Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Brent Barry shooting pct

Expand Messages
  • mikel_ind
    If Brent Barry of the Sonics continues to shoot at his current pace, he will have the highest season shooting pct of any player in some years. Currently, Barry
    Message 1 of 16 , Mar 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      If Brent Barry of the Sonics continues to shoot at his current pace,
      he will have the highest season shooting pct of any player in some
      years.

      Currently, Barry is shooting .659 : [pct = pts/(2*FGA + FTA)]

      Barry also led the NBA last year (at .651), with the next closest
      being Charles Outlaw (.606)

      In 2000, brother Jon edged out Brent (.613 to .602), with Mutombo
      (.601) next.

      During the short-3 years (94-97) there were some high shooting
      efficiencies: Tim Legler managed .675 in '96, Steve Kerr .661
      in '97...

      These are somewhat illegitimate marks. You have to go back to 1986,
      when Darryl Dawkins shot .660, to find a legitimate contender to B.
      Barry's last 2 seasons. James Donaldson had .661 in '85, and Artis
      Gilmore shot .681 in 1982.

      Wilt Chamberlain's record FG % in 1973 produced an overall .666
      shooting pct.

      For the curious, here is a year-by-year leader list of "combined
      shooting percentages"

      year pct. player
      1952 .543 Arnie Johnson, Roc
      1953 .527 Ed McCauley, Bos
      1954 .548 Ed McCauley, Bos
      1955 .553 Larry Foust, FtW
      1956 .539 Neil Johnston, Phl
      1957 .530 Neil Johnston, Phl
      1958 .521 Kenny Sears, NY
      1959 .574 Kenny Sears, NY
      1960 .551 Kenny Sears, NY

      1961 .542 Oscar Robertson, Cin
      1962 .542 Walt Bellamy, Chi
      1963 .584 Kenny Sears, SF
      1964 .567 Jerry Lucas, Cin
      1965 .566 Bailey Howell, Bal
      1966 .558 Jerry West, LA
      1967 .616 Wilt Chamberlain, Phl
      1968 .580 Connie Hawkins, Pgh(A)
      .... .575 Jerry West, LA
      1969 .599 Rick Barry, Oak (A)
      .... .580 Jerry Lucas, Cin

      1970 .569 Trooper Washington, Oak(A)
      .... .568 Lou Hudson, Atl
      1971 .598 Zelmo Beaty, Uta(A)
      .... .594 Lew Alcindor, Mil
      1972 .607 Artis Gilmore, Ky(A)
      .... .592 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Mil
      1973 .666 Wilt Chamberlain, LA
      1974 .586 Jimmy Jones, Uta(A)
      .... .584 Bob McAdoo, Buf
      1975 .616 Bobby Jones, Den(A)
      .... .587 Don Nelson, Bos
      1976 .587 Bobby Jones, Den (A)
      .... .583 John Shumate, Phe-Buf
      1977 .669 Dave Twardzik, Por
      1978 .634 Dave Twardzik, Por
      1979 .651 Cedric Maxwell, Bos

      1980 .657 Cedric Maxwell, Bos
      1981 .679 Artis Gilmore, Chi
      1982 .681 Artis Gilmore, Chi
      1983 .651 Artis Gilmore, SA
      1984 .654 Artis Gilmore, SA
      1985 .661 James Donaldson, SD
      1986 .660 Darryl Dawkins, NJ
      1987 .642 Kevin McHale, Bos
      1988 .644 Charles Barkley, Phl
      1989 .634 Charles Barkley, Phl

      1990 .642 Charles Barkley, Phl
      1991 .648 Mark West, Phe
      1992 .635 Buck Williams, Por
      1993 .627 Kenny Smith, Hou
      1994 .623 Reggie Miller, Ind
      1995 .639 John Stockton, Uta
      1996 .675 Tim Legler, Was
      1997 .661 Steve Kerr, Chi
      1998 .615 John Stockton, Uta
      1999 .608 Chris Mullin, Ind

      2000 .613 Jon Barry, Sac
      2001 .651 Brent Barry, Sea
      2002 .659 (so far) Brent Barry, Sea
    • Michael K. Tamada
      ... We were just commenting on this in one of the Sonics listservs... ... Which of course is *lower* than his record .727 FG%, due to his poor FT%. ... 1957
      Message 2 of 16 , Mar 7, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, mikel_ind wrote:

        > If Brent Barry of the Sonics continues to shoot at his current pace,
        > he will have the highest season shooting pct of any player in some
        > years.
        >
        > Currently, Barry is shooting .659 : [pct = pts/(2*FGA + FTA)]

        We were just commenting on this in one of the Sonics' listservs...

        > Wilt Chamberlain's record FG % in 1973 produced an overall .666
        > shooting pct.

        Which of course is *lower* than his record .727 FG%, due to his poor FT%.

        > year pct. player
        > 1956 .539 Neil Johnston, Phl
        > 1957 .530 Neil Johnston, Phl

        1957 was when Bill Russell entered the league, if the rumors about him
        driving Neil Johnston out of the league were true, it seems that Russell
        didn't have that big an immediate impact.

