Mark Titus is a great writer again! ISU #12 in Power Rankings

[Rhoadhoused]

Titus

As usual the whole article is pretty good. (Although he throws out the "live by the three" saying)

12. Iowa State

If you’re looking for a Final Four sleeper, look no further than Iowa State. After starting the season 14-0, the Cyclones lost four of five, fell out of the Big 12 race, and disappeared from the national radar. Then, just after ISU rattled off a three-game winning streak, the Cyclones were destroyed at West Virginia a little over a week ago. Given the ups and downs Iowa State has been through, I’ve questioned the Cyclones’ ability to make a deep run in March. The West Virginia loss helped solidify that skepticism. But now that Iowa State just handily beat a red-hot Texas team on Tuesday, maybe it’s time to revisit the Cylcones’ résumé.
Start with the losing streak at the beginning of the conference season. At the time, losses to two unranked teams and a 15th-ranked team at home seemed embarrassing for a 14-0 team. In retrospect, however, playing at Oklahoma, vs. Kansas, and at Texas in consecutive games is no cakewalk. All three teams are NCAA tournament locks with winning records in the toughest conference in college basketball. Syracuse or Florida would have a hard time going undefeated through that stretch, so let’s not swear off ISU just yet. Nor should we dock the Cyclones too many points for losing at Kansas in late January, since Kansas is virtually impossible to beat at home. As for ISU’s most recent loss at West Virginia — it’s hard to make excuses for a 25-point drubbing. But we can give that defeat some context. Remember that Iowa State relies heavily on the 3-point shot. The Cyclones were ice-cold from deep against the Mountaineers; that happens from time to time for “live by the 3” teams. It doesn’t mean ISU isn’t a good team; it just means it’s screwed on those occasional off nights. And, well, we’ve known that for months.
What does this mean for Iowa State’s chances in the tournament? If they come out flat, the Cyclones could get bounced early. But if they pair the defense they played against Texas on Tuesday with average or better shooting by their standards, they will make you pay for picking them to suffer an early upset.

 

[CysRage]

The "Live by the three" argument absolutely does not apply to the team this year. Last year it may have been true but this year we have shown that we can establish an inside game if our 3 ball isn't going down. I appreciate him talking up ISU but he obviously doesn't watch our games too closely if he says we live by the three.

 

[Jacktronic]

I enjoy Grantland a lot. Simmons, Barnwell, Titus, Lisanti, Pierce, with occasional pieces by Klosterman. Excellent site.

 

[Knownothing]

At the same time. All of our loses we have been ice cold from 3. So we have actually died by the three

 

[Dingus]

For a long time I agreed that the "Live by the 3, die by the 3" didn't apply to this team. Felt like this was true during the non-conference. However, in conference play haven't we lost about every game where we shot poorly from 3, ie <30%? And we do shoot a ton of them.

Doesn't feel like we beat teams with the 3, but sure seems like we lose when we can't hit them.

 

[Frak]

The "Live by the three" argument absolutely does not apply to the team this year. Last year it may have been true but this year we have shown that we can establish an inside game if our 3 ball isn't going down. I appreciate him talking up ISU but he obviously doesn't watch our games too closely if he says we live by the three.

Isu may not live by the three, but they can die by it. If Niang and Thomas or Long aren't hitting open shots, they're likely to get beat vs good teams. Takes away the advantage of playing small. Most teams that play small ball need their bigs to hit from outside to spread the floor. But my biggest key to winning is defensive rebounds. ISU needs those boards to run.

 

[Rhoadhoused]

We have won a ton of games shooting poorly from deep this year.

However, all (except one, @KU) of the games we lost we shot poorly from deep. But there were also other issues as well that were just as if not more important.

TOs on both ends killed us against Texas. And getting killed on the offensive glass.

WVU was absolutely atrocious defense and the WVU shot lights out on top of that.

vs KU We shot 31% (!) from the floor and 16% (!!) from deep. That is all around exceptionally bad. Beyond a bad night.

@KU We actually shot 38% so I guess that is the one loss that wouldn't fit in. Only shot 48% from the field though.

