BuzzerBeater Forums

Thats not true, in a close league free throws will win you games, so any higher percentage will benefit a team. Unfortunately the foul rates are somewhat irrational so it seems that FT skill is useless sometimes, especially if a difference of 25% FT skill will translate to 5 more points scored for a single player.

Thats not true, in a close league free throws will win you games, so any higher percentage will benefit a team.

But each FT training means that one of other skills in team is worse, because it can't be trained in week when FT is trained ;-)
And simple calculation: You have FT=50% for free and it's impossible to get next 50% even if you will train FT 1000 weeks in a row ;-)
So almost always there should exist better choice than FT training.

Thats not true, in a close league free throws will win you games, so any higher percentage will benefit a team. Unfortunately the foul rates are somewhat irrational so it seems that FT skill is useless sometimes, especially if a difference of 25% FT skill will translate to 5 more points scored for a single player.

This topic is really getting out of hand:)


You are completely irrational. I understand that you would like a more realistic percentage, but if you just wanna win some games, and bark at the BBs that's just wrong. If FT skill is pulling you back that much, you should train or sell. I have a player with atrocious FT but i trained him in such a way that it wouldn't matter. You can't just ask for a fix that would make you win games, that's just silly. I could ask for quicker OD the next season cause i will be training it, but that's not right


All this being said, I just think players should start with pitiful or awful FT being the lowest possible, that should be a nice fix

You absolutely don't understand what I ask for...

edit: this year I trained 7 weeks of FT shooting - just for you boneheads that want to berate me to train FT shooting.

Last edited by hupfingatsch ihm sein Knecht at 7/12/2011 3:16:58 PM

...I think the real debate is whether the game should follow a realistic approach or not. I honestly don't care either way, but I think a fair suggestion is starting players at 2.5 FT skill (between pitiful and awful) and then, as others suggested, have 1 FT pop for every 4-5 in JS.

The only reason to bring up actual statistics is that many people are making the argument that it is unrealistic to have good jump shooters be poor free throw shooters. Well how do we decide what is realistic? Cherry pick a few examples that support our case? No, that's lame. As is just stating, "anybody who plays knows this."

Instead, we collect a bunch of results from the real world ask: how common is it that good jump shooting goes along with good free throw shooting. And the answer is, contrary to everyone's gut feeling, the two don't go that well together. So your suggestion of adding 1 FT per 4-5 JS doesn't reflect real world results. There was a very slight tendency for good 3 point shooters to be better FT shooters, but it wasn't that strong either.

However, what the statistics do show, is that there is a certain floor of free throw percentage. Even the worst FT guys make at least 30-40% of their shots. In that case, if realism is your goal, suggesting that every player starts with pitiful or awful FT is quite reasonable. There's also ceiling effect as well; not too many guys are hitting above 92% (not sure what the upper levels of BB players is - surely nobody ever complained about it!).

The idea of having FT skill decay like stamina is cool too; one of the articles I read about FT shooting noted how many coaches hate to spend practice time on FTs, and will only do it when the FT% falls below a certain rate). This would also fit with your statement that the real world statistics are marred by practice.

Now all the above rests on the premise that the statistical results in BB should not be too far away from real life(i.e., they should be realistic). I don't see it that way, and would prefer to leave the FT shooting as it is, and force managers to make the strategic decision of when to spend a week training FT.

But, even for those people arguing that this unrealistic situation should be changed, linking FT to JS (or JR) doesn't accomplish your goal.

Either you're mathematically clueless or willfully ignorant of what's been written. As I said earlier, it'd be nice to see someone try to disprove this data. I'm guessing you'll instead respond with another emotional rant full of CAPS and hahahahas.

Uhm, that was me and not the poor Japanese user.
And I don't think there's a need to insult someone just to make your point.

