To the International Line.
Let's discuss this. Moving the 3 point line back should benefit a team such as KU which doesn't have a team full of shooters at the moment. What impact is everyone expecting this to have for the game and for KU's short and long term?
I’m kind of worried about defense. Kansas has really struggled to defend the three. Spreading the floor even more won’t help that, but maybe shooting percentages will drop a bit just due to distance.
The DeVonte, Svi, Newman combo would’ve been even harder to stop with the floor spaced that much more. This years team doesn’t seem to have the long range gunners, it maybe it hurts spacing...or maybe it helps get Garrett’s man a little further out of the paint when he sags down?
I listened to the radio yesterday and UMKC's coach was on. He was talking about how defending the three requires a much different dynamic, that generally accepted principles of defense don't necessarily work, and that to properly defend the three, it takes more creativity. He mentioned how the shell drill is not an effective method of working on defending the three point line (I'm assuming he was referring to the 5 on 4 shell drill). It was a interesting discussion.
I'll say this, I think that our defense has always been very "help" oriented. That's a killer if the focus is on defending the three point line. With size inside, we shouldn't have to rely as much on the "help" concepts because we have more rim protection. But Self always does. Three point teams of course try to stretch the post defenders out of position as well. Self has always felt that the drive is more dangerous than the three point shot (at least it appears that way from 1) our defense and 2) his discussions over the years). Lots of challenges.
Frankly, I've been shocked over the last few years at how poorly we defend the three. This is on coach Self to get this figured out, because it has been our Achilles' heel.
@HighEliteMajor 2 things come to mind : 1)Tech never doubles...unless it's at the rim or the baseline, and they are one of the best against the 3. 2) This could be one of the best defensive teams we've had in quite a while. I think we have the personnel to play straight up, and with our massive front line, any opponent that happens to get loose on a drive is going to be met with cruel and unusual punishment. The fact they are setting the 3 point line back works in our favor as well.
@KUSTEVE I would say, though, that good defenders can be really compromised by scheme. If our perimeter defenders are focused on helping on the drive, which we are prone to do, we could be in the same spot. Though, I'd rather have good defenders regardless. It is a massive chess game.
And I do think, as you mentioned, the three point line going back will help us defensively.
Net? I'm confident in Dotson and Agbaji being fine from the distance. Others? But I think that the line going back, by consequence, makes post play incrementally more valuable. Thus that can be a plus.
to get to @BeddieKU23's question, I think the line going back, though, makes the better shooters that much more valuable. I also think the farther it goes back, it makes the guys that are really "toe on the line" three point shooters less valuable. Thus there are some pretenders from three point range that have diminished value. It will make things even more challenging for a guy like Garrett.
I liken it to when high schools/colleges changed bat standards. There was less exit velocity. It made guys with bat created power less valuable, but the true power guys .. the guys that could still hit it deep with the changed standards had increased value. That's because the rest of the pack has less value.
So all in all, I think it will be a benefit for us. We have difficulty guarding the line anyway, so that % will be down without any change in our defense (vs. the entirety of our opponents). Our three % will dip a bit too theoretically (but still has a chance to increase). But I think we win on the deal ion the end because the value of post play will increase some -- the basket at the rim increases in value.
Now, I didn't talk about 2 pt jumper field goal percentage. I really have no idea there. I know we had some bad 2 pt % guys on jumpers -- Dotson was horrible and Garrett really bad too (but better than Dotson). We won't have Charlie Moore so all FG % increase.
But interestingly, Agbaji was very good on two point jumpers -- over 40%. Somewhat Vick like.
Great off-season post btw.
@HighEliteMajor Marcus was 48% from 2, so that's not too shabby. Where the disconnect comes from is 24 % shooting from 3. The good news is he only attempted 49 3-pointers last year, and with the line moving back, that could drop. Drive, Marcus...drive...
I agree moving the line back puts a premium on guys with unlimited range. I think this may help the most for KU with opponents who have stretch bigs. Most bigs that stretch it normally are not the natural shooters of the world, its usually something developed. It could negate some schematic advantage teams would try and use against KU- the Villanova's of the world etc.
@HighEliteMajor zone better or worse?
KUSTEVE said:
@HighEliteMajor Marcus was 48% from 2, so that's not too shabby. Where the disconnect comes from is 24 % shooting from 3. The good news is he only attempted 49 3-pointers last year, and with the line moving back, that could drop. Drive, Marcus...drive...
Two point shots, yes. But his field goal percentage on jumpers, meaning shots not at the rim inside the three point arc -- which are different -- was just 29.8%. By comparison, Agbaji was 40.7%.
So when he took a non-three pointer that was not a shot at the rim, he made less than one-third of those shots. That's not a particularly positive.
As comparison, Dotson was 20.5% and Moore 25%. Both really bad. With Dotson, of course, we can forgive it. He shot 36.3% from three and did well at the rim (see below). Plus only 14% of Dotson's total shots were in this category.
Marcus' field goal percentage at the rim was 57.3%. Compare to Agbaji 66.7%, Dotson 61.8%, and Grimes 54.4%. Would love to see that creep into the mid-60s. (for a laugh, Moore was 35.5%). I think he can do that.
Why is 60% important? 60% equalizes a 40% rate from three. I've always looked at it that way. Getting to the rim has value. But if you don't equal or outstrip the good three point shooters, you're behind the curve.
The avg. three point shooter shot 35% in CBB. That's 52.34% from two, just to stay even with the avg. shooter.
That's why Doke's 80% at the rim is so valuable. To reach that value per shot, a three point shooter would obviously have to be over 50%.
For Marcus to counter his deficiencies from the three, I think work inside the arc will go a long way to increasing his value. I personally doubt he can achieve anything satisfactory from three, but we'll see.
Aaron Miles went from 24.5% on threes his sophomore year to 50% his senior season. So I will never say never.
@Crimsonorblue22 I've really felt that guarding the arc with a zone is workable. A focus on the arc. Think of a 3-2, with a long guy up top, in the middle, how Self used Brandon Rush in 2008 in that zone. Extend that more to the arc.Then SDS and Doke in back to protect on the drive. I only like this though against certain teams, and situationally. One of the back guys (SDS, Mitch) would need to be able to work to the arc a bit too, looking for skip passes. Doke's side would be vulnerable to that. But if we're in a spot where man ain't workin', it's a reasonable alternative. You generally concede the two point jumper -- meaning you know it won't be as contested as you otherwise might. One downside is that your big guys can potentially get fouled up on drives if they aren't disciplined (like Withey was .. we didn't really play a lot zone with him, but he was very disciplined. Some funky D's I recall on the way to the FF though).
BeddieKU23 said:
I agree moving the line back puts a premium on guys with unlimited range. I think this may help the most for KU with opponents who have stretch bigs. Most bigs that stretch it normally are not the natural shooters of the world, its usually something developed. It could negate some schematic advantage teams would try and use against KU- the Villanova's of the world etc.
That's a great point .. one foot feels like a mile from distance. There are freaks, of course. But stretch bigs aren't usually those freaks.
@HighEliteMajor I was wondering if it would be harder now, moving the line out.
@Crimsonorblue22 Oh I think every little bit you move out makes it just a bit harder to guard (man or zone). This is over one foot. That's a lot. It exposes you just a bit more. Many passes clear a defender by inches. Help becomes a bit more difficult of course. And I think it would challenge the zone concept more than it would at present distance. But your risk of getting burned goes down a few percentages.
The change will obviously knock the avg. three point percentage down. I wonder how much it will decrease attempts?
@HighEliteMajor maybe the distance out will discourage us from trying to double team.