Early Season Free Throw Woes: Is there any hope ?….

[Darrell KSR]

UK's free throw struggles to date got me thinking, when exactly does a bad habit (poor free throw shooting) become a permanent problem. Or in other words how soon in the season does bad free throw shooting manifest itself in a foregone conclusion that the team is just a poor shooting team?

To look at that, I took the past four seasons under John Calipari and charted the cumulative free throw percentage as a function of the number of days since the first game. Remember this is cumulative, so each data point includes the free throws and attempts from all previous games that season.

The chart is below.

I think it's interesting that Calipari's two best free throw shooting teams (2010-11 and 2011-12) started out either about the same or significantly worse than the current 2013-14 team at this point in the season.

The two teams which ended up lower than the NCAA average (which is about 69%, as shown in the chart below) started out about the same to slightly better than UK's current team.

All teams improved from the early part of the season except of the 2012-13 team which pretty much hovered just below the 65% line all year.

As far as how long is took the other three teams to arrive near their final point, it took the 2009-10 team about 40 days, the 2011-12 team about 60 days and the 2010-11 team about 90 days. Of the three teams, only the 2009-10 team seemed to reach a peak and get worse near the end of the season.

Given all this, I think it's too early to panic as the MSU game was on the 4th day of the season.

Great, great stuff, Jon. If Ok, would like to get this copied to the front page for other UK fans to see.

Sent using Forum Runner

[cattails]

Nice lay out, 2012-2013 shows just how bad of a FT shooting team that was and there wasn't a lot of change. I like how 2011-2012 team climbed the ladder, I think this team will as well.

[JPScott]

Great, great stuff, Jon. If Ok, would like to get this copied to the front page for other UK fans to see.

Sent using Forum Runner

No problem.

[Darrell KSR]

Thanks. That actually makes me feel better.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

[Bakert]

Great analysis, Jon. I'm going to look at this relative to what it means in terms of ppg for Cal coached teams at UK as well as for Cal coached teams vs NCAA averages. My hypothesis is that FT shooting is, over the course of time, overblown in terms of what it means in terms of wins/losses. I think that ultimately Cal's teams may not be more than 3 or 4 Fts/game from what they "should" be, or the equivalent of a three or a couple of twos. But we continue to hear about FT shooting. May not get to it until Friday but I'll post here, hypothesis confirmed or not!

[CitizenBBN]

Great stuff Jon.

Whoever was teaching free throws at UK from 1955 to about 1995 needs to come back to work. I feel a bit better about Cal's numbers from that chart but not a ton. From 55 to 95 we were below average 1 year. Cal's managed it twice already and Tubby wasn't much better, arguably worse.

Any coincidence with the timing of the 20 hour rule? it explains our lack of work on them but not our drop relative to other schools all under the same restriction unless it means we were just practicing more thus the 20 hour rule hurt us more than other schools. Quite possible.

[Darrell KSR]

Great analysis, Jon. I'm going to look at this relative to what it means in terms of ppg for Cal coached teams at UK as well as for Cal coached teams vs NCAA averages. My hypothesis is that FT shooting is, over the course of time, overblown in terms of what it means in terms of wins/losses. I think that ultimately Cal's teams may not be more than 3 or 4 Fts/game from what they "should" be, or the equivalent of a three or a couple of twos. But we continue to hear about FT shooting. May not get to it until Friday but I'll post here, hypothesis confirmed or not!

I will be proven wrong with you, as I buy your hypothesis for the time being.

Sent using Forum Runner

[jgirl]

I guess those 2012-13 guys were as hard to coach as it seemed at times

[KSRBEvans]

Great stuff, Jon. Thanks for posting it.

[dan_bgblue]

Terrific information Jon. Very well done and I appreciate the effort on your part to put it together and to share it with us

[Bakert]

Here's my rather rudimentary analysis. I did this only for the four years Cal has been at UK.

To be honest, to some extent the answer is in Jon's second graph above which shows that UK's FT shooting is above the NCAA average which would imply they are not doing terrible at the FT line. However, while being just above average may be enough for Lake Wobegone High, it's not enough for UK so I decided to see what would happen if UK made FTs at a rate that would put them at the 90th percentile.

