Hawks drawn fouls...

[Diesel]

I'm just not sure that I buy this stat. It appears to me that this is saying that of Smoove's 1,133 FT attemps only 232 of them came while in the act of shooting, which leaves 83% of his other FT attempts to come from non-shooting and technical fouls. We all know that Smoove rarely shoots technical FTs for us, so that means that most of his remaining 83% came from non-shooting fouls. 84.8% with Marvin. That would also mean that we had to be in the bonus at that time for our guys to be sent to the FT line without being in the act of shooting and that makes this stat seem even more ridiculous.

Uhm. Smoove only shot 469 FTs...

You're looking at his FGs.

[crimedog]

I'm just not sure that I buy this stat. It appears to me that this is saying that of Smoove's 1,133 FT attemps only 232 of them came while in the act of shooting, which leaves 83% of his other FT attempts to come from non-shooting and technical fouls. We all know that Smoove rarely shoots technical FTs for us, so that means that most of his remaining 83% came from non-shooting fouls. 84.8% with Marvin. That would also mean that we had to be in the bonus at that time for our guys to be sent to the FT line without being in the act of shooting and that makes this stat seem even more ridiculous.

he didn't have that many FTs...

[Admin]

Uhm. Smoove only shot 469 FTs...

You're looking at his FGs.

My fault, I had that number on the brain from earlier. That still doesn't change the fact that according to those numbers 83% of his FTs were non-shooting FTs which is difficult to explain since he rarely shoots technical FTs.

I'm still waiting on a good explanation of those numbers because they just don't make sense to me.

[Diesel]

My fault, I had that number on the brain from earlier. That still doesn't change the fact that according to those numbers 83% of his FTs were non-shooting FTs which is difficult to explain since he rarely shoots technical FTs.

I'm still waiting on a good explanation of those numbers because they just don't make sense to me.

You have considered that when you get fouled, sometimes you shoot one time and sometimes you shoot 2 times. Most of the time, we're talking a 2 shot foul.. meaning you get 2 free throws.

[mrhonline]

What???

You have gotten to be kidding.

A foul kills a defensive stand. You've never watched a basketball team play and all the sudden, they're playing great defense and somebody commits the foul?

Seriously. Did you read my post? That's exactly what I just said. :computer8:

A foul does put a player in jeopardy.

A single foul does not put a player in jeopardy. Multiple fouls put a player in jeopardy, and since it's rare for ALL of those fouls to be drawn by the same player, you can't easily determine that effect statistically.

Bottom line: It's not enough to just look at the free throw attempts, because success rate matters.

[crimedog]

My fault, I had that number on the brain from earlier. That still doesn't change the fact that according to those numbers 83% of his FTs were non-shooting FTs which is difficult to explain since he rarely shoots technical FTs.

I'm still waiting on a good explanation of those numbers because they just don't make sense to me.

For Smith (D's link was to JJ): http://www.82games.com/0708/07ATL11A.HTM

He took 1365 shots and was fouled 232 times. 232/1364= 17%

Note, it mentions that "FGA includes the number of shooting fouls drawn." so that number isn't the exact same as the number of shots that Smith took over the course of the year because it takes note of times a player was fouled while shooting and didn't finish.

[Admin]

You have considered that when you get fouled, sometimes you shoot one time and sometimes you shoot 2 times. Most of the time, we're talking a 2 shot foul.. meaning you get 2 free throws.

So basically what you're saying is that number (17% for Smoove) means that Smoove draws a foul on 17% of his FG attempts?

[Admin]

For Smith (D's link was to JJ): http://www.82games.com/0708/07ATL11A.HTM

He took 1365 shots and was fouled 232 times. 232/1364= 17%

Note, it mentions that "FGA includes the number of shooting fouls drawn." so that number isn't the exact same as the number of shots that Smith took over the course of the year because it takes note of times a player was fouled while shooting and didn't finish.