Seriously, I'm getting tired about this statistic that you continuously come up with.
The model in that "study" is just WRONG (yes, wrong in CAPS)

Didn't you notice that all players' FG% are considered? Yes, even Shaq's FG%. Have you ever seen Shaq shooting jumpers? No, so why does the study consider his FG%? I assume you don't care because it proves your point, who's clueless now? :D
That's just an example. Another example: even 3pt shots during a game are not a good comparison criterion, because in game your shots are usually contested (and if you're a good shooter usually you get a good defender) while during FT you are not contested. Can you get it?

I'm just saying, if you train JS then you get some FT training too.

How strange, after more than 150 messages you still don't get the point, just because you're too busy insulting other users. Go on, please, make yourself comfortable.

PS: hahaha. CAPS. CAPS.

Last edited by Biffo (*DT Member) at 7/12/2011 4:49:24 PM

...Didn't you notice that all players' FG% are considered? Yes, even Shaq's FG%. Have you ever seen Shaq shooting jumpers? No, so why does the study consider his FG%? I assume you don't care because it proves your point, who's clueless now? :D
That's just an example. Another example: even 3pt shots during a game are not a good comparison criterion, because in game your shots are usually contested (and if you're a good shooter usually you get a good defender) while during FT you are not contested. Can you get it?

No, I don't get it. Because in the BB game, JS and JR control a players ability to hit jumpshots and 3 pointers. You are arguing that the real life FG% and 3P% don't influence FT%, why on earth should JS/JR be linked with FT in the game? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

No, I don't get it. Because in the BB game, JS and JR control a players ability to hit jumpshots and 3 pointers. You are arguing that the real life FG% and 3P% don't influence FT%, why on earth should JS/JR be linked with FT in the game? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

If a player is so horrible at shooting FTs, but is good at jump shots, it doesn't take much brains for the player to shoot a jumpshot as his free throw. (A free throw shooter is allowed to jump, as long as he doesnt step over the FT line before the ball reaches the rim.)

Looking at the guy posted in the first page of this thread: http://www.buzzerbeater.com/player/7095293/overview.aspx
you can see that he shoots 0% in over1000 free throws in his career, while this season he is shooting 0.483 from the field (I assume a lot of these are JS given the fact that he only plays PG) and 0.287 from 3-pt range (obviously jump shots--excluding any full-court buzzerbeating heaves) in over 350 attempts. This player has been around for 10 seasons already.

The reason players shoot FTs without jumping (jumping without a violation) is that it is easier to shoot a FT without jumping, because the motion of a FT is a more compact and more reproducible than the motion of a jumpshot. However, if for whatever reason, shooting a traditional FT is harder than a JS, then the player can (as long as he doesn't cause a violation) shoot a jumpshot for his FT. Thus, (even with nerves being factored in) it doesn't make any sense for a player's FT% to be drastically less than his JS%.

(Note that this is not an argument meant for logic. Making 0 FT in over a 1000 attempts is obviously illogical, unless the player is purposefully trying to miss by throwing the ball in the other direction.
This is an argument relating FT% to FG%--particularly for guards, who can have their FG% (or 3-PT) related to their JS%.)

No, I don't get it. Because in the BB game, JS and JR control a players ability to hit jumpshots and 3 pointers. You are arguing that the real life FG% and 3P% don't influence FT%, why on earth should JS/JR be linked with FT in the game? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

I didn't say that.
Moreover bewtween "JS" and "FG%" there's a difference. Not small. JS is the skill, your skill. FG% is influenced by many factors (yes JS but also game shapes, defenders, defending strategy, etc...)

Last edited by Biffo (*DT Member) at 7/12/2011 5:33:25 PM

This is a good variation on the notion of implementing a floor on FT shooting. I agree it would be more realistic that way. I don't support it from a gaming perspective, but I can see how it would be more realistic.

To be more realistic as well though, we'd probably need a hidden cap on each player's maximal FT ability.

In any event, if people can find good stats tables with position, FG%, 3P% and FT%, I could break things down by position (to remove the centers and bigmen whose FG% is likely higher due to shot type selection). Best would be if people have stats broken down by court location. That might let us separate which type of shot making ability correlates best with FT% (if any).

No way....50% isn't good enough...I have 3 players under average and I plan on training FT in two weeks...