don't really do justice to what I mean by "better", even the 55% FG Pct to Wisky's 43%, it is just the way it appeared to me, like I said very efficient. Wisconsin's 3 balls did land but like they say, you live by the 3 you die by the 3(which doesn't apply in this game as their 3s gave them life support--not enough to win and not really the cause of their loss), but my point is there are games where those shots don't fall even by efficient 3-point shooting teams so I view it more as a flaw if that is the team's main strength. Syracuse played well inside and outside, they weren't bad from 3-point land themselves.

I don't think it is a terrible thing a team can play a better game and barely win or even lose. It's sports. In football sometimes a team will dominate in time of possession, passing efficiency, rushing yards and still lose.

[PRETZEL]

13. Syracuse certainly looked real good,

give Wisconsin credit though. They got hot from 3 point range and yeah that kept them in the game to the point where they could have easily stole that game.

Syracuse's defense, especially the last possession won the game as much as it was Wisconsin's loss.

What did change the game was Wisconsin's bigs were in foul trouble for a good part of it. That changed the way they had to attack Syracuse's zone. I noticed that when Wisconsin's bigs were in, they were using them in the high post and running off that. They weren't able to do that as much late in the game.