Prentiss Nixon - Colorado State
6-1 180lb guard
Sit 1 play 1
16.1 ppg 3.2 rpg 2.0 apg 33% career 3P shooter. Started 69 (nice) games for Colorado State
***Official 2018 Transfer Thread***
- Thread starter Messi
- Start date
Prentiss Nixon - Colorado State
6-1 180lb guard
Sit 1 play 1
16.1 ppg 3.2 rpg 2.0 apg 33% career 3P shooter. Started 69 (nice) games for Colorado State
in this day and age you need snipers. Did you watch the tournament? Generally teams that could hit 3s at high rates advanced.
Definitely don't need them. Michigan didn't have one player shoot above 40% from 3 this year. Don't get me wrong I hope Terrence Lewis develops into a 6'5" knockdown 45% from three shooter.
Michigan was #6 in the country in 3PA and #11 in 3 Pts made
Funny, this shows them at 66th in the country in attempts per game
https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/stat/three-pointers-attempted-per-game
This link shows them even lower at 75th in the country in 3s made per game
https://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1/current/team/153/p2
Hard to put up the numbers you claim when not one of yours players shoots over 40% from 3. Try again.
That includes a lot of postseason games other teams didn’t have.
But to your point, a huge reason for those extra games was due to their frontcourt being very good 3P shooters, shooting 39.4%, 38%, and 37.4% on a large volume of attempts at the “5” through “3” spots.
Michigan’s “4” shot nearly 3 times as many 3P attempts as 2P attempts, hitting over 38%. They had some positional snipers that really opened the court. You don’t need all five shooting 3Ps well, but to use Michigan as an example for a contention that you don’t need great 3P shooting because they didn’t have a guy above some arbitrary raw statistical cut-off is silly.
Only because they played more games than almost everyone else and shot a ton of threes. They were volume shooters, not high percentage shooters. ForeverIowan's NCAA link is more relevant because it was per game. Michigan was only 137th in 3-point field goal percentage.
https://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1/current/team/152/p3
Spot on. A three point sniper relates to high percentage. Let's not confuse volume with efficiency.
I don't know about the B1G tournament, but they were shooting a lot of bricks in the NCAA tournament (the TA&M game was an aberration for them). It was their defense that got them as far as they went.
Last edited:
Not really an arbitrary number. 40% from three is a commonly used baseline indicator. Listen, if we don't land McEwen I'm all for going after Mooney. I just think it's a smarter approach to build for 2019/2020. End of story.
Montana: 5/16 from three
Houston: 8/30
Texas A&M: 14/24
Florida State: 4/22
Loyola: 7/28
Nova: 3/23
41/143 = 28.7%
Yes, that was U-M's major strong point for much of the season and it continued to carry through into postseason. 8th nationally in scoring defense. Michigan also had a fairly low rate of turnovers and fouls -- 14th in turnover margin per game and 28th in fewest fouls committed. U-M got enough offensive production to augment those efficiency areas.
It is arbitrary.
A front court shooting 38% on over 550 attempts exemplifies the impact of 3P shooting and the need for it more than selective lower volume guys hitting above 40%.
I do worry about our ability to stretch the floor next year. It would be nice to get a solid all around 2 guard, but particularly one who can shoot threes at a high percentage. Right now we seem to have streaky / unreliable three-point shooters coming back.
I said Michigan had no individual sniper 3 point shooters. Stastically speaking they did not. Period. You are spinning yourself in circles.
I guess batting .300+ in baseball or throwing for 300 yards in an NFL game or a triple double in basketball are "arbitrary". They are stastical reference points and barometers that are commonly used to signify an exceptional season/game.
Come for transfer news. See no transfer news...
