Valeriespence
New member
B
Last edited:
Shooting Percentages
- Thread starter Valeriespence
- Start date
Hoopsfan87
New member
I think you are on to something here. It seems like it used to be more about making the team better, but now the focus seems to be on individual statistics. I think that change in focus has led to more selfish basketball. I've noticed that in both AAU and now in high school. It could be the "ESPN effect".
32minutesofpressure
Active member
It's either the ESPN effect, or it's the Michael Jordan effect finally reaching the girls game. If you shoot 40 times a game, you should have a pretty good average of points per game......and I agree, it is getting worse in girls basketball....
CalmerThanYouAre
New member
What about teams that are limited?
There are many teams across the state struggling shooting the ball. No argument there--but what if you have a team that is limited skill-wise? There are a few ways you can try to win: you can look to shorten the game by playing more deliberate on offense and limiting total possessions. However, I would think many people would agree that many struggling teams turn the ball over a lot, making this strategy more difficult. If you're pressed, you have to break the press, but if you want to play slow then can you afford to attack the press to score? Would you just turn it over anyway? If you're not pressed, you might struggle to get a good shot against a team that really gets up the line defensively. What is one thing that all teams can do though, based solely on effort, regardless of skill? Rebound.
Now this is completely anecdotal and I haven't even talked to any coaches about this, but could coaches be telling their kids that if we're able to break the press (where turnovers tend to pile up), get up the first open shot and crash the offensive boards? To hit the glass hard, you only need effort, and you can certainly work on this in practice. You may even see greater immediate improvement in team rebounding than fixing several kids' shots (not that coaches won't work on shooting, but what can be fixed sooner?). If you get a shot up, it might go in. If it doesn't and we can hit the offensive glass and get another opportunity (and I think defensive boxing out, in general, is worse than it was a decade or so ago). If you miss the 2nd shot, go get a 3rd, etc.
This certainly isn't a catch-all, but just a theory I've had for a little while. I'm curious if others think a) it's happening or not, and b) if it's a worthwhile strategy to employ for a team short on talent.
There are many teams across the state struggling shooting the ball. No argument there--but what if you have a team that is limited skill-wise? There are a few ways you can try to win: you can look to shorten the game by playing more deliberate on offense and limiting total possessions. However, I would think many people would agree that many struggling teams turn the ball over a lot, making this strategy more difficult. If you're pressed, you have to break the press, but if you want to play slow then can you afford to attack the press to score? Would you just turn it over anyway? If you're not pressed, you might struggle to get a good shot against a team that really gets up the line defensively. What is one thing that all teams can do though, based solely on effort, regardless of skill? Rebound.
Now this is completely anecdotal and I haven't even talked to any coaches about this, but could coaches be telling their kids that if we're able to break the press (where turnovers tend to pile up), get up the first open shot and crash the offensive boards? To hit the glass hard, you only need effort, and you can certainly work on this in practice. You may even see greater immediate improvement in team rebounding than fixing several kids' shots (not that coaches won't work on shooting, but what can be fixed sooner?). If you get a shot up, it might go in. If it doesn't and we can hit the offensive glass and get another opportunity (and I think defensive boxing out, in general, is worse than it was a decade or so ago). If you miss the 2nd shot, go get a 3rd, etc.
This certainly isn't a catch-all, but just a theory I've had for a little while. I'm curious if others think a) it's happening or not, and b) if it's a worthwhile strategy to employ for a team short on talent.
Hoopsfan87
New member
The effect of pressing may play a role here, but I think typically the press limits shot attempts, not the shooting percentage. If a press is broken through good ball movement, it often ends with a layup or other high percentage shot.
I think the intial point made was about girls feeling the need to get their points per game up, regardless of shooting percentage. Unfortunately, the first question typically asked about how a girl played is, "How many points did you have?" If the answer is 12 points, the conversation often stops there, and it is assumed she had a good game. If it took her 20 shots to get that 12 points, she may have hurt the team more than she helped it. A few good passes to open girls may have helped her team more.
I have noticed this trend of padding stats in both AAU and now high school, and I can't figure out why coaches are putting up with it. There are a lot of other ways to help your team, but that team first approach seems to be taking a back seat recently.
This is an interesting topic, and I agree with most of the posts. But I was curious if shooting percentage is really down or just seems to be. So I looked at recent seasons for all the teams in the Greater Miami Conference. Here are the conference's average field goal percentages, by season:
04-05: 36.4%
05-06: 37.9%
06-07: 38.7%
07-08: 37.8%
08-09: 38.9%
09-10: 36.3%
10-11: 37.4%
11-12: 37.4% (through Dec 21)
The GMC shooting percentages were always in a narrow band between 36% and 39%, with no trend (up or down) with time. Maybe some of you are just watching the wrong teams.
04-05: 36.4%
05-06: 37.9%
06-07: 38.7%
07-08: 37.8%
08-09: 38.9%
09-10: 36.3%
10-11: 37.4%
11-12: 37.4% (through Dec 21)
The GMC shooting percentages were always in a narrow band between 36% and 39%, with no trend (up or down) with time. Maybe some of you are just watching the wrong teams.
College coaches want size, athleticism, and quickness more than any stats. They can improve a player's techniques for shooting, passing, defending, and rebounding somewhat, but the physical tools are handed down from mom and dad.
I do agree that the media focuses too much on scoring average. There is much more to the game than that.
I do agree that the media focuses too much on scoring average. There is much more to the game than that.
It has always seemed to me that there are three reasons why the shooting percentages of girls are not as high as those of boys.
1. Boys are stronger. For the vast majority of them, it takes less effort to get off a shot from a distance, and they're more able to handle the consequences of getting a shot off underneath when being jostled or bumped and a foul is not called.
2. Most boys play more than than girls, beginning at a younger age. They're more likely to spend time shooting alone, or playing in pickup games. Every little bit helps.
3. High school refereeing is poor, but worse on the girls' side than boys. Trying to score underneath in a physical girls' game is a bear. You're gonna get pushed, hit, and have your hair pulled while shooting, and you may not get a whistle.
1. Boys are stronger. For the vast majority of them, it takes less effort to get off a shot from a distance, and they're more able to handle the consequences of getting a shot off underneath when being jostled or bumped and a foul is not called.
2. Most boys play more than than girls, beginning at a younger age. They're more likely to spend time shooting alone, or playing in pickup games. Every little bit helps.
3. High school refereeing is poor, but worse on the girls' side than boys. Trying to score underneath in a physical girls' game is a bear. You're gonna get pushed, hit, and have your hair pulled while shooting, and you may not get a whistle.