In 2012-2013 UK shot 64.2% from the FT line which ranked them 312th. The 90th percentile cut off was 74.3%. Last year UK shot 757 FTs so going to the 90th percentile would represent an increase from 486 FTs made to 562 made or an increase of 76 additional points. If you assume an even distribution across games, that comes to an 2.3 ppg.

In 2011-2012 UK shot 72.3% from the FT line which ranked them 63rd. The 90th percentile cut off was 73.94%. That year UK shot 938 FTs so going to the 90th percentile would represent an increase from 678 FTs made to 694 made or an increase of 16 additional points. If you assume an even distribution across games, that comes to an .4 ppg.

In 2010-2011 UK shot 71% from the FT line which ranked them 107th. The 90th percentile cut off was 74.55%. That year UK shot 789 FTs so going to the 90th percentile would represent an increase from 560 FTs made to 588 made or an increase of 28 points. If you assume an even distribution across games, that comes to an additional .74 ppg.

Finally, in 2009-2010 UK shot 66.8% from the FT line which ranked them 242nd. The 90th percentile cut off was 73.3%. That year UK shot 971 FTs so going to the 90th percentile would represent an increase from 649 FTs made to 712 made or an increase of 63 points. If you assume an even distribution across games, that comes to an additional 1.66 ppg.

So what about this? First, going to the 90th percentile is, to me, a pretty tall order. But even if you believe UK should be shooting FTs at that level, the increase in ppg is pretty negligible. It makes just as much sense to argue UK should be getting more FTs than hitting more since that would also increase the points realized. And getting to the line more often may be more doable than increasing FT%, particularly given Jon's analysis above. FWIW, UK ranked 43rd, 3rd, 51st, and 3rd in terms of total FTs shot from 2012-2013 to 2009-2010.

I also looked at FG% and 3-point FG%

As to FG% there is not much help there. From 09-10 to 12-13 UK shot 47.8%, 45.9%, 48.8%, and 47.5% and was ranked 17th, 57th, 7th, and 15th.

As for 3-point shooting, from 09-10 to 12-13 UK shot 33.1%, 39.7%, 37.8%, and 34.6% and was ranked 226nd, 9th, 36th, and 138th. So other than for 09-10 and 12-13 we are not going to get much help there.

So, my conclusion? Harping about FT shooting is, other than in specific situations (e.g., MSU the other night) doesn't really make sense because even if UK were consistently among the top 10% teams in the country with regard to FT% it would not make a huge difference. Furthermore, UK is scoring either at or above where they "should" be. For the most part UK ranks among the best teams with regard to FG% and 3-point shooting, although they were not as good in 09-10 and 12-13.

What are we to do? One thing is get to the line more. Even if % doesn't go up, just getting there more leads to more points. But ultimately it's not about FT shooting other than those rare occasions like the MSU game.

[CitizenBBN]

The problem there bakert, and I REALLY appreciate the analysis, is that it's an annual average when it's really the game by game numbers that impact results.

For example, the UK/IU matchup in 2012 UK won 102 to 90, but it was a 3 point game at the half. we hit 35 of 37 free throws, 95% as a team. If we shoot even that season's average that night, 72.3%, it's 26 points instead of 35 from the line, and a very different game in the final minutes. We're behind at the half for certain. Slip below 65% and we theoretically lose the game.

In all those 20 and 30 point win games they don't matter. Where they matter is in games like this one, where they can cover for all the other mistakes and get you the win. It may only mean a difference in 2-3 games a year, but when those are tourney games it's all the difference in how the season is judged.

We lost by 4 to MSU, left 16 points (not counting missed 1 and 1s) at the free throw line. More than enough to win. Would have been the difference in the game, we'd still have the #1 ranking and all the buzz would be how we played bad and STILL beat the #2 team, how amazing we'd be by March.