        > 1961 .542 Oscar Robertson, Cin
        > 1962 .542 Walt Bellamy, Chi

        I don't have in front of me the scoring stats for these players, but I
        think they were among the league leaders in scoring per game in those
        years, which makes their high PT% especially impressive. Unlike, e.g.
        Wilt's .666 in 1973 when he was no longer much of a scorer.

        > 1967 .616 Wilt Chamberlain, Phl

        I think Wilt was still around 24 or 27 points per game in 1967? So he was
        scoring a lot of points with high efficiency.

        > 1974 .586 Jimmy Jones, Uta(A)
        > .... .584 Bob McAdoo, Buf

        I think this was around when McAdoo was the NBA's leading scorer, quite
        an impressive feat to be the top scorer AND the top shooting efficiency
        guy. Even Michael Jordan or for that matter George Gervin or Adrian
        Dantley never led the league in shooting efficiency.

        > 1980 .657 Cedric Maxwell, Bos

        We need to think of a way to correct for the existence of the 3-point
        field goal, which permits players to achieve higher scoring efficiency.
        Obviously that would not be much of a direct factor with Maxwell, who did
        not shoot from that range very often. But it could've been an indirect
        factor: the 3-pter may have made Chris Ford and Larry Bird more dangerous
        on the outside, and permitted Maxell to get better shots and a higher FG%
        inside.

        > 1993 .627 Kenny Smith, Hou

        [...]

        > 2002 .659 (so far) Brent Barry, Sea

        A bit surprisingly, the top shooting efficiency players from the beginning
        of the NBA 3-pter until 1992 were all inside players (Maxwell, Gilmore,
        Barkley, etc.) Not until 1993 do we see a player who is clearly getting
        direct benefits from 3-pters to raise his shooting efficiency.

        But since 1993, it's been all 3-pt guys, not inside guys, who've led the
        NBA.



        --MKT
      • mikel_ind
        ... him ... Russell ... Johnston s career had a pretty typical trajectory for the era: peaking in his 2nd season (1953), 5 great years, 2 years of decline,
        Message 3 of 16 , Mar 7, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
          >
          > > year pct. player
          > > 1956 .539 Neil Johnston, Phl
          > > 1957 .530 Neil Johnston, Phl
          >
          > 1957 was when Bill Russell entered the league, if the rumors about
          him
          > driving Neil Johnston out of the league were true, it seems that
          Russell
          > didn't have that big an immediate impact.
          >
          Johnston's career had a pretty typical trajectory for the era:
          peaking in his 2nd season (1953), 5 great years, 2 years of decline,
          failed to finish his 8th year (1959).

          Maybe getting beat up by Russell only one night in 7 didn't ruin his
          game; but perhaps other centers learned Russell's anti-Johnston move.

          > > 1961 .542 Oscar Robertson, Cin
          > > 1962 .542 Walt Bellamy, Chi
          >
          > I don't have in front of me the scoring stats for these players,
          but I
          > think they were among the league leaders in scoring per game in
          those
          > years, which makes their high PT% especially impressive. Unlike,
          e.g.
          > Wilt's .666 in 1973 when he was no longer much of a scorer.


          Oscar was revolutionary. It is difficult to find a guard who
          shot .500 after the shot clock, until Oscar came along.
          >
          > > 1967 .616 Wilt Chamberlain, Phl
          >
          > I think Wilt was still around 24 or 27 points per game in 1967? So
          he was
          > scoring a lot of points with high efficiency.

          Wilt shot .683 from the field, and .441 from the line, in 1967. And
          24.1 ppg.


          > > 1974 .586 Jimmy Jones, Uta(A)
          > > .... .584 Bob McAdoo, Buf
          >
          > I think this was around when McAdoo was the NBA's leading scorer,
          quite
          > an impressive feat to be the top scorer AND the top shooting
          efficiency
          > guy. Even Michael Jordan or for that matter George Gervin or Adrian
          > Dantley never led the league in shooting efficiency.
          >

          > > 1980 .657 Cedric Maxwell, Bos
          >
          > We need to think of a way to correct for the existence of the 3-
          point
          > field goal, which permits players to achieve higher scoring
          efficiency.

          The shot clock lowered efficiencies by reducing the FT rates. The 3-
          to-make-2 was eliminated and further reduced efficiency. The 3-point
          shot clearly helps some players (is the raison d'etre for many),
          while an occasional Barkley is statistically battered by his attempts.

          >
          > > 1993 .627 Kenny Smith, Hou
          >
          > [...]
          >
          > > 2002 .659 (so far) Brent Barry, Sea
          >
          > A bit surprisingly, the top shooting efficiency players from the
          beginning
          > of the NBA 3-pter until 1992 were all inside players (Maxwell,
          Gilmore,
          > Barkley, etc.) Not until 1993 do we see a player who is clearly
          getting
          > direct benefits from 3-pters to raise his shooting efficiency.
          >
          > But since 1993, it's been all 3-pt guys, not inside guys, who've
          led the
          > NBA.

