I am listing different ways to reduce the efficiency of free throws. Right now, free throws count more than field goals, not in maximum (the max points you can score from the ft line is the same as fg) but in expectation, which is a problem. So one way to go around it to make the expectations closer but make the maximum less for free throws. It is not a good solution maybe but a solution. This happens at the end of games even now, where one team can limit the other team to 2 free throws by fouling and not letting them to take a 3. Again, I think a better solution is probably out there. Maybe increase the distance of the free throws, which would decrease the %. Or something like the first ft is shot from 3pt line and the second from ft line. Anyway, my point is, something has to be done, otherwise foul baiting and officiating will be too dominant in the games.
What was the Thunder's record when Harden handed the MVP to Westbrook because Adams boxed out for him to average 10 rebounds a game?
You dabble in exceptions and not norms and Westbrook was not so unpopular. Westbrook would still rank as one of the worst MVPs that the NBA has ever seen. And I do agree that Harden would have deserved that MVP as well. A Co-MVP would have been spot on. Now you see Silver giving multiple MVPs to Europeans so I am guessing .....Luka never got one but he has been MVP status for 3-4 years..... Luka is going to subscribe to the MVP for multiple years after Joker and maybe SGA wins 1 or 2. And then Wemby is going to win it ....the core narrative is already written.
I don't think this is a problem tbh, I'm not sure there's any need at all for what you're suggesting. A free throw is SUPPOSED to be more efficient than a field goal. The same way a penalty kick in soccer is more efficient than a shot in the flow of the game. If you're taking them away you might aswell do away with foals and just play streetball...
If you make shooting foul less valuable than FG, it will guarantee a whole lot more fouls and probably harder fouls. That will result in ugly basketball and may be more injuries.
Exactly. It's a deterrent for fouling. Might as well not even have fouls if they don't result in foul shots. You have equivalents to free throws in the majority of team sports for this exact reason. Penalty/free kicks/shots in soccer/rugby/hockey/too many to list, yards in grid iron etc etc. Having an issue with it displays a fundamental misunderstanding of sports imho.
As I told earlier, Jalen is here to play and become superstar. Please let's not mention him in the same sentences with Sengun. Jalen is tier 1 Sengun is tier 3 or maybe 4. That depends on today's matchup against Wemby.
I am not saying that this is the best way to do it, as i suggested other ways as well. It is just a thinking process. But your points are not very strong either. If you shoot 2 ft at 80%, it gives you an expected 1.6pts, which corresponds to 53.3% if the fg is valued at 3 pts. So it is similar valued, not much less valued. Ideally you would want the free throws to be a little more valuable than the fg, and I am sure we can adjust it. My main point still stands, the ft is too much efficient compared to anything else and that is not good. A penalty in soccer is mostly awarded when there is a significantly more chance of scoring a goal and is a rare event. In basketball there are tons of free throws every game and a lot of times are awarded even if there is no chance of scoring. So, the analogy is not good.
the reward must not be too much. In this case the reward for non shooting fouls is definitely too much and shooting fouls is debatable. Maybe my suggestion should be valid for only non shooting fouls. As I said it is a brainstorming. But I stand with the premise that the reward on fouls, especially non-shooting fouls, is way too much.
How about a free kick? They're not rare, or only awarded when there's more chance of scoring a goal, sometimes you can't shoot from them (like when you pass in from the sideline in basketball.) Source: I've been an FA qualified referee for Soccer here in England since I was 14, it was my weekend job refereeing for youth football games . There's nothing wrong at all with free throws, they're a necessary part of the game.
Jalen shooting 36% from 3 in a 3-game sample size. Unfortunately only shooting 41% from the field. Small sample size. If he can get through the first month shooting 36% from 3 that’s a good sign.
he needs to stop taking the heaves at the end of quarters. without those he is likely at 38% right now.
I somewhat agree with this. I think he could be more selective in when he heaves, you don't have to always chuck it every time like you're playing 2k and hoping for a random one. I generally don't think he should be too worried about his percentages outside of FT% though, that should be hyper focused. He needs to make sure he's above 80% from the line and then just stay aggressive on offense and let it fire without hesitation. Kobe not Reggie.
In soccer if you commit a foul, it is awarded where the foul is made, so there is direct relationship between the proximity to the goal, hence goal chance, and the reward. The soccer equivalent of a foul in basketball would be to give a penalty, or a free kick which has a chance of scoring, say from 25 meters for every foul after the 4th one. Let alone a free kick, a corner or just moving the ball to the opposing end would be a huge reward for a foul committed in the other half. In basketball, you are defending a player, the other player has no intent to shoot, you reach in for a steal, or even you get some contact in the natural flow of the game, and suddenly the offense is offered the best way to score. That is ridiculous. Maybe non of the shooting fouls should be awarded free throws. That could make sense. I agree my suggestions, in particular this one, doesn't make sense and is artificial. But the reward for non-shooting fouls is crazy high. It is high even for shooting fouls. For example, compared to soccer, nothing changes with proximity to the basket, so a foul to a dunker(which almost has a 100% chance of going in) is the same as a foul to a midrange shot, which has significantly less chance of going in. And also a non-shooting foul, which is not even an attempt to score is penalized the same way.
You only get free throws on non-shooting fouls after the team fouls have been used up though. Again, a team has to be undisciplined for that, it's why at the end of the game you hear the announcers say "they have one foul to give" because often, a team that plays well of defense doesn't foul past the point where a non-shooting foul results in free throws. It's just not at all the issue you think it is. There's no difference in advantage for a team getting to throw the ball in from the sidelines on a foul than a free kick.
36% from 3 and .889 at the rim .... .285 from everywhere else. 1.78 ppp at the rim before ft's are accounted for. 1.08 ppp from 3. Showing this just to illustrate why teams are playing the defenses they have so far. They really need to perfect that pick and roll .....
I think we will just disagree here. A good number of the fouls that fill up the foul limit are 50-50 fouls and has a referee factor. Also once you are over the limit, the other team has a huge advantage, again disproportionate imo, because they can initiate contact to get a foul and it limits the defense a lot trying to avoid that. And players like embiid just fall down when you slightly touch them, getting an unfair advantage and killing the joy of the game. Or players who get the star calls have a major advantage in the game. Look at @harold bingo 's original example, where he shows that an extra trip to the line is the difference between a below average efficiency and over average efficiency. Imagine a star getting a lot of these calls or one team getting a lot of these calls. Even if they don't, the main goal of the game becomes to get fouled, not to score, because getting fouled scores more than actually scoring without being fouled.
