[qwerty49]

Ouch — 9 of 21 from the line?! ... And the best way to stop runs like Baylor had in the 4Q is to make those FTs.

I disagree.  The best way to stop runs like Baylor didn't have in the 4Q  is to make those 3PT shots.   Are you saying that you lament Stanford making 0 of 4 FT in the 4Q?    I would say I lament that Stanford hit only 2 of 5 3PT in the 4Q.   You could say we left 4 points on the floor by missing the FT, but I can say we left 9 points on the floor by missing the 3 PTs.
(Baylor's run in the 4Q was only 21 pts (for the full quarter).)

I think it is easier for opponents to stop giving FT than to stop giving 3Pt attempts.   Stanford only gave Baylor four FTA in the 4Q.  If the opponent wants to go into Hack-a-3pter mode, then so be it.  At 43%  FT, Stanford would expect to get 1.29 points per fouled 3ptr.  At 43% 3PT%, Stanford still expects to get 1.29 points per 3pt attempt.  [Stanford had 60 shots and 7 OR, giving 53 possessions.  53*1.29 = 68.37, right on the 68 points scored.  Sounds evenly balanced.]

If Stanford spent two hours a day practicing FT and doubled their poor FT% (9/21) to an outstanding 86% (18/21), they'd have only gotten 9 extra points.  But, if by spending that time on FT instead of 3 point shots, the efficiency of 3PT attempts drops, say from a good 43% (13/30) to an ordinary 33% (10/30), Stanford would have lost those 9 points.


(Absolutely, in the last minute of a close game, FT% will be critical in a close game.  But, if you can make enough points earlier, you can avoid the close games except for even better opponents.)

Well, with all due respect I think your math is stretching your argument a bit.

First of all, making 2 of 5 3-pt shots down the stretch is 40% which is pretty good for beyond the arc.  It's actually a shade better than we are doing now.  I would say we met expectations there.  So, nah, you can't really say in all seriousness that we left 9 points on the table there.

But missing all 4 FTs down the stretch is not even close to being good.  Statistically, not what we would expect.  So, yes, some points left on the table.  

Now the fact that the same player missed all 4 FTs in the 4Q kind of compounds things, but my point is that we won by 5, and perhaps it didn't need to be that close with better FT shooting both earlier in the game AND down the stretch.  You yourself cite a hypothetical in which we could have had another 9 points with great FT shooting.  Yep, we would have won by 14.  Which might have been a more accurate reflection of how we controlled the game through the first three quarters.  We would have had more than a 16-pt lead going in 4Q and probably wouldn't have needed Coffee's 3 to put the game back to a seemingly comfortable 10-pt lead with 3:08 left after Baylor had whittled the lead down to 7.

IIRC Stanford did not score at all after Coffee's 3.  We missed 5 more shots and basically were pretty lucky that Baylor turned the ball over twice as well.  Had there been 2 more minutes in the game, would that 5-pt lead have been safe?  Who knows, but yes, I would surely like to have those points from just shooting FTs at an average %.  I wouldn't expect to have had more points from 3's because we shot 43.9% throughout the game from there.

So yes, more culprits than just missing FTs.  And yes, always more mathematical upside to being perfect on 3's than at the line.  But remember that FTs have other dimensions to them, which include a) getting defenders closer to fouling out, and b) stopping clock and momentum.   

I think improving FT shooting is something than can be achieved more easily than improving 3-pt shooting.  One shot requires a great deal more skill than the other.  And one happens with no defensive pressure.  We have some players who move strong to the basket and will draw more than their share of fouls, and they (and staff) should be really focused on improving that part of their game.

[qwerty49]

Ouch — 9 of 21 from the line?! ... And the best way to stop runs like Baylor had in the 4Q is to make those FTs.

I disagree.  The best way to stop runs like Baylor didn't have in the 4Q  is to make those 3PT shots.   Are you saying that you lament Stanford making 0 of 4 FT in the 4Q?    I would say I lament that Stanford hit only 2 of 5 3PT in the 4Q.   You could say we left 4 points on the floor by missing the FT, but I can say we left 9 points on the floor by missing the 3 PTs.
(Baylor's run in the 4Q was only 21 pts (for the full quarter).)

I think it is easier for opponents to stop giving FT than to stop giving 3Pt attempts.   Stanford only gave Baylor four FTA in the 4Q.  If the opponent wants to go into Hack-a-3pter mode, then so be it.  At 43%  FT, Stanford would expect to get 1.29 points per fouled 3ptr.  At 43% 3PT%, Stanford still expects to get 1.29 points per 3pt attempt.  [Stanford had 60 shots and 7 OR, giving 53 possessions.  53*1.29 = 68.37, right on the 68 points scored.  Sounds evenly balanced.]

If Stanford spent two hours a day practicing FT and doubled their poor FT% (9/21) to an outstanding 86% (18/21), they'd have only gotten 9 extra points.  But, if by spending that time on FT instead of 3 point shots, the efficiency of 3PT attempts drops, say from a good 43% (13/30) to an ordinary 33% (10/30), Stanford would have lost those 9 points.


(Absolutely, in the last minute of a close game, FT% will be critical in a close game.  But, if you can make enough points earlier, you can avoid the close games except for even better opponents.)

Well, with all due respect I think your math is stretching your argument a bit.

First of all, making 2 of 5 3-pt shots down the stretch is 40% which is pretty good for beyond the arc.  It's actually a shade better than we are doing now.  I would say we met expectations there.  So, nah, you can't really say in all seriousness that we left 9 points on the table there.

But missing all 4 FTs down the stretch is not even close to being good.  Statistically, not what we would expect.  So, yes, some points left on the table.  

Now the fact that the same player missed all 4 FTs in the 4Q kind of compounds things, but my point is that we won by 5, and perhaps it didn't need to be that close with better FT shooting both earlier in the game AND down the stretch.  You yourself cite a hypothetical in which we could have had another 9 points with great FT shooting.  Yep, we would have won by 14.  Which might have been a more accurate reflection of how we controlled the game through the first three quarters.  We would have had more than a 16-pt lead going in 4Q and probably wouldn't have needed Coffee's 3 to put the game back to a seemingly comfortable 10-pt lead with 3:08 left after Baylor had whittled the lead down to 7.

IIRC Stanford did not score at all after Coffee's 3.  We missed 5 more shots and basically were pretty lucky that Baylor turned the ball over twice as well.  Had there been 2 more minutes in the game, would that 5-pt lead have been safe?  Who knows, but yes, I would surely like to have those points from just shooting FTs at an average %.  I wouldn't expect to have had more points from 3's because we shot 43.9% throughout the game from there.

So yes, more culprits than just missing FTs.  And yes, always more mathematical upside to being perfect on 3's than at the line.  But remember that FTs have other dimensions to them, which include a) getting defenders closer to fouling out, and b) stopping clock and momentum.   

I think improving FT shooting is something than can be achieved more easily than improving 3-pt shooting.  One shot requires a great deal more skill than the other.  And one happens with no defensive pressure.  We have some players who move strong to the basket and will draw more than their share of fouls, and they (and staff) should be really focused on improving that part of their game.