Luke Fischer

[brewcity77]

eFG% will always pretty much trump anything else. Free throws are nice when you are talking at a team level. If you are looking at a team shooting 58% versus 70%, that's a bit of a difference. Not a ton, bit a bit.

Last year we averaged 19 FTA per game. The difference in percentages is 11.02 points versus 13.3. If you are a team that plays a ton of close games, a 12% boost would be a solid improvement and might make the difference in a handful of games.

But to compare to eFG% differences...

12% Team FT improvement: 2.28 ppg

*This improvement from 58% to 70% would signify an improvement from 350th in the nation to 148th, a jump of 201 spots.

2% Team eFG improvement: 2.12 ppg

*This improvement from 49.8% to 51.8% would signify an improvement from 128th in the nation to 68th, a jump of 60 spots.

So for 2 percentage points of Team eFG%, you get nearly the same benefit you would gain from the entire team improving their FT% by 12 percentage points. That's why you'll see most statheads preach the value of eFG%. Because it takes relatively small incremental differences to make a big difference to offensive efficiency.

[bilsu]

I think it is safe to assume that a team that shot 58% from the line missed a number of front ends of one and ones. Therefore, the 19 free throw attempts might go to 20+ free throw attemtps, which would result in a bigger point pick up. In a close game, where the other team is fouling you to get back in the game it becomes very important to hit the front end of a one and ones.

[ChicosBailBonds]

They aren't "free points" and I have never heard a coach say that.  They are "free throws" or more accurately "free shots."

My coaches called them free points, but I understand the quibble I suppose

Appears I wasn't alone in hearing this.  Plenty of examples:

Kenny Smith being one.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/should-the-nba-free-the-free-throw-1431558154

Chris Collins another   http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-15/sports/ct-free-throws-spt-0316-20140316_1_charity-stripe-free-throw-march-madness

Karl Anthony Towns   https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2015/03/15/karl-anthony-towns-is-kentuckys-free-throw-shooting-marvel/

Baynes   http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nba/pistons/2015/08/10/detroit-pistons-aron-bayne/31441435/

Frank the Tank  http://www.coachcal.com/34373/2015/04/uk-ready-to-contend-with-foul-averse-wisconsin-kaminsky/

Gonzaga...http://m.spokesman.com/stories/2007/feb/25/free-throws-mean-free-points/

UMass coach...  http://www.masslive.com/umassbasketball/index.ssf/2014/11/five_takeaways_from_umass_bask_7.html


Tennessee....
http://www.knoxnews.com/govolsxtra/basketball/free-throws-make-big-difference-for-lady-vols-in-win_26571856

etc, etc.  I heard it all the time and by the quick search, looks like many others did or still use the phrase.

[ChicosBailBonds]

No. It's not a good indicator and your thoughts are complete off base and unsupported by facts.

Ask Izzo. #328 in the nation. Final Four.

Ask Steve Fischer.

The flip side of that, Wisconsin in the championship and a top 10 FT shooting team.  Whether it is a good indicator or not, I have no doubt we can all find stats that "prove" or "disprove" their importance.  At the end of the day, the task at hand is to score more than the opponent.  Shooting a high FT% will equate to more points and more point opportunities (making the bonuses). 

There are certainly more important stats, but cashing in on free point opportunities is one that many (not all) good teams take advantage of.

[MU82]

TWhether it is a good indicator or not, I have no doubt we can all find stats that "prove" or "disprove" their importance.

Hey, Chicos, you sound like me talking about the stats you select to "prove" stuff on the politics board. Funny.

[brewcity77]

I think it is safe to assume that a team that shot 58% from the line missed a number of front ends of one and ones. Therefore, the 19 free throw attempts might go to 20+ free throw attemtps, which would result in a bigger point pick up. In a close game, where the other team is fouling you to get back in the game it becomes very important to hit the front end of a one and ones.

Very true. You want to make your free throws, clearly. Just illustrating the difference in significance between the two and how an incremental eFG% increase is as valuable as a massive FT% increase.

My real hope is that we improve in both of those aspects this year.

[WarriorInNYC]

I think it is safe to assume that a team that shot 58% from the line missed a number of front ends of one and ones. Therefore, the 19 free throw attempts might go to 20+ free throw attemtps, which would result in a bigger point pick up. In a close game, where the other team is fouling you to get back in the game it becomes very important to hit the front end of a one and ones.

Valid point.  There are a total of 6 one and one opportunities in a game for a team (fouls 7, 8, and 9), so a team shooting 58% you would expect to miss 2 per game (assuming no shooting fouls).  So the team would be missing an additional 2 free throws per game.

