Question on BB concept

BigRedBuster

BigRedBuster

International Man of Mystery
I am not a fan who believes the 3 point line is bad for college basketball like many. I think it actually adds a lot to the game.

However, there is something that happens in every single game that absolutely drives me crazy and I hope someone can explain the reason for it. This happens enough that this must be the way kids are coached now days.

Here is the situation.....player A has the ball at the top of the key. He drives, has his guy beat with a decent lane to the basket but instead of attacking the rim and finishing, he dishes it out to player B in the corner for an attempt at at a 3.

Now, player A is stopped in the lane, I have no problem with dishing it out because that is the safety valve if he gets in trouble in the lane. HOWEVER, so often the attempt at a layup appears to be the easier basket.

With the layup, two things likely will happen.

a) Make the layup.

b) Get fouled.

BOTH are very good things.

I never see a player get scolded or yelled at for doing this so the coaches must be perfectly happy with them doing this.

Why is the 3 point attempt in the corner a better shot than an attempt at the layup when you already have the first guy beat and a decent lane to the basket?

 
It's pretty simple. It's usually the difference between a wide open shot for an extra point or a contested shot (with 2nd defenders coming in for help defense) for one less point and a possibility but not guarantee of a foul.

It's all about how you weigh risk/reward.

 
I guess maybe this is why I don't coach college basketball. But, I would rather take the chance at getting the big guy in the middle in foul trouble especially early in the game.

I was always taught that one way to attack a team with a dominant guy in the middle is to drive right at him with a player that has the jumping ability to get high. If that guy does it correctly, a foul is a higher probability than a clean blocked shot.

 
There's nothing wrong with that approach as long as you've got the players and it works for you
default_smile.png


Plenty of coaches are of the same mind, even if it's not necessarily a 'trend' of the last few years. Same thing as like running a 2-3 zone. Plenty of coaches, the overwhelming majority even, think of zone defense as a lesser stepchild version of defense and find the idea of it laughable. But it works if you commit to it and do it right, as teams like Syracuse and Baylor have proven.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This isn't exclusive to college basketball. This is a play that happens on every level of the game, from YMCA, all the way to the NBA. Often times, it's a set play. Like Landlord said, it's a risk/reward type of deal. One one hand, you can go up for a contested layup and try and draw a foul, or you can kick it out and go for a wide open three. What you do just depends on a few things:

1. The person handling the ball. If you've got a guy who is a great finisher like Derrick Rose or Tony Parker, he's probably just gonna go for a layup. If you've got a guy who is smaller and/or a better passer like Rajon Rondo or Chris Paul, he's probably going to dish it to the corner for the open jumper.

2. The quality of shooters on the floor. If you're driving for a layup and the guy standing at the three point line is a bad shooter, you probably aren't going to pass him the ball. On the other hand, if he is a good shooter, you'll be more inclined to dish him the ball.

3. Who is defending the rim. If you've got a great rim protector like Roy Hibbert or Dwight Howard guarding the rim, you probably won't want to try and go for a layup. One, because there's a good chance they'll block your shot. Two, because they have the star power to get the benefit of the doubt on a close call. If you've got a guy defending the rim who isn't known as a good defender, say Carlos Boozer or Kevin Love, you'll probably go for the layup.

4. I already touched on this in the last point, but another contributing factor is star power. Refs tend to give star players the benefit of the doubt on close calls, so depending on if the driver or defender is considered a star, that can affect your decision as well.

5. What's the game situation? Refs tend to call fouls early in games, but not late in games. This is because they don't want to affect the outcome of a tight game. So, early in a game, it might be a better choice to go for the layup, because you'll have a better chance of drawing the foul. Later in the game, though, you'll probably want to pass the ball out, because your chances of drawing a foul decrease pretty dramatically.

Hope that helps!

 
Coaches like the 3 because if you can shoot 33% from 3 in a game, it's the same as shooting 50% from 2 point range. So they like the odds.

 
The 3 point shot can be effective as long as you are on and can be your worst enemy if you are off.

See ~ (Creighton) throughout season for both examples!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting concepts Burke and St. Paul.

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about a play where someone drives and the center is in good position for defense. I'm talking about a play where the player drives, has his guy beat and it appears the center is actually out of position to make a good defensive play and it's still kicked out.

I personally think this is where Petteway and Shields excelled. They are able to drive and attack the rim in a way that THAT is their goal instead of just constantly kicking it back out.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Interesting concepts Burke and St. Paul.

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about a play where someone drives and the center is in good position for defense. I'm talking about a play where the player drives, has his guy beat and it appears the center is actually out of position to make a good defensive play and it's still kicked out.

I personally think this is where Petteway and Shields excelled. They are able to drive and attack the rim in a way that THAT is their goal instead of just constantly kicking it back out.
Click to expand...
In that case, the driver is either trying to pad his assist numbers (a la Rajon Rondo) or has no confidence in his ability lay the ball up.

