Bear Down Wildcats

Ryan Anderson? Selling him a little short there buddy.

yeah...a Dirk Nowitzki direct comparison would be hyperbole.

But a Dirk Nowitzki projection is on the money. He's 18...no he is not currently playing like a future HOF'er.

But a legit 7 footer with consistent 3 point range and left/right handle and a mid range game? Yeah, projecting him out to be a Dirk Nowitzki is legitimate.

Will he get there? Who knows. He's a kid. Maybe he doesn't have Dirk's fire, or discipline. Sure doesn't look that way, but there is nothing hyperbolic about Markkanen projecting to Nowitzki

rgdeuce wrote:Ryan Anderson? Selling him a little short there buddy.

Literally. Anderson is a listed 6'10, more like 6'9.

Averaging 5 points and 5 rebounds the last 3 games.

Previous 6 games he averaged 20 points and 9 rebounds

Certainly in a slump

He'll figure it out.

Clutch 3 for the win in tonights game.

Need a big game from him Saturday so he needs get it going quick

Complete offensive game and hes playing the role of Kyle Korver. Nothing drives me crazier than seeing lauri and three others hanging out outside the arc at the same time playing hot potato

CSM ripping LM for not rebounding in the post game presser. Should have 10, only getting 3.

16 and 10 would be nice.

Gotta get out of that slump kid.

I'm not too worried about Lauri. He'll get it turned around.

rgdeuce wrote:Complete offensive game and hes playing the role of Kyle Korver. Nothing drives me crazier than seeing lauri and three others hanging out outside the arc at the same time playing hot potato

I remember posting about him taking the next step from not taking what the D gives him but beginning to control the game and get what he wants from it. That is what needs to happen. It's too easy for him to float the perimeter. He can still make plays and shots, but he passes up a chance to dominate.

One thing I would like to see is a few early plays designed to set Lauri up in the post.

I would love to LM to start "auditioning"

He's earned it and that would mean he's taking his game to the D.

Give AT some of LMs intelligence, in return for some of AT's aggressiveness.

Hopefully that 3 at the end gets him going again. He's the only starter without a real backup now that Pinder is on the outside looking in, looks gassed.

Merkin wrote:CSM ripping LM for not rebounding in the post game presser. Should have 10, only getting 3.

He has had uncharacteristic struggles defensively lately too. Miller yanked him at a timeout and gave him a quick ripping for poor interior defense on Travis. Was watching his body language and he certainly seemed down, though at one point, PJC came off the floor and Lauri was the only one to get up from his seat to give him five. Speaks volumes of his character. Hopefully that big 3 at the end gives him a shot of confidence.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

rgdeuce wrote:Complete offensive game and hes playing the role of Kyle Korver. Nothing drives me crazier than seeing lauri and three others hanging out outside the arc at the same time playing hot potato

I remember posting about him taking the next step from not taking what the D gives him but beginning to control the game and get what he wants from it. That is what needs to happen. It's too easy for him to float the perimeter. He can still make plays and shots, but he passes up a chance to dominate.

One thing I would like to see is a few early plays designed to set Lauri up in the post.

Yes you did and I still agree with you 100 percent. Outside of setting that vanilla screen and fading behind the 3-point line, almost nothing else is run or designed for the kid to get a clean shot. Should be a lot more two-man play with him in general and some rolling thrown into that because it has become predictable and teams are adjusting and making his looks tougher. The kid gets it done inside when he has the ball there and he is a pretty solid passer and makes smart decisions. He is also going to draw way more fouls and thats easy money for him (outside of last night). My opinion, part of the reason we get killed in these zones is because Dusan is the only guy who gets the ball inside and he is too slow, deliberate and easy to force into trouble and allows for the zone to have plenty of time to make him uncomfortable and react if he gives the ball up. Need more fluidity and guys who can make a shot, pass, or dribble immediately.