@OU Is the only game I see that we played well pretty much everywhere except from the 3 point line. I guess we were only 8/13 from the line and had 13 TOs, which are both moderately bad numbers. OU shot 43% from 3 and 18/21 from the line so those are the biggest stats I would point to I guess. 13 offensive boards allowed as well.

 

[CyArob]

The "Live by the three" argument absolutely does not apply to the team this year. Last year it may have been true but this year we have shown that we can establish an inside game if our 3 ball isn't going down. I appreciate him talking up ISU but he obviously doesn't watch our games too closely if he says we live by the three.

ISU destroyed Texas by taking it inside and scoring. I think they doubled Texas in points in the paint.

 

[Cyclonepride]

We died by the three at WV, but because all theirs were dropping. Other than that, no.

 

[CyFan61]

I believe Iowa State ranks 10th in the conference for 3-point shooting percentage during conference play. Yes, that is last.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

I believe Iowa State ranks 10th in the conference for 3-point shooting percentage during conference play. Yes, that is last.

Aren't we also last in 3P% defense?

 

[CornFedIABoy]

Somebody needs to explain to Mick Cronin that there's more to being the best guard in the country than scoring. Sean Kilpatrick has a good stat line but Kane's is just as good, if not better due to the versatility.

 

[CyberJJJ]

Isu may not live by the three, but they can die by it. If Niang and Thomas or Long aren't hitting open shots, they're likely to get beat vs good teams. Takes away the advantage of playing small. Most teams that play small ball need their bigs to hit from outside to spread the floor. But my biggest key to winning is defensive rebounds. ISU needs those boards to run.

I really agree with you Frak. In past years, ISU needed the points from three. This year, ISU doesn't have to hit a ton of threes to be able to win a game, but they do have to hit enough that other teams have to guard us and spread the floor which opens up our improved inside game. However, if we are launching 20+ 3 pointers and only hit 2, we can die by the three. With smaller bigs, we are doubling down a lot so we are, as stated in the Texas article, susceptible when the other team hits threes at a high rate. I love though that we have more balance on offense and more scorers so noone can just key on one or two guys and completely stop the offense.

Defensive boards are one key for us, but we have to be respectable from the FT line and limit turnovers. We didn't hit FT well the other night (I believe we were under 50% but didn't check) but didn't turn the ball over a ton. If we shoot FT poorly, get killed on the boards and turn the ball over, that is a recipe for another Morgantown experience.

 

[CyberJJJ]

The myth that this team is truly live by the 3 die by the three is about as wrong as Hawk fans saying they controlled the entire game against us and choked down the stretch. They did, in fact, control the tempo almost the entire first half; however, we had the momentum in the second half and even had the lead halfway in, not just the last two minutes. They also did build the lead back up and their missed FTs opened the door to let us back in, but we marched through the door with aggression in the second half.

When we let them run, they were running us off the floor. We were getting beat on the boards, so when we bailed out to stop their break, we really gave up lots of boards uncontested, but that worked because they are not nearly as effective in their half court offense as they are in the open court game and it showed in the difference from first half to second. Rant over.

 

[Guetterdone1]

I think it's pretty crazy that we have the ability to establish an inside game with our tallest starter/bench player at 6'7

 

[Dryburn]

When I hear that a team lives or dies by the three, I think that the team must shoot a lot of threes, and if they are not falling, the team has no other way to score, so they lose. To me, that does not describe ISU at all.

ISU needs the 3 point baskets, especially in transition, to set up the rest of its offense and game plan. With ISU, it is not so important that they make a large number of threes (like it was in the past couple of years) but more that they shoot a decent percentage from 3 to keep the defense honest, and to open up the inside for Ejim, Niang, Hogue, and Kane plus drives from the other guards.

ISU has shot below 30 percent from 3 in 6 games this year. Three of those games were losses.....KU in Ames, Oklahoma away and WVU away. The other three games were BYU away, George Mason on neutral, and Texas Tech away. With the BYU and Texas Tech games, ISU was fortunate that both of those teams also shot below 30 percent from 3. The George Mason game was something of an anomaly in that ISU shot terribly from 3, but made up for it with 46 percent shooting overall (58% from 2) and won the game by making 10 more free throws than GM even shot.