          > --MKT

          Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the 3-point line was shorter
          from '94 to '97. When the NBA went back to the longer arc, the era
          of great big men had subsided.

          Of course, some attention has been brought to the idea of "scoring
          efficiency" in the last 10 years, and it is no disgrace to shoot .420
          from the floor, if it creates more points than trying to score inside.

          Mike Goodman


          >
        • harlanzo
          Russell did dominate those slow hook shooters like Johnston and Foust. However, the thing with JOhnston is that, according to Tall Tales, Russell blocked a
          Message 4 of 16 , Mar 9, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Russell did dominate those slow hook shooters like Johnston and
            Foust. However, the thing with JOhnston is that, according to Tall
            Tales, Russell blocked a Johnston hook shot and Johnston blew out his
            knee on the play and was never able to play again. It was looked
            upon as a metaphorical passing of the torch from the old slow hook
            shot centers to the more athletic generation. (though Foust lasted
            into the 60s and was not immediately sent into retirement).


            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
            > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
            > >
            > > > year pct. player
            > > > 1956 .539 Neil Johnston, Phl
            > > > 1957 .530 Neil Johnston, Phl
            > >
            > > 1957 was when Bill Russell entered the league, if the rumors
            about
            > him
            > > driving Neil Johnston out of the league were true, it seems that
            > Russell
            > > didn't have that big an immediate impact.
            > >
            > Johnston's career had a pretty typical trajectory for the era:
            > peaking in his 2nd season (1953), 5 great years, 2 years of
            decline,
            > failed to finish his 8th year (1959).
            >
            > Maybe getting beat up by Russell only one night in 7 didn't ruin
            his
            > game; but perhaps other centers learned Russell's anti-Johnston
            move.
            >
            > > > 1961 .542 Oscar Robertson, Cin
            > > > 1962 .542 Walt Bellamy, Chi
            > >
            > > I don't have in front of me the scoring stats for these players,
            > but I
            > > think they were among the league leaders in scoring per game in
            > those
            > > years, which makes their high PT% especially impressive. Unlike,
            > e.g.
            > > Wilt's .666 in 1973 when he was no longer much of a scorer.
            >
            >
            > Oscar was revolutionary. It is difficult to find a guard who
            > shot .500 after the shot clock, until Oscar came along.
            > >
            > > > 1967 .616 Wilt Chamberlain, Phl
            > >
            > > I think Wilt was still around 24 or 27 points per game in 1967?
            So
            > he was
            > > scoring a lot of points with high efficiency.
            >
            > Wilt shot .683 from the field, and .441 from the line, in 1967.
            And
            > 24.1 ppg.
            >
            >
            > > > 1974 .586 Jimmy Jones, Uta(A)
            > > > .... .584 Bob McAdoo, Buf
            > >
            > > I think this was around when McAdoo was the NBA's leading scorer,
            > quite
            > > an impressive feat to be the top scorer AND the top shooting
            > efficiency
            > > guy. Even Michael Jordan or for that matter George Gervin or
            Adrian
            > > Dantley never led the league in shooting efficiency.
            > >
            >
            > > > 1980 .657 Cedric Maxwell, Bos
            > >
            > > We need to think of a way to correct for the existence of the 3-
            > point
            > > field goal, which permits players to achieve higher scoring
            > efficiency.
            >
            > The shot clock lowered efficiencies by reducing the FT rates. The
            3-
            > to-make-2 was eliminated and further reduced efficiency. The 3-
            point
            > shot clearly helps some players (is the raison d'etre for many),
            > while an occasional Barkley is statistically battered by his
            attempts.
            >
            > >
            > > > 1993 .627 Kenny Smith, Hou
            > >
            > > [...]
            > >
            > > > 2002 .659 (so far) Brent Barry, Sea
            > >
            > > A bit surprisingly, the top shooting efficiency players from the
            > beginning
            > > of the NBA 3-pter until 1992 were all inside players (Maxwell,
            > Gilmore,
            > > Barkley, etc.) Not until 1993 do we see a player who is clearly
            > getting
            > > direct benefits from 3-pters to raise his shooting efficiency.
            > >
            > > But since 1993, it's been all 3-pt guys, not inside guys, who've
            > led the
            > > NBA.
            >
            > > --MKT
            >
            > Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the 3-point line was
            shorter
            > from '94 to '97. When the NBA went back to the longer arc, the era
            > of great big men had subsided.
            >
            > Of course, some attention has been brought to the idea of "scoring
            > efficiency" in the last 10 years, and it is no disgrace to
            shoot .420
            > from the floor, if it creates more points than trying to score
            inside.
            >
            > Mike Goodman
            >
            >
            > >
          • HoopStudies
            Just got back from the SEC Tourney. I ve got some notes I want to bring up, but that s for later... ... quite ... efficiency ... Jordan got very close in
            Message 5 of 16 , Mar 11, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Just got back from the SEC Tourney. I've got some notes I want to
              bring up, but that's for later...

