yah seems criminal to give upp a 3 but w/e

feels weird being a heated argument and me not be in it. i kinda like it.

Anyone with a brain takes that guy taking the three in that spot over anything with Wiscy's PG. It's really not debateable.

They forced a shot that was as low percentage as they could have hoped for. That shot from a 28 percent 3 point shooter is honestly going in less than 10 percent of the time. The defense was fine, the FT shooting was not.. period.

Of course, if those are the only options. I choose to not give up a three, period.

*edit* I understand now. You're saying over anything with Wiscy's PG. I'm making him try to get two all day long over anybody shooting a three there. Worst case we go to OT at home? That's my goal in that spot vs. anybody, ever.

I just listened to the postgame and at the end of talking about the last shot, Beilen says, "We didn't want to give strong side help. We did."

Well, that's ******ed. That shot goes in 10% of the time max. Wiscy is the most efficient offense in the nation. We'd have to hold them to a shot that goes in 20% of the time from in the arc to break even compared to the 3 pt shot.

You're not understanding what heater is saying.

I am, he's saying he doesn't want to give up a 3 because that's the only way we lose. That's the same type of suboptimal theory that leads to coaches not going for it on 4th down enough or going for 2 when they scored a TD down 14. Playing so that we can't lose is suboptimal.

You're throwing out 10% max as some sort of clear cut that's just the way it is kind of number. That number is a guess and could be way off even exactly as we saw it go down tonight. And if we're not going to be results-oriented then we should be looking at the myriad of ways that entire play could go down when we defend it the way we did vs. the way that Jack White and I (and Beilein, apparently) are advocating. Somebody else could have taken the three, we could have stopped them from getting a shot off at all, there could have been a foul, etc. What we just saw has nothing to with my opinion here, anyway. I am just never bringing help like that in that spot against anybody, ever. Worst case scenario to me there is always going to be allowing a three point shot attempt. That has nothing to do with this game. I felt that way yesterday and last week and last year.

And Wiscy's offense being the most efficient in the nation would be an awful lot more relevant here if they began all of their possessions at midcourt with a 5.4 second play clock.

If you have some data somewhere that backs what you're saying, I'm all ears. It just goes against everything I've ever been taught when I played bball. Maybe you're right and it's suboptimal. You're not going to find many coaches, though, who say much other than, "DO NOT GIVE UP A THREE" in that huddle.

I thought for the most part that UM played awesome defense all game long. Everyone seemed to know where to be, undersized, no cheap fouls, etc. B-line's done a hell of a job this year.

heater winning this argument imo. i understand what ikes is saying....but a wide open look from a shooter who is prolly running bad to only be shooting 28% on the year is going in more than 10% of the time i dont think that is debatable in the least.

How do you and MJW come up witih a 10% figure for that shot. A 28% shooter with an open shot from the top of the key is only 10%? The guy was able to catch the ball and square his body with the basket..and Stu wasn't there in time to really bother the shot much.

Time expiring, rushed, 28% shooter freshman.

Yeah, 10% sounds right. Kid hit the ****ing backboard ffs.

Really?

MJW. Watch the replay. And tell me if he caught the ball and squared up his feet with the basket like a normal jump shot. Sure looked like that to me. But you know I am ******ed.

I've seen the replay, he didn't even finish his release because he was just rushing to get a shot off. His legs are flaring everywhere. The kid himself said he was just heaving the shot up ffs

jack just got pwned

Result oriented thinking is what makes me money though, so yay!

Harvard Sports Analyst Collective blog guy/people might come up with some data for us if we figure out exactly what we want to know here. They have a lot of late game scenarios covered but I don't see this one.

I also wouldn't have used our fouls the way we did there. Force them to try to score two without fouling and IF they do score there's a good possibility we have time on the clock for a final possession. I may be wrong about that, too. I was smh when the announcers were talking about how smart it was to do that, though.

Maybe we should ask Dr. Bobbert Fitos?

Not as sure as I am about the other comment, but I'm fairly certain this is wrong as well.

Vote for Stabenow lately?

That's sort of a defeatist philosophy, thinking in terms of getting the ball back. Making it seem like we're giving them the 2 and hoping we'll score with no time left.

I generally like using all the fouls there, with one potential reservation. I know Morris picked up his 3rd, but I am not sure if Morgan got his 4th during the intentional fouling at the end. With a 2 point game and the decent chance of overtime, it certainly is a concern to get key players in foul trouble in the process.