UMBC’s offensive output for three of their 4 halves of Tournament play:
21 points on 35% shooting
53 points on 68% shooting
20 points on 29% shooting
23 points on 30% shooting
In one November game, they made 14-28 threes vs Arizona, shooting 42% overall, and scored 47 points in the first half alone.
In one late January game, the Retrievers shot 31% vs Albany (2-20 from 3; 12 points at half), losing to the (ahem) Great Danes, 83-39.
In one game–their 3rd of the season–Golden State shot 39% and lost to a Memphis team that started Jarrell Martin, Andrew Harrison, and James Ennis.
The Warriors were not eliminated from the “national” championship.
The two recent GSW Championship teams were down 2-1 to the Grizz, 2-1 to the Cavs, and 3-1 to OKC.
Speaking of “Madness”, the bracket announcement came with bellyaching over the proximity of UVa/Kentucky/Arizona. Just one week later, and folks refer to Kentucky’s new path as ‘easy’. It’s as if each time we experience the
randomness Madness™, we immediately forget to factor it in when assessing the next round.
For those who insist that chemistry plays a role in basketball–specifically in situations like “Will Michael Porter’s return ruin Mizzou’s chemistry?”, I would also point to FG% as the element on the periodic table with the highest atomic number.
Mizzou shooting 34% vs Georgia and 33% vs Florida State A.M. (After Michael) isn’t much different than the 38% against Illinois in December.
The Tigers split with Kentucky, B.M., shooting 46% in one and 36% in the other. You can deduce which was the win.
“Chemistry” is the effect, not the cause. Did Stockton and Malone thrive because of chemistry, or were they simply great? I have a feeling that Stockton and James Worthy would have been a handful. How has Chris Paul managed to find “chemistry” with the Rockets in his first year? I don’t think of chemistry when I think about what’s holding Sacramento back.
If two or more people know how to play…
If the shot after the pass goes in…
Put the lab coats away.