Matchups - Exploit them
I'll get back to team defense when I get time. These past couple months have been pretty short in time...
Anywho, Idris' post got me thinking of matchups. I might have read this at another blog...and if so, sorry...
Ever hear the line or been told the line of "Don't throw to matchups!" This usually occurs after a turnover on a huck.
My conclusion is that by not doing so, you may actually hurt your chances of scoring a goal. Using basketball as an example, if Shaq is being guarded by Bruce Bowen (a very good defender), are you going to throw the ball down low to Shaq? Of course, the risk reward is skewed in your favor. The chances of Shaq catching the ball and scoring would be much higher than the chances of Bruce stealing the ball or Shaq missing a shot from down low.
A case in point for Kaimana...There is a turnover in the finals of Kaimana and I see Damien is deep with a smaller defender on him. First thought comes to mind is just throw the disc far enough to score, followed by err on the side of keeping it in the air, but not swilly.
Why, well, I know Damien would most likely out run anyone for the disc, and secondly, if I hang it high, I have a very high confidence that he will still catch the disc. Sure enough...goal.
I think you can apply the same thoughts to ultimate in trying to exploit matchups, whether for hucks, or even short throws...it doesn't need to be a huck.
My point then, is that on Offense, teams *should* look to throw to matchups more often and should be emphasized as your percentage of scoring is higher.
Anyone disagree.
$
Anywho, Idris' post got me thinking of matchups. I might have read this at another blog...and if so, sorry...
Ever hear the line or been told the line of "Don't throw to matchups!" This usually occurs after a turnover on a huck.
My conclusion is that by not doing so, you may actually hurt your chances of scoring a goal. Using basketball as an example, if Shaq is being guarded by Bruce Bowen (a very good defender), are you going to throw the ball down low to Shaq? Of course, the risk reward is skewed in your favor. The chances of Shaq catching the ball and scoring would be much higher than the chances of Bruce stealing the ball or Shaq missing a shot from down low.
A case in point for Kaimana...There is a turnover in the finals of Kaimana and I see Damien is deep with a smaller defender on him. First thought comes to mind is just throw the disc far enough to score, followed by err on the side of keeping it in the air, but not swilly.
Why, well, I know Damien would most likely out run anyone for the disc, and secondly, if I hang it high, I have a very high confidence that he will still catch the disc. Sure enough...goal.
I think you can apply the same thoughts to ultimate in trying to exploit matchups, whether for hucks, or even short throws...it doesn't need to be a huck.
My point then, is that on Offense, teams *should* look to throw to matchups more often and should be emphasized as your percentage of scoring is higher.
Anyone disagree.
$
posted by $ at 5:04 PM
6 Comments:
Well, as someone who has written that you shouldn't throw to matchups, I feel compelled to respond. There are two parts to this. One is that the matchup usually isn't as favorable as you think it is (Damien Kaimana example notwithstanding). Your great receiver will be guarded by their top defender usually, and maybe his greatness is more as a cutter, not necessarily as a jumper. The other part is that for the defense, an incompletion is just as good as an interception. A "50/50" throw is really more like 40/40/20, with 20 belonging to the ground.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bill, what do you consider a retarted throw? Anyone that is not completed. Thank you for proving my point about about the comments of "Don't throw to matchups."
Actually, what I think you meant to say is that if you don't have the throw (generally a huck), don't throw to the matchup because it is there as your percentage of completing the throw may have increased only slightly. That I agree with.
Jim, I knew you would get into the percentages :)
In general, when you are on offense the defense will try and match up to begin with...I agree. However, what if they do a crumble...or they play a switching type D. Should you not try and recognize who has the mismatch. That same 40/40/20 throw becomes a 60/30/10 (mayber lower, probably higher) throw in your favor, imho.
I also think you hit on one of my points but didn't recocognize that you were hitting on it. I stated in the post that you should look to take advantage of short throws to...as you are correct that the player may be a better cutter. For instance, Zip is being covered by Nord, of course you wouldn't want to throw a huck to him as the advantage is still not in your favor. However, what is in your favor is that Nord must respect his deep cut which leaves Zip open all day underneath. Why not throw to that matchup? The short throws are in your favor?
Also, maybe this is more applicable when the team is on D and generates a turnover. Many times the O is scrambling to find a person to guard, the most dangerous person at the time, or it is simply a mismatch on a turn. The D should look to exploit those matchups on a turn.
The part about exploiting the mismatch on the short cuts might actually be more worthwhile than looking to jack it to the tall guy. Why not just have your offense be "whoever x is covering after the turnover does a give and go down the field"?
That's an excellent question.
I don't know that I want to go that far yet in regards to having the offense be a give and go down the field. I'm still thinking that the matchup should be exploited within the framework of your offense.
That being said, if a give and go gives you the highest percentage of scoring for that point...why would you opt to work within your offense framework *for that point*.
Post a Comment
<< Home