I'd like to see a little bit of using Lauri to pop from the low post to the elbow against the zone. Miller usually has a wing laterally cut, but bringing Lauri vertically from the baseline is how Michigan used McGary. Lauri can certainly hit that jumper and/or put the ball on the floor from there.

Examples:

https://youtu.be/B3U8RSy7q8E" target="_blank

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I'd like to see a little bit of using Lauri to pop from the low post to the elbow against the zone. Miller usually has a wing laterally cut, but bringing Lauri vertically from the baseline is how Michigan used McGary. Lauri can certainly hit that jumper and/or put the ball on the floor from there.

Examples:

https://youtu.be/B3U8RSy7q8E" target="_blank

That's exactly what I've been waiting for. That's how Miller used to break a zone. He did it with RHJ, and Death Stick last year. Lauri would be more effective.

Lauri can hit the shot from the middle free throw line area all day in the zone too since he's 7' and nobody is blocking that.

Look for a big come back on Saturday.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I'd like to see a little bit of using Lauri to pop from the low post to the elbow against the zone. Miller usually has a wing laterally cut, but bringing Lauri vertically from the baseline is how Michigan used McGary. Lauri can certainly hit that jumper and/or put the ball on the floor from there.

Examples:

https://youtu.be/B3U8RSy7q8E" target="_blank

That's what D Will and Rondae used to do against zones IIRC. Very smart

APB on shot (free throws, too!) ... and confidence.

Nuts seeing him miss any FTs, let alone both attempts on one trip.

might be better to be on the road.

McKale is a "friendly environment", unless you are missing your FTs. The building turns oppressively quiet, unnaturally so, then when you do miss, the groans are overwhelming. They are naked out there...I'd rather be shooting in front of a screaming gym with kids doing shit with balloons and hands that I don't see because I am focused on the rim than try to shoot with 13,500 people holding their breath (or oxygen mask in the "off" position), their entire hopes and dreams hanging on my FT.

PJC's FT after the head's-up grab and shot at the end of the half (should have been 2...he caught the ball with .6 with the intention to shoot and got bumped...not sure how it could not be shooting when contact occurred when he grabbed it and there was no time to do anything but shoot) was painful...the place is rocking, we are pulling away at the half, and our PG just got a freebie foul at half court and can increase the lead. It was festive....then he gets to the line, we all hold our breath, he short-arms the throw, and you would have thought someone stole the collective crowd's candy or puppy. The band started playing, but it was deathly silent, and the players walked into the locker room holding their heads. With a 9 point lead at half that came about because of a great close.

One fucking free throw laid that entire building low and changed the mood. That is ridiculous.

I have a lot of faith in Lauri to figure it out. Cal was a tough one because the reffing took him out so early. He was essentially starting over in the second half.

He's just too good a shooter for this to persist for too long a time. Even with the struggles in the last four, he's still shooting almost 50% from three.

I still have faith.

EVCat wrote: PJC's FT after the head's-up grab and shot at the end of the half (should have been 2...he caught the ball with .6 with the intention to shoot and got bumped

Actually should have been 3! It was near half court.

Refs blew that one for sure.

Then PJC clanked the first on 1 and 1...

Never understood how players can miss an open 15 foot shot, with no one guarding you, and don't even have to jump. A 15 foot set shot with 10 seconds to shoot.

Some players I can see, Shaq's hands were so big it was like us shooting a softball.

FT's are not shot in rhythm...and there are no blues as well.

Merkin wrote:

EVCat wrote: PJC's FT after the head's-up grab and shot at the end of the half (should have been 2...he caught the ball with .6 with the intention to shoot and got bumped

Actually should have been 3! It was near half court.

Refs blew that one for sure.

Then PJC clanked the first on 1 and 1...

Never understood how players can miss an open 15 foot shot, with no one guarding you, and don't even have to jump. A 15 foot set shot with 10 seconds to shoot.

Some players I can see, Shaq's hands were so big it was like us shooting a softball.

Mental. Regularly, you don't actually think about shooting. Free throws are nothing but time to think.

