Free Throw Rate to Offensive Rebounds!

Texas A&M, Iona, St Mary’s & Florida hammer the offensive glass consistently

Mizzou, George Mason, Murray St & Rice aggressively get to the line

Texas A&M & Alabama get to the line & rebound way above the average rate

Via @CBBAnalytics pic.twitter.com/rxfaIjmP7t

— SSN - College Basketball (@SSN_CBB) January 16, 2025

FTM vs Offensive Rebounds / Game would be more insightful.

I remember back when rc was the football coach and we always just hoped we could get to 21 or 24 points and feel comfortable that we'd win. I kinda feel that way with buzz teams.

If we can just make 60% of our free throws, I think we got a good chance.

Proposition Joe said:

---

FTM vs Offensive Rebounds / Game would be more insightful.

---

What insight would you gain, exactly?

JJxvi said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

FTM vs Offensive Rebounds / Game would be more insightful.

---

What insight would you gain, exactly?

---

Because it implies getting to the line is actually a positive outcome for the teams listed.

We have scored 999 points on 1031 FG attempted. So for every shot we attempt, we're averaging a shade under 1pt.

At 69% free throw shooting, we'd be better off not getting fouled and instead taking another shot from the floor than going to the line. Even when you factor in getting the other team into foul trouble, you need to be hitting at least ~71% to actually be benefiting going to the line.

So we're looking at one statistic that is very significant to our winning -- offensive rebounds -- and another statistic that has actually been a negative outcome for us.

It's like putting up a "positive" graphic about how Team X doesn't commit fouls at all... It must mean they just play lock-down, no-fouling defense within the rules of the game... Except when you see their opponents field goal percentage it's 95% and you realize that in playing this "no fouls" defense, they are actually sieve defensively.

we're gonna be good when wade gets back...

Every single team in the country virtually makes free throws within a 5-10% range. The chart would barely change except to scale back one axis by a quarter as you multiply every single team by something very close to 0.72 or so. Our position on the visualization that was made and your version would be virtually identical.

Even if it did make a difference, I disagree that it tells you anything, and if it does anything it just masks the point being made about style of play (success getting fouled and going to the line) by running it through an additional stat (FT%) which is already readily available.

Quote:

---

We have scored 999 points on 1031 FG attempted. So for every shot we attempt, we're averaging a shade under 1pt.

At 69% free throw shooting, we'd be better off not getting fouled and instead taking another shot from the floor than going to the line. Even when you factor in getting the other team into foul trouble, you need to be hitting at least ~71% to actually be benefiting going to the line.

---

This is very VERY wrong BTW. Fouls are way better than field goal attempts.

Your math has us scoring 0.96 points per field goal attempts. When you get fouled you get 0.69+0.69=1.38 expected points on two shots (or 1.17 expected points if its only one and one)

I dont get how you came up with some kind of break even point at 71% FT%, it would be way lower than that. Worse than any team shoots free throws.

JJxvi said:

---

Every single team in the country virtually makes free throws within a 5-10% range. The chart would barely change except to scale back one axis by a quarter as you multiply every single team by something very close to 0.72 or so. Our position on the visualization that was made and your version would be virtually identical.

---

Within a 5-10% range is an extremely significant number when it comes to shooting.

Proposition Joe said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

FTM vs Offensive Rebounds / Game would be more insightful.

---

What insight would you gain, exactly?

---

Because it implies getting to the line is actually a positive outcome for the teams listed.

We have scored 999 points on 1031 FG attempted. So for every shot we attempt, we're averaging a shade under 1pt.

At 69% free throw shooting, we'd be better off not getting fouled and instead taking another shot from the floor than going to the line. Even when you factor in getting the other team into foul trouble, you need to be hitting at least ~71% to actually be benefiting going to the line.

So we're looking at one statistic that is very significant to our winning -- offensive rebounds -- and another statistic that has actually been a negative outcome for us.

It's like putting up a "positive" graphic about how Team X doesn't commit fouls at all... It must mean they just play lock-down, no-fouling defense within the rules of the game... Except when you see their opponents field goal percentage it's 95% and you realize that in playing this "no fouls" defense, they are actually sieve defensively.

