When Keve Aluma hit two threes in a row, it completely changed the game. It transformed him from a fairly traditional big Jay Huff should be able to guard into a problem for which UVA had no answer.  But should it have? Should it have changed anything? In my post-game analysis as set out in our latest HOOcast (episode 16, The Bad With the Good, dropped this morning), I accepted that him hitting a pair of threes meant we had to come out and guard him out there, which allowed him to be a more effective driver, and to basically remove Huff from the game.

I conceded a point I should not have. Thinking on this issue this morning, I don’t think we should have changed a damn thing in our coverage. I now think that a team should not vary how it defends the opponent when a player “gets hot” from the arc, that the tactics and strategy should remain what they were based on the scouting report. The probabilities dictate staying the course. Had UVA done that on Saturday, perhaps the outcome would have been different. This is not to say that the coaching staff did poorly; it is to say that a conventional wisdom, an unexamined reaction, led them astray as it leads all of us astray.

The conventional wisdom is that when a player hits a couple of threes, you then have to go out and guard him there, because of the power of the three-point shot. You can’t let a team hit a bunch in a row. After all, if he’s hit two, he might keep hitting them. Right?

Maybe. In fact, with most players, probably not.

Let’s look at Keve Aluma as an example. The pre-game scouting report was that he does his damage in the low and mid-post area. Before this game, he took 52.5% of his shots at the rim, and only 19.9% from the three-point line. He was hitting 64% of his shots at the rim and only 31% from three. In the previous three games, he had taken 2 threes total and had not hit. He had not hit a three in 2021. Moreover, he was a career 30% three-point shooter who in two years at Wofford under the same coach had attempted a grand total of 1 three-point shot.

Given that pre-game scouting report, the plan for defending Aluma would be to play him to drive or pass when he went out to the arc. He’s unlikely to shoot it and if he does, he’s unlikely to make it. He is far more dangerous driving to the basket or passing to one of their shooters. Jay has done a good job against other bigs similar to Aluma who were also not real pick-and-pop threats (including Aamir Simms, who theoretically IS a three-point threat). Have Jay hang back and cut off the driving angles, and you should be ok, allowing Jay to play his part in the offense.

Before he hit the threes, Aluma was a problem, but Jay had blocked one of his shots and was a big part of our offense. Aluma was going to get his, but so should Jay.

Then Aluma hit those two quick threes and everything changed. Now Aluma was a threat to shoot the three and Jay had to go out and guard against that. Aluma exploded for the rest of his 29 points, basically on drives, completely blew up UVA’s defense, and led his team to victory. Jay picked up 4 fouls, only played 23 minutes, and was not much of a factor in the second half.

But what if we had changed nothing after Aluma hit those threes? What if we had continued to play off him and concede the three-point shot? Might Aluma have hit a couple more threes and blown the game open earlier?

Probably not. Any player who has hit two in a row is most likely not going to hit the next one – much less a career 30% shooter. And if he hits the next one, he is even more probably not going to hit the one after that. Most likely, he has had his hot streak and is going to come back to his mean. Players who are 30% shooters rarely have hot games that are 5-5 or 6-6. They have hot games that are 2-3 or 3-5.

What is more likely is that a 30% three-point shooter who is quick and creative at driving to the basket and converting around the hoop is going to take advantage of a slower defender suddenly closing him out on the three-point arc and being alert to challenge his three-point shot. That’s why you developed the scouting report in the first place. That’s why you were conceding the shot.

The three-pointer is definitely an impact play and helps a team win games, but perhaps we give it too much credit and too often distort sound defensive strategy to guard against it. When it comes to winning championships, I submit, the painted floor is the crucial territory, not the land outside the arc. I do not mean to say that a team can win championships (both regular season league and post-season tournament) without at least good three-point shooting, but I do mean to say that in building a team and in developing strategy, winning the paint should be the focus, not winning the arc.

Because this is a thought piece and not a research paper, I will offer but two pieces of evidence, one anecdotal and one statistical. I know this proves nothing, but it should at least provoke thought:

1) Virginia won its national championship despite shooting poorly from the three-point line. Yes, specific three-point shots and specific stretches of hot shooting were very important, but overall, the team did not shoot well from the arc in the tournament and won by getting to the basket.

2) The most made three-point baskets a Division I team has averaged over the course of a season is 12.8 by Savannah State in 2016-17 (I believe we played that team). No championship-calibre NCAA team averaged 10 made threes per game that year. If you are Savannah State and are going to score the 72 points per game it generally takes to be a championship team, you still need to come up with 33 ppg on shots worth less than three points.

I am not critical of the staff for reacting to Aluma’s three-point makes (I cannot say for a fact that they did, but it certainly appeared that way while watching). We all think that way. We all accept that you have to react to the three-point shot and take away a hot shooter. We’ve all seen a flurry of threes turn a big game and a hot team bury an opponent, and it has, I believe, led us to over-react to the three-point shot. While a hot Kyle Guy might be able to beat you, a hot low-volume 30% shooter will not.

Unless you let it distort your defense.

It’s kind of like air power: it can blow up the other side’s defense, but it’s boots on the ground that occupy territory and ultimately win.

The point that I don’t want to get lost in all this three-point shot discussion, though, is that you should rely on the scouting report and stick to the game plan even when a player seems to defy that report and blow up that plan. To me, that is the main point here and the real lesson. You have all this information on what a player is, and you devise a plan on that basis, the possibility that he might hit a couple threes in a row is kind of baked in there. When it does happen, don’t throw out the bread. Ride the probabilities.