[M T]

Well, with all due respect I think your math is stretching your argument a bit.

First of all, making 2 of 5 3-pt shots down the stretch is 40% which is pretty good for beyond the arc.  It's actually a shade better than we are doing now.  I would say we met expectations there.  So, nah, you can't really say in all seriousness that we left 9 points on the table there.

But missing all 4 FTs down the stretch is not even close to being good.  Statistically, not what we would expect.  So, yes, some points left on the table. 

With respect, I suggest you be careful about saying to someone what they can and can't really be saying "in all seriousness".  Perhaps you might word it next time by saying something about what you believe.
Yes, I was serious, so you can figure out how I felt by your saying I couldn't be.

Should a team work on what is a minor part of the game, or what is the major part of their game?  If one 5 minute practice solved all Stanford's FT shooting issues so they scored 9 FT more per game, then I'm sure Tara would have already done it.   But, is it worth, say, an hour a week for each player?   Isn't it better to work on the parts of the game that provide more benefit?  A team doesn't want to meet expectations, they want to win.  Sure, we want our team to have great numbers everywhere, but there's only so much time to work on each aspect.  They have to budget time to work on what is of most benefit.   As fans, we may want our team to hit those half-court buzzer beaters.  Such a shot might win a game some day, but I wouldn't want the team to work on it.  I'd leave those potential 12 points on the court and work on the main part of the game.

Stanford's defensive effort was great.  I'm glad for every minute they worked on that. 
Their 3 point scoring was what carried their offense.  I'm glad for every minute they worked on that.
Their FT shooting was poor.  I'm glad for every minute they worked on their 3 point scoring.


I've never seen a game that couldn't have been better for each team if its 2pt FG & 3pt FG scoring were better.  I've certainly seen games where the losing team could have shot 100% from the FT line and still have lost.  I saw one on Saturday.   Baylor clearly won the FT shooting part of the game.  Stanford did what was needed to win the game.

As for the math, perhaps you didn't notice that Stanford shot 43% both from the 3 point arc and from the FT line.  Had they shot worse from the FT line than from the arc (say 40% FT% vs 60% 3pt%), then a  hack-the-3pt-shooter strategy might be justified.  If that had been the case, then the low FT% impacts the 3-point production.  But the low FT% didn't impact the major portion of Stanford's offense.  (I also noted that the average points scored per 3pt attempt happened to be equal to the average points scored per possession.  This isn't particularly significant, but it shows a balance between 3-pt production and overall production.  I would have expected Stanford to be more efficient in 3pt scoring than total scoring against a team with such interior strength.)

[M T]

Well, with all due respect I think your math is stretching your argument a bit.

First of all, making 2 of 5 3-pt shots down the stretch is 40% which is pretty good for beyond the arc.  It's actually a shade better than we are doing now.  I would say we met expectations there.  So, nah, you can't really say in all seriousness that we left 9 points on the table there.

But missing all 4 FTs down the stretch is not even close to being good.  Statistically, not what we would expect.  So, yes, some points left on the table. 

With respect, I suggest you be careful about saying to someone what they can and can't really be saying "in all seriousness".  Perhaps you might word it next time by saying something about what you believe.
Yes, I was serious, so you can figure out how I felt by your saying I couldn't be.

Should a team work on what is a minor part of the game, or what is the major part of their game?  If one 5 minute practice solved all Stanford's FT shooting issues so they scored 9 FT more per game, then I'm sure Tara would have already done it.   But, is it worth, say, an hour a week for each player?   Isn't it better to work on the parts of the game that provide more benefit?  A team doesn't want to meet expectations, they want to win.  Sure, we want our team to have great numbers everywhere, but there's only so much time to work on each aspect.  They have to budget time to work on what is of most benefit.   As fans, we may want our team to hit those half-court buzzer beaters.  Such a shot might win a game some day, but I wouldn't want the team to work on it.  I'd leave those potential 12 points on the court and work on the main part of the game.

Stanford's defensive effort was great.  I'm glad for every minute they worked on that. 
Their 3 point scoring was what carried their offense.  I'm glad for every minute they worked on that.
Their FT shooting was poor.  I'm glad for every minute they worked on their 3 point scoring.


I've never seen a game that couldn't have been better for each team if its 2pt FG & 3pt FG scoring were better.  I've certainly seen games where the losing team could have shot 100% from the FT line and still have lost.  I saw one on Saturday.   Baylor clearly won the FT shooting part of the game.  Stanford did what was needed to win the game.

As for the math, perhaps you didn't notice that Stanford shot 43% both from the 3 point arc and from the FT line.  Had they shot worse from the FT line than from the arc (say 40% FT% vs 60% 3pt%), then a  hack-the-3pt-shooter strategy might be justified.  If that had been the case, then the low FT% impacts the 3-point production.  But the low FT% didn't impact the major portion of Stanford's offense.  (I also noted that the average points scored per 3pt attempt happened to be equal to the average points scored per possession.  This isn't particularly significant, but it shows a balance between 3-pt production and overall production.  I would have expected Stanford to be more efficient in 3pt scoring than total scoring against a team with such interior strength.)