[bilsu]

Valid point.  There are a total of 6 one and one opportunities in a game for a team (fouls 7, 8, and 9), so a team shooting 58% you would expect to miss 2 per game (assuming no shooting fouls).  So the team would be missing an additional 2 free throws per game.

I thought about that, but free throw shooting only matters in close games. That is when a team that is behind will foul you three straight times to get the ball back. Miss the front end of all three one & one's in and you come away empty. The possibilities are 0-3, 1-4, 2-4, 3-5, 4-5, 5-6 and 6-6, so in a close game you are looking at a range of 0 to 6 points on the second half 1-1 opportunities. Assuming all are shooting fouls the possibilities are 0-6, 1-6, 2-6, 3-6, 4-6, 5-6, which is still a range of 6 points. Then you have to account for who is fouled. A 70% free throw shooting team is going to have players who shoot 65% and 75%. a team intentionally fouling is going to target the 65% free throw shooter. Besides that it seems to me that free throw shooting is contagious. The first free throw shooter missing two free throws seems to make it more likely that the next shooter will also miss and the first free throw shooter making both free throws seems to make it more likely the next will make both. It may not be reality, but how else do you explain the same team making 25-26 one night and them the next game making 11-26. I would guess that in MU's 31 games this year that 20 of the games the score differential will be big enough that the free throw shooting will not matter. Assuming that is correct there are 11 games that outcome will depend on free throw shooting. Remember it is how both teams shoot that matters.

[MU82]

Stats schmatz. Just make the effen free throws.

The only time anybody really notices them is when they are missed by the losing team and/or in a close game.

[Jay Bee]

My coaches called them free points, but I understand the quibble I suppose

It's a stupid phrase to describe a free throw today, but the origin of the free throw is actually such that FREE POINTS (no shots required) was the initial rule.

The reality is for DECADES we've seen the avg kid shoot around 69% in college basketball. Hardly free.

It's not a "quibble" -- free throws aren't free points. That's indisputable, regardless of what you want to call it.

Valid point.  There are a total of 6 one and one opportunities in a game for a team (fouls 7, 8, and 9), so a team shooting 58% you would expect to miss 2 per game (assuming no shooting fouls).  So the team would be missing an additional 2 free throws per game.

Why in the world you would assume no shooting fouls? A game in which there are 12 one and one's in regulation would be extremely rare - certainly not a reasonable assumption.

But.. if it were to happen, you'd also want to figure in the ability to get an offensive rebound and a better-than-average scoring opportunity thereafter, HEY?

.15 OR% estimate would be fair... as would a 1.2 ppp estimate after an OR on a missed FT.

The flip side of that, Wisconsin in the championship and a top 10 FT shooting team.  Whether it is a good indicator or not, I have no doubt we can all find stats that "prove" or "disprove" their importance.  At the end of the day, the task at hand is to score more than the opponent.  Shooting a high FT% will equate to more points and more point opportunities (making the bonuses). 

There are certainly more important stats, but cashing in on free point opportunities is one that many (not all) good teams take advantage of.

No. Run historical correlations of shooting a high FT% to offensive efficiency (or worse yet, "more points").

Not sure becky was a top 10 FT shooting team last season (against D-I comp, definitely not)... but so what? You're picking and choosing stats -- and one that matters very little vs. others.

Two years ago they get knocked out in the final four... they went 19/20 from the line in that loss to Kentucky.. the Wildcats were 14/21. yawn.

This past year Duke GOT TO THE LINE 2x for every becky attempt. That's far more important (but less so than Duke simply shooting the ball (eFG%) better)..

Worrying about team FT% is silly.

Free throws are not free points.

And Luke doesn't need to dramatically improve his FT% in order to be good this year.

...you can have a differing opinion, but you know the drill....

[MU82]

Hey, if announcers and coaches can say "score the ball," Chicos hereby has the right to say "free points."

I coach, and if I ever say "score the ball" in practice, I will drop and do 25 pushups.

[MUHoopsFan2]

What are you talking about? Luke Fischer was used and he played great. I loved how they used him. Henry Ellenson is the guy who can hit the 15ft jumper. They do not need both of them to.

No. Wojo and his staff are using him right. He can work on that later. The way their team is made he is best utilized down on the block and with the jump hooks and all.

I don't get your question at all...maybe if you rephrase it better. I don't see any problem at all with how he is using him from what we saw in those 4 games. 

