Write back at you: On useless, irrelevant junk, the international 3-point line and F&M and Princeton

August 12, 11:56 AMGolden State Warriors ExaminerMatt Steinmetz

Previous Next

4 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Golden State Warriors Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Junk: We try not to put it out here

Keep 'em coming:

♦ MORGAN WROTE: Steinmetz, maybe you should take a few days off. You should be able to tell the junk you are putting out isn't very good by the amount of feedback you are getting. ... You played a little right? If they moved the free-throw line up 3 feet - could you still make a free-throw?

M.S. RESPONDS: I’m going to dismiss the “junk” comment because that’s just the kind of guy I am. And I've been very pleased with the traffic. Tell your buddies. You’re missing the point of that post (NBA players at disadvantage ...). The fact of the matter is NBA players DO NOT practice that shot _ plain and simple. And they shouldn’t.

I don’t care what other teams shot against Team USA from out there. Of course, foreign teams are going to shoot worse against Team USA than other teams. That’s only logical considering we’re always the best or among the best teams. All I care about is how we shoot it in international play.

We’ll never be a consistent 3-point shooting team in the Olympics because we don’t work on that shot. What’s hard to understand? It doesn’t mean we won’t have good 3-point shooting nights, it means we’ll never be able to rely on it.

Couldn't help but notice we went 5-for-21 from 3-point range against Angola. 

Mayser Center: Home to many a classic

Another thing … when our “scorers” catch the ball inside the 3-point line in the NBA, most of the time they’re coming off screens or popping out to get open. In other words, they're in motion on the catch, not spotting up. It’s another subtle difference but a factor.

And as for me playing a little, sure I could tell you about F&M’s upset win over Millersville in the 1986 Sponaugle Classic or about how we had Princeton beat my junior year till I got called for a charge in the backcourt and then John Smyth hit a 25-footer to beat us in overtime.

Let me know if you want more details.

As to your last point, if they moved the foul line up to 12 feet, of course I could still make it. You're talking to an 80-percenter.

But if you moved the foul line up once every four years, I guarantee you players would shoot a worse percentage than they usually do from 15 feet. Why? Because the stand-still 12-footer in the middle of the lane is a shot that no one takes and no one practices. Just like the standstill 21-footer.

P.J. Carlesimo: All in all, a nice photo of him

♦ ♦ PHILLY J WROTE: I've stopped reading this blog as it provides absolutely nothing. This will be my last entry. This blog is full of useless, irrelevant, and elementary fluff.

M.S. RESPONDS: As my mom used to say when I threatened to run away from home as a kid: “Quit trying to cheer me up.”

♦ ♦ ♦ PETE WROTE: So...maybe Team USA's sharpshooters should be taking advantage of their range by shooting from 23 feet, nine inches, while the defenders are sagging off? Has there been any discussion of that?

M.S. RESPONDS: I think that’s a great point, but for some reason it’s almost as if players are conditioned to plant one foot two inches behind the arc. I remember P.J. Carlesimo once talking about how even if you space the floor with players behind the NBA arc, it can still be congested in the lane area.

We suggested that rather than have his players spot up from right behind the line, they spot up from 25 feet out or so, maybe even a little further. I remember him saying something about when players catch it that far out, they’re no kind of scoring threat so they don’t have to be guarded anyway.

I didn’t necessarily agree, but there it is. But you’re right. I don’t see why Team USA can’t just spread the floor further.