Comparing UMaine BB teams 3 & 2 point success

Post info or Comments: UMaine Athletics

Comparing UMaine BB teams 3 & 2 point success

Postby bcbc55 » Mon Jan 01, 2018 7:51 pm

Here are the comparisons of the UMaine men's and women's 3 point and 2 point shooting:

The men are 114 of 389 for 29.3% for 3's and 229 for 494 for 2 pointers 46.7%. They have scored 342 points on 3's and 458 points on 2 pointers.

The women are 106 of 344 for 3'sor 30.8% and 221 of 461 for 2 pointers for 47.8%. They have scored 318 points on 3's and 442 points on 2 pointers.

Neither team is getting to the foul line enough as the men are 186 for 274 for 67.6% and the women are just 95 for 147 for 64.6% in 2 less games. The men are averaging just 12.4 foul shots per game and the women are 11.3 foul shots attempted per game.

It is when the clock is stopped that good teams increase their in game leads or lose the lead. The over use of the three with the low shooting percentages of 29.3% for threes and taking 44% of their FGA's as threes are the reasons they are not getting to the foul line and the same for the women as they are shooting 30.8% for 3's and taking 42.7% of their FGA's as threes. If they were shooting consistently higher for 3's (at least 33% or higher as a minimum) then that would be a factor for taking as many 3's as they have, but they haven't showed that as the 3 point stats show that "Figures don't let, but abusers and over users of the 3 don't seem to care or take that into consideration on "living or dying by the three.

Also, another big factor in their poor three point shooting is that both teams appear to be using the same offensive system to get their 3 point shots off at a low percentage success rate and that is because they are getting most of their attempts on their 3 point shooters not being standing still and squared to the basket, with hands in the shooting position where they want to receive the ball on the pass.

They get most of their 3 attempts when the players receiving the ball are moving or on the move off screens, cuts, or off the dribble when they receive or pick up the ball off the dribble outside the arc then they have to square their feet, get hands in the shooting position on the ball and get the ball to where they need it to start their shot which allows the defense which has double downed to double tem the block or having to be the help defender on dribble penetration to close out faster then against a stand still shooter receiving the ball already to shoot the open three and is not rushed. Also, have not seen much of either team of having the 3 point shooter fake the three when being closed out fast by using dribble penetration looking for a non 3 point shot or if no shot creating for an open teammate outside the 3 point line.

So based on the number of shots taken both teams are scoring at a better perccentage rate on 2 points

Maine men are shooting 29.3% for 3's and are 46.9% for 2's and 38.8% combined.

Maine women are shooting 30.8% fo 3's and 47.8% for 2's and combined 40.4%.

Men have taken 389 3 attempts of 883 for 44%.

Women have taken 344 3 attempts of 805 for 42.7%

So fans can decide if either Maine team is over using and abusing the 3 point shot in regards to the above stats.

Offensive rebounds. Many say teams get more offensive rebounds because of long rebounds from 3 point shooters who are brick layers. If 3 point shooter has a soft shooting touch and few do that is why there are long rebounds on missed 3's.. I counter that and state that they get more long offensive rebounds on 3's is because they take more threes today and that they get less 3 point shooters fouled in the act of shooting then they do in the act of 2 point shooting, especially in the power lane alley. Post players get few put backs on offensive rebounds because so many long rebounds of missed threes are out of the power alley range.

When using the 3 point game as much as both Maine tems have then it's a gamble as "If you live by the three, you may also die by the three) and that has happend to both Maine teams especially the Men as they have died 12 times and lived once while the women have lived 5 times and died 6 times. And that includes and counts those non 2 D-1 non-conference games that each have played and that pad their 3 point stats.

So unless either coach makes some changes in how they get their 3 attempts to improve their 3 point shooting percentages in order to continue to live at the rate of taking the number of threes they have taken in their non confeence schedule, then look for them to "live an die by the three in conference games".

Wonder which team will make the needed adjustments first? If neither team does than that just tells fans that neither coaching staff knows what percentages of three attempts are taken by the 12 possible ways to get threes and which are the most effective(the 6 highest percentage ways) or the ineffective (the 6 lowest percentage ways of which both teams are currently been using for their team and their individual players).

