WSU vs. ISU Trees Game Thread

[ShockerFever]

I didn't see anyone complain when ben inbounded the ball to toure, then toure passed to the post to stutz, then stutz quickly passed it back to ben for corner three.

The key is the ball touched someone on the inside and that it went inside. The other key is that Ben Smith is a very efficient 3-point shooter when set. (i.e. 2 of 3 last night).

The run up, jack up, settling for 3, threes are the ones people can't stand. I can't believe you're justifying this.

[ShockerFever]

Going 3-for-23 from three point land, I would define as playing poorly and somebody not getting it.

[forevershockerfan]

The Shocks were at their best last night when they worked the ball inside by not telegraphing their passes. Once that is established, getting the high % shot, and drawing fouls, then I am okay with wide open unforced 3 attempts. While we are normally going to be better than 3-23, why not work from the inside and then out? Our size advantage is our friend in this Valley race. If we shoot 3-23 on the road from the 3-point line, we will become milk toast.

[im4wsu]

I concur that Moore did not have a good game.
However, the over & back call at the start of OT was spot on.

Murry clearly possessed the ball in the front court and momentum carried him into the back court.

Simple call.

As far as it being "his call" you should know we are paid to get the call right.
Whether or not it was in his primary can be discussed after the game.

That is all. 8)

The over-and-back call to begin OT. I'm not being a smart-@@@, but the way I saw the play from row 13 in Sect 104 was the ball was tipped to and stayed on the north side of the timeline. Murry jumped from the south side and corralled the ball on the north side. Murry had not established himself in the north court, so treating it similer to out of bounds, he wouold be considered as touching the ball in the back court (out of bounds). However, sincve the ball iteself was never in the south court, how could it possibly be over and back since it never went over?

The two things I thought I saw very clearly, the ball never reached the south court and Murry last step was in the south court before touching the ball in the north court. From there, the interpretation baffles me as I have two antagonistic analogies.

[60Shock]

I don't disagree with the continued use of 3's. or that gregg called a few plays for threes.

I didn't see anyone complain when ben inbounded the ball to toure, then toure passed to the post to stutz, then stutz quickly passed it back to ben for corner three.

everyone enjoyed that.
Everyone would have enjoyed just about any of the threes we took had they gone it. except maybe any three by toure who is practically hitting 25% from beyond the arc.

I didn't think we played bad. in fact i thought we played well.
in regulation after a few early misses at the FT line, we made like 12 straight.
after making them look silly in the first OT, we gave it all away becasue we started shooting like a$$ from the line. THAT was awful i must admit.


We obviously did shoot terrible from 3. but i couldn't complain on shot selection, except the 0-3 from stutz that seemedill-advised and the 0-3 from toure who shouldn't dream of shooting from there.
All other players get an A for effort in this department.

But missing free throws and 3's and an unusual rate, doesn't constitute "playing awful", to me at least.

Ben's shots were huge. That second OT... down four i think, then he made us down 1. that was HUGE. then the perfect pass to stutz the next play.

Odom and Kelly were slick.
I thought ISU was a quality team. I liked their offense. Stutz and durley never seemed to understand any concept of help D.

I thought we played pretty solid D overall, maybe this is why so many weren't impressed with them. I don't know.

exciting game overall!
had we lost... ohhh my the depression i'd be in right now.

After each game when I read these threads, i read about how poorly we played. This and That. I don't know what a good effort looks like.
we had 14 turnovers in 55 minutes. You're right that's awful!...
We played a team that (just like most well-coached team in the valley) knew our plays well.
there are 3 plays that work almost always for us, and ISU destroyed any chance of us putting up a decent shot. i think two of those possessions ended in "we can't get much ball movement so i'm gonna shoot a relatively open three" shots.

Every team misses shots. every team makes turnovers. i don't think we play any more poorly than the next team.

:shock: Thanks for the revelation. And here I have always been under the misrepresentation that the the object of the game was to play more better than the next team? And next, I suppose you are going to announce there is no Santa Claus.

Sorry, BWing, I just couldn't resist this one.

[SHOXAAC]

I just hope we're some more better than the Egyptian Mutts on Wednesday. :D

[jcdshocker]

I didn't see anyone complain when ben inbounded the ball to toure, then toure passed to the post to stutz, then stutz quickly passed it back to ben for corner three.

The key is the ball touched someone on the inside and that it went inside. The other key is that Ben Smith is a very efficient 3-point shooter when set. (i.e. 2 of 3 last night).

The run up, jack up, settling for 3, threes are the ones people can't stand. I can't believe you're justifying this.

SF, Now you answered your own question why DK was picking splinters out of his butt during crunch time including all three OTs.

[shocker3]

I am very happy with the win. It was a must win game and we came through it.

Now it is on to Carbondale for another must win game.

[ShockerFever]

I didn't see anyone complain when ben inbounded the ball to toure, then toure passed to the post to stutz, then stutz quickly passed it back to ben for corner three.