[MUHoopsFan2]

I would expect us to play at a more rapid pace this year as we have more horses.  Couple that with Luke being healthy there is a good chance he will get to the line more often, so that the importance of FT% will ramp out. 

I get JB's point that even if you factor in all of that the difference between 70% and 58% isn't going to be more than a point a game and a lot of things are more likely to improve our W/L % than that.  I also that the biggest thing Luke can do to help us win is to up that defensive rebounding percentage.  Even from a psychological/coaching standpoint, giving up second chance points are more painful than leaving points at the FT line, IMO.

Wrong. This team in how they want to play and how teams will defend them will get to the line as much or more as an MU team in recent memory.

They are going to have to hit free throws under 2 minutes in the game. We are reading too much into the 4 games with the free throws but it is important.

The difference between 70% and 58% is more than 1pt man! Are you kidding me?

It is as much as a 5-9 pts difference. If you are not hitting those FT's it get mental and effects your aggressively overall in guys not wanting to go to the line.

They begin running from the ball late in games like alot of the players we have had in here in the last 7 years that I have overlooked to call out. 

But it will be crucial for a team like this. And being in his second year in his regime here those are the little things Wojo will have to emphasis and I sure he will if they lose a game due to the lack of that discipline...

[ChicosBailBonds]

OK, some think it is a stupid phrase, that doesn't change the fact that a lot of coaches, players, etc, use that stupid phrase....just like I said.   They are free points to be had.  It's a shot, no one guarding you, same shot every time...15 feet away.  To each their own

[bilsu]

Looking at last year's Big East regular season game by game stats. In the fourteen losses there were five games that we missed more free throws than the losing margin. Of course game management would of changed as the score changed, but there was the potential for 5 more wins based on free throw shooting alone. This does not include the OT loss to Georgetown where we lost by 10, but only missed 6 free throws. Obviously, making one more free throw in regulation could of meant a win there. That is 6 potential wins. I think it is reasonable to assume that we could of won three of those (especially the two overtime games), if we were not a mediocre free throw shooting team last year.

[wadesworld]

Looking at last year's Big East regular season game by game stats. In the fourteen losses there were five games that we missed more free throws than the losing margin. Of course game management would of changed as the score changed, but there was the potential for 5 more wins based on free throw shooting alone. This does not include the OT loss to Georgetown where we lost by 10, but only missed 6 free throws. Obviously, making one more free throw in regulation could of meant a win there. That is 6 potential wins. I think it is reasonable to assume that we could of won three of those (especially the two overtime games), if we were not a mediocre free throw shooting team last year.

But how many free throws did the opposing team miss in those games?  It goes both ways.

[CTWarrior]

The difference between 70% and 58% is more than 1pt man! Are you kidding me?

I think you misinterpreted a bunch of what I said.  I said we will go to the line more often than last year because we are going to pick up the pace.

And as this topic is specifically about Fischer, I am referring specifically to Fischer when I say it is no more than one point a game.  A 12% difference in FT shooting for an individual player will amount to a point a game for that player only if he takes a little more than 8 FT a game.  I doubt Fischer will be taking more than that, so 1 point/game is about the max benefit is Fischer shoots 70% vs 58%.

[bilsu]

But how many free throws did the opposing team miss in those games?  It goes both ways.

In our first loss to Georgetown 59-66 that is not included in those six losses we made 8-12, but Georgetown made 23-28. I am assuming at the end of the game we were fouling Georgetown and by the stats they were making those critical free throws.
During the Big East regular season we made 196 free throws and our opponents made 244 for a deficit of 48 points or 2.67 points per game. One of Buzz's favorite statistics was making more free throws than the other team attempted. Last year's Big East season we made more than the other team attempted twice and went 1-1 in those games. There were two games where we made as many free throws as the other team attempted and we won both of those games. In four games we made as many or more as the opponents attempts and we went 3-1. We went 1-13 in games we made less than the opponents attempted.

[wadesworld]

In our first loss to Georgetown 59-66 that is not included in those six losses we made 8-12, but Georgetown made 23-28. I am assuming at the end of the game we were fouling Georgetown and by the stats they were making those critical free throws.
During the Big East regular season we made 196 free throws and our opponents made 244 for a deficit of 48 points or 2.67 points per game. One of Buzz's favorite statistics was making more free throws than the other team attempted. Last year's Big East season we made more than the other team attempted twice and went 1-1 in those games. There were two games where we made as many free throws as the other team attempted and we won both of those games. In four games we made as many or more as the opponents attempts and we went 3-1. We went 1-13 in games we made less than the opponents attempted.

