You'll never admit your wrong, so...

(04-09-2019 08:37 AM)Zorch Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 05:17 AM)Tribal Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 11:02 PM)Zorch Wrote:  Congratulations to the hated Hoos. They made their last 14 free throws (12 in overtime), 20-23 for the game. Contrast that with the free throw missed by Purdue with 17 seconds left that would have given them a 4 point lead over the Hoos. Do I really need to say it? Yes, I do. Make free throws, win games; miss free throws, lose games.

The best part is that the next chance at rebuttal won't happen for 7 more months.

Cherry picking stats again.

Auburn: 78% FT (11-14) UVA: 50% FT (6-12)

MSU: 78% (14-18) TTU: 62% (8-13)

Which two teams won to play in the National Championship Game?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Uh .... UVA hit 3 free throws with 1 second left to beat Auburn. They made free throws in OT to beat Purdue after Purdue had missed a crucial free throw late. It is not just the number of ft's that count, BUT WHEN YOU MAKE THEM (just ask Omar). UVA made them when they counted -- and won -- and Purdue (and New Mexico State, and others) missed them -- and lost. Can't explain it any more simply than that.

See, the problem with this logic is that if UVA would have made their free throws earlier in the game, Guy never gets the chance to shoot three free throws to take the lead........because they would have been winning already.

So, I agree with you. It definitely matters when they make them.

(04-09-2019 09:34 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:37 AM)Zorch Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 05:17 AM)Tribal Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 11:02 PM)Zorch Wrote:  Congratulations to the hated Hoos. They made their last 14 free throws (12 in overtime), 20-23 for the game. Contrast that with the free throw missed by Purdue with 17 seconds left that would have given them a 4 point lead over the Hoos. Do I really need to say it? Yes, I do. Make free throws, win games; miss free throws, lose games.

The best part is that the next chance at rebuttal won't happen for 7 more months.

Cherry picking stats again.

Auburn: 78% FT (11-14) UVA: 50% FT (6-12)

MSU: 78% (14-18) TTU: 62% (8-13)

Which two teams won to play in the National Championship Game?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Uh .... UVA hit 3 free throws with 1 second left to beat Auburn. They made free throws in OT to beat Purdue after Purdue had missed a crucial free throw late. It is not just the number of ft's that count, BUT WHEN YOU MAKE THEM (just ask Omar). UVA made them when they counted -- and won -- and Purdue (and New Mexico State, and others) missed them -- and lost. Can't explain it any more simply than that.

See, the problem with this logic is that if UVA would have made their free throws earlier in the game, Guy never gets the chance to shoot three free throws to take the lead........because they would have been winning already.

So, I agree with you. It definitely matters when they make them.

Sure, no one disagrees with the fact that, down by 2, sinking 3 at the end sealed it. If UVA hit just an average % of FTs earlier, they wouldn't have needed to hit 3 to win because they were better in many other areas. The problem is, there are so many--and far more crucial--other stats that, statistically speaking, increase the probability of winning. FG%, assists to turnovers, rebounding...all play a larger role. "FTs wins games" is such a silly argument. UVA shot better than TTU, outrebounded, more assists, and better assist to turnover ratio, and were even on FT%. No doubt, UVA had to hit FTs in OT to win but check out the play that put them ahead and how many rebounds, caused turnovers, and TTU's missed shots (FG %) followed that go ahead 3 pointer.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(04-09-2019 10:22 AM)Tribal Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:34 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:37 AM)Zorch Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 05:17 AM)Tribal Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 11:02 PM)Zorch Wrote:  Congratulations to the hated Hoos. They made their last 14 free throws (12 in overtime), 20-23 for the game. Contrast that with the free throw missed by Purdue with 17 seconds left that would have given them a 4 point lead over the Hoos. Do I really need to say it? Yes, I do. Make free throws, win games; miss free throws, lose games.

The best part is that the next chance at rebuttal won't happen for 7 more months.

Cherry picking stats again.

Auburn: 78% FT (11-14) UVA: 50% FT (6-12)

MSU: 78% (14-18) TTU: 62% (8-13)

Which two teams won to play in the National Championship Game?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Uh .... UVA hit 3 free throws with 1 second left to beat Auburn. They made free throws in OT to beat Purdue after Purdue had missed a crucial free throw late. It is not just the number of ft's that count, BUT WHEN YOU MAKE THEM (just ask Omar). UVA made them when they counted -- and won -- and Purdue (and New Mexico State, and others) missed them -- and lost. Can't explain it any more simply than that.