---

https://sportsjourneysinternational.com/sji-coaches-corner/free-throw-rate-the-fourth-most-important-factor-of-basketball-success/

Article discussing the importance of free throw rate in addition to free throw percentage.

Says that FT % is important, but FT rate is also an important statistic as merely getting to the line a lot has benefits such as higher probability of opponent foul troubles plus bonus free throws (getting into bonus quicker).

This topic also probably highlights the importance of a player like Wade Taylor. He has the highest usage rate on the team when on the court and in turn he also draws a lot of fouls. And he is a 90% FT shooter.

When fully healthy, this has been a very effective roster. The team has lost only 1 game thus far with both Taylor & Phelps available.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

FTM vs Offensive Rebounds / Game would be more insightful.

---

What insight would you gain, exactly?

---

Because it implies getting to the line is actually a positive outcome for the teams listed.

We have scored 999 points on 1031 FG attempted. So for every shot we attempt, we're averaging a shade under 1pt.

At 69% free throw shooting, we'd be better off not getting fouled and instead taking another shot from the floor than going to the line. Even when you factor in getting the other team into foul trouble, you need to be hitting at least ~71% to actually be benefiting going to the line.

So we're looking at one statistic that is very significant to our winning -- offensive rebounds -- and another statistic that has actually been a negative outcome for us.

It's like putting up a "positive" graphic about how Team X doesn't commit fouls at all... It must mean they just play lock-down, no-fouling defense within the rules of the game... Except when you see their opponents field goal percentage it's 95% and you realize that in playing this "no fouls" defense, they are actually sieve defensively.

---

https://sportsjourneysinternational.com/sji-coaches-corner/free-throw-rate-the-fourth-most-important-factor-of-basketball-success/

Article discussing the importance of free throw rate as opposed to free throw percentage.

Says that FT % is important, but FT rate is also an important statistic as merely getting to the line a lot has benefits such as higher probability of opponent foul troubles plus bonus free throws (getting into bonus quicker).

This topic also probably highlights the importance of a player like Wade Taylor. He has the highest usage rate on the team when on the court and in turn he also draws a lot of fouls. And he is a 90% FT shooter.

When fully healthy, this has been a very effective roster. The team has lost only 1 game thus far with both Taylor & Phelps available.

---

And that game, we only had Solo for the first 6 minutes before he was injured.

No doubt Wade being out has impacted our offense in a number of different ways.

I also want to know where you're getting 71%.

https://www.nbastuffer.com/analytics101/possession/#:~:text=Basic%20Possession%20Formula=0.96*%5B(,Opponent%20FG)%20+%20Opponent%20Turnovers))

This is the basic concept of it - though the multiplier for college is different than 0.44.

You can account for opposing team disqualifications (foul-outs), but you can't really account well for reduced playing time (or at least there's not any good statistical data for it)... So yeah you can probably make the case that simply getting their guys with 3 fouls early is significantly impactful to their playing time even if they don't foul out.

But once you start shooting free throws in the high-to-mid 60's, assuming you are an average team shooting from the floor you aren't actually gaining a scoring advantage.

Of course I guess you can also make the case that we aren't an average team shooting from the floor.

I must be missing a step here because I don't know what that has to do with needing to shoot 71% to break even.

However you calculate the possessions, the only way a shot attempt has an expected value even close to us shooting free throws is if you're also calculating in our own likelihood of rebounding it and shooting it again. Whether it's one possession or 100 possessions, the expected value of us shooting two FTs even at 60% (1.2 pts) is significantly higher than the expected value of us shooting the ball (.97 pts).

So if we are averaging .97 points per attempted field goal and .69 pts per attempted FT, the argument to "not shoot FTs" doesn't make any sense.

On a possession that ends in a shot, we are getting .97 points.

On a possession that ends in no shot and FTs, we are getting 1.38 points if it's 2 shots and still over 1 point, statistically, if it's 1-and-1.

How is not shooting FTs better?

I believe I erred in comparing an average FG % rather than our actual FG%.

Nm

The same would be true even of Michigan, the best shooting team in college basketball this year, though just barely.

