If the average is 20' your better off being the team that goes 24 times and shoots 67 percent than a team that goes 16 and shoots 75%. Team FT% is the absolutely worst leading indicator of any available stat.
Louisville isnt that good
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
Here's something else to chew on.
In Clemson's upset 66-62 win over Louisville last weekend ....
Clemson 32-for-44 at the line
Louisville 11-for-16 at the line
Nearly 50% of Clemson's points came at the FT line. They won the FT line by 21.... they lost from the field 51-34.
Does Clemson win if they are 62% at the line instead of 73%? Nope. They would've been only 27-44.
If Louisville sends Pitt to the line 44 times tomorrow night.... Pitt will win by double-digits.
In Clemson's upset 66-62 win over Louisville last weekend ....
Clemson 32-for-44 at the line
Louisville 11-for-16 at the line
Nearly 50% of Clemson's points came at the FT line. They won the FT line by 21.... they lost from the field 51-34.
Does Clemson win if they are 62% at the line instead of 73%? Nope. They would've been only 27-44.
If Louisville sends Pitt to the line 44 times tomorrow night.... Pitt will win by double-digits.
Now you are onto the real metric. It is more important to go to the line frequently than improving your percent a little. This stuff has been hashed and rehashed a million times. Did those teams shoot their normal team percentage In that game? I am too tired to check it for you. Lol....UL shoots 68% and Clemson 70%, so what exactly was your point?
So Louisville shot almost 69% from the line, or 4 percent lower than Clemson .
Which indicated the ft percentage is not important in an of itself.
The percentage becomes a heckuva lot more important the more FTs you take.
Clemson had 16 points on 2-pointers, 18 points on 3-pointers, and 32 points on free throws. FT shooting was the most important factor in Clemson's win. They were outrebounded 53 to 31. They shot 32% from the field. They won because of the charity stripe - and they made it to the stripe that often because the refs are calling the games closer now, which adversely affects Louisville defensive style more than others.
Agree free throw rate is very important.
As I like to say , team shoots 100% going 5 for 5 from the line.
Team b shoots 50% from the line on 30 attempts .
Which team are you rolling with?
You keep saying the right thing, then missing the point. It is more important to shoot a lot of FTs than it is to have a high team FT%. You are literally inches away from getting it,
The most important stat in basketball is points per possession... both for and against. You literally cannot lose a game in which you score more points per possession than your opponent does.
Generally speaking.... 1.3 PPP and above is a very good offensive number.
A 75% FT shooting team will average 1.5 PPP for every possession in which they go to the line. (yes, some possessions will only have 1 FT.. others will have an offensive rebound to extend the possession... etc. It evens out).
An 80% FT team will score 1.6 PPP when they are fouled. That's a very good number, and so the opposition will almost ALWAYS do better to not foul that team - fouling becomes a negative expectation for the defensive team.
A 60% FT team will score 1.2 PPP when they are fouled. That's makes it much less risky to play a tight, physical brand of defense... .because fouls won't hurt you as much.
If Clemson was a poor FT-shooting team against Louisville, then it would've been a good defensive strategy for Louisville to play tight physical D... because it would lower Clemson's PPP from the field (more turnovers, more contested shots) and when fouls were called, it would've have hurt them as much.
Louisville goes into the game tomorrow night knowing that.... if the refs continue to call the games close as they have.... they can't get away with their physical, tight defense that they've been historically known for... because sending Pitt to the line will likely result in a 1.6 PPP - which is something Louisville would only be able to overcome if they shoot lights out themselves.
So Louisville has to pick their poison tomorrow defensively.
1) Play their normal tight, physical, pressing D and hope that either A) the refs "let them play" or B) Pitt has an off night at the stripe..... or.....
2) Back off a little on D to avoid fouls.... and hope Pitt has an off night from the field.
The postgame comments of both Gregory from GT and Brey from ND made it clear that both teams were in a defensive conundrum. They couldn't foul, because Pitt would kill them at the line... and they couldn't sag on D, because Pitt was lighting it up from the field. Both teams felt like they had to score almost every possession.
No teams shoot 60 or 80, I already said that. I can play that too. If one teams shoots 50 and one shoots 90, 90 is better. How about between 68 and 72? That is a reasonable and normal improvement one might expect to see year over year. What we are experiencing this season is atypical. And what do you think happens when James, Sheldon, mike and Jamel leave? We are right back to 68-72.
No team shoots 80?
