AT COURTSIDE: Princeton wins the battle of the three-point shot

PRINCETON, N.J. -- The boxscore from yesterday's Penn-Princeton contest gives an impression that both teams tried to play bombs-away from behind the Jadwin Gymnasium three-point line. The Quakers and Tigers each attempted 16 of their 43 shots from beyond the arc. With 37.2 percent of all field goals taken from downtown, one can't help but assume that both Penn coach Fran Dunphy and Princeton coach Bill Carmody had instructed their teams to shoot from the outside. From three-point land, Penn netted seven, while Princeton shooters connected on nine. Within two-point range, the Quakers hit 11 shots to the Tigers' 16. Given this information, it is usually safe to assume that the Tigers built their 71-52 lead simply by shooting the rock with more precision. But even though Princeton owned the higher shooting percentage, it wasn't exactly like Old Nassau beat Penn shot for shot, as in a game of horse. Princeton did not win last night's game by making the shots that Penn missed -- they won by not settling for those that the Quakers attempted. Instead, Princeton waited for better shooting opportunities, unafraid of implications of the 35-second clock. Although both teams tried an equal number of three-point field goals, the Tigers had better quality looks throughout most of the night, using the three-point shot a second option as a changeup. Penn, however, used the bomb as its primary offensive weapon, on many occasions without even looking first down low. Princeton's first option in the half-court offense was to get the ball in the paint to senior center Steve Goodrich. Then, if a Quakers defender left his man to help the Penn pivot on Goodrich down low, Goodrich would pass the ball back up-top -- providing the now-unguarded Tiger with an open look from three-point range. "[Goodrich] is such a force," said Princeton guard Brian Earl, who hit a pair of wide-open three-pointers off feeds from the down low. "You have to pick what is going to hurt you. We got the ball inside in double situations. And when Penn doubled down, he kicked out for three-pointers." The Quakers, however, were not as patient to launch an inside-out attack. Low-post players Paul Romanczuk, Josh Sanger and George Mboya took just a combined eight shots in 62 minutes. On most Penn offensive sequences, the ball danced around the perimeter until a guard decided he had room to take his defender with one-on-one isolation. Unlike Princeton threes, Red and Blue three-point attempts were failed one-on-one penetration, when the ball handler could get no closer to the basket. Hence, while the Tigers took wide-open shots, Penn often took the much harder version, with a defensive hand in the face. Such is indicative by the putrid overall shooting percentages of three-point bombers Garett Kreitz (0-for-6) and Matt Langel (2-for-9), who combined for just five points of total offense. "This system thing is overrated as hell," Carmody said. "We have a lot of players with talent." In psychology, this response is what one would call a reaction formation. Anyone at last night's contest knows that the system made all the difference. This does not mean that Penn needs the Tigers' offense. Penn, however, does need some offense. There were far too many times last night when the Quakers were going one-on-one with Princeton, making it look almost as if they were running plays out of a street basketball playbook. And while such a technique may let the Quakers beat up on their other six Ivy opponents, it just doesn't cut it against the defense of a team ranked No. 8 in the nation. For Penn, the most disappointing aspect of last night's display was that Romanczuk, the Quakers' big man and last night's most effective shooter, rarely saw the ball down low. The junior hit four-of-five from inside the paint for 11 points. But, had the ball been worked to down low on a more consistent basis, Romanczuk could have matched Goodrich's game-high 19. Goodrich shot an identical 80 percent from the field. But he took twice as many shots (eight-of-ten). Plus, he drew the Penn double team on many occasions, indicated by his game-high six assists. "You have to pick your poison a little bit," Dunphy said. Well? maybe Penn had to, but Princeton didn't. That is unless one considers isolation for Jordan, isolation for Langel and isolation for Kreitz as all poisonous. Last night, no isolation was particularly efficient. Nor did any have a fall-back option so long as the Tigers didn't become impatient and double team. Granted Princeton may just have the best defense in the country. But with that Quakers' trio in the backcourt, there's no reason Dunphy can't design plays to get the ball inside more often. Doing so could have resulted in the Tigers double-teaming down low, freeing up the Penn guard trio for better three-point looks. At the same time, it would have opened up higher-percentage shots down low. Last night was a classic case of one team beating the other on all cylinders. Princeton shot better from two-point range. Princeton shot better from three-point range. Princeton played better defense. Princeton had a better transition game. Princeton took better shots. But summed into one phrase, the Tigers followed an offensive game plan, getting the ball down low; the Quakers didn't -- and that made all the difference.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.