iogyhufi
Masters Student
Posts: 681
Age: 27
Reg: 10-10-17
|
02-10-20 03:10 PM - Post#299425
In response to mrjames
Can't speak for James but I definitely remember hearing before the season started from at least some people (don't believe you were one, but Torvik was wrt "quant nerd" representation) that Yale wouldn't even make / was unlikely to make the Ivy League Tournament. Despite the production Yale lost, they still brought back three legitimate starter caliber players, two of whom had produced at All-Ivy levels before the season started (i.e., Bruner and Swain), so I wouldn't think that that claim ought to be considered free from criticism.
The claim that d3P% is close to a crap shoot is, shall we say, not one that any basketball player or coach with whom I've ever spoken would agree. What most will say is that the degree to which three-pointers are contested will affect the percentage. Further, they'll say that stalwart shot-contesting early is likely to make shooters miss relatively easier shots later in the game because they haven't "found their range" yet. I'm sure there's plenty of data to support your hypothesis (and the plural of anecdote is not data of course), but I must confess that this particular idea isn't one that I can see terribly easily.
(the above is not to say that the concept of shot luck doesn't exist in the Luddite basketball world - if I had a dollar for every time I've heard "we gotta tip our hats to them, they made some tough shots today," I could afford the rent on a neutral venue for the Ivy League Tournament. But I've definitely seen in film sessions/heard from coaches that "he doesn't make the tough ones later if you don't give him [X wide-open shot] now." And defensive positioning/discipline is definitely in control of the defense!)
Please do let me know if I've misunderstood anything; this is mostly just my take on this whole idea and less of a response, but I'd prefer to keep my facts straight 
|
