BuzzerBeater Forums

Easy one. Iverson.

And you know this how?

In a BB world the following would be true:
A marathon runner and a weight lifter would be both bad 100m sprinters because they never trained short distance sprints.

I think the following would be a more realistic event:
A marathon runner would beat a weight lifter on the 100m distance any day, no matter if he ever trained sprinting distances.

As the weight lifter would have well trained explosive leg muscles it may be a close race as the marathon runner wont have much use of his high stamina in a 100m race =)

True. A 150kg guy like Steiner would definitely run a close rate against Gebreselassie.

despite what we all assume, there isn't a relationship between the ability to hit field goals (or 3 pointers, though there's a bit better relationship) and the ability to hit free throws.

...and you say that because... ?

I'd like the "train-FT"-guys to read this.

EVERYBODY in the nba (or professional basketball) is training FT. Everybody. Yes, even Shaq and other big fellows. So... is Shaq a good FT shooter? No. Is Durant a good FT shooter? Yes.
Is this JUST BECAUSE Durant trained himself more than Shaq did? I don't think so. Would you answer "Yes"? So I guess that in NBA all big guys are NOT training FT (or slightly training FT) while SG are training FT the whole day.

Take, for example, Andrea Bargnani. He plays as PF/C and he's a very good FT shooter. Guess what? Because he's a good jump shooter and 3pt shooter.
I don't think Bargnani is THE ONLY PF/C in the NBA training FT (and succeeding in his training sessions). He just scores FT just because he's a good jump shooter. It's evident.

Now, you can tell me "this is just a game, and we want to keep a balance... so if you want FT, train FT". I'm ok with that. But say that.

Last edited by Biffo (*DT Member) at 7/6/2011 4:21:27 PM

In addition the NBA training argument is useless as those players shoot FT at decent level and train to maintain their skill, you will never find a player that went from 30% FT to 80% during his career.

Usually, either a player can shoot them or he can't. Of course, the same can be said about JS. Improvements in FG% over a career are usually more about shot selection than shooting ability, though there are mechanical factors that could also be worked out. But the same sort of mechanical factors can be worked out with FT%, too.

...and you say that because... ?

I say that because the linear correlation coefficient (even with few 3 P attempts removed, the correlation was actually lower) is very low. That means that a guy's ability to hit a 3 pointer DOES NOT mean he will be a better free throw shooter.

Yes, I certainly understand that there are similar muscle skills used, but that similarity in physical actions doesn't mean success at one varies with success at the other. Instead it might suggest that there's something different between 3P shooting and FT shooting, meaning that players good at one can be poor at the other.

No amount of anecdotal evidences of this guy can do both, etc matter. Nor does it really matter (in this BB case) if as Chihorn suggests, we separate the location of shots taken, whether they were assisted, or whatever. Because if there's no correlation overall, then linking the skills together does not enhance the realism (assuming that the skill linked to FT would equally control shot location, etc in the BB game engine).

Now, linking JS (or JR, whatver people suggest) may enhance your feeling of realism, but your feeling isn't based in the real world data.

Note, I'm not actually arguing the case for making things more realistic in this regard. I support the, "it's just a game, you want FT, train it" line of thought. My argument is mostly against those who are arguing that such a change would increase the realism of BB. But it actually wouldn't.

Last edited by Tangosz at 7/6/2011 5:08:50 PM

In addition the NBA training argument is useless as those players shoot FT at decent level and train to maintain their skill, you will never find a player that went from 30% FT to 80% during his career.

You'd also never find a team in the NBA deliberately losing their last game(s) to finish one spot outside of the playoffs for some financial benefit. ;)

It's really pretty straightforward: if you don't want your guys to make 3pt shots, you don't train jump range. If you don't want them to turn the ball over every time they touch it, you improve their handling / passing. If you don't want them to shoot abysmally poor from the line, you train FT.

Now, of course, 0.00% on a thousand attempts, yes, is absurd. But if they elevate everyone to, say, 35% minimum, then everyone who has invested their time and training into fixing the problems with their guys have suddenly seen the value of that training decrease dramatically, all in order to solve a non-problem.

Take, for example, Andrea Bargnani.

Everyone can find an exception to the rule. Apparently, not everyone knows what a correlation coefficient is.

Tangosz compared two data sets, FG% and FT%. When he did this, he found the correlation coefficient to be .038. This means that FG% and FT% are not dependent upon each other in the least.

Arguments that require the use of bold font and CAPS are usually flawed......

I think it's clear that big guys (playing in the paint, not shooting jumpers neither 3s) are bad FT-shooters, while PG/SG are good FT-shooters.

So, your conclusion is: in real basketball PF/C do not train FT.

The alternative is: everybody trains FT during training sessions, but PG/SG can do better because shooting jumpers helps with that.

Sorry, I prefer the alternative.