I dont understand this statement...

[SsKSpurs21]

this usually applies to a CLOSE game but When people say" "if only we made our freethrows we would have won."

this applies to the Spurs as well. we always say, if only we shot better at the freethrow line we would have won."

Lets take the mavericks yesterday. they shot horrible at the line, but if they shot better WOULD they have won?

i think making freethrows allows you to have a better CHANCE of winning, but it doesnt guarentee a victory.

if the mavs made their freethrows, dont you think the spurs would have felt the pressure and played harder and smarter to try to get the lead back? If they knew they were down by 8 instead of 4 late in the game, dont you think they would have pressed harder to score, played harder defense to try and find a way to win?

sure, sometimes free throws make a huge difference and the number of freethrows shot is also a factor, but i just think that, that statement doesnt always apply.

[T Park]

you can what if the hell out of games.

Scoreboard is all that matters.


Gotta move on to game 2.

[mike detroit]

this usually applies to a CLOSE game but When people say" "if only we made our freethrows we would have won."

this applies to the Spurs as well. we always say, if only we shot better at the freethrow line we would have won."

Lets take the mavericks yesterday. they shot horrible at the line, but if they shot better WOULD they have won?

i think making freethrows allows you to have a better CHANCE of winning, but it doesnt guarentee a victory.

if the mavs made their freethrows, dont you think the spurs would have felt the pressure and played harder and smarter to try to get the lead back? If they knew they were down by 8 instead of 4 late in the game, dont you think they would have pressed harder to score, played harder defense to try and find a way to win?

sure, sometimes free throws make a huge difference and the number of freethrows shot is also a factor, but i just think that, that statement doesnt always apply.


the free throw excuse in general is just a copout. it's like when people say "i think we should have gotten to the line more" after their team plays so apathetic and non-aggressive that the refs couldn't have made calls if they wanted to. it's like, man, if a plane had hit the other teams bus on the way to the arena, we totally would have won.

[G-Nob]

If I would've gotten a few more beers in her, I would've gotten laid.

[SANANTOJAMES]

Excuses Excuses Excuses, You Can Whine And Moan But It Wont Achieve Anything

[mike detroit]

Excuses Excuses Excuses, You Can Whine And Moan But It Wont Achieve Anything


exactly. i understand it when it's fellow sports fans at a bar and they've had a few. yeah, then, it's ok to comiserate with excuses. but unless the sports boards on the internet are just filled with drunks(I admit, a distinct possibility) it's just sad.

[SsKSpurs21]

i know they are excuses, but i was just wondering if people thought they applied. Sometimes making freethrows does make a difference, like if the spurs shot 10-20 and lost by 8. those 10 freethrows could have helped them win...but ultimately, i think that if the spurs had made those freethrows and got close, the other team would have worked harder to sustain the lead by playing smarter basketball. therefore this excuses does not apply.

[snowboarder]

i get what you're saying

It's a better chance, but no, it doesn't mean you win.

[SequSpur]

:drunk

[mike detroit]

i know they are excuses, but i was just wondering if people thought they applied. Sometimes making freethrows does make a difference, like if the spurs shot 10-20 and lost by 8. those 10 freethrows could have helped them win...but ultimately, i think that if the spurs had made those freethrows and got close, the other team would have worked harder to sustain the lead by playing smarter basketball.

no, no. i get that. and i realize that the comparison to foul CALLS was far from perfect. what i meant with the bus hit by a plane analogy though, is that change the point differentials at a dozen points of the game causes too many variables to be useful.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

In close games by 1 or 2 points...HELL YEAH THE FREE THROWS MAKE A DIFFERENCE. There's no excuse to miss them. Spurs overcome the disparity because of their DEFENSE which has bailed them out through the years. Other team's aren't so lucky.

[SsKSpurs21]

yea mike i understand your point. just wanted to know if people found this excuse legitament because i dont.