See, the problem with this logic is that if UVA would have made their free throws earlier in the game, Guy never gets the chance to shoot three free throws to take the lead........because they would have been winning already.

So, I agree with you. It definitely matters when they make them.

Sure, no one disagrees with the fact that, down by 2, sinking 3 at the end sealed it. If UVA hit just an average % of FTs earlier, they wouldn't have needed to hit 3 to win because they were better in many other areas. The problem is, there are so many--and far more crucial--other stats that, statistically speaking, increase the probability of winning. FG%, assists to turnovers, rebounding...all play a larger role. "FTs wins games" is such a silly argument. UVA shot better than TTU, outrebounded, more assists, and better assist to turnover ratio, and were even on FT%. No doubt, UVA had to hit FTs in OT to win but check out the play that put them ahead and how many rebounds, caused turnovers, and TTU's missed shots (FG %) followed that go ahead 3 pointer.

If UVA hit just an average % of FTs earlier, they wouldn't have needed to hit 3 to win because they were better in many other areas.

Hmm, they were better in many other areas ....and yet they still needed to hit those 3 FTs to win. Sounds like a pretty darn important statistic to me (both earlier or later, but later certainly gets your attention when the game is on the line). Thanks for providing the verbiage to seal the debate.

(04-09-2019 12:22 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 10:22 AM)Tribal Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:34 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:37 AM)Zorch Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 05:17 AM)Tribal Wrote:  Cherry picking stats again.

Auburn: 78% FT (11-14) UVA: 50% FT (6-12)

MSU: 78% (14-18) TTU: 62% (8-13)

Which two teams won to play in the National Championship Game?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Uh .... UVA hit 3 free throws with 1 second left to beat Auburn. They made free throws in OT to beat Purdue after Purdue had missed a crucial free throw late. It is not just the number of ft's that count, BUT WHEN YOU MAKE THEM (just ask Omar). UVA made them when they counted -- and won -- and Purdue (and New Mexico State, and others) missed them -- and lost. Can't explain it any more simply than that.

See, the problem with this logic is that if UVA would have made their free throws earlier in the game, Guy never gets the chance to shoot three free throws to take the lead........because they would have been winning already.

So, I agree with you. It definitely matters when they make them.

Sure, no one disagrees with the fact that, down by 2, sinking 3 at the end sealed it. If UVA hit just an average % of FTs earlier, they wouldn't have needed to hit 3 to win because they were better in many other areas. The problem is, there are so many--and far more crucial--other stats that, statistically speaking, increase the probability of winning. FG%, assists to turnovers, rebounding...all play a larger role. "FTs wins games" is such a silly argument. UVA shot better than TTU, outrebounded, more assists, and better assist to turnover ratio, and were even on FT%. No doubt, UVA had to hit FTs in OT to win but check out the play that put them ahead and how many rebounds, caused turnovers, and TTU's missed shots (FG %) followed that go ahead 3 pointer.

If UVA hit just an average % of FTs earlier, they wouldn't have needed to hit 3 to win because they were better in many other areas.

Hmm, they were better in many other areas ....and yet they still needed to hit those 3 FTs to win. Sounds like a pretty darn important statistic to me (both earlier or later, but later certainly gets your attention when the game is on the line). Thanks for providing the verbiage to seal the debate.

Now you're arguing just to argue. What do you think leads to FTs? Turnovers and rebounds have an awful lot to do with it. But, don't take my word for it...

Based on statistical analyses, the four most important keys for team success in basketball and their relative weights, in parentheses, are:

Shoot a high field goal percentage (10).

Do not commit turnovers (5-6).

Get offensive rebounds (4-5).

