Arizona Needs to Answer Offensive Questions

Sean Steven Spiece

Jay Bilas of ESPN ranked Arizona as the 51st best team in the nation, saying, “When the Wildcats hit shots, they can play with any team in the Pac-12”. This, of course, is like saying “Give that kid some floaties and teach him to doggy paddle and he can outswim a group of cinderblocks.” It’s statement of oversimplification, obviousness, and warrants a sarcastic reply of “Really? You think?”

And yet, it is true. Especially regarding Arizona and its fascination with the three ball.
In games against quality opponents in which Arizona wins (Ball State, St. John’s, Clemson, Oakland), Arizona has shot 42% from beyond the three-point line. However games where Arizona loses, they have shot an atrocious 28.8%. You live by the three, you die by the three. This is the mantra repeated endlessly throughout the realms of basketball, so in reality, those statistics really don’t tell you anything that you don’t already know.

Still, one must question the vast number of three pointers taken by the Wildcats, as it is a focal point of their offense. Of all 345 teams listed on Ken Pomeroy’s advanced statistics website, Arizona has the 121st best three point percentage with 35.4% (as of December 19th), a number that is by no means awful (as it is in the top third) but undoubtedly it leaves something to be desired. The issue that arises from this ranking and percentage becomes more significant when one factors in that 40% of Arizona’s shots are three pointers, making them the 42nd most frequent team in doing so.

Should the 121st ranked team in three-point percentage be shooting the 42nd most (in terms of percentage)? Yeah, something isn’t right.

Of course, every fan already knows that periodically Arizona’s offense this season has been putrid. They’ve watched the monotonous dribble hand-off offense for thirty seconds at a time, only to see a terrible shot be fired off as the shot clock expires. They’ve laughed when they hear the announcement of “free taco’s from Jack in the Box if the Wildcats score 77 points”, knowing that the only way the Wildcat’s score that many points is if the other team dictates it. They know (at least some do) that Arizona averages 67 points per game.

This, obviously, isn’t great.

What’s even more troublesome is that the team is typically only getting 64 possessions a game, ranking them number 281 out of 345 college basketball teams. In other words, Arizona gets very few possessions in a game (and less opportunities to score) and 40% of these limited possessions involve three pointers, shots that Arizona really isn’t all that good at.

I suppose the argument against this indictment of our offense is that our defense carries the burden of support, which makes sense because any team with eight wins that averages a measly 67 points per game must be doing something right on the defensive end. Unless, of course, you look at what opposing big men have done in Arizona’s losing efforts. Arnett Moulrie of Mississippi State: 19 points. Patric Young of Florida: 25 points. Elias Harris of Gonzaga: 25 points. And the exception to this, Garret Green of San Diego State brings up the rear with two points. Still, these posts combined to average 17 points per game on 72% shooting.

Jesse Perry, Arizona’s starting center (if you want to call him that), is 6’7. Our first true post off the bench is freshman Angelo Chol, whose limbs are as thin as the rim he protects (albeit limbs drenched in potential). The only other post, Kyryl Natyazhko, averages 10 minutes and 15 “damn it, Kyryl” plays a game.

This team cannot stop a dominant post player, which is, you know, most likely the type of post player Arizona will be facing come tournament time. What will the offense do then? What will happen when the offense needs to bail out defense?

I really don’t know.

Though I suppose at some level, we should trust Sean Miller, the basketball nation’s fastest up-and-comer. His philosophy has always been one of defense and slowing down the ball, evidenced by the fact that over the years his teams have combined to average 66 possessions a game, a number that is fairly low.

Obviously, this style has prevailed and found success.

Still, Sean Miller’s first team he coached at Xavier averaged the least amount of possessions (Arizona’s current team is second to last). This team, which would go 17 and 12 and miss the NCAA tournament, would have 39% of their shot attempts be three pointers (as stated previously, Arizona is at 40%). Furthermore, they lost their two leading scorers from the year before, two guys who had accounted for 46% of their points on offense (Arizona lost 38% with the departure of Derrick Williams and Momo Jones).

The parallel is obvious. Both teams slow down the game to a sloth-like pace and fire up three’s in an attempt to make up for the players who left the year before. The question is this: will Arizona’s team meet the same fate of missing the big dance?

I really don’t know. But quick question: Coach Miller, you’re allowed to adjust right?

I mean, look at your team. You start three guys under 6’3. Your starting post player is a hybrid four who can run the floor. Your wings can pass the ball magnificently and love to finish strong. You have a pure point guard with a next level feel for the game coming off the bench. You have Nick Johnson dunking over people a foot taller than him.

Why the hell isn’t this team running the fast break? Why haven’t you opened it up on offense? Why isn’t this team sprinting up and down the floor? Why must this team play with an anvil tied to their waist, slogging through your chosen style of offense?

It isn’t because they’re getting good looks. It isn’t because their defense can support them. It isn’t because they’re young. It isn’t because they won’t find success in a faster paced game, a fact that is evident from the Oakland game where they were forced to play a quicker pace and met great success (both in terms of on the fast break and in terms of winning).

It’s because you have failed to adjust to your team, and if this team has any hope of meeting any real type of success, something must be done.