Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bugeaters1

Experimental Rule

Recommended Posts

Interesting how opinions are all over on free throws.  My preference is that all of them are two shot fouls.  A foul is something that is not good.  It should be penalized.  Currently a one and one is hardly a penalty at all.  Why is a shooting foul 2 and a foul that prevents an easy two a 1-1?  Should be done away with IMO.  A foul should always penalize the team that commits it.

 

IF you want to penalize a team for fouling, let the team fouled select who gets to shoot the free throw.  That would keep a team from always fouling a bad shooter.

Edited by PointGuard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, royalfan said:

Not to be pedantic, but it wouldn't be a media time out any longer.  It would be a quarter break time out.

But for the purpose of the media, it would be the exact same.  We'd still always get commercials, right?

 

But to be technical, yes.  The media timeout would go away, but the media exposure wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, atskooc said:

The word "always" is pretty specific; I have come to know it to mean each and every time. I have no idea what "mathematically always" means.

 

So, with you saying the offending team should "always" be penalized, and that a 1-and-1 situation doesn't always manage that, I figured you meant that in order for the offending team to "always" be penalized, the opposing team would have to make at least one free throw (otherwise, no damage done).

 

That is, unless "always" doesn't always mean mean always. If you were using it figuratively, then I obviously missed that (I need to work on my figurative language detection, if that was the case). And if you were using it mathematically, well, I'm going to miss that every time.

 

As for the football analogy: I'm not the one saying a team should "always" be penalized after committing a foul. That's your point. I think your football example is stupid, as do I think giving two free throws for every foul is stupid. The offending team is penalized by having the player accumulate another foul; it's up to the opposing team to do further damage by making the free throw(s). 

 

But again, I was just being pedantic.

If you cannot understand simple things like math based statistical probability then not much reason to continue a discussion.   Any event is always penal in nature or it isn't.  It isn't based on results after the fact.  It is based on history of the results of that particular event.  A 1-1 does not penalize a team for fouling in many situations.  A two shot foul would accomplish that aside from extreme outliers.  Not sure what is so hard to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, 49r said:

They also need to move the 3 point line out in college to at least the international line, maybe the NBA line.  3 pointers as they are in college now are a joke IMO.  Way too easy.

 

International line, for sure. Too many guys are shooting (who shouldn't) from the current line. Make it deeper to open up for cutters & movement as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, royalfan said:

If you cannot understand simple things like math based statistical probability then not much reason to continue a discussion.   Any event is always penal in nature or it isn't.  It isn't based on results after the fact.  It is based on history of the results of that particular event.  A 1-1 does not penalize a team for fouling in many situations.  A two shot foul would accomplish that aside from extreme outliers.  Not sure what is so hard to understand?

You're right in that I'm no mathematician. 

 

I guess I didn't realize that a statistical probability is equal to an absolute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But a media timeout wouldn't be lost; it would simply move to between quarters.
 
I hate media timeouts; they don't make sense in the flow of the game.  Breaks between quarters do.

You would lose one timeout/media timeout by going to quaters. If they use the women's model, they get a time out at the 5 minute mark and at the quarter break. Three total ok in the half besides what the team timeout are.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bugeaters1 said:


You would lose one timeout/media timeout by going to quaters. If they use the women's model, they get a time out at the 5 minute mark and at the quarter break. Three total ok in the half besides what the team timeout are.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

Thanks for the clarification!

 

This makes me want the quarter system even more!

Edited by atskooc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw one of the analysts at ESPN or somewhere suggest making the foul shot worth two points. One shot from the line for two points. Just like a penalty kick in soccer isn't worth half a goal, it will take less time and make putting someone at the line a real penalty because they have one easier shot rather than two. I'm not a math whiz on probabilities, but I know no one makes 100% of free throws so the two shot entices trailing teams to engage in the most garbage practice in basketball, the intentional foul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hhcscott said:

I saw one of the analysts at ESPN or somewhere suggest making the foul shot worth two points. One shot from the line for two points. Just like a penalty kick in soccer isn't worth half a goal, it will take less time and make putting someone at the line a real penalty because they have one easier shot rather than two. I'm not a math whiz on probabilities, but I know no one makes 100% of free throws so the two shot entices trailing teams to engage in the most garbage practice in basketball, the intentional foul.