Thanks, that makes more sense now!

[Diesel]

Seriously. Did you read my post? That's exactly what I just said. :computer8:

Yeah, I read your post and that's not what you said. You said that a foul " slows the game down." That's different from what I have said.

I said that a foul kills a defensive stand. Shot, Mark Jackson at PG can slow the game down. A good defensive guard set can slow a game down. A good transition defense can slow a game down.

However, a foul committed by a defensive player, kills a defensive stand. IF a team was playing good defense and a foul is committed, that defense is deflated... Weather the free throws are hit or not.

Part of the reason we won games 3,4, and 6 was because our offense got some good foul calls at the right times and went on offensive runs. Part of the reason we couldn't win in Boston is because we couldn't gather any defensive stands because Boston got the calls. It was definitely not because Boston "slowed the game down."

[Gray Mule]

Ga Zaza!! He works inside where the fouls are. He isn't great inside, but he does manage

to draw the foul. Some of it may be flops, but many times they are truly fouls. Knowing how,

whether it's a flop or truly getting hacked is all part of the game.

Ha! Ha! Look at Zaza. Can't get the ball to go down - - Now he's shooting, and hitting two.

Poor guy. He can't score at all! (They forget that those two free throws count)

Why has our man been sent to the bench? Foul trouble? I thought he was covering Zaza??

As I keep saying and saying, over and over:

HIT THOSE FREE THROWS - THEY COUNT TOO!!!!

[crimedog]

Thanks, that makes more sense now!

No problem.

[AHF]

My fault, I had that number on the brain from earlier. That still doesn't change the fact that according to those numbers 83% of his FTs were non-shooting FTs which is difficult to explain since he rarely shoots technical FTs.

I'm still waiting on a good explanation of those numbers because they just don't make sense to me.

This is my only problem with the statistic. If a guy is fouled driving the ball before shooting that is great in my book as long as he hits a significantly higher % from the FT line than from the floor. To measure someone's ability to draw fts, I would want to include both shooting and non-shooting fouls that result in a trip to the line. If you have a PG, for example, who penetrates and gets hacked as a way of trying to stop the penetration that is fantastic -- even if he only gets off a shot a smallish % of the time on those fouls.

[Admin]

This is my only problem with the statistic. If a guy is fouled driving the ball before shooting that is great in my book as long as he hits a significantly higher % from the FT line than from the floor. To measure someone's ability to draw fts, I would want to include both shooting and non-shooting fouls that result in a trip to the line. If you have a PG, for example, who penetrates and gets hacked as a way of trying to stop the penetration that is fantastic -- even if he only gets off a shot a smallish % of the time on those fouls.

Yeah those are definitely good points. Perhaps that is a comment that you should make to them so that they can amend their stat or create an additional stat to encompass those points that you made.

[AHF]

Yeah those are definitely good points. Perhaps that is a comment that you should make to them so that they can amend their stat or create an additional stat to encompass those points that you made.

I don't have a problem with their stat at all. I just have a problem using it to evaluate a player's ability to draw fouls. In my mind, it is a more specialized, limited statistic that is useful in some ways but doesn't tell the whole story. It reminds me of using FG% to show how good a scorerer someone is and you can tell by contrasting Allen Iverson and George Muresan that such an approach wouldn't be very insightful.

If you want to look at how well someone draws fouls you can probably come up with a simple statistic just by looking at the total fouls they draw v. the minutes they play or the amount of possessions they utilize the ball.

[frosgrim]

I don't have a problem with their stat at all. I just have a problem using it to evaluate a player's ability to draw fouls. In my mind, it is a more specialized, limited statistic that is useful in some ways but doesn't tell the whole story. It reminds me of using FG% to show how good a scorerer someone is and you can tell by contrasting Allen Iverson and George Muresan that such an approach wouldn't be very insightful.

If you want to look at how well someone draws fouls you can probably come up with a simple statistic just by looking at the total fouls they draw v. the minutes they play or the amount of possessions they utilize the ball.