They have 1190 pts on 992 FGs, or 1.19 pts/fg attempt.

Now they shoot 71% from the line but let's pretend they didn't and they shot a terrible 60%. That's still 1.2 expected points per trip to the line.

Now, obviously, it's not quite that simple. Not all trips to the line are the same. And teams that shoot poorly at the free throw line are probably better off not getting fouled while they're in the single bonus (which is partially why I hate the single bonus, in certain circumstances it creates a scenario where a team has a statistical edge if they foul, but that's for another thread.)

But, from a scheme standpoint of what they're trying to do, on a given offensive possession they're still better off getting fouled and going to the line for two shots than they are putting up a FG attempt.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I remember back when rc was the football coach and we always just hoped we could get to 21 or 24 points and feel comfortable that we'd win. I kinda feel that way with buzz teams.

If we can just make 60% of our free throws, I think we got a good chance.

---

This isn't a first to 60 points wins kind of defense…

Proposition Joe said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Every single team in the country virtually makes free throws within a 5-10% range. The chart would barely change except to scale back one axis by a quarter as you multiply every single team by something very close to 0.72 or so. Our position on the visualization that was made and your version would be virtually identical.

---

Within a 5-10% range is an extremely significant number when it comes to shooting.

---

It's definitely not extremely significant. It's one free throw for every 10 attempts. How many extra free throws would be needed to make a significant difference.

Do these two stats correlate to tournament success?

Do they have that chart available prior to the start of the tournament for 2023-24?

I doubt it with this one, but offensive rebound percentage might hold up better. With just pure offensive rebounds I don't think it's as helpful. Hard to lead in pure offensive rebounds if you make more of your shots and/or play at a slower tempo.

TyHolden said:

---

we're gonna be good when wade gets back...

---

good better

We have a better chance increasing our team FT rate than we do making enough shots from the field to win outright.

bobinator said:

---

I also want to know where you're getting 71%.

---

Natural log(5 starters * 28 minutes a game on average + 4 bench players * 15 minutes a game on average divided by the number of timeouts we didn't use but could have to increase our points per possession by an average of 0.17 points on those plays times 48 minutes divided by the team's pace ranking minus the square of the Euclidean distance between the team's offensive ranking and the average offensive ranking (measured as a 2-D vector) plus the expected points added by the random guy pulled from the student section who jacks a shot from half court during half time minus the usage rate of the shortest white guy on our team's practice squad who occasionally gets Rudy minutes at the end of blowouts)

I got 72%, but I guess I'm better at math than that guy.

This team also ranks dead last in the SEC in FT%

It's also better if you can draw shooting fouls or offensive fouls for fouls 7 - 9 on the opponent.

I believe that missing the front end of a 1-and-1 should count as 0 for 2 in the stat sheet.

94chem said:

---

It's also better if you can draw shooting fouls or offensive fouls for fouls 7 - 9 on the opponent.

I believe that missing the front end of a 1-and-1 should count as 0 for 2 in the stat sheet.

---

I've been saying this for a decade

Method Man said:

---

94chem said:

---

It's also better if you can draw shooting fouls or offensive fouls for fouls 7 - 9 on the opponent.

I believe that missing the front end of a 1-and-1 should count as 0 for 2 in the stat sheet.

---

I've been saying this for a decade

---

We should do what the G League does and just make every FT trip one shot that equals 2 points.

It would cut out so much wasted time and make Aggie basketball slightly less painful for everybody.

I think the first shot should be two points and if they make it move on, if they miss you get a second shot for one point

Now that I like.....

Or go with the women's game and NBA. Four quarters; penalty is at five shots; two free throws and none of this bonus or double bonus thing. Better pacing.

The 3 fouls with 1-and-1 is such a random relic. It used to happen after every foul beyond 6, then they went to the 2 shot fouls, and then they went to the current system. The problem is two-fold. First, it's a relic that predates the 3 point shot. 2nd, it is really random. You can get from 6 fouls to 10 without shooting a single 1-and-1, or you could end up shooting 3. There should be bonus or no ones, not some purgatory that benefits the fouling team.