Get to the foul line frequently (2-3)

Nothing in there about FT % or hitting them at this time or that time. In fact, "Interestingly, it is more important for teams to get to the foul line frequently than it is for them to hit a high percentage of their foul shots. Perhaps, this is because lots of foul shots means the other team's starters are in foul trouble. Again, if shooting percentages are equal, the NBA team that commits fewer fouls wins 67 percent of the games."
https://www.sfandllaw.com/Articles/What-...ysis.shtml


Or, this one supporting the same research: https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/factors.html

Shooting (40%)

Turnovers (25%)

Rebounding (20%)

Free Throws (15%)

It's okay, it says FTs are fourth so you're making ground - unfortunately for your stance, FT% or timeliness isn't a real factor. Still proves commonsense logic that defaces the "FTs wins games" myth.

Or this one (seriously, just going down the line of my Google search)

https://coachingtoolbox.net/blog/the-fiv...ball-games

The team that recorded the high field goal percentage was the winner in 75 percent of the basketball games.

The team that scored the most free throws was the eventual winner in 70 percent of the games.

The team that recovered the higher number of rebounds was the winner 65 percent of the time.

The team that committed the higher number of personal fouls was the eventual winner in oniy 25 percent of the games.

The team that held the point advantage at halftime was the winner 74 percent of the time.

Another research paper with math and formulas and lots of fun stuff!
https://statathlon.com/four-factors-basketball-success/

Effective Field Goal% is an alternative to FG%, which inflates when the team makes three pointers.

Turnover Rate is an estimation of turnovers committed by a team per 100 possessions.

Offensive Rebound Rate is the percentage of contested rebounds that a team grabs after its own missed shots.

Free Throw Rate is the number of free throw attempts per every field goal attempt. Apart from easy points, free throws contribute towards opponent’s foul trouble


Too easy. I believe the rearch and expert analysis. Case closed.



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(04-09-2019 01:36 PM)Tribal Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:22 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 10:22 AM)Tribal Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:34 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:37 AM)Zorch Wrote:  Uh .... UVA hit 3 free throws with 1 second left to beat Auburn. They made free throws in OT to beat Purdue after Purdue had missed a crucial free throw late. It is not just the number of ft's that count, BUT WHEN YOU MAKE THEM (just ask Omar). UVA made them when they counted -- and won -- and Purdue (and New Mexico State, and others) missed them -- and lost. Can't explain it any more simply than that.

See, the problem with this logic is that if UVA would have made their free throws earlier in the game, Guy never gets the chance to shoot three free throws to take the lead........because they would have been winning already.

So, I agree with you. It definitely matters when they make them.

Sure, no one disagrees with the fact that, down by 2, sinking 3 at the end sealed it. If UVA hit just an average % of FTs earlier, they wouldn't have needed to hit 3 to win because they were better in many other areas. The problem is, there are so many--and far more crucial--other stats that, statistically speaking, increase the probability of winning. FG%, assists to turnovers, rebounding...all play a larger role. "FTs wins games" is such a silly argument. UVA shot better than TTU, outrebounded, more assists, and better assist to turnover ratio, and were even on FT%. No doubt, UVA had to hit FTs in OT to win but check out the play that put them ahead and how many rebounds, caused turnovers, and TTU's missed shots (FG %) followed that go ahead 3 pointer.

If UVA hit just an average % of FTs earlier, they wouldn't have needed to hit 3 to win because they were better in many other areas.

Hmm, they were better in many other areas ....and yet they still needed to hit those 3 FTs to win. Sounds like a pretty darn important statistic to me (both earlier or later, but later certainly gets your attention when the game is on the line). Thanks for providing the verbiage to seal the debate.

Now you're arguing just to argue. What do you think leads to FTs? Turnovers and rebounds have an awful lot to do with it. But, don't take my word for it...

Based on statistical analyses, the four most important keys for team success in basketball and their relative weights, in parentheses, are:

Shoot a high field goal percentage (10).

Do not commit turnovers (5-6).

Get offensive rebounds (4-5).

Get to the foul line frequently (2-3)

Nothing in there about FT % or hitting them at this time or that time. In fact, "Interestingly, it is more important for teams to get to the foul line frequently than it is for them to hit a high percentage of their foul shots. Perhaps, this is because lots of foul shots means the other team's starters are in foul trouble. Again, if shooting percentages are equal, the NBA team that commits fewer fouls wins 67 percent of the games."
https://www.sfandllaw.com/Articles/What-...ysis.shtml

Or, this one supporting the same research: https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/factors.html

Shooting (40%)

Turnovers (25%)

Rebounding (20%)

Free Throws (15%)

It's okay, it says FTs are fourth so you're making ground - unfortunately for your stance, FT% or timeliness isn't a real factor. Still proves commonsense logic that defaces the "FTs wins games" myth.