That said, a lot of players aren't always converting the open 15 footer either.

Yes it was 3, not 2.

Easy or no, we do our own shooters no favor by making the very air in the building hang on that free throw. I would think normal noise that occurs when action is happening at a slow pace would make more sense than shutting everyone up to the point of pin drop audibility. I would guess that the actual act of shooting a FT is easier with moderate noise than any extreme, either loud screaming or total silence.

EVCat wrote:Yes it was 3, not 2.

Easy or no, we do our own shooters no favor by making the very air in the building hang on that free throw. I would think normal noise that occurs when action is happening at a slow pace would make more sense than shutting everyone up to the point of pin drop audibility. I would guess that the actual act of shooting a FT is easier with moderate noise than any extreme, either loud screaming or total silence.

I would say the external factors with FT's pale in comparison to the internal pressure a player feels from the situation. Having to shoot a pressure FT isn't necessarily harder because of what the crowd does, it's harder because the player feels a pressure level that isn't there with 8 minutes left in the first half.

I'm not the slightest bit worried about Lauri. His national "who is this guy?" party is in March.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

EVCat wrote:Yes it was 3, not 2.

Easy or no, we do our own shooters no favor by making the very air in the building hang on that free throw. I would think normal noise that occurs when action is happening at a slow pace would make more sense than shutting everyone up to the point of pin drop audibility. I would guess that the actual act of shooting a FT is easier with moderate noise than any extreme, either loud screaming or total silence.

I would say the external factors with FT's pale in comparison to the internal pressure a player feels from the situation. Having to shoot a pressure FT isn't necessarily harder because of what the crowd does, it's harder because the player feels a pressure level that isn't there with 8 minutes left in the first half.

I don't think it is an either/or at all. Crowd dynamics in sports are very real, and there was no one in the building that didn't feel the deflation when PJC missed that free throw. It was 1 or 2 points in a half time start that should have been jubilant.

Did that impact the game? Who knows? We did have halftime to clear the feeling, and maybe it even helped by sending the guys in without feeling like their shit didn't stink.

We go to great lengths to manipulate the crowd dynamic. Scoreboard prompts to chant things, noise meters, the cheerleaders hushing everyone during a FT or getting the crowd going on an opponent FT. We, at least somewhat, accept the notion that crowd dynamic affects performance.

While I would agree that internal pressure is the primary factor, reaction has to play in somewhat. A player who gets two shots is generally more relaxed on the first than one who is shooting a one-and-one. Why? Overall reaction to failure has to be a factor. You want two points. Missing a first free throw means you can perform no better than 50% of your goal. Yet the security of knowing you have a 2nd coming appears to affect the first (I'd love to see the study of FT shooters percentages in the first 18 and last 2 minutes of halves in making the first of two vs the front end of a one and one. Because this hasn't been done, I am spitballing here).

So if we are going to go to such lengths to control the crowd dynamic, why not consider what the player wants? I wonder if players prefer the absolute silence to a normal crowd sound. I have no idea...I just know that taking my own reaction and applying to the player, there seems to be a lot more pressure in the silence.

Does any of this matter that much? No. But interesting to consider on a Tuesday when third party risk management update training gets exceptionally boring.

We're at 76.7% to lead the conference, and 16th in the nation. Don't imagine there's home-and-away disparity.

Stanford game ... made the last 19 "despite" the quiet crowd.

Can always go to the box scores and tote them up. But, overall, this is a strength.

never said FTs were a weakness.

Just a general question as to whether players would perform better with the hushed silence of McKale or a normal crowd murmur. Then a follow up wonder/question as to whether the 1st FT in a one and one is harder to make/converted less than the 1st FT in a 2 shot foul, recognizing you would have to split that up as "First 18 minutes/Last 2 minutes" to be accurate.

Do you really never wonder about such things? I thought of this when PJC missed that FT before the half and the crowd went "pffffft".

These kinds of questions make games fun for me. I don't really see anything here as a criticism, just wondering if, given how much effort we put into crowd dynamics control, there is another way.