The other two losses.....KU at KU and of course Texas at Texas. In the KU game, ISU shot a decent 39 percent from 3, but KU shot 46% from there, yet both made 10 threes. The game was lost from getting beat on the boards, and at the free throw line. In the Texas game, both teams shot nearly identical percentages for FG, 3PT, and FTs. ISU out-rebounded Texas. The game was lost at the free throw line with Texas hitting 7 more shots, and with the inability of ISU to control the inside scoring of the Texas bigs. In that game, Texas outscored ISU in the paint 34-22. In last night's game, with a different defensive plan, ISU outscored Texas in the paint 40-18. Huge difference.

I think it is fine that other teams may think that ISU lives and dies by the three. Maybe they will overlook what is really going on. ISU just needs to shoot a decent percentage from 3, whether they are putting up 35 shots from there or only 15.

 

[Dingus]

We have won a ton of games shooting poorly from deep this year.

However, all (except one, @KU) of the games we lost we shot poorly from deep. But there were also other issues as well that were just as if not more important.

TOs on both ends killed us against Texas. And getting killed on the offensive glass.

WVU was absolutely atrocious defense and the WVU shot lights out on top of that.

vs KU We shot 31% (!) from the floor and 16% (!!) from deep. That is all around exceptionally bad. Beyond a bad night.

@KU We actually shot 38% so I guess that is the one loss that wouldn't fit in. Only shot 48% from the field though.

@OU Is the only game I see that we played well pretty much everywhere except from the 3 point line. I guess we were only 8/13 from the line and had 13 TOs, which are both moderately bad numbers. OU shot 43% from 3 and 18/21 from the line so those are the biggest stats I would point to I guess. 13 offensive boards allowed as well.

Maybe in non-conference, but not in conference play. We have only won one conference game shooting less than 30% from 3, @Texas Tech. Every other conference game we have won we have shot at least 30%. While shooting 30% isn't great, its not terrible.

Simply put, when we shoot poorly from 3, we tend to lose. We just do. And like you mentioned, almost all our losses occur when we shot poorly (only lose shooting >30% from 3 @KU and @UT)

While "Live by the 3, Die by the 3" is too simplistic for this team, hard to argue too much that it's not fairly accurate.

 

[dualthreat]

we live and die by the three

but we can shoot cold and still win, as long as we're significantly better than the other team

 

[Rhoadhoused]

Maybe in non-conference, but not in conference play. We have only won one conference game shooting less than 30% from 3, @Texas Tech. Every other conference game we have won we have shot at least 30%. While shooting 30% isn't great, its not terrible.

Simply put, when we shoot poorly from 3, we tend to lose. We just do. And like you mentioned, almost all our losses occur when we shot poorly (only lose shooting >30% from 3 @KU and @UT)

While "Live by the 3, Die by the 3" is too simplistic for this team, hard to argue too much that it's not fairly accurate.

Here are the wins we have this year with 33.3% or less from deep. We shot pretty well in the non conference against some really crappy teams, go figure.

Mich-30%
BYU-29%
UNI- 33%
Boise St-33
George Mason-23%
OSU-30%
TCU-33%
Tech-31%
Texas-33%

 

[Dingus]

Here are the wins we have this year with 33.3% or less from deep. We shot pretty well in the non conference against some really crappy teams, go figure.

Mich-30%
BYU-29%
UNI- 33%
Boise St-33
George Mason-23%
OSU-30%
TCU-33%
Tech-31%
Texas-33%

Yeah, of course a lot of it is what arbitrary cut-off is used; I used 30% as its what I said in my first post and its a nice round number a bit below our conference 3PT%. All those wins you posted but 1 were in that 30-33% range so the difference in interpretation.

Really its just a consequence of Iowa State shooting so many 3's. When you shoot 24 3's a game, 30-40% of your shots, it doesn't bode well for your point totals if you make very few of your 3 pt shots, especially since we're such a poor offensive rebounding team.