Looks like the offense both teams are attempting to run is "a shoot the 3 and pray" and so far not too many of the prayers have been answered enough for either team. Continuing this offensive 3 point philosophy into conference play is just setting themselves up for the one and done season where you have to survive one bad 3 point shooting night in order to win the conference tournament championship as the ball seems to get bigger and the rim smaller" under the pressure of the one and done situation.

Men's AE Conference team stats has Maine in last place 9th for 3PG% at 29.3% which is the only team below 30%No and are in last place for overall FGS%. Women's not stats available at this time..


Let's hope neither team keeps putting all of its eggs in one basket as 3 point eggs through out their America East (right bam) Conference 16 game play because if they do they may well lay broken eggs broken come tourney time.
bcbc55
 
Posts: 10658
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 6:44 am

Re: Comparing UMaine BB teams 3 & 2 point success

Postby MaineBBFan99 » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

I will focus on how this issue applies to the women's team and will defer to other posters on the men's team.

The simple fact is that Maine's backcourt is much stronger than its frontcourt. By relying on the three-point shot, Maine is simply playing to its strengths. Now, it is fair to say that Maine needs more dribble penetration from its guards, and I think you will see more of that in conference play against teams that are defensively weaker than those Maine faced during the non-conference schedule.

Despite the lack of dribble penetration and having one of the toughest non-conference schedules in the country, Maine is second the the America East in both offensive points per possession (0.929) and effective field goal percentage (47.2%). I would be surprised if these figures didn't improve as the conference regular season progresses. So, to suggest that Maine's current offensive scheme is inefficient is a fallacy.

When using the 3 point game as much as both Maine teams have then it's a gamble as "If you live by the three, you may also die by the three) and that has happened to both Maine teams especially the Men as they have died 12 times and lived once while the women have lived 5 times and died 6 times. And that includes and counts those non 2 D-1 non-conference games that each have played and that pad their 3 point stats.


Yes, the women have lost six games (and won seven games). In at least four of these losses (and possibly all six), Maine lost because they were the inferior team, plain and simple. Three of those losses came against teams ranked in the AP top 25, and another of the losses came against a team that received votes in the top 25 poll.

Also, as much as you like you to comment that the two non-D-1 games pad statistics, the three games against top 25 teams had exactly the opposite effect. To suggest that Maine's shooting percentages are inflated due to their non-D-1 opponents is not the full story.

As multiple posters have expressed on this forum, I am also a bit tired of the great three-point shot debate. I respect your perspective and experience in discussing this issue, but the points and counterpoints regarding Maine's use (or overuse) of the three-point shot have been thoroughly hashed out. I mean, on page 1 of the UMaine D1 Athletics board, there are four separate threads discussing the three-point shot.
MaineBBFan99
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 4:06 pm

Re: Comparing UMaine BB teams 3 & 2 point success

Postby bcbc55 » Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:18 pm

MaineBBFan99 wrote:I will focus on how this issue applies to the women's team and will defer to other posters on the men's team.

The simple fact is that Maine's backcourt is much stronger than its frontcourt. By relying on the three-point shot, Maine is simply playing to its strengths. Now, it is fair to say that Maine needs more dribble penetration from its guards, and I think you will see more of that in conference play against teams that are defensively weaker than those Maine faced during the non-conference schedule.

Despite the lack of dribble penetration and having one of the toughest non-conference schedules in the country, Maine is second the the America East in both offensive points per possession (0.929) and effective field goal percentage (47.2%). I would be surprised if these figures didn't improve as the conference regular season progresses. So, to suggest that Maine's current offensive scheme is inefficient is a fallacy.

When using the 3 point game as much as both Maine teams have then it's a gamble as "If you live by the three, you may also die by the three) and that has happened to both Maine teams especially the Men as they have died 12 times and lived once while the women have lived 5 times and died 6 times. And that includes and counts those non 2 D-1 non-conference games that each have played and that pad their 3 point stats.


Yes, the women have lost six games (and won seven games). In at least four of these losses (and possibly all six), Maine lost because they were the inferior team, plain and simple. Three of those losses came against teams ranked in the AP top 25, and another of the losses came against a team that received votes in the top 25 poll.

Also, as much as you like you to comment that the two non-D-1 games pad statistics, the three games against top 25 teams had exactly the opposite effect. To suggest that Maine's shooting percentages are inflated due to their non-D-1 opponents is not the full story.