UA FTs this season:

Home 76.6%
Away 76.7%

Looks pretty consistent NCAA wide: https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-baske ... -throw-pct" target="_blank

EVCat wrote:never said FTs were a weakness.

Just a general question as to whether players would perform better with the hushed silence of McKale or a normal crowd murmur. Then a follow up wonder/question as to whether the 1st FT in a one and one is harder to make/converted less than the 1st FT in a 2 shot foul, recognizing you would have to split that up as "First 18 minutes/Last 2 minutes" to be accurate.

Do you really never wonder about such things? I thought of this when PJC missed that FT before the half and the crowd went "pffffft".

These kinds of questions make games fun for me. I don't really see anything here as a criticism, just wondering if, given how much effort we put into crowd dynamics control, there is another way.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... ZkC3GnggHA" target="_blank

This is the most comprehensive analysis I could find.

Merkin wrote:UA FTs this season:

Home 76.6%
Away 76.7%

Looks pretty consistent NCAA wide: https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-baske ... -throw-pct" target="_blank

Sure, but what if the other crowds said, "Nice shot, buddy!" The road number would plunge.

Chicat wrote:

Well...

#1. Boston doesnt need to trade back for more picks...

#2. Isaiah Thomas is going to be due a near max contract next summer. One that would pay him $25 million more... per year.

#3. Lauri is not a unicorn. He isnt a rim protector, and really isnt that good of a defender in general. I am a bit surprised about his perimeter defense earlier in the year, but that has tailed off quite a bit, as his legs dont look there.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... ZkC3GnggHA" target="_blank

This is the most comprehensive analysis I could find.

Interesting pull quote from that

Using a dataset over 1.3 million possessions and 300,000 free-throws, we find that home free throw shooters do significantly
worse in clutch situations, with the effect being larger for poor shooters.

Maybe we need to just chat amongst ourselves in normal tones when our team shoots?

fleshed out a bit further

Using detailed play-by-play data for all NBA games from 2005-2010 (six seasons) we find that in general, home team players shoot free throws better at home. Yet in clutch situations they do significantly worse than road players

could that be because the lack of noise (pin drop condition) is actually more distracting to a shooter feeling pressure than the scream/wave/idiots behind curtains? The "all eyes on me" pressure is more acute in total silence?

Maybe we need McKale to go dead silent when the opponent shoots?

TucsonClip wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Well...

#1. Boston doesnt need to trade back for more picks...

#2. Isaiah Thomas is going to be due a near max contract next summer. One that would pay him $25 million more... per year.

#3. Lauri is not a unicorn. He isnt a rim protector, and really isnt that good of a defender in general. I am a bit surprised about his perimeter defense earlier in the year, but that has tailed off quite a bit, as his legs dont look there.

I'm not sure I agree with #3. He isn't a rim protector, but he did a very good job on Rabb and I would rate him higher as a defender. He is good in the pick and roll and will get better holding post position as he develops physically.

His unicorn quality is his combo of height and shooting. He gets compared to Dirk a lot, and really that is the only player I see with the combination of height and shooting.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

TucsonClip wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Well...

#1. Boston doesnt need to trade back for more picks...

#2. Isaiah Thomas is going to be due a near max contract next summer. One that would pay him $25 million more... per year.

#3. Lauri is not a unicorn. He isnt a rim protector, and really isnt that good of a defender in general. I am a bit surprised about his perimeter defense earlier in the year, but that has tailed off quite a bit, as his legs dont look there.

I'm not sure I agree with #3. He isn't a rim protector, but he did a very good job on Rabb and I would rate him higher as a defender. He is good in the pick and roll and will get better holding post position as he develops physically.

His unicorn quality is his combo of height and shooting. He gets compared to Dirk a lot, and really that is the only player I see with the combination of height and shooting.

A unicorn is a big man who can shoot and protect the rim. You can add in some creation skills and overall defense, but Lauri isnt ever gonna be a rim protector.