 

That's interesting. I mean, mathematically both of these scenarios should equal out over many observations. Of course, you hope you're falling on the positive (made basket) side of the scenario when the free throws seem to matter even more. Here's a hypothetical situation (we'll use Tai and Jordy as an example):

 

Tai: FT% 0.739

Jordy: FT% 0.642

 

Expected outcome for 'two shots worth one point a piece':

Tai: (0 * 0.739 + 1 * 0.739) + (0 * 0.739 + 1 * 0.739) = 1.478 points

Jordy: (0 * 0.739 + 1 * 0.642) + (0 * 0.739 + 1 * 0.642) = 1.284 points

 

Expected outcome for 'one shot worth two points':

Tai: 0 * 0.739 + 2 * 0.739 = 1.478 points

Jordy: 0 * 0.739 + 2 * 0.739 = 1.284 points

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be curious to see if there are any stats held on 'first free throw shot' versus any proceeding free throw shots. Just speculation, but there is the possibility that, on average, players have a higher shooting percentage on the proceeding shots since they are able to adjust after the first shot. That might change the probability outcome a little bit if it's significant enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, HuskerFever said:

I would be curious to see if there are any stats held on 'first free throw shot' versus any proceeding free throw shots. Just speculation, but there is the possibility that, on average, players have a higher shooting percentage on the proceeding shots since they are able to adjust after the first shot. That might change the probability outcome a little bit if it's significant enough.

From the link I posted above

 

In support of the skewed stats argument, the D-League brandished stats that showed that players convert the second of a pair of free throws at a better rate than the first (for D-Leaguers, 71.1 percent vs. 76.3 percent; for NBA players, 73.2 percent vs. 77.7 percent). The trend holds for three-shot trips, as well, as players get progressively more proficient from the first to third attempts. On single attempts -- which would be every trip to the line under the proposed reform -- the D-League shot 71.8 percent, while the NBA shot 72.8 percent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hhcscott said:

From the link I posted above

 

In support of the skewed stats argument, the D-League brandished stats that showed that players convert the second of a pair of free throws at a better rate than the first (for D-Leaguers, 71.1 percent vs. 76.3 percent; for NBA players, 73.2 percent vs. 77.7 percent). The trend holds for three-shot trips, as well, as players get progressively more proficient from the first to third attempts. On single attempts -- which would be every trip to the line under the proposed reform -- the D-League shot 71.8 percent, while the NBA shot 72.8 percent.

 

Thanks! I must have skimmed over that part. It's interesting to see that the NBA shot worse overall than their 1st shot average. I'm sure with more data points it would reflect a lot closer to that number. If that holds true in college (which I would assume it would be an even greater variance), then there will be some parody in changing the free throw rules.

 

The average FT% in Div I basketball is 70.0754% for 2016-2017 games through Feb. 16 (http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1/current/team/150). Top 50 teams are shooting 76.26%, Top 100 74.7273%, Top 150 73.7139%, and so on. FWIW, Nebraska is #136 shooting 71.3%.

 

We're not going to know the number right off, but I would assume the gap is much greater in college (D-League is 76.3-71.1=5.2, NBA is 77.7-73.2=4.5). Just to get a number out there, let's say the college gap is somewhere around 5.9 (5.2-4.5=0.7 above D-League).

 

Average: 70.07% +/- (5.9/2) = 67.12% (1st shot) to 73.02% (2nd shot).

 

Expected outcome for 'two shots worth one point a piece':

All 347 teams: (0 * 0.6712 + 1 * 0.6712) + (0 * 0.7302 + 1 * 0.7302) = 1.4014 points

 

Expected outcome for 'one shot worth two points':

All 347 teams: 0 * 0.6712 + 2 * 0.6712 = 1.3424 points

 

So under the proposed rules, for every 100 free throw attempts you are expected to score 5.9 fewer points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HuskerFever said:

 

Thanks! I must have skimmed over that part. It's interesting to see that the NBA shot worse overall than their 1st shot average. I'm sure with more data points it would reflect a lot closer to that number. If that holds true in college (which I would assume it would be an even greater variance), then there will be some parody in changing the free throw rules.

 

The average FT% in Div I basketball is 70.0754% for 2016-2017 games through Feb. 16 (http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1/current/team/150). Top 50 teams are shooting 76.26%, Top 100 74.7273%, Top 150 73.7139%, and so on. FWIW, Nebraska is #136 shooting 71.3%.

 

We're not going to know the number right off, but I would assume the gap is much greater in college (D-League is 76.3-71.1=5.2, NBA is 77.7-73.2=4.5). Just to get a number out there, let's say the college gap is somewhere around 5.9 (5.2-4.5=0.7 above D-League).

 

Average: 70.07% +/- (5.9/2) = 67.12% (1st shot) to 73.02% (2nd shot).

 

Expected outcome for 'two shots worth one point a piece':

All 347 teams: (0 * 0.6712 + 1 * 0.6712) + (0 * 0.7302 + 1 * 0.7302) = 1.4014 points

 

Expected outcome for 'one shot worth two points':

All 347 teams: 0 * 0.6712 + 2 * 0.6712 = 1.3424 points

 

So under the proposed rules, for every 100 free throw attempts you are expected to score 5.9 fewer points.

 

Math hard for Silverback, you say foul? no foul?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Silverbacked1 said:

 

Math hard for Silverback, you say foul? no foul?

