Why do people, when pointing out efficient scoring, always say a player scored X points on Y shots, while completely ignoring how many FTAs they had? There's a big difference between someone scoring 15 points on 10 shots and 0 FTAs versus someone scoring 15 points on 10 shots and 20 FTAs - FTAs use up possessions too.
Yeah FTs use up possessions, but FTs are extremely efficient. If you shoot 80% from the line that's the equivalent of shooting 80% from 2 point land. So yeah it's a bit lazy if someone says it how you said it, but it's kind of understood FTAs will likely use a possession.
Free throw attempts accomplish two things: Most likely send a over-70% free throw shooter to the line. Force the other team to commit a foul and possibly put someone into foul trouble. ... Also, stoppage of play prevents there from being any defensive consequences.
*EDITED:* oops, didnt read the previous comments right. Repeating everyone's point again -* 1) A player makes 10/20 shots. Hits 5 threes. Makes 0/0 FTS. - Thats 25 points in 20 shots 2) A player takes 5/10 shots. Hits 0 threes. Makes 15/20 FTS. - thats 25 points in just 10 shots! Thats annoyed me as well. We know that Kevin Martin for example is eating up much more possesions than his "20 points on 8 shots" lines) STILL: 15/20 free throws is still better than most shooting percentages. That's equivalent to 7/10 FG with 1 three pointer. We darn well know teams can't do that even for ONE game yet alone a full season So you still need 3 pointers and free throws to get more "bang for possession buck" than just trying to make a high degree of 2 pointers.
Defensive consequences like you mentioned with free throws and with threes was was an underrated defense aspect of Phil Jackson's teams. The approach was to NOT send guys to the foul line and PREVENT 3 POINTERS. (Have teams try to beat them making 2's)
And I don't want to coach at the college level, they don't pay enough on average to interest me, nor do I want to deal with recruiting etc. Doesn't mean I couldn't coach, I firmly believe I could, but just means I choose not to pursue it, because it doesn't interest me as much.
There's one factoid missing here. It's a lot easier to limit free throws and defend the 3-point line when you have 2, count 'em 2, of the longest tallest, most talented big men in the game for major minutes at the same time. That means you can defend the paint effectively without fouling and that also means you can tighten up the perimeter because you've got two gobstoppers in the paint when opponents dive to the paint for layups.
Yes, do agree. The article does mention that its not JUST those elements that makes a defense decent. Just that its notable for PJ's Lakers defenses Back to the OP's statement - Good question. Like others have said, thats where you factor in true shooting and points-per possession to "tidy up" those lines. Those arent clean box score stats. I don't think free throws are TOTALLY ignored, just its saying "15 points but with how many free throws?" is similarly NOT a simple way of looking at scoring either. All in all, it still is good to have some reliable TWO point makers. Cuz, as with Kevin Martin again, he has to get his points in the ebb and flow of the game. When you NEED to draw up a play, you can't strategically RELY on a referee whistle.
That's why true shooting percentage takes into account free throw attempts. On average, each free throw attempt is the equivalent of 0.44 extra "shots". Hence, the formula; ts% = 0.5 * PTS / (FGA + 0.44 * FTA)