Hes still slow laterally, although I think hes a better perimeter defender than he is a post defender, at least right now. I dont think hes going to be a complete liability defensively in the NBA, but he has a LONG way to go in order to defend 4s at the next level. He had no shot against Brooks and Bridges. Plus we doubled Rabb a majority of the night, although he did a good job sealing off and holding for the double.

TucsonClip wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

TucsonClip wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Well...

#1. Boston doesnt need to trade back for more picks...

#2. Isaiah Thomas is going to be due a near max contract next summer. One that would pay him $25 million more... per year.

#3. Lauri is not a unicorn. He isnt a rim protector, and really isnt that good of a defender in general. I am a bit surprised about his perimeter defense earlier in the year, but that has tailed off quite a bit, as his legs dont look there.

I'm not sure I agree with #3. He isn't a rim protector, but he did a very good job on Rabb and I would rate him higher as a defender. He is good in the pick and roll and will get better holding post position as he develops physically.

His unicorn quality is his combo of height and shooting. He gets compared to Dirk a lot, and really that is the only player I see with the combination of height and shooting.

A unicorn is a big man who can shoot and protect the rim. You can add in some creation skills and overall defense, but Lauri isnt ever gonna be a rim protector.

Hes still slow laterally, although I think hes a better perimeter defender than he is a post defender, at least right now. I dont think hes going to be a complete liability defensively in the NBA, but he has a LONG way to go in order to defend 4s at the next level. He had no shot against Brooks and Bridges. Plus we doubled Rabb a majority of the night, although he did a good job sealing off and holding for the double.

Eh, he won't have to guard guys like Brooks and Bridges at the next level. They're both NBA 3's. Against people who project to NBA bigs, he has been more effective. He was fine against Gonzaga as well, which is probably the best set of NBA style bigs we've seen.

He is solid in hedge and recover and so long as a guy isn't a real penetrating threat, he's fine. The Rabb game really jumps out to me. Even when we didn't double, he had a huge stop on Rabb in a pure 1 on 1 situation with under 2 to play.

On the unicorn thing, unless you mean something that doesn't exist, I don't see it. The NBA has never had a player who was a legit 40% 3 point shooter and rim protector unless my memory fails me. Guys like Dirk and Bargnani were tall but not rim protectors. I'm really trying to think, but I can't remember an all star level player who was a good 3 point shooter and rim protector. Those guys just don't exist.

Hes going to be guarding guys that athletic all the time unless a team deploys him as a stretch 5, but then they need a 4 who can protect the rim. Thats the catch with Lauri. Also, we havent even had Lauri show/hedge much this year. I think hes ok in PNR coverage, but if he gets siwtched on the ball, which he will in the NBA, hes toast.

Im not talking about guys making 40% of threes as unicorns. Unicorns are bigs who can do it all, namely hits threes and protect the rim. AKA Porzingis, Towns, Giannis (guards bigs, plays PG), Turner, ect. Thats not Lauri. Hes definitely more Dirk than those guys, and I do like Lauri's ball skills, as ive posted a lot at Scout.

TucsonClip wrote:Hes going to be guarding guys that athletic all the time unless a team deploys him as a stretch 5, but then they need a 4 who can protect the rim. Thats the catch with Lauri. Also, we havent even had Lauri show/hedge much this year. I think hes ok in PNR coverage, but if he gets siwtched on the ball, which he will in the NBA, hes toast.

Im not talking about guys making 40% of threes as unicorns. Unicorns are bigs who can do it all, namely hits threes and protect the rim. AKA Porzingis, Towns, Giannis (guards bigs, plays PG), Turner, ect. Thats not Lauri. Hes definitely more Dirk than those guys, and I do like Lauri's ball skills, as ive posted a lot at Scout.

Fair enough. Lauri isn't, and never will be, a KAT, Porzingis type, but I see him as a better shooter than that group of players. In terms of pure shooting for a 7 foot plus guy, Dirk is probably the only comparison. I see the unicorn comparison in different ways, with Lauri having the uniqueness in terms of size and shooting.