Doesn't the % of points scored off of FTs get close to this idea? You can do a rate as well to handle the problem of uneven attempts. You could also adjust for FT% and by total points scored. Just some thoughts on how this could be drawn out. The pulse of the matter is that guys that can consistantly draw fouls are very valuable players.

[crimedog]

Just messing around on 82games, came across another fouls drawn stat. Our players aren't too good at drawing offensive fouls...

Smith leads the team drawing 38 offensive fouls (although he partially cancels that out by committing a solid 28 of his own...) good for 14 in the league but after him its Bibby with 12, Marv with 8, Joe with 7 and so on. Woody needs to get those perimeter guys sliding their feet and getting knocked around.

[AHF]

Doesn't the % of points scored off of FTs get close to this idea? You can do a rate as well to handle the problem of uneven attempts. You could also adjust for FT% and by total points scored. Just some thoughts on how this could be drawn out. The pulse of the matter is that guys that can consistantly draw fouls are very valuable players.

It depends how you measure the #. To me, the % of points scored off FTs isn't as meaningful as the total # of points scored from FTs. Someone who scores 4ppg and gets 2 ftppg (50%) looks better than someone averaging 28ppg and get 12 ftppg (43%) even if both average 30mpg.

My point is that there are a lot of ways to split a FT statistics and none of them are the perfect # but the % of points scored off FTs or % of shots resulting in FTAs are less meaningful to me than simply how many FTs a player is generating per minute or per touch of the ball. Use the statistic cited originally here for something, but not for whether a player is a great at drawing FTs.

The limitation of the statistic is born out in: Desagna Diop 15.6% v. Chris Paul 8.4%

[Cwell]

Just messing around on 82games, came across another fouls drawn stat. Our players aren't too good at drawing offensive fouls...

Smith leads the team drawing 38 offensive fouls (although he partially cancels that out by committing a solid 28 of his own...) good for 14 in the league but after him its Bibby with 12, Marv with 8, Joe with 7 and so on. Woody needs to get those perimeter guys sliding their feet and getting knocked around.

u don't need a stat to know we sucked at that. I barely remember anybody taking a charge last year.

[Diesel]

It depends how you measure the #. To me, the % of points scored off FTs isn't as meaningful as the total # of points scored from FTs. Someone who scores 4ppg and gets 2 ftppg (50%) looks better than someone averaging 28ppg and get 12 ftppg (43%) even if both average 30mpg.

My point is that there are a lot of ways to split a FT statistics and none of them are the perfect # but the % of points scored off FTs or % of shots resulting in FTAs are less meaningful to me than simply how many FTs a player is generating per minute or per touch of the ball. Use the statistic cited originally here for something, but not for whether a player is a great at drawing FTs.

The limitation of the statistic is born out in: Desagna Diop 15.6% v. Chris Paul 8.4%

Yeah it depends... but that's if you want to look at something other than playing style..

I added other NBA players to define playing style.

Wade is probably the best player to talk about going to the line. He and James are on the list.

I think Fouls Drawn % serves to show a players aggressiveness/(other teams perception).

Moreover, a lot has been made about Marvin's ability to get to the line. However, the numbers show that he doesn't draw fouls more than Smoove nor Chillz.

[Admin]

Moreover, a lot has been made about Marvin's ability to get to the line. However, the numbers show that he doesn't draw fouls more than Smoove nor Chillz.

That's not an entirely fair statement though since both Chillz and Smoove both shoot a lot more "inside" than Marvin does and most fouls are on shots on the "inside". If you really want to be fair then figure out the drawn foul percentage based purely on shots "inside" and I'd bet you that Marvin is at least as high, if not higher, than both Smoove and Chillz.

% of players shots from the "inside" - as in close, dunk, tips

Josh Childress - 75%

Josh Smith - 52%

Marvin Williams - 31%