              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
              > > 1974 .586 Jimmy Jones, Uta(A)
              > > .... .584 Bob McAdoo, Buf
              >
              > I think this was around when McAdoo was the NBA's leading scorer,
              quite
              > an impressive feat to be the top scorer AND the top shooting
              efficiency
              > guy. Even Michael Jordan or for that matter George Gervin or Adrian
              > Dantley never led the league in shooting efficiency.

              Jordan got very close in leading the league in Offensive Rating and
              Floor %, two numbers I calculate that account for shooting ability,
              turnovers, assists and offensive rebounds. (I think Terry Porter and
              Reggie Miller beat him out once or twice in Offensive Rating. Jordan
              might have won on Floor %.) Even ignoring assists and offensive
              rebounds, Jordan was very good at shooting well, shooting a lot, and
              not turning the ball over, a rare combo. Dantley turned the ball
              over a fair amount. Dominique Wilkins didn't turn the ball over much
              and shot a lot, but didn't shoot all that well (and got a worse rap
              for it than, say, Dantley did for turning the ball over).

              >
              > > 1993 .627 Kenny Smith, Hou
              >
              > [...]
              >
              > > 2002 .659 (so far) Brent Barry, Sea
              >
              > A bit surprisingly, the top shooting efficiency players from the
              beginning
              > of the NBA 3-pter until 1992 were all inside players (Maxwell,
              Gilmore,
              > Barkley, etc.) Not until 1993 do we see a player who is clearly
              getting
              > direct benefits from 3-pters to raise his shooting efficiency.
              >
              > But since 1993, it's been all 3-pt guys, not inside guys, who've
              led the
              > NBA.

              This is the "problem" we raised at the start of the season. Defenses
              now absolutely will not give up a layup. Big men have had declining
              shooting percentages because all their easy shots are now FTAs. It's
              a horrible trend in the NBA but one that no one seems to want to fix
              or know how to fix. Calling more intentional fouls and more
              flagrants near the basket may help. I think just more intentional
              ones is good. And they better do it soon before it becomes accepted
              that just hacking a guy taking a layup is ok.

              DeanO
            • Michael K. Tamada
              On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, HoopStudies wrote: [...] ... What I d like to see (but come to think of it, somebody might ve suggested this also at the start of the
              Message 6 of 16 , Mar 11, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, HoopStudies wrote:

                [...]

                > > But since 1993, it's been all 3-pt guys, not inside guys, who've
                > led the
                > > NBA.
                >
                > This is the "problem" we raised at the start of the season. Defenses
                > now absolutely will not give up a layup. Big men have had declining
                > shooting percentages because all their easy shots are now FTAs. It's
                > a horrible trend in the NBA but one that no one seems to want to fix
                > or know how to fix. Calling more intentional fouls and more
                > flagrants near the basket may help. I think just more intentional
                > ones is good. And they better do it soon before it becomes accepted
                > that just hacking a guy taking a layup is ok.

                What I'd like to see (but come to think of it, somebody might've suggested
                this also at the start of the season) is a return to the old 3-to-make-2
                and 2-to-make-1. To reduce the value of those semi-intentional fouls.

                Conversely, one of the dumbest rules still existing in organized
                basketball is the 1-and-1 that the NCAA persists in using. It gives
                college teams yet another excuse to foul and foul, because the penalty for
                doing so is so ridiculously light. Thank goodness the NCAA does have that
                double-bonus, finally. But they should get rid of the 1-and-1 and go
                right into double-bonus. (Mens NCAA was also the last major league in the
                world that I know of that refused to use a shot clock. And when they did
                institute one, they initially turned if OFF during the last 2 minutes of a
                game. Dumb rule, boring basketball -- nothing but aimless passing and
                dribbling followed by a semi-intentional foul.)


                --MKT
              • Michael K. Tamada
                Thanks, I ve got Tall Tales but had forgotten that tidbit of information. Russell s first year in the NBA coincided with perhaps the worst season that Foust
                Message 7 of 16 , Mar 14, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks, I've got Tall Tales but had forgotten that tidbit of information.
                  Russell's first year in the NBA coincided with perhaps the worst season
                  that Foust had had in his career, up to that point.

                  But that may've been due to an injury, Foust bounced right back with one
                  of his better seasons, and another All-star appearance the next season.
                  He declined after that, but he was 30 by then so it may've been age rather
                  than centers such as Russell who caused the decline.