Pitt's percentage this year is 80.3
Pitt's percentage in the 2002 season was 62.5
That's the range for Pitt, high and low, in the Howland/Dixon era.
The 2002 team was able to make up for their 62.5% by being a very, very, very good defensive team - and playing in a league that the refs typically "let them play" and called less touch fouls.
The 2002 team would have a very difficult time going 28-5 with the current rules. Defensively, they would've been called for many more fouls and offensively they would've been going to the line even more often - thus exacerbating their deficiency at the stripe.
The way the game is called now with the new rules.... it gives a better FT shooting team a bigger edge. It gives a physical, defensive team less of one. That's part of the reason Virginia is struggling a little bit the past couple weeks. The "suffocating" defense they played the last few years is now less effective against good teams, because every physical contact is being called. Virginia is losing games they would've won last year... and winning games by smaller margins than they would've last year.
Ok, so you just learned what outliers are. There is exactly ONE team shooting 80%. It doesn't matter, I was just telling you that your example is flawed because you were picking very rare percentages.
Do you realize that some teams with high team FT % also shoot a low number of FTs? If a team is largely a jump shooting team and goes to the line 12 times per game, what does 75% get you? 9 points. I would rather go 24 times and shoot 62%. I refuse to believe that you cannot understand that. Even so, neither of us would be able to say which team wins, because the team with 9 FTs could shoot lights out from 3. It is a totally inane metric.
Your teams FT % tells you absolutely nothing about how good or bad the team will be. Especially as MOST teams are between 68-74%. Talk actual scenarios. Not some oddball 60 or 80 thing. Even then most games have variability largely based on who is shooting them, a slump or hot streak, many factors. Averages are just that. Averages. No teams shoots the same percent every game. It is just a really really dumb stat to use to draw any conclusions on the affect on a team.
As of now, 2 and 1.
So if we happen to get a game with either Jackson State or Southeast Missouri State, look out!
Oddly enough, Harvard is 4th from the bottom. Historically they have been an above average team, usually well above average, for a long time. I wonder why Tommy Ammaker stopped having his guys practice them?
Yeah, kinda. I mean if you could do that all the time you'd have the best offensive team in the country. In fact you might have the best offensive team in college basketball history.
Or those Pitt teams of old adjust to the new rules just like almost every other team this year. Friendly reminder that free throw attempts are DOWN this year.
That is absolutely not true. Find me one statistical study that shows that. Close games are close for a variety of reasons. The team that shoots the higher % has nearly zero correlation with winning the game, whether the game ended up close or not.
One thing that has been overlooked is that as good as Pitt is in FT% (#1), they are almost as good in FT% defense (#4). Obviously you can't do anything to affect the guy at the line, so that basically boils down to playing smart defense and fouling the right players (as well as playing teams that suck at FTs).
If a team goes to the line 24 times, that was 12 possessions. 12 possessions in which they averaged 1.25 points if they only made 15.
Conversely, the team that went to the line 12 times and made 9 had an average of 1.5 points for those possessions.
The goal is to have more points per possession than your opponent, and thus winning the game.
Every time a team goes to the line and makes 1 of 2, they had 1.0 points on that possession. That's a negative outcome.
So no. The team that goes 25 for 50 is NOT better off than the team that goes 9 for 10... because they would've had to excel at such a higher level on the other possessons to make up for the 1.0 they had on those 25 possessions.
And possession that comes away with only 1 point is a below average possession.
Are you getting it yet? Yes, you may win when you go 25 for 50 at the line, but you had to be so much better than your opponent on the defensive end and on the other offensive possessions to make up for those negative possessions.
A missed front end of a 1 and 1 is a 0.0 possession. It's only 1 FT, but it has the same practical effect as a turnover.
In the Clemson Louisville game cited...
Clemson averaged 1.45 PPP when theu were fouled.... and 0.89 when they weren't. 1.10 for the game.
Louisville averaged 1.27 PPP when they were fouled and 0.98 when they weren't. 1.03 for the game.
Clemson won the game at the line.
Correct.
And with Pitt, when Maia and Ododa are not in the game, there are no "right players" to foul.
We've taken the weapon out of opposing teams' arsenals late in the game.
1.3 PPP is 78 points in a 60 possession game, or 91 points in a 70 possession game. Pitt has been averaging in the mid 60s in possessions and about 85 points.
Pitt's offense is very good, but I wouldn't call it the greatest offense ever. Pitt is almost right at 1.3 PPP this year.