I could do the same average thing with transition defense numbers or turnovers etc. No one factor impacts most of the games we play b/c we'll win those games even if one area is weak. Where those things matter is in the close games like this one, and in those games you can't leave 15+ points at the line and win very often. By averaging over the course of games that aren't really going to have their outcome impacted we lose the significance of the factor IMO. Those data points should be taken out of the dataset, they're skewing the results.

To me the more meaningful study would be to look at close games we have won and shot less than 60% from the line. I bet we find a strong correlation that says free throws are a critical factor in those games, and those games separate OK seasons from great ones. Look at games we won or lost by 5 or less. I bet it's a significant correlation which means it's a very important factor in overall season results as those are typically the biggest, toughest games and often tourney games.

[Bakert]

The problem there bakert, and I REALLY appreciate the analysis, is that it's an annual average when it's really the game by game numbers that impact results.

For example, the UK/IU matchup in 2012 UK won 102 to 90, but it was a 3 point game at the half. we hit 35 of 37 free throws, 95% as a team. If we shoot even that season's average that night, 72.3%, it's 26 points instead of 35 from the line, and a very different game in the final minutes. We're behind at the half for certain. Slip below 65% and we theoretically lose the game.

In all those 20 and 30 point win games they don't matter. Where they matter is in games like this one, where they can cover for all the other mistakes and get you the win. It may only mean a difference in 2-3 games a year, but when those are tourney games it's all the difference in how the season is judged.

We lost by 4 to MSU, left 16 points (not counting missed 1 and 1s) at the free throw line. More than enough to win. Would have been the difference in the game, we'd still have the #1 ranking and all the buzz would be how we played bad and STILL beat the #2 team, how amazing we'd be by March.

I could do the same average thing with transition defense numbers or turnovers etc. No one factor impacts most of the games we play b/c we'll win those games even if one area is weak. Where those things matter is in the close games like this one, and in those games you can't leave 15+ points at the line and win very often. By averaging over the course of games that aren't really going to have their outcome impacted we lose the significance of the factor IMO. Those data points should be taken out of the dataset, they're skewing the results.

To me the more meaningful study would be to look at close games we have won and shot less than 60% from the line. I bet we find a strong correlation that says free throws are a critical factor in those games, and those games separate OK seasons from great ones. Look at games we won or lost by 5 or less. I bet it's a significant correlation which means it's a very important factor in overall season results as those are typically the biggest, toughest games and often tourney games.

I think we are completely on the same page. I agree that the *best* analysis would be one that you suggest - look at all games within certain range of loss (e.g., 5 points) and see what free throw shooting was in those games. But I made an assumption that free throw shooting % is more or less constant meaning that in some games that you lose by a few points you will shoot below average, but in some games you win close you will shoot above average. My point is that unless there is some systematic reason to believe that in close games UK makes FTs at a lower rate, and that can somehow be addressed, things even out. You will lose some you could have won with a few more FTs and you will win some you could have lost because you hit more than you normally do.

I also agree that you could look at any number of things. If we hit two more FGs; if we hit one more three; if we got two more defensive stops; if we got 3 more offensive rebounds; and on and on. I was simply trying to point out that over the long haul FT shooting will not make any more difference than any number of things.

I got curious and did what you suggest for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 seasons. I looked at games that were won or lost by 7 points or so.

Here is what you find:

UNC-CH +1 13-18
@ IU -1 14-17
@ UT +3 21-29
UF +1 15-20
Vandy -7 12-19

Really nothing of interest. We shot right at our season average (72.3%) or just above in the close wins (72%, 72%, 75%) and above in one loss (82%) where it could have made a difference. Vs Vandy we would have needed to shoot 100% just to tie.


In 2010-2011 we lost 8 games by 7 or fewer points. Below is opponent, loss, FT shooting:

@ UNC-CH -2 16-21
@ UGA -7 10-16
@ Bama -2 13-22
@ Miss -2 14-18
@ UF -2 11-13
@ Vandy -4 14-18
@ Arky -1 13-15
UCONN -1 4-12

Of those games, there are only two where you could make a strong case for FT shooting. The first is at Bama where we shot 60% and lost by 2. The other, of course, is UCONN. But it should be pointed out that we only shot 34% from the field so it's just as legit to argue one more made basket would have been just as important. I don't think there is any case to be made wrt Miss, UF, Vandy, or Arky as we shot as good as can be expected, especially when you realize we were only a 64.2% team from the FT line that year. You could perhaps make a case vs UNC-CH but even there we shot 76% which is above not only UK's average but would have made us among the very best in the country that year.