                  --MKT


                  On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, harlanzo wrote:

                  > Russell did dominate those slow hook shooters like Johnston and
                  > Foust. However, the thing with JOhnston is that, according to Tall
                  > Tales, Russell blocked a Johnston hook shot and Johnston blew out his
                  > knee on the play and was never able to play again. It was looked
                  > upon as a metaphorical passing of the torch from the old slow hook
                  > shot centers to the more athletic generation. (though Foust lasted
                  > into the 60s and was not immediately sent into retirement).
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                  > > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > > year pct. player
                  > > > > 1956 .539 Neil Johnston, Phl
                  > > > > 1957 .530 Neil Johnston, Phl
                  > > >
                  > > > 1957 was when Bill Russell entered the league, if the rumors
                  > about
                  > > him
                  > > > driving Neil Johnston out of the league were true, it seems that
                  > > Russell
                  > > > didn't have that big an immediate impact.
                  > > >
                  > > Johnston's career had a pretty typical trajectory for the era:
                  > > peaking in his 2nd season (1953), 5 great years, 2 years of
                  > decline,
                  > > failed to finish his 8th year (1959).
                  > >
                  > > Maybe getting beat up by Russell only one night in 7 didn't ruin
                  > his
                  > > game; but perhaps other centers learned Russell's anti-Johnston
                  > move.
                  > >
                  > > > > 1961 .542 Oscar Robertson, Cin
                  > > > > 1962 .542 Walt Bellamy, Chi
                  > > >
                  > > > I don't have in front of me the scoring stats for these players,
                  > > but I
                  > > > think they were among the league leaders in scoring per game in
                  > > those
                  > > > years, which makes their high PT% especially impressive. Unlike,
                  > > e.g.
                  > > > Wilt's .666 in 1973 when he was no longer much of a scorer.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Oscar was revolutionary. It is difficult to find a guard who
                  > > shot .500 after the shot clock, until Oscar came along.
                  > > >
                  > > > > 1967 .616 Wilt Chamberlain, Phl
                  > > >
                  > > > I think Wilt was still around 24 or 27 points per game in 1967?
                  > So
                  > > he was
                  > > > scoring a lot of points with high efficiency.
                  > >
                  > > Wilt shot .683 from the field, and .441 from the line, in 1967.
                  > And
                  > > 24.1 ppg.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > > > 1974 .586 Jimmy Jones, Uta(A)
                  > > > > .... .584 Bob McAdoo, Buf
                  > > >
                  > > > I think this was around when McAdoo was the NBA's leading scorer,
                  > > quite
                  > > > an impressive feat to be the top scorer AND the top shooting
                  > > efficiency
                  > > > guy. Even Michael Jordan or for that matter George Gervin or
                  > Adrian
                  > > > Dantley never led the league in shooting efficiency.
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > > 1980 .657 Cedric Maxwell, Bos
                  > > >
                  > > > We need to think of a way to correct for the existence of the 3-
                  > > point
                  > > > field goal, which permits players to achieve higher scoring
                  > > efficiency.
                  > >
                  > > The shot clock lowered efficiencies by reducing the FT rates. The
                  > 3-
                  > > to-make-2 was eliminated and further reduced efficiency. The 3-
                  > point
                  > > shot clearly helps some players (is the raison d'etre for many),
                  > > while an occasional Barkley is statistically battered by his
                  > attempts.
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > > > 1993 .627 Kenny Smith, Hou
                  > > >
                  > > > [...]
                  > > >
                  > > > > 2002 .659 (so far) Brent Barry, Sea
                  > > >
                  > > > A bit surprisingly, the top shooting efficiency players from the
                  > > beginning
                  > > > of the NBA 3-pter until 1992 were all inside players (Maxwell,
                  > > Gilmore,
                  > > > Barkley, etc.) Not until 1993 do we see a player who is clearly
                  > > getting
                  > > > direct benefits from 3-pters to raise his shooting efficiency.
                  > > >
                  > > > But since 1993, it's been all 3-pt guys, not inside guys, who've
                  > > led the
                  > > > NBA.
                  > >
                  > > > --MKT
                  > >
                  > > Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the 3-point line was
                  > shorter
                  > > from '94 to '97. When the NBA went back to the longer arc, the era
                  > > of great big men had subsided.
                  > >
                  > > Of course, some attention has been brought to the idea of "scoring
                  > > efficiency" in the last 10 years, and it is no disgrace to
                  > shoot .420
                  > > from the floor, if it creates more points than trying to score
                  > inside.
                  > >
                  > > Mike Goodman
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                • HoopStudies
                  ... penalty for ... have that ... go ... The expected return on the 1-and-1 is, assuming 68% FT%, 1.14. That really isn t much of a penalty for fouling, if
                  Message 8 of 16 , Mar 24, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
                    > Conversely, one of the dumbest rules still existing in organized
                    > basketball is the 1-and-1 that the NCAA persists in using. It gives
                    > college teams yet another excuse to foul and foul, because the
                    penalty for
                    > doing so is so ridiculously light. Thank goodness the NCAA does
                    have that
                    > double-bonus, finally. But they should get rid of the 1-and-1 and
                    go
                    > right into double-bonus. (Mens NCAA was also the last major league

                    The expected return on the 1-and-1 is, assuming 68% FT%, 1.14. That
                    really isn't much of a penalty for fouling, if the value of a
                    possession is about 1-1.1 in college.

                    What kind of expected return should there be for excessive fouls in a
                    quarter/half? Should it increase with number of fouls?

                    What should the expected return be for flagrants or intentionals?

