01-10-2023, 07:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2023, 07:24 PM by TonyLima.
Edit Reason: Forgot Iriafen. Thanks to whoever mentioned her earlier in this thread.
)
(01-10-2023, 10:53 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Keep in mind that to be worth it, midrange jumpers have to be 1.5 times more efficient than three pointers. We shot 4/20 from three (20%), so we would have had to hit 30% from mid-range for it to be worth it. Our overall two point shooting was 16/42 (38%), but that includes layups. If you strip out the points in the paint, I really wonder if we were accurate enough from mid-range as to be worth it, and that is on a day when our two point shooting was pretty bad. For the year, we are shooting almost 35% from three, so the equivalent two-point efficiency would have to be 52% shooting.
Of course, there are second order effects, in that hitting a larger variety of shots forces defenders to defend more of the court, but if I am an opposing coach trying to figure out how to defend Stanford, I would focus my attention on packing the paint and stopping Hannah Jump's three point shooting and de-emphasize defending the mid-range jumpers and three point shots to players other than Jump.
BC
You and your pesky math. Many thanks. It seems to me that, at minimum, having a few players who develop the mid-range jumper is probably a move in the direction of greater offensive diversification. Lepolo, Prechtel, Demetre are names that come to mind. iriafen showed real potential, but may be more valuable playing under the hoop.