But you specifically said that we had X amount of games where we missed more free throws than we lost by, so we would've had a chance to win the games had we made all our free throws.  Sure, but I'm guessing our opponent also missed some free throws in those games, so it goes both ways.

In the Georgetown game you reference as not counting because we went to OT, we missed 4 FTs and they missed 5, so in reality, instead of us winning in regulation had we just made our free throws, they would've won had neither team missed any free throws.

In just about every single digit loss in college basketball most teams will be able to say, "If we were perfect from the line we make up the difference and might win that game."  Sure.  But the other team wasn't perfect from the line either.  These things even out.

[MU82]

Wow. Lots of arguments about semantics and fancy stats.

Just make the FTs, dammit!

[bilsu]

The other thing I looked at as long as I was looking at the statistics to back up my impression that last year's team improved at a slower rate compared to the other Big East teams was the net point differential. I realize that Carlino's concussion should of had an effect on these numbers. I divided the season in half by taking the score differential the first time we played a team and then the second time we played the same team. The first nine our total differential was a -39 points and the second time our total differential was a -83 points. Basically we were 44 pints worse the second time around. However, if you remove DePaul and Seton Hall from these figures, because those two teams simply tanked in the second half the differentials go from a -26 to -96. This trend I am expecting to change this year with the young talent we have.

[bilsu]

But you specifically said that we had X amount of games where we missed more free throws than we lost by, so we would've had a chance to win the games had we made all our free throws.  Sure, but I'm guessing our opponent also missed some free throws in those games, so it goes both ways.

In the Georgetown game you reference as not counting because we went to OT, we missed 4 FTs and they missed 5, so in reality, instead of us winning in regulation had we just made our free throws, they would've won had neither team missed any free throws.

In just about every single digit loss in college basketball most teams will be able to say, "If we were perfect from the line we make up the difference and might win that game."  Sure.  But the other team wasn't perfect from the line either.  These things even out.

The discussion is about the effect of our free throw shooting improving. On the flip side our opponents free throw shooting could decline. I would argue the most important free throw stat is free throws attempted, because the more free throws you shoot the more likely the other team has foul troubles.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

But you specifically said that we had X amount of games where we missed more free throws than we lost by, so we would've had a chance to win the games had we made all our free throws.  Sure, but I'm guessing our opponent also missed some free throws in those games, so it goes both ways.

In the Georgetown game you reference as not counting because we went to OT, we missed 4 FTs and they missed 5, so in reality, instead of us winning in regulation had we just made our free throws, they would've won had neither team missed any free throws.

In just about every single digit loss in college basketball most teams will be able to say, "If we were perfect from the line we make up the difference and might win that game."  Sure.  But the other team wasn't perfect from the line either.  These things even out.

Not only that, but it is an unrealistic expectation for teams to make *every* free throw. 

Saying "free throws are important," and then extrapolating how many additional games you won if they would have been 100% is pretty useless.  Why not say "make every FG," or "grab every rebound?"  If you did either of those, you would be pretty much guaranteed to win.

I think there is this thought that free throws should be easy.  No one is playing defense right?  But they aren't necessarily so - that is why FT% hasn't changed.  This is why the "free points" adage is dumb. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The discussion is about the effect of our free throw shooting improving. On the flip side our opponents free throw shooting could decline. I would argue the most important free throw stat is free throws attempted, because the more free throws you shoot the more likely the other team has foul troubles.

FTA are way more important.  Put it this way, if every possession ended in a 58% Luke Fischer shooting FTs, you are going to have 1.16 points per possession.  Last year that would have been the fifth most efficient offense in the country.  (Of course I didn't include missing front ends of one and ones in that equation, but I think the point is clear.)

[bilsu]

Not only that, but it is an unrealistic expectation for teams to make *every* free throw. 

Saying "free throws are important," and then extrapolating how many additional games you won if they would have been 100% is pretty useless.  Why not say "make every FG," or "grab every rebound?"  If you did either of those, you would be pretty much guaranteed to win.

I think there is this thought that free throws should be easy.  No one is playing defense right?  But they aren't necessarily so - that is why FT% hasn't changed.  This is why the "free points" adage is dumb.

There are games where we have shot extremely well from the line and lost and there are games that we have shot very bad from the line and won. However, a team that shoots 73% from the line vs. a team that shoots 67% has a better chance of winning. The overall point is that making free throws is very important in a close game and to argue otherwise does not make sense.