As multiple posters have expressed on this forum, I am also a bit tired of the great three-point shot debate. I respect your perspective and experience in discussing this issue, but the points and counterpoints regarding Maine's use (or overuse) of the three-point shot have been thoroughly hashed out. I mean, on page 1 of the UMaine D1 Athletics board, there are four separate threads discussing the three-point shot.


UMaineBBFan99: In their losses to those top teams Maine has/had no inside game so were forced to take threes and couldn't make them when it counted so their ineffective 3 point game was a factor in their losses. When you are forced to make threes the ball gets bigger and the rim gets larger, plus not getting enugh open stand still 3's as most of the women's are coming off screens or off the dribble which forces them to have to take time to square, get the ball in the shooting hands correctly and get it into the position to start the three which allows the defense to close out the shooter easier and faster which forces Maine's 3 point shooters to rush the shot, thus many times they are not squared to the hoop or rushed to get the shoot off and don't even ball fake the 3 to gi by the rushing close out defender, thus the miss.

As far as overuse of the 3 on this thread, just posted for the first time by anyone of how teams get their threes and why which ones are high percentage and which ones are low percentage wise as there are 6 of each and I don't think either Maine coaching staffs at Maine are aware of these 12 ways of getting 3's and how their teams are getting their 3's like many of the posters here on this thread don't or didn't know either why they are shooting 3's so poorly is if they know that then they certainly have not adjusted to make the needed changes to improve their three point shooting. I've been waiting since the first of December to see these adjustments by either team and none have come nor do I expect anything to change in that regard the rest of the season. So if both teams are hot their hot (win), if there not there not (lose).

I believe the 12 methods or ways of getting the three and why 6 are high ways and 6 are low ways percentage wise is NEW NEWS.....correct me if I am wrong UMaine teams aren't doing it based on the 6 high ways and nobody else here on MBR posted that either.

Granted they are in a very weak Conference and although today Maine womens SOS is 25 the conference's SOS is 31 of 32 conferences so would expect Maine to beat the bottom half of the conference but it will remain ti be seen of they can beat the top 3 teams continuing their living and dying by the three.

There is no point in playing those top teams except for the money guarantees if you are not doing to be prepared if they take away what little inside game you have.

Here is an interesting note. last year the 3 point field goal attempts for men's D-1 collge teams were up an average of 2 per team per game. One reason was the shot clock was reduced from 35 seconds to 30 seconds which forced the 3 more. Plus teams are recruiting 3 point shooters and choosing to live and dy by the three. They feel the risk is worth it during the regular season and then gamble big time if they are lucky enough to 3 point shoot their way into being be one of the 68 teams to make the big dance.
bcbc55
 
Posts: 10658
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 6:44 am

Re: Comparing UMaine BB teams 3 & 2 point success

Postby MaineBBFan99 » Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:59 pm

Granted they are in a very weak Conference and although today Maine womens SOS is 25 the conference's SOS is 31 of 32 conferences so would expect Maine to beat the bottom half of the conference but it will remain ti be seen of they can beat the top 3 teams continuing their living and dying by the three.


In terms of expecting Maine to beat the bottom half of the conference, ask the coaches in the America East about that. They picked Maine to finish sixth in the preseason poll.

Also, strength of schedule in and of itself is not a complete measure of the quality of a conference's teams. While I personally think RPI is an overly simplistic and flawed statistic, it does provide a slightly better picture of the quality of a conference's teams. The America East is currently ranked 24th out of 32 conferences in terms of the teams' average RPI.

You keep harping on living by the three and dying by the three. There is some merit to the idea that there is more variation game to game in the offensive output for a team that shoots a high percentage of threes. This is a concern during a single elimination tournament. Despite this, Maine's offensive strengths are its guard play and three point shooting, and, sorry to use a cliche, but it needs to play to its strengths. In addition to getting more dribble penetration, this strategy optimizes Maine's chances to win the conference title.
MaineBBFan99
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 4:06 pm

Re: Comparing UMaine BB teams 3 & 2 point success

Postby bcbc55 » Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:39 pm

MaineBBFan99 wrote:
Granted they are in a very weak Conference and although today Maine womens SOS is 25 the conference's SOS is 31 of 32 conferences so would expect Maine to beat the bottom half of the conference but it will remain ti be seen of they can beat the top 3 teams continuing their living and dying by the three.


