STrib: Free throws? More like costly, the Gophers prove

Gopher Warrior said:

lol. Here's a problem with your claim --> if Minnesota shot just BELOW the D-I avg on their 2-pt attempts at Nebraska instead of how horribly they actually shot, they would have scored 14 more points!! 14!!!

Just shoot a little bit UNDER the norm... would have been good for flippin 14.

And you guys are pointing to 3 pts on FT vs avg %. Ignoring the few and-ones and pair of technical trips. Sigh. It's math & common sense.

Click to expand...

I get it. They shot poorly from 2pt range. They would have won had they shot better. I never, ever stated or claimed otherwise. That would have been great. But, the fact of the matter is on that night they shot well below the norm. Some teams make up for off FG shooting nights by pouring in points from the FT line. We didn't. And lost. Many reasons we lost.

Again, I'm mostly on your page here, understanding what you're saying.

But don't justify a piss pour FT shooting night by saying it is meaningless if we had just shot better from 2pt range.

If they shot better from FT line they would have also won, too. Free throws go in at a higher clip. It is a shame they couldn't hit the norm.

bga1 said:

The up 10 with a minute to go scenario is possible. However, I just don't think this team has the ability to blow Big 10 teams out. We have a team that struggles at half court defense and defensive rebounding. When you can't make stops it's awful difficult to create distance on the scoreboard. Our lack of size and physicality have hurt us more than I would have imagined and the inability to close out close games at the FT line or hit a clutch shot is killing us.

I think the snowball started with the Purdue game. Had we won that I'd say we would be 4-3 or better right now. That game got into their heads.

Click to expand...

We were up 10 with less than 10 to play against Purdue. We were up 9 with less than 9 to play against Michigan. Both games on the road. This team definitely has the ability to get up by a solid margin and win a game. The problem is, when faced with the choice between keeping the foot on the gas and driving the stake in the coffin or giving up and hoping the clock runs out before the other team has enough time to come back, we make the wrong choice.

SelectionSunday said:

With you there, Beeg. This whole mess started with Purdue. I'd say Gophers are at worst 3-4 if they win that game. That set a bad tone right away, blowing a double-digit lead immediately after 3+ weeks of easy wins over inferior compeition (and yes, Furman is bad, too). Set a tone that nothing had changed from last season with regards to playing on the road, and the Gophers have done nothing since then to disprove that.

Click to expand...

The weak schedule really hurt this squad- they went from that right into a brutal first four games and they just were not mentally prepared for it. I have begun to hate the idea of building a gaudy win loss record in non conference as a platform to qualify for the tournament if we go 9-9 in the BT every year. I think I'd rather see the mentality change from win early and hang on to instead build a tough team early and win Big Ten games. Easier said than done but the current formula hasn't worked too well for the past many years. A program like this should be finishing in the top 5 of the Big Ten at least once every three years. That guarantees NCAAs almost regardless of non-conference record. We have done that about once in the past 15 years. Ugh.

bleedsmaroonandgold said:

We were up 10 with less than 10 to play against Purdue. We were up 9 with less than 9 to play against Michigan. Both games on the road. This team definitely has the ability to get up by a solid margin and win a game. The problem is, when faced with the choice between keeping the foot on the gas and driving the stake in the coffin or giving up and hoping the clock runs out before the other team has enough time to come back, we make the wrong choice.

Click to expand...

I don't see us stalling or attempting to milk the lead. I see us not performing when given the chance to finish these games. I don't see it as a conscious coaching decision- it's execution failure.

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Go Gophers!!

scher215 said:

Why is a free throw any more "free" than an uncontested, in rhythm, 3 pointer? Just curious. Is it simply the name?

Click to expand...

Because at the end of a close game, where you are protecting a marginal lead, you aren't given the opportunity to even make a FG attempt when the other team is fouling.

Your points have to come from the FT line. In this scenario, FT shooting is the only thing that matters.

Obviously looking at the game as a whole, FG% is much more important to offensive efficiency. That's GW's point. However, it's ridiculous to say that free throws for a team protecting a lead is meaningless.

Gold Vision said:

Because at the end of a close game, where you are protecting a marginal lead, you aren't given the opportunity to even make a FG attempt when the other team is fouling.

Your points have to come from the FT line. In this scenario, FT shooting is the only thing that matters.

Obviously looking at the game as a whole, FG% is much more important to offensive efficiency. That's GW's point. However, it's ridiculous to say that free throws for a team protecting a lead is meaningless.

Click to expand...

I think that is a great way to look at it in terms of only being able to shoot free throws late in a game with the lead. It is like starting pitching vs. closers in baseball. The overall performance of your starters probably does more to impact your overall team performance. Doesn't mean you don't have major problems when you closer comes in and keeps blowing ninth inning leads, and there is nothing your starters can do once they are out of the game.

Gold Vision said:

Because at the end of a close game, where you are protecting a marginal lead, you aren't given the opportunity to even make a FG attempt when the other team is fouling.

Your points have to come from the FT line. In this scenario, FT shooting is the only thing that matters.

Obviously looking at the game as a whole, FG% is much more important to offensive efficiency. That's GW's point. However, it's ridiculous to say that free throws for a team protecting a lead is meaningless.

Click to expand...