                    DeanO
                  • Michael K. Tamada
                    ... [...] ... Pretty much the sky is the limit here, whatever the rules are, teams will adjust. The least extreme change would be something like: in the last
                    Message 9 of 16 , Mar 26, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, HoopStudies wrote:

                      > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
                      > > Conversely, one of the dumbest rules still existing in organized
                      > > basketball is the 1-and-1 that the NCAA persists in using. It gives
                      > > college teams yet another excuse to foul and foul, because the
                      > penalty for
                      > > doing so is so ridiculously light. Thank goodness the NCAA does

                      [...]

                      > The expected return on the 1-and-1 is, assuming 68% FT%, 1.14. That
                      > really isn't much of a penalty for fouling, if the value of a
                      > possession is about 1-1.1 in college.
                      >
                      > What kind of expected return should there be for excessive fouls in a
                      > quarter/half? Should it increase with number of fouls?
                      >
                      > What should the expected return be for flagrants or intentionals?


                      Pretty much the sky is the limit here, whatever the rules are, teams will
                      adjust. The least extreme change would be something like: in the last
                      two minutes of a game, defensive fouls are automatically 3-to-make-2.
                      Regardless of the team foul situation and whether the person with the ball
                      is shooting or not. Or the foullee gets just one free throw -- but his
                      team gets to keep possession afterward. That'd reduce the deliberate
                      foulling.

                      More extreme would be make all defensive fouls, even the first ones in a
                      quarter, worth foul shots, 2 or 3-to-make-2. To prevent the "strategic
                      foulling" wherein a defender grabs a guy before he can even get a shot
                      off.

                      Changes like this would reduce foulling because of the heavy penalty
                      involved. They would also make defense harder to play -- but although
                      we're a bit ahead of the dark days of 1999 when only one team managed,
                      barely, to average 100 points a game, I think most observers would agree
                      that changes in the game that made offense easier and defense harder would
                      be a positive change now.


                      --MKT
                    • mikel_ind
                      ... One argument for retaining the 1+1 is that at developmental levels (college?), free-throw shooting is a skill that is necessary to learn. Performing under
                      Message 10 of 16 , Mar 26, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
                        > > > .... one of the dumbest rules still existing in organized
                        > > > basketball is the 1-and-1 that the NCAA persists in using.

                        One argument for retaining the 1+1 is that at developmental levels
                        (college?), free-throw shooting is a skill that is necessary to learn.

                        Performing under pressure is also something to learn.

                        > [...]
                        > ... something like: in the last
                        > two minutes of a game, defensive fouls are automatically 3-to-make-
                        2.

                        Personal preference is for fewer FT.

                        > Or the foullee gets just one free throw -- but his
                        > team gets to keep possession afterward. That'd reduce the
                        deliberate
                        > foulling.

                        This makes lots of sense. When you grab Shaq, he shoots 1 FT, Lakers
                        retain ball. Perfect solution, in fact.

                        >
                        > More extreme would be make all defensive fouls, even the first ones
                        in a
                        > quarter, worth foul shots, 2 or 3-to-make-2. To prevent
                        the "strategic
                        > foulling" wherein a defender grabs a guy before he can even get a
                        shot
                        > off.
                        >
                        > Changes like this would reduce foulling because of the heavy penalty
                        > involved. They would also make defense harder to play -- but
                        although
                        > we're a bit ahead of the dark days of 1999 when only one team
                        managed,
                        > barely, to average 100 points a game, I think most observers would
                        agree
                        > that changes in the game that made offense easier and defense
                        harder would
                        > be a positive change now.
                        >
                        >
                        > --MKT

                        I'm not trying to dote on Shaq here, but if he is shooting 40% at the
                        line, then 2 shots is worth .8 points, and 3 is worth 1.2 points.
                        Meanwhile, 1 shot and the ball is some .4 + 1 = 1.4 points.

                        Fewer FT is a better game, IMHO, and one-plus-possession seems to
                        nicely suit all purposes. If it's a hard (i.e., dangerous) foul, it
                        should be 2-plus-possession.

                        Most Shaqophiles I know like to claim that he doesn't beat up
                        defenders any worse than they beat him up. Creating such a rule
                        change might reduce the constant incidental-contact that makes it
                        hard for the ref to call it either way.

                        Then Shaq might not be such a wrecking crew, and some careers might
                        even last longer.

                        Mike Goodman
                      • HoopStudies
                        ... learn. ... make- ... I just tend to think that 1+ the ball is a greater penalty, especially since the biggest penalty at the end of a game is time running
                        Message 11 of 16 , Mar 26, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                          > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
                          > > > > .... one of the dumbest rules still existing in organized
                          > > > > basketball is the 1-and-1 that the NCAA persists in using.
                          >
                          > One argument for retaining the 1+1 is that at developmental levels
                          > (college?), free-throw shooting is a skill that is necessary to
                          learn.
                          >
                          > Performing under pressure is also something to learn.
                          >
                          > > [...]
                          > > ... something like: in the last
                          > > two minutes of a game, defensive fouls are automatically 3-to-
                          make-
                          > 2.
                          >
                          > Personal preference is for fewer FT.
                          >

                          I just tend to think that 1+ the ball is a greater penalty,
                          especially since the biggest penalty at the end of a game is time
                          running off the clock.

