I look at the stat sheets of teams I do not get to see play, and I wonder about them.

Take Missouri State. Kyle Weems obviously is a good player, but he has taken 25 more shots than anyone else on the team despite shooting only 34.8% overall, and has taken 17 more 3-pointers than anyone else despite shooting only 26.1%.

In our case it wouldn't make much difference since we don't have anyone who can shoot, but they do have several good options.

One factor is that Weems does get to the line more than anyone else and does make his FTs.

There is a hidden factor there that we might be overlooking. You can check this out, but I'll bet they get a lot of offensive rebounds, so when he misses, they either get a put back or another possession which results in a score. I know every coach has a different philosophy. I don't know what Scott Sutton's is, but I recall Nolan Richardson used to say that if you take a lot more shots than the other team, you'll win the game in most cases, and he was pretty successful in his time. Steve's philosophy is that we want to make more free throws than the other team shoots. Thats a great goal, but we've always had big men who couldn't shoot free throws, so that was a goal that was hard to achieve for us. I know we've done it a few times, but that's pretty iffy. The advantage of Nolans philosophy is that you can control how many shots you take. In Steve's, you must depend on the officials judgment as to whether they call a foul in your favor, and that's really iffy, especially on the road, but even at home. I've never thought we had much advantage on the calls playing at the Jack. Ultimately it's not the percentage you shoot, but how many shots you make that determines the outcome of a game. I know some of you enjoy the running the clock down to 10 seconds every possession before ever starting to try and score. That's not my cup of tea. I'm there to see guys shoot the ball. I enjoy a good defensive play, but unless it results in a score, it's useless.