We also won six games by 7 or less.

Wash +7 21-34
UGA +6 16-25
Miss St +6 12-18
Vandy +2 14-17
Princeton +2 6-11
Ohio St +2 12-14

What's interesting is that in those games FT shooting was worse than in the close losses with the exception of the Ohio State and Vandy games.

What does this prove? Maybe nothing. But the broader point on which we agree is still there - it's not just FTs. Yet people continue to act like that is the *MOST* important factor (similar to how some harp on officiating ). Why? I think it's simply because it's easy. It's easy to note that vs MSU we missed a lot of FTs that could have made a difference. But it's just as easy to note that with about 4:30 remaining we allowed a 3 deep in a defensive possession and then threw it away and gave up a layup. What if we had gotten that stop and went down and scored? We go from 5 down to 2 up. What if, in the first 12 minutes of the first half, Randle had only turned it over 2 times instead of four and we had converted on those?

No doubt hitting more FTs would have led to more wins in some cases and accounted for some wins. But in many cases simply shooting more would have had just as much of an effect.

[BarristerCat]

Good stuff in this thread. Thanks to the OP and all who added their own contributions.

[BudCat_upthecreek]

Good stuff in this thread. Thanks to the OP and all who added their own contributions.

+1

[JPScott]

Just an update on this, I went ahead and updated the chart to include the past two games (Robert Morris and Texas Arlington). The trend is starting to move in the right direction, although still too early to know where they might end up.



I will try to keep this updated periodically as the season progresses.

[BarristerCat]

Cal talked a lot about FT shooting last night. He said that he's been doing individual film sessions with some of the players, diagnosing what they are doing wrong at the line. He talked about James Young specifically. Cal went through several technique failures that Young was falling into, the biggest being that he was falling away from the line as he shot. Said he and Young spent a lot of time talking about the issues, Young has been working to correct them, and it showed in his FT shooting last night. Cal also said that he was sure that when he watched the tape he'd see that the FT's that Young did miss last night were because he repeated one or more of the bad habits on those shots.

Ultimately, the point is that they're working on it, and they're doing more than just shooting extra FT's after practice. So, that's a good thing.

[Darrell KSR]

Cal talked a lot about FT shooting last night. He said that he's been doing individual film sessions with some of the players, diagnosing what they are doing wrong at the line. He talked about James Young specifically. Cal went through several technique failures that Young was falling into, the biggest being that he was falling away from the line as he shot. Said he and Young spent a lot of time talking about the issues, Young has been working to correct them, and it showed in his FT shooting last night. Cal also said that he was sure that when he watched the tape he'd see that the FT's that Young did miss last night were because he repeated one or more of the bad habits on those shots.

Ultimately, the point is that they're working on it, and they're doing more than just shooting extra FT's after practice. So, that's a good thing.

It is a very good thing.

[Krank]

Dang, BC…. thought I would NEVER hear Coach Calipari….

1. work with players/team on FT's beyond simple "when tired" drills like we have heard ever since he got to UK
2. actually BREAK DOWN FILM and analyze form to help players improve.

I hope everyone feels better about the line now. I know I do.

[BarristerCat]

Dang, BC…. thought I would NEVER hear Coach Calipari….

1. work with players/team on FT's beyond simple "when tired" drills like we have heard ever since he got to UK
2. actually BREAK DOWN FILM and analyze form to help players improve.

I hope everyone feels better about the line now. I know I do.

With Young he said they were also working on his regular jumper. So, I think the FT stuff was just part and parcel of the overall work on Young's shot. Sometimes with Cal it is hard to decipher when he's talking about one thing vs. another. He definitely talked about FTs last night, though, and said the shooting had been so bad that it was forcing him to do something more drastic.