You will never get it, I am convinced. You are entrenched and will stick to your guns. You're invested now, I get it.
Of course shooting better ANYWHERE is better than shooting worse. Hitting for a higher batting average, getting more yards per carry, scoring higher on an exam, all better than doing worse. Nobody is saying that shooting worse is better. We are just saying that FT% is a dumb metric from the standpoint that we have a core of guys who fret over that metric, when it is typically not very actionable or predictive. Especially minor variations like going from 66% to 69%. You keep picking extreme FT%s to make your point, which shows the weakness of your argument.
If a basketball genie appeared and gave you one wish, you could improve one of these three by 4% points, which would you pick?
A) Improve FT% from 68% to 72%
B) Improve 2 pt FG% from 44% to 48%
C) Improve 3 pt FG% from 35% to 39%
What order would you request them? I dare you to pick A.
p.s., Citing the UL Clemson game is stupid. One team shoots 68%, the other 70%. We are talking about team FT%, not one random game FT%. They shoot very close to the same %. You do know that within an average, there is variability?
Last edited:
Again.... you create a false choice. If you "recruit to shoot", you get better in all three areas, not just one.
Pitt's FT shooting this year is such a great weapon even if they don't shoot a single FT.
Let me explain...
Because of the expectation that Pitt will make 1.6 points per possession when fouled, opposing coaches have to gameplan their defenses - especially late in games - to specifically *NOT* foul. To avoid fouling at all costs until the clock is so low that they have no other choice. Gregory and Brey basically said exactly that after the past two games. Gregory said they had to wait until the final 30 seconds to begin trying to steal possessions with fouls because it wouldn't work against Pitt - there were no good options on the floor to foul. Because they could not risk fouling Pitt, their defense was a little softer.... which allowed Pitt to burn more clock and get a more open look when they did shoot. It also made pressing Pitt a higher-risk activity because refs are calling the hand checks more tightly now with the new rules.
Gregory and Brey would have played the end of both games COMPLETELY differently if Pitt has a couple 60% FT shooters on the floor. Because nobody on the floor was a poor FT shooter for Pitt, it changes what the other teams can do at the end of games to try to steal possessions and extend the game.
Again.... Pitt's high FT% benefits them even if they don't shoot a single FT down the stretch. It changes the strategy of the opposition.
If you can't see that, you're just being willfully obtuse.
Last edited:
Addendum:
The football equivalent would be having a deep ball threat which prevents the opposing defense from putting 8 or 9 men in the box. By having that threat, it improves the running game. For Pitt, the FT shooting opens up the FG shooting because the opponent doesn't want to risk a foul.
It's the baseball equivalent of having Aroldis Chapman as your closer. The opposition MUST get the game tied or be ahead after 8 innings, or the game is over.
For Pitt hoops, if they have a lead of two possessions or more with a minute to go, the game is over - you cannot foul them to catch up. It is a weapon that changes the end-of-game strategy of the opposition.
The football equivalent would be having a deep ball threat which prevents the opposing defense from putting 8 or 9 men in the box. By having that threat, it improves the running game. For Pitt, the FT shooting opens up the FG shooting because the opponent doesn't want to risk a foul.
It's the baseball equivalent of having Aroldis Chapman as your closer. The opposition MUST get the game tied or be ahead after 8 innings, or the game is over.
For Pitt hoops, if they have a lead of two possessions or more with a minute to go, the game is over - you cannot foul them to catch up. It is a weapon that changes the end-of-game strategy of the opposition.
In the game against Clemson, Ville had two players foul out and another three had 4 fouls... 29 fouls total.
If they foul that much against us they are in big trouble.
They are at home for this game but, on the other hand, we as a team tend to draw a lot of fouls... especially Young, who has 98 FTA, with the next most being Artis with 59.
If they foul that much against us they are in big trouble.
They are at home for this game but, on the other hand, we as a team tend to draw a lot of fouls... especially Young, who has 98 FTA, with the next most being Artis with 59.
Last edited:
I never said having the best FT% in the country doesn't help the team. If I did, please quote it. Really, who is being obtuse? How often do you think Pitt will lead the nation in FT%? What will your story be when we are shooting 68% versus 72%? You never answer how much impact that 4% has, you like to stay on the fringes. Dig those heels in deeper!!!!!
If you have Chapman, and have the worst rotation in the league, having him won't matter much.
Correct.
