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

Re: [APBR_analysis] Brent Barry shooting pct

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Mar 7, 2002
      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 2 of 16 , Mar 7, 2002
        --- 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 3 of 16 , Mar 9, 2002
          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 4 of 16 , Mar 11, 2002
            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 5 of 16 , Mar 11, 2002
              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 6 of 16 , Mar 14, 2002
                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 7 of 16 , Mar 24, 2002
                  --- 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 8 of 16 , Mar 26, 2002
                    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 9 of 16 , Mar 26, 2002
                      --- 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 10 of 16 , Mar 26, 2002
                        --- 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 11 of 16 , Mar 26, 2002
                          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 12 of 16 , Mar 27, 2002
                            --- 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 13 of 16 , Mar 27, 2002
                              --- 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 14 of 16 , Mar 27, 2002
                                > > 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 15 of 16 , Mar 28, 2002
                                  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.