BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

Actually Bargnani is an exception just because he's the only C who can shoot like a SF

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

haha, I liked that :D +1ball

but still there are great jump shooters in the NBA that are actually not so great free throwers, there were posted in this very thread.

The training methodology in the game is different from the real one, and it will never reach it. Here people can choose to train one thing (which might also have an effect on other skills, though), while the real players can and will throw some extra free throws during the day. The few players that have very little percentages in this game are the extreme visualizations of this difference. That they are so few should actually be a good sign.

I can accept there are some individual strengths and weaknesses when it comes to shooting free throws. But a correlation between jump shots and free throws can't be proven statistically. This would only be possible with players that do not train FT at all, which don't exist. And there are other factors important when it come to free throws: a different throwing approach, the nerves...

Of course percentages of less than 30% are unrealistic, but only when you think of players actually training it. In my point of view, the skill free throws should be more designed like stamina. If you dont train it, you'll become worse. Maybe there should be a training option "basics" which trains stamina, free throws at the same time then.

for those who believe 3pt shoot ==> good ft shooter

Bruce Bown had a .441 3tp% and .404 ft% in 02-03

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.

or a conclusion could be that it is hight related, because the bigger you get you are often not so precise with your movement.

And free thorws are often muscle memory, it is an shot most professionals could make blind at a decent rate(not so good when they see)