BrewCity...

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Love the D'Antoni response. It's all about efficiency. Free throws are great, but whether you're a good free throw shooting team or a bad one, you're still scoring those efficiently. At the end of the day, it's a marginal difference. And all the stuff about late game, key situation, that's just an excuse for teams that screwed up situations earlier in the game. You wanna know how to win in the clutch? Be up 10 like we were last night.

The reason our offense is great this year isn't because we are a great free throw shooting team (we are) but because we are a great three-point shooting team. What kept the game in our favor last night was our ability to hit threes and, when Georgetown went zone, our ability to find the holes and hit the midrange shots (both JJ and Reinhardt had some nice ones).

Yes, it's better to make a free throw than miss, and you'd rather have a high percentage than a low one, but free throws simply aren't a very important part of our game. Sure, we're 2nd nationally in percentage, but we are #116 in makes per game because despite shooting them at a high success rate, we don't go there often enough for it to really make much of an impact on our overall offense. Far more important is that we are #24 in three-point makes per game.

There's a reason the four factors are considered the way they are. eFG% is king because it is all about making high-value shots. Offensive rebounding and turnovers are important because they give you chances to make high value shots, but less important than the actual eFG% because having the chance to make a shot isn't the same as making one. And free throw rate is at the bottom because everyone scores on those chances at a high rate, they are low-value shots, and more often than not (make or miss) give possession to your opponent to allow them a chance to make a high-value shot.

[Nukem2]

FTs were a big deal last night. Screw those stats. Need to see the game in person.

[TheSultan]

FTs were a big deal last night. Screw those stats. Need to see the game in person.

Free throw *rate?* Yes. Shooting 17 FTs versus 11 for Georgetown was one of the keys to the game. (I don't have the actual FT rate to refer to, but it is roughly aligned to the FTAs each team had.)

Free throw *percentage* Nope. They could have swapped FT% and Marquette still would have won.

Stats described the game very well. You just are using the wrong ones. Need to evolve.

[Nukem2]

Free throw *rate?* Yes. Shooting 17 FTs versus 11 for Georgetown was one of the keys to the game. (I don't have the actual FT rate to refer to, but it is roughly aligned to the FTAs each team had.)

Free throw *percentage* Nope. They could have swapped FT% and Marquette still would have won.

Stats described the game very well. You just are using the wrong ones. Need to evolve.

I was there. You were not. Game set. F$ck the damn stats. What ya see is what ya get.

[TheSultan]

I was there. You were not. Game set. F$ck the damn stats. What ya see is what ya get.

And what you see *is* what you get. You just aren't seeing the right things. Look harder.

[IrwinFletcher]

And here we go...

[farmerdoc]

I am actually, really, enjoying this debate. The one thing that the stats cannot account for in late game situations, is how makes or misses at the free throw line affect momentum. That is totally unmeasurable (I think, maybe there is a momentum equation somewhere?) statistic that really does have a real impact on the outcome.

[TheSultan]

I am actually, really, enjoying this debate. The one thing that the stats cannot account for in late game situations, is how makes or misses at the free throw line affect momentum. That is totally unmeasurable (I think, maybe there is a momentum equation somewhere?) statistic that really does have a real impact on the outcome.

Right. Players are human and as such don't perform perfectly. Two players who are roughly the same statistically could perform completely different under certain situations because of how they handle pressure.

I never mean to say that statistics are the be all and end all, but pretty smart people have broken down the most important factors in winning basketball games over the course of time. Dean Oliver identified four major factors summarized here.

http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles..._roboscout.htm

Specifically he says this about free throws:

"The fourth factor is getting to the foul line. I phrase this intentionally as "getting to the foul line," not "making foul shots" or "free throw percentage" or "free throws." This is because the biggest aspect of "free throws" is actually attempting them, not making them. Teams that get to the line more are more effective than teams that make a higher percentage of their free throws.

Of course he acknowledges the obvious in the next line:

"Game-by-game exceptions can definitely exist - there are plenty of games that are lost by a team missing its foul shots - but over the long haul, just getting to the line frequently wins a lot more games than missing a few freebies will lose." (emphasis mine)


Here is another summary by Pomeroy:

http://kenpom.com/blog/four-factors/

Again, it's free throw *rate* that is important. Just getting to the line. Not free throw *percentage.* Of course it is is better to make them than to miss them. It just isn't as crucial in the long run to winning basketball games as merely getting there.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I was there. You were not. Game set. F$ck the damn stats. What ya see is what ya get.

I was also there and disagree completely that free throw percentage had a meaningful impact on the outcome.

[Nukem2]

Guess folks are getting way too precise with these stats. BB is a rather simple game and FTs are simply important in a close game. Enjoy the games...