Pelphrey says he wants Rotnei Clarke to shoot 100 threes if they can get those shots for him. Our coaching staff wants us to pass up a good shot for a better one. Now on the surface, that makes sense, but how do you know if a better one is going to come open when you pass up the good shot. How many times through the years have we seen us not shoot when open, and then we can't get another good shot and have to force up a shot unsuccessfully, or worse don't get off a shot at all due to a turnover or shot clock violation. The latter philosophy will keep games close and allow you to win a number of times by slim margins, but it prevents you from ever blowing anyone away, and anytime the game is close you have just as great a chance of losing as winning. Luckily we've been winning those type of games this season.

(01-23-2009 05:17 PM)Dr. J. Wrote:  Pelphrey says he wants Rotnei Clarke to shoot 100 threes if they can get those shots for him. Our coaching staff wants us to pass up a good shot for a better one. Now on the surface, that makes sense, but how do you know if a better one is going to come open when you pass up the good shot. How many times through the years have we seen us not shoot when open, and then we can't get another good shot and have to force up a shot unsuccessfully, or worse don't get off a shot at all due to a turnover or shot clock violation. The latter philosophy will keep games close and allow you to win a number of times by slim margins, but it prevents you from ever blowing anyone away, and anytime the game is close you have just as great a chance of losing as winning. Luckily we've been winning those type of games this season.

Good post. I'd have to question this philosophy also. I wonder if your perceived "lack of shooters" is actually because they are afraid to shoot for fear of retribution from the coach?

(01-23-2009 07:04 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote:  

(01-23-2009 05:17 PM)Dr. J. Wrote:  Pelphrey says he wants Rotnei Clarke to shoot 100 threes if they can get those shots for him. Our coaching staff wants us to pass up a good shot for a better one. Now on the surface, that makes sense, but how do you know if a better one is going to come open when you pass up the good shot. How many times through the years have we seen us not shoot when open, and then we can't get another good shot and have to force up a shot unsuccessfully, or worse don't get off a shot at all due to a turnover or shot clock violation. The latter philosophy will keep games close and allow you to win a number of times by slim margins, but it prevents you from ever blowing anyone away, and anytime the game is close you have just as great a chance of losing as winning. Luckily we've been winning those type of games this season.

Good post. I'd have to question this philosophy also. I wonder if your perceived "lack of shooters" is actually because they are afraid to shoot for fear of retribution from the coach?

When Jodie Meeks scored 54 points for Kentucky recently in a game against Tennessee, he took 15 three point shots by himself and made 10 of them. That's terrific. But our entire team normally doesn't shoot 15 three point shots in most games. We have two shooters, Stevie Moore and Matt Mouzy, who shoot better than 40% from the three point line, but they normally never get to take more than four or five shots in a game. Personally I would like to see more "good" three point shots taken by those two players, but obviously our coaches like layups better. And since they make those decisions, who am I to criticize them when we're winning.