[mike detroit]

In close games by 1 or 2 points...HELL YEAH THE FREE THROWS MAKE A DIFFERENCE. There's no excuse to miss them. Spurs overcome the disparity because of their DEFENSE has bailed them out. Other team's aren't so lucky.


very true, but if we're talking about an overall poor free throw shooting performance in a whole game, that's a different story. it's like, "if we had narrowed the lead to 2 instead of 4 at the one point in the second we would have one". the dynamic of a whole game is too fluid and that sort of revisionism is useless to determine anything.

[SAGambler]

Bottom line is there are a ton of "what ifs" in every game...win or lose.

Old saying IF the dog hadn't stopped to take a shit, he might have caught that rabbit.

[SsKSpurs21]

very true, but if we're talking about an overall poor free throw shooting performance in a whole game, that's a different story. it's like, "if we had narrowed the lead to 2 instead of 4 at the one point in the second we would have one". the dynamic of a whole game is too fluid and that sort of revisionism is useless to determine anything.

this was the answer i was looking for.

[mike detroit]

this was the answer i was looking for.


thanks, I'm here to help.

[Reggie Miller]

Impossible to say. Looking at most games, you can make a case that FT% determined the majority of outcomes. You can also make good cases for TO/A ratio and offensive rebounding. It's hard for me to treat basketball statistics as gospel, because the action is not isolated (like baseball). Obviously, you won't have many offensive boards if you're shooting 70%. Unless of course, your overall percentage is jacked up by that 100% on your second chance baskets. See what I mean? It can give you a headache.

I don't watch the Spurs nearly as close or as often as most of you, seeing as how I live in Indiana. (Our FOX Sports Mid-West package is the Pacers, of course.) If I had to say, it sure seems like rebounding is the consistent theme in the Spurs' losses, not FT shooting. Obviously, the Spurs don't rely upon hitting 90% from the line; you are who you are. So yeah, I think they do bear down when they're missing from the line, but I'm not sure if it cancels out the times when the entire team is clanking them.

Like I said, I'm not really sure if basketball lends itself to this kind of analysis. It's more than just "win the game and the rest doesn't matter." It's also, "traditional basketball statistics don't bother to account for the other nine players on the floor."

[mike detroit]

Impossible to say. Looking at most games, you can make a case that FT% determined the majority of outcomes. You can also make good cases for TO/A ratio and offensive rebounding. It's hard for me to treat basketball statistics as gospel, because the action is not isolated (like baseball). Obviously, you won't have many offensive boards if you're shooting 70%. Unless of course, your overall percentage is jacked up by that 100% on your second chance baskets. See what I mean? It can give you a headache.

I don't watch the Spurs nearly as close or as often as most of you, seeing as how I live in Indiana. (Our FOX Sports Mid-West package is the Pacers, of course.) If I had to say, it sure seems like rebounding is the consistent theme in the Spurs' losses, not FT shooting. Obviously, the Spurs don't rely upon hitting 90% from the line; you are who you are. So yeah, I think they do bear down when they're missing from the line, but I'm not sure if it cancels out the times when the entire team is clanking them.

Like I said, I'm not really sure if basketball lends itself to this kind of analysis. It's more than just "win the game and the rest doesn't matter." It's also, "traditional basketball statistics don't bother to account for the other nine players on the floor."

very good post

[Reggie Miller]

Thanks. I think it is very interesting that football is going the way of baseball: trying to statistically model everything. I don't think it works well in football for similar reasons to basketball. Baseball has gone so far overboard that it has virtually come full circle and proven that "conventional wisdom" actually does work more often than not. At any rate, there doesn't seem to be any comparable movement in pro basketball to develop better statistical tools for evaluating talent. (If someone is aware of people doing this, please let me know.)

I guess I'm getting WAY off-topic, but the NBA draft always seems like a carnival where a few teams aren't rubes, but the rest keep playing 3 card monte. The traditional explanation has always been that evaluating basketball talent is mostly subjective. It still seems like teams could do a much better job. Something like the Combine might have nipped in the bud some of these first round draft picks straight out of high school.