                          > I'm not trying to dote on Shaq here, but if he is shooting 40% at
                          the
                          > line, then 2 shots is worth .8 points, and 3 is worth 1.2 points.
                          > Meanwhile, 1 shot and the ball is some .4 + 1 = 1.4 points.
                          >

                          Plus the opportunity to see Shaq on the block again. Although Shaq
                          pretty consistently shoots about 53%.

                          > Fewer FT is a better game, IMHO, and one-plus-possession seems to
                          > nicely suit all purposes. If it's a hard (i.e., dangerous) foul,
                          it
                          > should be 2-plus-possession.
                          >
                          > Most Shaqophiles I know like to claim that he doesn't beat up
                          > defenders any worse than they beat him up. Creating such a rule
                          > change might reduce the constant incidental-contact that makes it
                          > hard for the ref to call it either way.

                          I don't know how you change that incidental contact unless you call
                          the game incredibly tight, basically no contact at all, which means
                          no backing down an opponent, fewer blocked shots, lots more FTs (at
                          least in the short run). Shaq's size is a problem. I don't see any
                          way to get around the fact that the rules weren't meant for someone
                          as big and strong as he is.

                          DeanO
                        • Michael K. Tamada
                          On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, mikel_ind wrote: [...] ... No question that fewer FT is a better game. The interesting question though is what happens if we penalize
                          Message 12 of 16 , Mar 26, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, mikel_ind wrote:

                            [...]

                            > Fewer FT is a better game, IMHO, and one-plus-possession seems to

                            No question that fewer FT is a better game. The interesting question
                            though is what happens if we penalize fouls by giving oodles of free
                            throws to the foulee? On the one hand, we might expect lots of free
                            throws to result, but I think that the need to avoid giving the opponent
                            lots of cheap easy FTs would cause teams to foul much less. So much less
                            that the number of FTs would actually fall.

                            Conversely, 1-and-1 rules invite teams to simply hack and hack
                            "deliberately but not intentionally" (one of the biggest jokes and an
                            example of the inherent unworkability of the rules: every one of the 10
                            or 20 thousand people in the building knows that those fouls were commited
                            deliberately, and simply to send the guy to the line, but only rarely do
                            they get called as "intentional" fouls). Result: an endless march to the
                            free throw line. So awarding fewer FTs per violation actually leads to
                            more FTs being attempted in a game.


                            But, the 1 FT + possession idea could achieve both ends.



                            I don't want to say "never", but rules in sports should be such that
                            players almost never find it in their interest to deliberately break the
                            rules. There's a few acceptable rare exceptions such as the intentional
                            delay of game penalty in a football game.

                            Or alternatively, give up the sham and incorporate the act into the rules,
                            but don't try to pretend the rules are outlawing something they aren't.
                            Instead of having players run up and mug the guy with the ball
                            "deliberately but not intentionally", just permit the team to say "I
                            hereby foul Player Z" and player Z gets to shoot his FTs and a player on
                            the defensive team gets charged with a foul.

                            An example of giving up the sham: for years and years, the NBA had a
                            little fiction called the 20 second injury time-out. Originally used
                            for that purpose, but it evolved into a way for teams to call timeout
                            without using one of their precious real timeouts. I remember being in
                            Boston Garden watching Cedric Maxwell about to inbound the ball. The
                            Celtics wanted to call a 20 second injury timeout, so Cedric, at one
                            moment healthy and holding the ball up, suddenly grimaced and clutched his
                            leg and called for an injury timeout. And guffawed all the way to the
                            huddle, while we spectators said "I hope your leg feels better now
                            Cedric".

                            It was pretty amusing, but it underlined the silliness of the NBA rule
                            saying these timeouts were for looking after an injured player. A few
                            years later the NBA finally said okay we'll just call them 20-second
                            timeouts, and you can call one for any reason.

                            Much better. None of this "injury" timeout charade.

                            Ditto for deliberate fouls. Either incorporate them into the rules, or
                            better yet, get teams to stop doing in by increasing the penalty. But
                            don't try to claim there are rules against "intentional fouls" when we see
                            teams commit them every night.


                            --MKT
                          • thedawgsareout
                            ... Well, I ve been contemplating how exactly to discourage physical play without increasing free throws lately myself, and hadn t gotten much of anywhere.
                            Message 13 of 16 , Mar 27, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:

                              Well, I've been contemplating how exactly to discourage physical
                              play without increasing free throws lately myself, and hadn't gotten
                              much of anywhere. About the only thing I came up with that achieved
                              both results was reducing the number of fouls necessary to foul out,
                              but I have problems with that on a number of levels, mainly because
                              it would probably increase the frequency of so-called 'superstar
                              calls'.

                              Mike's idea for one FT + possession really does a great job of
                              achieving both goals without any other significant detriment, in my
                              opinion. Let's get David Stern on the horn. . . .

