I have zero problem with Blake shooting the open 3 any time in the shot clock. Yesterday he forced some dribble drives and forced some mid rangers early instead of kicking it out. He just seemed off as did all of them. That is going to happen occasionally. Back on the horse Tuesday.
Va Tech Game & Other Dribbles ...
- Thread starter DT_PITT
- Start date
Actually that's about the lowest, not the highest.
Pomeroy has us at 88% to beat Georgia Tech, 74% to beat Syracuse, 68% to beat Notre Dame and 29% to beat Miami.
Fair enough, but that's still only a 44% likelihood to run the table against the three non-Miami teams. I would not have guessed the odds to be that high, though.
I think this is what you dont get. Those other things like rebounding, fouling, turnovers, are USUALLY pretty close between teams. Not all the time but usually. But in about half the games, one team is going to outshoot another by 10% or more. So its more worthwhile to look at 3 point shooting. Basketball is mostly a make or miss game. Maybe you dont realize that but it is.
We really shot ourselves in the foot after that 11-5 start. A number of bad turnovers, including 2 terrible, forced passes from Fede and Nelly that fueled VT's run, and that turned out to be the difference in the game. Dug a hole we couldn't get out of.
I found it odd that JB didn't have a field day given how VT was really focused on stopping the 3-point shot. When teams do that to us, it should open the lane where JB is deadly. But he really forced things a lot yesterday, and he hasn't been as good the last few games compared to earlier in the season. Need to get JB back to playing at that high level. OTOH, Nike did expose the lane at times with some nice drives and finishes.
Hinson just isn't good on the dribble-drive. He's often loose/out-of-control. It's not his game. Rough one yesterday all around.
Overall, just not our day. Gotta hold serve at home in the next two.
I found it odd that JB didn't have a field day given how VT was really focused on stopping the 3-point shot. When teams do that to us, it should open the lane where JB is deadly. But he really forced things a lot yesterday, and he hasn't been as good the last few games compared to earlier in the season. Need to get JB back to playing at that high level. OTOH, Nike did expose the lane at times with some nice drives and finishes.
Hinson just isn't good on the dribble-drive. He's often loose/out-of-control. It's not his game. Rough one yesterday all around.
Overall, just not our day. Gotta hold serve at home in the next two.
We will be favored by 10ish against GT and 5ish against Syracuse.
But against ND, we will be favored by only 2 or 3.
And we will be 8-10 point dogs against Miami.
Of course it does. And on a bunch of other things too. Which is why saying "Pitt cannot win against any quality team without shooting the three well" is wrong.
If we are only favored by two points over Notre Dame the folks on here who like to bet ought to be all over that line. That would be too low by several points.
I think you are a few points shy on all of those, actually. 12 or so against GT, five is close for Syracuse, I was thinking six, but whatever, five or six against ND and about seven or eight against Miami (in the wrong direction, of course).
I think this is what you don't get. When good teams are playing, ALL of those things are usually pretty close. Focusing on one to the exclusion of the others is dumb.
If everything else is the same except one team shoots threes way better, that team will probably win. If everything else is the same except one team is turning the ball over like crazy and the other team is not the team that is not will probably win. If everything else is the same except one team shoots twos really well and the other team does not the team that shoots twos well will win. If everything else is the same and one team crushes the other team on the boards that team is going to win.
It's obvious that you don't understand that, but it's just as obviously true.
Well how did it work out yesterday ?
How about against
WVU 38%. Pitt 25%
How about against
Michigan 45% Pitt30%
or
VCU 27% Pitt22%
Clemson 41% Pitt 37%
FSU 50% Pitt 25%
VT 47% Pitt 16.%
In 6 of their 8 loses they were outshot from 3 and they shot poorly <30% .
The two exceptions are
Duke 22% Pitt 27% ( both pathetic)
Vanderbilt 32% Pitt 48%
Of their 19 wins they’ve outshot the opponents from 3 in all but 4 of those games .
So in the 8 games that they’ve been outshot from 3 they’re 2-6 . In only two of those loses did they shoot the ball well enough to win . ( Vandy and Clemson )
In all their other games they’re 17-2 and in only in 4 of those games have they been outshot from 3 .
I think it’s safe to say there is a direct correlation !
ps ….of course there are other factors but there’s no denying Pitt needs to outshoot their opponent to win .
There are many factors that help to decide who wins a basketball game. I would agree that the #1 factor is who shoots the ball better. Since teams are taking more and more 3 pointers, which obviously by the math are worth 1.5 more point than a 2, who shoots best from 3, has a very high correlation to which team ultimately wins.
So to boil your long post down to one simple statement, when you said ""Pitt cannot win against any quality team without shooting the three well" you were absolutely wrong.
Thanks for proving my point, even if you don't understand that that's exactly what you did.
You are insufferable . If you think that supports your claim there’s not much hope for you , but I already knew that .
Did Pitt beat NC State while shooting 6-22 on threes, or did we not? Did Pitt beat North Carolina while shooting 5-25 on threes, or did they not?
Unless you think that those are examples of a team shooting threes well then your statement that "Pitt cannot win against any quality team without shooting the three well" is clearly and obviously wrong.
On the other hand, you can argue that 6-22 and 5-25 on threes actually is shooting them well, in which case we'd all just have another example that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Your call. Which is it?
At the end of the day, there is one, and only one, stat that absolutely determines the outcome of games: the score. How that score is obtained is irrelevant. There are any number of factors that go into it, and in any game, one or more may be very prominent. But until that game is over, there is no way to determine which it might be. As Al Davis famously said, "just win, baby."
Pitt outshot NC State 27% to 22% but good try, champ. If NC State shoots 10% better than us, we lose.
UNC did outshoot us 32% to 20% so that's one of those 25% of games where the winning team gets outshot by the losing team.
And remember, when one team outshoots another by 20% from 3, its at least a 90 percent chance of victory. If we shooting 20% and another team shoots 40%, we will not win. For this Pitt team especially, the 3 point line is the decider. There is nothing else we do to any great success where we can overcome a poor shooting night. I mean, yea, Burton can go for 30 from 2s like vs UNC but that isnt something that can be relied upon. We have to shoot well.
Wait, do yo want to defend his statement that ""Pitt cannot win against any quality team without shooting the three well"?
No surprise, you're just dumb enough to give it a try.
So is 6-22 on threes shooting them well or not? Simple question, that has a simple answer. Then after you answer that one, simple follow up. Did Pitt win the game or not?
Come on, even you can figure this one out.
Well.... he DID say they have to shoot the three better than their opponent.... not simply "well".
And in the case of NC State game... Pitt did shoot the three better than their opponent.
Well he said you need to shoot the 3 10% better than your opponent to win -
Which still fails
WHAT?????
I've said probably 200 times that if you shoot it 10% better you have a 75% chance to win and if you shoot 20% better, you have a 90% chance.
No, SMF has said that. He's wrong, and obviously so, as has been pointed out in several actual Pitt games this season. But Fs' statement that I was talking about and that I have quoted, that SMF is now responding to, is that "Pitt cannot win against any quality team without shooting the three well." That statement doesn't say anything at all about Pitt's opponent, other than that he's talking about "quality opponents".
NC State is clearly a quality opponent. Pitt clearly did not shoot threes well when they played NC State. Pitt beat NC State. Therefore Pitt does not, in fact, HAVE to shoot threes well to beat a quality opponent. Because we've seen it with our own eyes.
Some people just can't see the difference between "shooting threes well helps" and "you have to shoot threes well to win". I mean most people can. For most people that's obvious. But not for some.
Similar threads