In terms of expecting Maine to beat the bottom half of the conference, ask the coaches in the America East about that. They picked Maine to finish sixth in the preseason poll.

Also, strength of schedule in and of itself is not a complete measure of the quality of a conference's teams. While I personally think RPI is an overly simplistic and flawed statistic, it does provide a slightly better picture of the quality of a conference's teams. The America East is currently ranked 24th out of 32 conferences in terms of the teams' average RPI.

You keep harping on living by the three and dying by the three. There is some merit to the idea that there is more variation game to game in the offensive output for a team that shoots a high percentage of threes. This is a concern during a single elimination tournament. Despite this, Maine's offensive strengths are its guard play and three point shooting, and, sorry to use a cliche, but it needs to play to its strengths. In addition to getting more dribble penetration, this strategy optimizes Maine's chances to win the conference title.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MaineBBFan99: Excellent reasoning in your post above. My question is Maine women recruited 6'5" and 6'3" players why haven't they been developed at least some so that they could be getting some minutes as Barra 6'3" has appeared in 10 games averaging 7.6 minutes per game and Williams at 6'5" played in only 4 games averaging 7.3 minutes are just wasting away on the bench. Johnson at 6'3" is no offensive threat and is a senior and Wadiing is to small at 6'1" to play the post.

At least the men's team has used 6'9" freshmen 245lbs Mik Antoms in 13 games averaging 13 minutes a game.It appears that neither staff have the coaching skills to develop these bigs as the coaching staff MUST all have been guards when they were college players. Why neither of these coaching staffs did not hire a former successful big post up player to develop the bigs they recruited is beyond me.

I asked in an article in my "Off the Rim" Bangor Daily News Column back on November 14th which coaching staff would develop their inside game first and right now it is still an almost useless tie, but I would give the edge right now to the men's team as at least Antoms is getting more minutes regularly then Barra or Williams for the women's team.

6'9" Antoms although he has gotten a lot more minutes then Williams still has not been developed properly or used properly. But then again when your entire coaching staff are former guards why would anyone expect that any of them can develop the bigs. I mean they have only had almost 3 months plus the individual work time in the summer and early fall until the season started on October 1.

This is a big weakness for both teams and it falls on the head coaches in not having someone on their staffs that really knows how to develop Bigs in the post. In the end it will cost them in the one and done season as both teams are so guard oriented and 3 point shot oriented because of no inside game, yet they have size and freshmen size at that sitting.

When coaches declare that their young bigs are projects, to me that is just an excuse because that they have no one that has the skill to develop their young bigs. I thought the non-conference games were for development and to get ready for a much weaker conference schedule that is your whole season..

However, neither Maine 's coaching staff's are much different from most of the other D-1, D-2 or D-3 staffs as far as developing an inside game to improve their outside 3 point game. You see this problem at all levels and it is even worse at the high school level in Maine.

Just my opinion as based on my experience as I developed a lot of stiffs that became adequate bigs in high school, but guess I was fortunate enough to have played for a college coach that used me as a point and wing guard and as a post up guard in college so I was prepared to develop all 3 positions as a head coach.

It just frustrates me to no end to know how much better that both Maine teams could be if they knew how to develop their young bigs this far in the season. Nothing ventured in this area, nothing gained.

Of course, once they developed their bigs, then they would have to know what is the best spaced half-court offense to use to get them the ball on the block . It certainly isn't the current offense that both teams are using right know that doesn't even get good open 3's yet it is supposed to. So if they can't get good open 3's with this offense how would you expect them to have a good half-court spaced offense to get the ball inside which would force the defense to defend the offense to make it easy to get the ball inside and if the post player is doubled downed on to double team before or after they get the ball on the block then they would pay a big price with an open 3, or an open layup.

Also, they need an offense that has the proper spacing so that when they cannot pass the ball to a teammate then it is spaced so that they can dribble into dribble penetration and kickouts, which this current Maine offensive offense setup does not do.

Oh well. doing the same thing over and over and over again (shooting threes with no inside, or inside-outside Game) expecting different results is the definition of you know what.
bcbc55
 
Posts: 10658
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 6:44 am


Return to UMaine D1 Athletics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: augie, bcbc55, turkeyman and 47 guests