                              > An example of giving up the sham: . . .
                              > It was pretty amusing, but it underlined the silliness of the NBA
                              > rule saying these timeouts were for looking after an injured
                              > player. A few years later the NBA finally said okay we'll just
                              > call them 20-second timeouts, and you can call one for any reason.
                              >
                              > Much better. None of this "injury" timeout charade.

                              I heard the NBA was looking into ending another one of these shams,
                              the 'injured list', and just going ahead and officially calling it
                              an inactive list/squad or something of that nature. I'm conflicted;
                              I'll really miss the cases of patella tendinitis that plagued poor
                              Steve Scheffler so.
                            • Medea's Child
                              ... I m sure Steve won t. Then again, maybe he will. At least then, he could explain to friends and family that he s injured (as opposed to being
                              Message 14 of 16 , Mar 27, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- thedawgsareout <kpelton08@...> wrote:
                                > I'll really miss the cases of patella tendinitis
                                > that plagued poor
                                > Steve Scheffler so.
                                >
                                I'm sure Steve won't.







                                Then again, maybe he will. At least then, he could
                                explain to friends and family that he's "injured" (as
                                opposed to being "irrelevant").

                                Medea's Child


                                __________________________________________________
                                Do You Yahoo!?
                                Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards´┐Ż
                                http://movies.yahoo.com/
                              • HoopStudies
                                ... question ... opponent ... much less ... All this talk about changing the penalty to avoid fouls reminds me of Bill James similar crusade in baseball. He
                                Message 15 of 16 , Mar 27, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > > Fewer FT is a better game, IMHO, and one-plus-possession seems to
                                  >
                                  > No question that fewer FT is a better game. The interesting
                                  question
                                  > though is what happens if we penalize fouls by giving oodles of free
                                  > throws to the foulee? On the one hand, we might expect lots of free
                                  > throws to result, but I think that the need to avoid giving the
                                  opponent
                                  > lots of cheap easy FTs would cause teams to foul much less. So
                                  much less
                                  > that the number of FTs would actually fall.
                                  >

                                  All this talk about changing the penalty to avoid fouls reminds me of
                                  Bill James' similar crusade in baseball. He said that baseball's
                                  intentional walk was one of the stupidest concepts around. He
                                  advocated allowing a hitter to pass on first base at his option
                                  (whether the walk looked intentional or not). If he got another 4
                                  balls, then he could go to 2nd base, etc. It seemed like an
                                  interesting tweak to me. I think a lot of hitters would still take
                                  the walk most times, but not all the time (end of close games).
                                  Baseball is a lot harder to change, I think, than basketball.

                                  Returning to basketball, it sounds like we agree on 1 FT + possession
                                  as a good deterrent to excessive fouling. To clarify, when would we
                                  employ it? Just on obviously intentional fouls, even those in the
                                  backcourt or not in the last two minutes? 2FT + possessions for
                                  flagrant.

                                  DeanO
                                • Michael K. Tamada
                                  On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, HoopStudies wrote: [...] ... My vote, but I imagine I m an extremist, is as often as possible. Doesn t even have to be a penalty
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Mar 28, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, HoopStudies wrote:

                                    [...]

                                    > Returning to basketball, it sounds like we agree on 1 FT + possession
                                    > as a good deterrent to excessive fouling. To clarify, when would we
                                    > employ it? Just on obviously intentional fouls, even those in the
                                    > backcourt or not in the last two minutes? 2FT + possessions for
                                    > flagrant.

                                    My vote, but I imagine I'm an extremist, is as often as possible. Doesn't
                                    even have to be a penalty situation. Defenders will eventually realize
                                    that if they can't handle the offensive player, it does them no good to do
                                    what they currently do (foul) because the guy will get the ball back
                                    anyway. Eventually they will have to simply play the best non-foulling
                                    defense they can and hope the shooter misses. Or get defensive help,
                                    aided by the legalized zone rules the NBA now has.

                                    Purists will protest that this takes weapons away from the defenders and
                                    makes the game a wimpy non-contact sport. Well it's supposed to be a
                                    non-contact sport. The game would become less physical, but that's not a
                                    bad thing. Our notion of what constitutes wimpy basketball can and does
                                    change -- dunks used to be rare because they were viewed as inflammatory
                                    dissing of the opponents, which would lead to the dunker getting whacked
                                    but good on a subsequent play. Nowadays players dunk with abandon. We
                                    still have the "don't give away an uncontested layin" mentality, but that
                                    can and should go the way of the "no dunks" mentality.

                                    Given a choice between 1980s Phoenix Suns-style Walter Davis/Larry Nance
                                    high-flying greyhound basketball, vs 1990s Miami/New York slowdown grunt
                                    it out basketball, I'll take the Suns. Obviously this can be taken too
                                    far, the 144-142 NBA All-star game scores are a perfect example, but the
                                    pendulum's been too far in the anti-scoring direction for a decade or so.


                                    --MKT
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.