The key is the ball touched someone on the inside and that it went inside. The other key is that Ben Smith is a very efficient 3-point shooter when set. (i.e. 2 of 3 last night).

The run up, jack up, settling for 3, threes are the ones people can't stand. I can't believe you're justifying this.

SF, Now you answered your own question why DK was picking splinters out of his butt during crunch time including all three OTs.

Good point, but Marshall should have never given him the green light. Unless he wasn't given the green light, then it would make sense. I think the turnover late in regulation was a key reason to his benching. I must say though, I doubt Marshall gave anyone the stop signs on three, because they all took them. I'm still perplexed by it all.

[Ricardo del Rio]

I believe this quote is appropriate for most of this discussion.

"When you pass the ball inside, good things happen."

Coach Chad Dollar
January 22, 2011

[ShockerFever]

I believe this quote is appropriate for most of this discussion.

"When you pass the ball inside, good things happen."

Coach Chad Dollar
January 22, 2011

I wish that strategy was stated in the huddles last night.. :roll:

[The Mad Hatter]

So let me get this straight, the major complaints are that:

A. We took 3-pointers rather than passing the ball inside.

and

B. We committed turnovers trying to pass the ball inside.

Has anyone considered the possibility that those interior passes were what Indiana State was trying to take away and the three was what they were conceding? If you hit the shots Indiana State was conceding (open threes and free throws) you win this game going away.

Just for some context:

On the season, 3-pointers account for 37% of all our shots taken and we shoot 37% from 3 as a team.

Last night, 3-pointers accounted for 31% of all our shots taken and we shot 13% from 3 as a team.

Therefore, despite what the accounts on this board would claim, we did cut back on the percentage of our shots were from 3. The problem was not with the percentage of shots attempted from 3, but the percentage made (which is not a coaching problem or shot selection problem). Whether a shot was a good or bad decision is not based on whether the shot went it, but whether it was a good look within the offense.

If the team had taken the approach advocated on this board of giving up on taking open threes because of a poor shooting night, Ben Smith would not have taken those open looks in overtime and we probably would have lost. Once a team and coaching staff are afraid of calling and taking good open looks, you might as well give up playing. You can't be a Division I scorer without the belief that the next one you take is going in.

Let me put it this way, were the people complaining about our 3-point shooting happy with the way the offense ran with Liberty or Preadom in the game in the past? Did they like how things looked when the opponent knew that there was a guard on the floor they could leave alone on the 3-point line because they wouldn't spot up from there? It seemed like Shockernetter's were well aware of the problems created for an offense when a team doesn't have a perimeter threat on the floor back then, yet now they want the team to shot shooting the 3 and send the message to Indiana State that they can just pack it in because we are afraid to shoot it.

If you can't hit a 3-pointer it makes it a lot easier for teams to defend your interior and you can't make a 3-pointer if you don't keep shooting them.

[Aargh]

I didn't see it, but there were reports that one time when DK came out, Coach was "talking" to him and DK shrugged his shoulders, put out his hands with his palms up, turned away from Marshall while Marshall was still "talking" and sat down.

After that DK did a very good job of not allowing a chair on the floor to levitate its way to the ceiling.

[ShockTalk]

RDR is gonna like your post, Hatter. As do I!

[WstateU]

So let me get this straight, the major complaints are that:

A. We took 3-pointers rather than passing the ball inside.

and

B. We committed turnovers trying to pass the ball inside.

Has anyone considered the possibility that those interior passes were what Indiana State was trying to take away and the three was what they were conceding? If you hit the shots Indiana State was conceding (open threes and free throws) you win this game going away.

Just for some context:

On the season, 3-pointers account for 37% of all our shots taken and we shoot 37% from 3 as a team.

Last night, 3-pointers accounted for 31% of all our shots taken and we shot 13% from 3 as a team.

Therefore, despite what the accounts on this board would claim, we did cut back on the percentage of our shots were from 3. The problem was not with the percentage of shots attempted from 3, but the percentage made (which is not a coaching problem or shot selection problem). Whether a shot was a good or bad decision is not based on whether the shot went it, but whether it was a good look within the offense.

If the team had taken the approach advocated on this board of giving up on taking open threes because of a poor shooting night, Ben Smith would not have taken those open looks in overtime and we probably would have lost. Once a team and coaching staff are afraid of calling and taking good open looks, you might as well give up playing. You can't be a Division I scorer without the belief that the next one you take is going in.

Let me put it this way, were the people complaining about our 3-point shooting happy with the way the offense ran with Liberty or Preadom in the game in the past? Did they like how things looked when the opponent knew that there was a guard on the floor they could leave alone on the 3-point line because they wouldn't spot up from there? It seemed like Shockernetter's were well aware of the problems created for an offense when a team doesn't have a perimeter threat on the floor back then, yet now they want the team to shot shooting the 3 and send the message to Indiana State that they can just pack it in because we are afraid to shoot it.

If you can't hit a 3-pointer it makes it a lot easier for teams to defend your interior and you can't make a 3-pointer if you don't keep shooting them.

:good: :good: