Wisconsin shot 11/22 from 3. 8/22 would still be over their season-long percentage.
We lost by 8.
We lost by 8.
The Difference in that Game is Basically Luck in 3-Point Shooting
- Thread starter fluoxetine
- Start date
Yes. Shooting 11/22 when you average 8/22 is luck, basically.
I realize the word "luck" may rub people the wrong way, but it is random variation in performance.
I realize the word "luck" may rub people the wrong way, but it is random variation in performance.
Now compare our season 3 pt. percentage with quad 1 teams.
Ahhhh... no. Next observation please.
Right. It's not luck that makes them better 3-point shooters than us. It's luck that makes them perform above or below their general level in the specific game.
Threes and frees. We won every other stat except threes and frees.
They made 7 more threes and 13 more free throws.
They made 7 more threes and 13 more free throws.
It was good earlier in the year. Teams were shooting below their percentage against us during our very hot stretch, and above recently.
It also could mean we dont defend the 3 very well which we've seen in some games.
1. Not sure you understand how an “average” correlates to an individual data point.
2. “Luck” kept Rutgers in the game.
Season average of 44.4% shooting
vs Wisc - 50% (30 for 60)
We should have lost by more.
2. “Luck” kept Rutgers in the game.
Season average of 44.4% shooting
vs Wisc - 50% (30 for 60)
We should have lost by more.
What do you think is the difference between a game like today, where Wisconsin is 11/22 from three, and a game like they played against New Mexico, where they were 2/26.
Do you think it is primarily variables under the control of the players? Do you think it's New Mexico's suffocating defense?
Obviously we are not as good as WVU but it's clearly possible to be good without good three-point shooting.
Maryland, Seton Hall, Illinois, Auburn are all bad 3-point shooters (though marginally better than we are)
They are infinitely better at shooting a basketball than we are. Thats the entire story here. Nothing else to even consider.
Until we get better players, we will continue to flounder as a program. Granted, our current players could improve their ability to shoot a basketball as opposed to replacing them with better players. But outside of either of those options, were just an NIT team.
And while that's better than the total shitshow we've seen the last 20 years, its not going to move the needle. Being an NIT team isn't going to convince top players to come here.
Until we get better players, we will continue to flounder as a program. Granted, our current players could improve their ability to shoot a basketball as opposed to replacing them with better players. But outside of either of those options, were just an NIT team.
And while that's better than the total shitshow we've seen the last 20 years, its not going to move the needle. Being an NIT team isn't going to convince top players to come here.
That's it right there. 83 shots wouldn't make up the difference without a few threes. There is a solution, just have to be willing Togo in that direction.
"Infinitely"
34.3% vs 30.1%. On 22 attempts per game (what Wisconsin took today) that is 0.924 more makes.
my point btw is not anything like “Rutgers is better and Wisconsin was lucky to beat us”. It’s just we played fine, pretty well even, today and lost mostly because they made threes at a better than expected rate. The meltdowns and proclamations of how much we suck are even more ridiculous than usual.
We have not defended the 3 well at all in the last 5-6 games and that is on the coaching staff
What a ridiculous post. Was it luck that they shot above their average because we didn’t contest many of their lucky 3’s??? We got lit up plain and simple by a good shooting team.
Just stop please.
Just stop please.
Yes basically? They were mostly contested? What do you think the average three point attempt looks like?
our defense did not impose its will, Wisconsin got any shots they wanted the first 30 minutes or so
We shoot 7-8 less and make 5 percent less 3s a game than much of the b10. We’re last in 3 point shooting. They made a lot of 3s with hands in their face. We need that kind of player.
3 point threats open up the rest of your offense, can “deflate” momentum, etc.
Imagine if we shot 5 percent better and made 2-3 more threes a game. Plus if you are a 3 point shooter you are usually your good at fts too. Improvement in both gets us 5-10 more points a game. Imagine our records with that.
Wisconsin shows you you can do that with decent D too. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
3 point threats open up the rest of your offense, can “deflate” momentum, etc.
Imagine if we shot 5 percent better and made 2-3 more threes a game. Plus if you are a 3 point shooter you are usually your good at fts too. Improvement in both gets us 5-10 more points a game. Imagine our records with that.
Wisconsin shows you you can do that with decent D too. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
The exact same game could be played, except Wisconsin has a below average 5/22 night, and you would say the opposite thing about the same defense.
5 percent better would only be ~1 more per game, but agree that you also get better ft shooting and probably better 2p% by changing the way the defense plays so it would be worth maybe 6ppg
no, you misunderstand.
our 30% shooting is not luck
When we shoot 7/15 against Illinois, that is luck
This is akin to saying we've been incredibly unlucky that our opponents score more than us in all our losses.
5 percent better would only be ~1 more per game, but agree that you also get better ft shooting and probably better 2p% by changing the way the defense plays so it would be worth maybe 6ppg
[/quote]
5% better plus another 7-8 attempts. We shoot the fewest in the big 10 and a lot are bad ones towards the end of the game.
"Luck" isn't a cause-and-effect argument. It's quite the opposite, inasmuch as its essence is, we lost, so let's pick a random stat, one that pops out in the stat sheets that few will deny affected the outcome, and attribute our loss to the seemingly random percentage of the other team's threes made today. Just as a QB's efficiency increases with additional time in the pocket, it's likely that a shooter's efficiency increases with each additional tenth of a second that he's got the ball in his hands without being pressured. Both the QB's and shooter's efficiencies go up or down within a range, as it can probably be demonstrated that beyond a certain amount of time there is no benefit to the completed-pass percentage or the shooting percentage, but beneath a certain time there is a net decrease. Attributing these things to luck isn't something a coach should be willing to incorporate into his analysis of why a game went the way it did.
If we are saying that another team got lucky, then we have to look for reasons, within the realm of "luck-talk," as to why we didn't. This will bring us back to real-game analysis, which will bring us back to real-game cause-and-effect talk.
If we are saying that another team got lucky, then we have to look for reasons, within the realm of "luck-talk," as to why we didn't. This will bring us back to real-game analysis, which will bring us back to real-game cause-and-effect talk.
our defense failed to impose its will pretty much from the get go. Wisky comfortable on its home court and we really didnt make them work for shots until later in the 2nd half. We couldnt defend dribble penetration at all. Pritzl? murdedered us on a few possessions
I dont look at this game and say oh Wisconsin beat us because they were lucky. I look at as Wisconsin basically beat us in every facet but most importantly the intangibles of will, tempo, and the mental game.
lol, no, dude, these arguments don’t work for every stat. Three point shooting is demonstrably a high variance thing where you will see large amounts of game to game variation that is attributable basically to chance
people have looked and basically the sustained difference between the BEST and WORST 3 point defenses is a few percent. that some of you jokers think our defense played so badly that the expected 3 point rate was 50 is laughable
Latest
-
01
The Knight Report
The Knight Report - Ask The Experts Chat: November 11th Edition
-
02
The Knight Report Football Recruiting
Rutgers Football recruits react to news of Greg Schiano's return in 2027
-
03
The Knight Report
Rutgers Basketball HC Brandin Knight's NJIT Postgame Press Conference
-
04
The Knight Report
Rutgers Basketball rolls past NJIT to move to 2-0
-
05
The Knight Report
Greg Schiano Returning in 2027: Did Rutgers Make the Right Decision? - TKR Pod