 

 

I wouldn't suggest fouling any more than you typically would. The strategy would likely be the same where any planned foul would be toward the weaker free throw shooter. More than likely you're slightly better off when it's a weaker free throw shooter and slightly worse off when it's a strong free throw shooter under the proposed change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a while back and I can't remember the tv analyst that brought it up but he mentioned something about giving a player an extra foul if a game went OT. So a player who fouled out would be able to re-enter the game in OT. He made the comment after a star player had fouled out in regulation and game went to OT. And can't remember where I heard it but someone mentioned that players would never foul out. They would still get 5 fouls but any foul that the individual commits after that would treated like an intentional foul, 2 shots and the ball. Not a fan of either scenario. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ideas for experimental rules.

 

  1. Allow coaches to have the option to advance the ball to midcourt on a timeout...but if they take that option, they don't get the time alotted to talk to the players...play resumes immediately.
    1. This would speed up the game in the last minute by elminating a couple minutes of no action
    2. it would also allow teams to have an actual play at the basket in a last second opportunity
    3. It would also force coaches to have plays ready for these instances, rather than draw them up
  2. Reviews...when looking at reviews of balls knocked out of bounds
    1. Right now if an obvious foul was missed but it caused an opposing player to knock the ball out of bounds, they will award the ball to team that should have been called for a foul
    2. I believe the officials should take into consideration that the foul (although not called, and still won't be called) caused the ball to go out of bounds and award the ball to the opposing team even if they were last to touch it.
    3. To me it seems crazy, they can look at who touched it last but can't take into consideration that a player slapped a guys wrist causing the ball to go out of bounds
  3. No timeouts when players are on the ground
    1. Awarding a timeout, they often award it as a guy is getting tied up...and it is tough to guage actual possession in these situations
    2. Only award timeouts when two feet are on the ground and no other body parts
  4. 5 seconds calls
    1. They have eliminated the dribbling/closely guarded call
    2. I would like to see the five second count on at all times regardless of being closely guarded
    3. you get 4 seconds to hold it, 4 seconds to dribble, 4 seconds to pass or shoot
    4. This would force more passing and less one on one dribbling
    5. I believe it would force more movement...and you would get away from 4 guys standing on the baseline while a point guard tries to drive to the hoop possession after possession

 

My ideas for points of emphasis

 

  1. Travelling...it needs to be reigned in
    1. There is nothing worse than seeing a guy get away with travelling only to be rewarded with a foul by the opposing player...who played good defense but only got caught out of position when his oppponent was granted an extra step
    2. The euro step when done right is legal...although it is rarely done right and players are getting an extra step.
      1. There are so many times on the Eurostep that the player gathers with his back foot on the ground (which makes it his pivot foot) and he takes two full steps which once the pivot foot hits the ground again it is a travel
      2. Often they draw a blocking call on the final step...which punished good defensive position
    3. overall footwork on the perimeter is sloppy
      1. so many players take an extra step when catching the ball and it puts the defensive player at a disadvantage
  2. Block Shots
    1. Officials need to pay attention to the action after the ball is hit
    2. if a player blocks the shot up top, but follows through and hits the shooter, it should be a foul
    3. Blocks need to be clean all the way through..
    4. You see a jump shooter get a call on getting hit on their follow through, but a big guy getting hammered after a guy blocks the shot up high, he rarely gets the call

 

Random ideas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like number 1.

 

I also think that when a player fouls out the coach of either team shouldn't be able to use that time like a time out.. instruct the player coming in, but no one else.

 

I also like the International grab the ball from out of bounds and go.. Official doesn't need to touch it evey time.

 

I will think of a couple more so I might be back.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, rr52 said:

It was a while back and I can't remember the tv analyst that brought it up but he mentioned something about giving a player an extra foul if a game went OT. So a player who fouled out would be able to re-enter the game in OT. He made the comment after a star player had fouled out in regulation and game went to OT. And can't remember where I heard it but someone mentioned that players would never foul out. They would still get 5 fouls but any foul that the individual commits after that would treated like an intentional foul, 2 shots and the ball. Not a fan of either scenario. 

I've heard that idea postured before and Coach Mo mentioned it on the radio the other night. I have no problem with an extra foul if you go to OT. I've never heard anyone say that if a player fouls out that they would get to re-enter, though. If you foul out in regulation, you're done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Blindcheck

 

I like #3. Personally, I think most of the time when a player dives into try and create a tie up it's a foul not a jump ball. I'd actually like to see that discouraged. Call the foul there. That's a place where some of the most physical action takes place and the player diving onto the pile rarely actually achieves possession of the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

I'd like a point of emphasis on moving picks.  Defender is chasing shooter around a screen.  Screener throws a hip into defender, impeding his progress and freeing up shooter.  That should be a foul; it's rarely called.

I had that on my list, too...but I think it is called more often now than in the past..the moving pick.

 

I think it needs to be looked at...because it is called inconsistently....sometimes a guy gets a foul for a great screen and on the next possession sets a sloppy pick and gets away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2017 at 11:21 AM, atskooc said:

But for the purpose of the media, it would be the exact same.  We'd still always get commercials, right?

 

But to be technical, yes.  The media timeout would go away, but the media exposure wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×