Or this one (seriously, just going down the line of my Google search)

https://coachingtoolbox.net/blog/the-fiv...ball-games

The team that recorded the high field goal percentage was the winner in 75 percent of the basketball games.

The team that scored the most free throws was the eventual winner in 70 percent of the games.

The team that recovered the higher number of rebounds was the winner 65 percent of the time.

The team that committed the higher number of personal fouls was the eventual winner in oniy 25 percent of the games.

The team that held the point advantage at halftime was the winner 74 percent of the time.

Another research paper with math and formulas and lots of fun stuff!
https://statathlon.com/four-factors-basketball-success/

Effective Field Goal% is an alternative to FG%, which inflates when the team makes three pointers.

Turnover Rate is an estimation of turnovers committed by a team per 100 possessions.

Offensive Rebound Rate is the percentage of contested rebounds that a team grabs after its own missed shots.

Free Throw Rate is the number of free throw attempts per every field goal attempt. Apart from easy points, free throws contribute towards opponent’s foul trouble

Too easy. I believe the rearch and expert analysis. Case closed.

"What do you think leads to FTs?" Fouls lead to free throws. Turnovers and rebounds of themselves do not cause free throws. Fouls committed in the act of rebounding etc lead to free throws. There is nothing inherent in a rebound that will automatically lead to a foul.

Get to the foul line frequently (2-3)

Nothing in there about FT % or hitting them at this time or that time.

Uh, duh, it is implied that you want a high FT% when you get to the line. Getting to the line twenty times and making two will likely not help you win even if you do get the other team in foul trouble.

Again, if shooting percentages are equal, the NBA team that commits fewer fouls wins 67 percent of the games." Again, a big "duh". IF shooting percentages are EQUAL then it is the team going to the line more who will score more free throw points and win (barring one team shooting an inordinately higher number of field goal attempts even when shooting the same FG %).

Shooting (40%)
Turnovers (25%)
Rebounding (20%)
Free Throws (15%)

The team that recorded the high field goal percentage was the winner in 75 percent of the basketball games.

The team that scored the most free throws was the eventual winner in 70 percent of the games.

The team that recovered the higher number of rebounds was the winner 65 percent of the time.

Hmm, free throws in that last quote was the second most important variable; in your first quote it was the fourth most important variable. So which study are you going with?

Too easy. I believe the rearch and expert analysis. Case closed.

Yeah, and there is lots of research and expert analysis about global warming/climate change, too, and some of that research actually denies that climate change is taking place. I just use my eyes and look outside and see the truth for myself.

Here is the bottom line: Ask Cline (Purdue) or the New Mexico State kid, or the Pepperdine team in '83 when Valvano won N.C. State's national championship .... ask them if they lost those games because of FG % ...or turnovers... or rebounding .... and I bet you that they (and all fans likewise polled) would say that they lost those games because they couldn't hit their free throws.

Free throw analysis suffers from a lot of intercorrelation problems. The *general* consensus is that free throw percentage tends to be more of a symptom of a team that just generally shoots well than a predictive variable by itself, but it's hard data to disentangle because (A) teams who shoot a lot of free throws tend to be teams who are already winning and (B) teams who shoot free throws well tend to be poor rebounders, all else equal. There is never enough data to call a given team "clutch" compared to how it performs normally. For pro players that have enough data to be taken seriously, there's very little evidence that players are more or less "clutch," although there is good evidence that players generally shoot a lower percentage in "pressure" situations.

Will say that there does not exist any strong evidence that free throw percentage is a uniquely predictive variable. Free throws don't present a more glaring weakness than anything else that might sink a team. Plenty of bad free throw shooting teams are fine; the ones who are successful are loaded with guys like Cacok, Gustys, Bazemore, Danny Sumner, Ish Smith, Elfrid Payton, Rondo etc. who contribute in other ways.

In the simplest terms, only two things matter: (1) Your net points per possession compared to your opponent and (2) your total possessions compared to your opponent. If your players are good in one particular area, it probably means they're not as good in other areas, relative to your peers. There's no real secret sauce.