 
This is actually more of a defensive decision than an offensive one. Offensively you want your players to take advantage of the one on one drive. The kick out for the baseline 3 is a direct result of the decision made by the defensive player in charge of guarding that area(zone def.)or man(man def.). As an offensive player you want to put the pressure on the defense to make quick correct decisions. If the offensive guy set up for the 3pt shot is a solid shooter then this puts stress on the defensive player to make the correct decision. As a coach you want your defensive player to take away the higher percentage shot which is the player driving to the basket. Thus the kick out for the 3. The defense is forced to rotate which then allows for good crisp quick passes back around the circle with the defense playing catch up. The offensive idea is to get far enough ahead of the rotation that there is a clear offensive advantage to take an outside shot or drive.

 
I understand the concept of ball movement quick enough to get defenses off balance to attack.

Maybe my problem is that when I was around the guy who taught me the most about basketball, it was before the 3 point line. Possibly that addition has changed the game enough to change what happens in this situation.

 
There are a lot of great points here however some of the primary ones are still missed. Essentially it is a fundamental shift in the way offenses are played. Gone are the 2 in/3 out ways of old, with big guys lingering on the post, pass then screen away, screen down, motion type offenses. Some of that is due to a shift in offensive style by choice. At all levels you need to spread the floor more to create more space. Players are too big, long, strong and cover way more ground now so you need room. Having two big guys in a traditional post spot clogs the lane too much and if you have a guy that specializes in driving to the dish he is going to need that extra space.

The other is by necessity because players aren't really fitting into those traditional roles anymore. The best example right now that I can think of on the Pro level is Kevin Love. By all accounts his size coming in to the league put him in between positions but definitely on a post spot. He already needed to lose weight and get stronger though and combining that with his ability to shoot the long ball and the need to spread the court required Love play the perimeter more/be more mobile and thus you get more of a hybrid player.

They work back and forth you recruit to your offensive style or you develop the offense on the players you have or both.

So then what you get out of this whole thing is a lot of guys on the floor who now don't really specialize in one aspect of the game but are well rounded and can hurt you from anywhere on the court. You then execute by creating literally as much space as possible, running the high ball screen (a la Stockton and Malone but waaaaaay farther out) and letting the guard drive. This forces the perimeter players to have to make a tougher choice: 1) help down and prevent the layup 2) stay home and cover your threat out on the perimeter. Each leaves the other hanging terribly. And like StPaulHusker said regarding the percentages, because of the greater skill of the sniper shooters these days, the coaches love that 3 ball even more with this setup.

Plus...Defending it is a nightmare. You have to have really skilled players 1 through 5 who can play tight D all over the court but also cover ground to help if they read early enough the offensive player committing one way or another. They have to be able to fight through screens and recover from farther out and guard well on mismatches (another byproduct of this screen and roll setup). It does it way more effectively than anything before it really.

Some teams it is the only set play they really ever run because its just a constant flow of drive and dish, shoot/reset, repeat. Sure they might have a whole playbook but really the other plays are just a couple "different" movements to get the key guy the ball to setup this main play in maybe a slightly different configuration.

Then to come full circle the decision comes from the player driving the ball. He has to know where all of his guys and the defenders are in space. If he feels comfortable shooting the ball, he takes it. If not, kick it out because likely there is someone else open on the wing because their defender drops down to help or to rebound. Doesn't really matter if you are open or not. You could be off balance, covered by the D, play to the play's strengths/mismatches, play the percentages, be a guy who likes to drop dimes instead of points...just do whatever the situation calls for. It's a split second decision at that point, if he has an open lane to take the shot but then passes it up there is likely something causing him from taking that shot...like a spidey sense that one of the bigs is coming in from behind the play to swat the shot into the stratosphere...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another thing about the 3 is you get more offensive rebounds off of missed shots. The ball tends to careen off in a less predictable manner than shorter shots and bounce farther.

 
NUance said:
Another thing about the 3 is you get more offensive rebounds off of missed shots. The ball tends to careen off in a less predictable manner than shorter shots and bounce farther.
Click to expand...
This is true too but the missing operative word is "opportunity". Greater opportunity for offensive rebounds. Cant tell you how many times I saw teams seemingly bail on any offensive rebound opportunity. Nebraska and Creighton this tournament are guilty.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
icedavis said:
NUance said:
Another thing about the 3 is you get more offensive rebounds off of missed shots. The ball tends to careen off in a less predictable manner than shorter shots and bounce farther.
Click to expand...
This is true too but the missing operative word is "opportunity". Cant tell you how many times I saw teams bail on any offensive rebound opportunity. Pretty much anyone who has played Baylor so far is guilty.
Click to expand...

Which is so strange considering how zone defense opens up an offensive team to have windows for offensive boards.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top