this indeed confirms what I have felt for a long time.
once respectable is reached, it's not realy profitable to train FT anymore.
If a player has 7/10 or 8/10 chance to hit the FT, it will only make you win or loose a game in very rare cases, and at that time, the stamina and GS of the player, and the amount of minutes he already played, or if was rested recently, will be of far greater impact on the fact he will make the shot.
What this study indicates is that 'inept' is good enough, and that 'respectable' is good, meaning ideal FT skill for a player is somewhere between inept and respectable.
I think it's too narrow.
I have been asking about FT and why higher skill doesn't result in clearly better results (my PG for instance scored more % FT when he was respectable, then when he was proficient, most likely due to the other factors GS, stamina and the timepoint where he takes the FTs during games).
They also made statistics and improvement of FT skill also improved % scored. But that is also what this study indicates.
I'd would like to see a better dividing. For instance it will need to take an average skill to get 50% chance of scoring.
My dividing of skills would look more like this:
atrocious: around 5% chance of scoring
2: around 10%
3 around 20%
4 around 30%
5 around 40%
6 50%
7 55%
8 60 %
9 65%
10 70%
11 74%
12 78%
13 82
14 85
15 88
16 91
17 94
18 96
19 98
20 around 100%
It would also not be pushing managers to train to real high levels, but at least managers will be motivated to train up to 11 or 12 at least, where now many are happy with level 6...
It wouldn't be good to force managers to train FT to at least 12 before they get 60%change either, so to make it linear would go to far. But as it is now, I think the diffrence between level 8 and level 14 is not big enough, and manager will not be pursuaded to train FT beyoond level 7 or 8.
They are not your friends; they dispise you. I am the only one you can count on. Trust me.