Games of interest

[wu_shizzle]

Creighton won by 28. Instead of going 21 for 35 from 3, they could have shot average and still won comfortably. The 3's made for a remarkable night, but they played well enough to win the game even if they hadn't shot so well.

What is average?

Shooting 33% from 3 doesn't let them win "comfortably".

[wsushox1]

IIRC Creighton has 4 players shooting 40% or better from three on the season.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

What is average?

Shooting 33% from 3 doesn't let them win "comfortably".

Don't forget that some misses turn into offensive rebounds and still result in 1-2 points, especially 3's which often rebound further from the basket. Changing 7-8 of those made 3's to misses doesn't really remove 21-24 points as it would be absurd to assume that Villanova would have rebounded every single one of them. No exact science here, but just saying that they could have made a much more standard % and won the game.

[RoyalShock]

Creighton won by 28. Instead of going 21 for 35 from 3, they could have shot average and still won comfortably. The 3's made for a remarkable night, but they played well enough to win the game even if they hadn't shot so well.

Perhaps, but when going into "what if" territory, I think you also have to wonder, if CU had played their average game out of the gate, keeping the margin closer, that Villanova might have played better than they did after getting punched in the face, and subsequently won the game. I don't think you can just regress the stats of one team and assume no change for the opponent.

[im4wsu]

What is average?

Shooting 33% from 3 doesn't let them win "comfortably".

Average for them is 42.4% going into last night's game. That would have meant 6 less 3-pt makes.

[Cdizzle]

Don't forget that some misses turn into offensive rebounds and still result in 1-2 points, especially 3's which often rebound further from the basket. Changing 7-8 of those made 3's to misses doesn't really remove 21-24 points as it would be absurd to assume that Villanova would have rebounded every single one of them. No exact science here, but just saying that they could have made a much more standard % and won the game.

Those same long rebounds often lead to transition opportunities for the opposing team. Lots of what-ifs.

I think what we can really take away from this game is that if somewhere near 40% of ShockerNation is "kindof" rooting for Creighton, this is what they can do.

[pie n eye]

Creighton won by 28. Instead of going 21 for 35 from 3, they could have shot average and still won comfortably. The 3's made for a remarkable night, but they played well enough to win the game even if they hadn't shot so well.

I think that is over simplifying things. The entire dynamic of a game changes when a team is hitting shots like that. Looking at an event whose outcome has already been determined from a statistics standpoint, yes, you can say they would've still won the game if you adjust their percentage to the average. But that's not how basketball games work. There's a big difference mentally when you're trying to come back from 30 pts vs 20pts or 20 pts vs 10 pts.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Those same long rebounds often lead to transition opportunities for the opposing team. Lots of what-ifs.

I think what we can really take away from this game is that if somewhere near 40% of ShockerNation is "kindof" rooting for Creighton, this is what they can do.

Fair enough.

[_kai_]

Creighton won by 28. Instead of going 21 for 35 from 3, they could have shot average and still won comfortably. The 3's made for a remarkable night, but they played well enough to win the game even if they hadn't shot so well.

That's ludicrous to say that. It would be a different basketball entirely. When a team starts the game out 9 for 9 from 3 point land, it's absolutely erroneous to say "well even if they didn't hit those 3's their margin of victory was so large, they could have been shooting 2's." No, they hit 9 three's in a row, and that set the tempo of the game, it added a rhythm to Creighton's game.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

That's ludicrous to say that. It would be a different basketball entirely. When a team starts the game out 9 for 9 from 3 point land, it's absolutely erroneous to say "well even if they didn't hit those 3's their margin of victory was so large, they could have been shooting 2's." No, they hit 9 three's in a row, and that set the tempo of the game, it added a rhythm to Creighton's game.

Kai, I'm not trying to get into the whole "butterfly effect" thingy on this one. Had McDermott eaten cheerios instead of wheaties that morning, he might have taken 4 seconds longer to eat his breakfast, which could have caused him to arrive at the arena 2 seconds later, which could have caused him to bounce the ball off his foot in the first possession, which could have...

Of course everything changes. I was just trying to point out that Creighton won by 28. Go back in time, cause a few of those makes to mysteriously spin out of the goal, and they still probably win the game. That was my only point.

[WuDrWu]

Creighton won by 28. Instead of going 21 for 35 from 3, they could have shot average and still won comfortably. The 3's made for a remarkable night, but they played well enough to win the game even if they hadn't shot so well.

Coming from you, I am surprised at this simplistic view you take here. There is so much more to a game than just subtracting %s and plugging in new numbers. If CU doesn't have the big early lead, the Nova comeback might have gotten them to even instead of down 10...lots of variables.


Edit: Should have read @_kai_: 's response first. My bad.

[Mr. Obvious]

Agree 100% Royal. Nova didn't know what hit them. Took them forever to get into a flow.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Coming from you, I am surprised at this simplistic view you take here. There is so much more to a game than just subtracting %s and plugging in new numbers. If CU doesn't have the big early lead, the Nova comeback might have gotten them to even instead of down 10...lots of variables.

As I already said, this isn't an exact science. How many additional caveats do I need to add?

[Cdizzle]

As I already said, this isn't an exact science. How many additional caveats do I need to add?

I would say one caveat per 3-pointer you think Creighton could have missed and still won. A 1:1 Caveat:ImaginaryResults ratio is always a good guide. :)

[pie n eye]

Don't forget that some misses turn into offensive rebounds and still result in 1-2 points, especially 3's which often rebound further from the basket. Changing 7-8 of those made 3's to misses doesn't really remove 21-24 points as it would be absurd to assume that Villanova would have rebounded every single one of them. No exact science here, but just saying that they could have made a much more standard % and won the game.

Or they could have lost the game. Nobody knows but it sounds like Ashton Kutcher has emerged from his cocoon.