Just like having a great FG kicker won't help a bad team make the playoffs.
But a *BAD* closer can destroy an otherwise good team's chance of winning a championship. And an erratic FG kicker can end a good team's season unexpectedly (see Minnesota).
What matters more than the overall team pct... is the percentage of the weakest of the five guys that is on the floor late in the games. Pitt ends the game with no weak FT shooters on the floor. That changes the way the opposition can play.
I'd rather Pitt had 5 guys on the floor that each make 75%.... than two 90%, one 80%, and two 60%. Because those two 60% guys will be the ones targeted in the other team's comeback bid.
The overall pct of the team matters the first 39 minutes of a game - because in the aggregate, it affects the teams PPP. But in the final minute of the game, the weakest link is what matters. Maia will never be on the floor in the final minute of a game that Pitt leads unless one of two things is true: Pitt's lead is very big... or many players have fouled out and Jamie has no choice.
Agreed. If Pitt goes to the line 44 times tonight.... Pitt will win in a blowout.
I think it's perfect that you used Aroldis Chapman and save percentage to make your point. Chapman's save percentage last year was 91.7. Mark Melanson's was 96.2. Trevor Rosenthal's was 94.1. Francisco Rodriguez's was 95.0. Andrew Miller's was 94.7, as was Kenley Jansen. Shawn Tolleson's was 94.6. And so on.
Chapman's save percentage is actually a great point, for exactly the opposite reason that you think it is.
Chapman's save percentage is actually a great point, for exactly the opposite reason that you think it is.
This may be the first thing we agree on. At the end of games, the Team FT% means squat. Only the % of the guys on the floor. Having more guys that are good gives Dixon more options. We should stop now that we have found common ground.
Chapman's name was just an example, because he's been so dominant against Pittsburgh. Replace the words "Aroldis Chapman" with "Mark Melancon" or "Mariano Rivera" or simply "Great Closer" and the point is the same.
Right, the point is exactly the same. The difference between a "great" closer and an average one on any given day is essentially nothing. The difference between a good foul shooting team and an average one on any given day is likely to be almost nothing.
The difference between a "great" closer and an average one is the difference between a championship team and merely a good team.
FT shooting is very much like bullpen strength in baseball. A good bullpen can't make a bad team good - after all, there has to be a lead to protect. But a bad bullpen can doom an otherwise great team.
KC's strength the past two years has been a dominant bullpen. Yes, they had to have good starting pitching and a good offense... but what set them apart from the other good teams in the AL was their bullpen.
That's what good FT shooting does for a basketball team. It won't make a bad team win.... but it "shortens the game" at the end.
If Pitt has a 2 possession lead (or more) when the game enters its final minute, the game is over. If KC has a lead after 7 innings, the game is over.
That's what can make a good team great. And conversely, when it is missing, it can make an otherwise great team merely good.
So, you are summarizing your point about the overall value of FTs by comparing the pitching results of a top closer, one who might pitch 77 innings out of the 1490 total innings the team played in the season(using Melancon as an example). Sounds about right to me.
Of the top 30 pitchers in saves last season in MLB, the equivalent of one closer for each team, 14 of those guys had save percentages of 90% or greater. If you drop it down to 88% you are up to 19 out of 30. The difference between a great close and an average closer is absolutely NOT noticeable on a day to day basis. The cumulative save percentage of the top 10 pitchers by saves last season was just over 90%. The cumulative save percentage of the pitchers who finished 11-20 in saves last season was just under 88%. It's a difference of about one successful save in every 40-plus chances. Last year there were seven pitchers in major league baseball who had more than 40 save opportunities. When there is essentially no difference at all in performance of the top tier of guys and the middle tier of guys it is nonsensical to claim that there is any real difference at all between good closers and mediocre (ie average) ones.
Your confusion is that a good closer is better than a really crappy one. Absolutely true. And also the kind of closer that most teams don't have.
Compare the salaries of what the top 10 closers get when they're free agents vs what mediocre closers get ..... then get back to me.
They're paid because the 77 innings that they pitch are more important than the innings that middle relievers pitch. Because the closer is ONLY coming in when there is a small lead to protect - high leverage, high pressure situations. Those 77 innings are the difference between being a championship team and not being one.
Actually the funny thing is that the best closers in the game get paid approximately equal to what the average third starter makes. Which tells you all you need to know about what the people that actually pay the salaries think of what a top closer is worth relative to the rest of the league.
Similar threads