Yep. The Four Factors lists free throws at number 4 at 15% importance. If free throws didn't make the list or had a % at zero...then GW would have something to say. I'm not sure how 15%, for any category, became irrelevant? GW would respond that it only matters that a team gets to the free throw line and not actually hitting those free throws (thus his free throw % being irrelevant line). Again, going back to what you wrote - end of close games - getting to the line and actually making the shots becomes ultra important.

tikited said:

Yep. The Four Factors lists free throws at number 4 at 15% importance. If free throws didn't make the list or had a % at zero...then GW would have something to say. I'm not sure how 15%, for any category, became irrelevant? GW would respond that it only matters that a team gets to the free throw line and not actually hitting those free throws (thus his free throw % being irrelevant line). Again, going back to what you wrote - end of close games - getting to the line and actually making the shots becomes ultra important.

Click to expand...

The four factors includes free throw rate, not free throw percentage. Once you consider the average team in D-I basketball usually shoots 69% from the line in any given season, you realize crying about an "awful" 64%+ for a team is silly.

Run some regressions and alleviate your questions.

...and free throw shooting is NOTHING like closers in baseball.

but, obviously, if you're holding a lead late in a game and know you're going to be fouled, you want the ball in the hands of guys that don't turn it over and shoot well from the line. Lots of ability to do so for a coach. That said, it's another reason why taking a free throw percentage for a full game or a full season and dwelling on it as though it's a huge factor to your team's win-loss record is dumb. Free throws late in a game is a different animal and when you're going to be "unintentionally" intentionally fouled late in a game you have more control over who is in the game and who has the ball.

Late game free throw misses by good free throw shooters? I don't think you need extra time in practice. Those kids can work on their form and repetition outside of practice. More important things to use allotted practice time for. If anything, they may need a shrink or someone to help them focus mentally next time they're at the line in a late game situation... not "practicing" free throws during normal practice time... when most often kids don't go through their regular process that they do in games before shooting practice free throws.

bleedsmaroonandgold said:

The free throw is the one where the player literally has all the time he wants.

Click to expand...

Not to quibble, but the free throw needs to be taken within 10 seconds of the official handing him the ball. The official on the sideline closest to the free throw line is responsible for the count.

But your point is well made - free throws are some of the easiest points in the game and we are giving away way too many.

UST82Gopher said:

Not to quibble, but the free throw needs to be taken within 10 seconds of the official handing him the ball. The official on the sideline closest to the free throw line is responsible for the count.

But your point is well made - free throws are some of the easiest points in the game and we are giving away way too many.

Click to expand...

Good catch. As I was posting that, I was thinking that there probably was some rule preventing you from standing there all night with the ball.

BTW, the origin of the free throw is interesting... if you're bored some day, look it up. (free points were once given... couple of fouls get called on a team... other team gets a point)

What may be most interesting for me re: free throws is the D-I average. So consistent year-to-year... around 69%. That one is still difficult to comprehend.

Anyway, a few notes on Gopher FT's and - more importantly 2FG% - at Nebraska are HERE.

LateNightHoops.com said:

The biggest one factor was 2-point field goal shooting. Their mark of 25.0% (8/32) was the program’s worst performance going back at least five years. Had Minnesota made slightly less than the D-I average of their 2-point attempts (D-I average is approximately 47.5%; Minnesota averages better than 50.5% on the season), they would have scored an additional 14 points.

Click to expand...

Gopher Warrior said:

BTW, the origin of the free throw is interesting... if you're bored some day, look it up. (free points were once given... couple of fouls get called on a team... other team gets a point)

What may be most interesting for me re: free throws is the D-I average. So consistent year-to-year... around 69%. That one is still difficult to comprehend.

Anyway, a few notes on Gopher FT's and - more importantly 2FG% - at Nebraska are HERE.

Click to expand...

Ya, I'll check it out as soon as I read Souhan's latest column which will be never.

tjgopher said:

That's just silly.

You can make stats say whatever you want them to say, and in general I agree with you about FT % and its lack of importance, assuming you get to the line enough in games to make the offense efficient.

But, to say because the Gopher offense was so lousy that making 9 of 19 FTs actually benefited MN's offense is stupid at best and downright wrong at worst. When a team's FG offense is lousy on a given night, MANY times good teams that get to the line can still win a game by making a nice percentage of FTs and the Gophers had that chance the other night. 19 trips to the line should have been enough for Minnesota to win vs. NEB (in an otherwise impotent offensive night), but because the FT% was low, they couldn't win despite the poor FG shooting.

Click to expand...

bingo

Gopher Warrior said:

lol. Here's a problem with your claim --> if Minnesota shot just BELOW the D-I avg on their 2-pt attempts at Nebraska instead of how horribly they actually shot, they would have scored 14 more points!! 14!!!

Just shoot a little bit UNDER the norm... would have been good for flippin 14.

And you guys are pointing to 3 pts on FT vs avg %. Ignoring the few and-ones and pair of technical trips. Sigh. It's math & common sense.

Click to expand...

No one was discussing shooting percentage from the field. Obviously, if you make 4 more field goals, it does you more good than 7 (or more, depending if there were any threes in the former) made free throws. At the end of games, how does the other team get the ball back if they are trailing? If you miss both free throws or the front end of a one and one late in the game, it is the same as a turnover.

I get your point about earlier in the game. To be more specific, I for one have an issue with their free throw shooting late in the game.

Richard seems to have an issue with free throws as well. Is he wrong to have concerns?