Defensively, Lauri has his limits, but I think he'll be an above average defender sooner or later. He'll never be a game changer on D like the guys you listed, but there are plenty of all star level guys who don't make that impact.

I don't think we see it tremendously differently. I'm a little more positive about Lauri on D and offensively it seems similar.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Fair enough. Lauri isn't, and never will be, a KAT, Porzingis type, but I see him as a better shooter than that group of players. In terms of pure shooting for a 7 foot plus guy, Dirk is probably the only comparison. I see the unicorn comparison in different ways, with Lauri having the uniqueness in terms of size and shooting.

Defensively, Lauri has his limits, but I think he'll be an above average defender sooner or later. He'll never be a game changer on D like the guys you listed, but there are plenty of all star level guys who don't make that impact.

I don't think we see it tremendously differently. I'm a little more positive about Lauri on D and offensively it seems similar.

Totally agree with you on Lauri's shooting. That is his elite NBA skill, its transferable immediately and is highly coveted. He'll be in the league for a long time because of it. Additionally, I do like his potential to develop the rest of his skills; being able to put the ball on the deck, for instance.

I just dont like when people toss out the tern unicorn for any big now. If Lauri is a unicorn, then what is Channing Frye?

I do think we pretty much agree here. Point being, I didnt really agree with that writer's mock draft at all, starting with the write up on Lauri and the Celtics, not so much your take. Like I said, I was surprised with his perimeter defense early in the season. To me, it looks like hes hit the freshman wall, and his legs arent there. We're seeing that defensively now, but more importantly with his shooting.

Im a huge fan of his, but I just cant get behind him going top 3-4 this year. I think he will thrive in the NBA with all the floor spacing, more specifically if he lands on a team with a PG who can really run the PNR/PNP. I do think he'll be able to create more as well, which we saw a lot of when PJC went down, but are seeing much less of that due to everyone playing zone.

EVCat wrote:
PJC's FT after the head's-up grab and shot at the end of the half (should have been 2...he caught the ball with .6 with the intention to shoot and got bumped...not sure how it could not be shooting when contact occurred when he grabbed it and there was no time to do anything but shoot) was painful...the place is rocking, we are pulling away at the half, and our PG just got a freebie foul at half court and can increase the lead. It was festive....then he gets to the line, we all hold our breath, he short-arms the throw, and you would have thought someone stole the collective crowd's candy or puppy. The band started playing, but it was deathly silent, and the players walked into the locker room holding their heads. With a 9 point lead at half that came about because of a great close.

.

This is one of the most misinterpreted rules in the game of basketball. Forget most fans, most refs do not even get this correct. When you gather and begin the motion to make a field goal attempt/the motion that precedes an attempt, and you are fouled it is a shooting foul. Same thing if Trier is on a 1 on 1 fast break, he gathers at the free throw line and starts his two long steps before he takes off for a dunk, if the defender fouls him on either of those steps it is a shooting foul, it doesnt have to happen after he leaves his feet for the dunk. The college game needs the NBA continuation rule already and this is just another reason to have it, because the refs butcher that call all the time.

rgdeuce wrote:

EVCat wrote:
PJC's FT after the head's-up grab and shot at the end of the half (should have been 2...he caught the ball with .6 with the intention to shoot and got bumped...not sure how it could not be shooting when contact occurred when he grabbed it and there was no time to do anything but shoot) was painful...the place is rocking, we are pulling away at the half, and our PG just got a freebie foul at half court and can increase the lead. It was festive....then he gets to the line, we all hold our breath, he short-arms the throw, and you would have thought someone stole the collective crowd's candy or puppy. The band started playing, but it was deathly silent, and the players walked into the locker room holding their heads. With a 9 point lead at half that came about because of a great close.

.

This is one of the most misinterpreted rules in the game of basketball. Forget most fans, most refs do not even get this correct. When you gather and begin the motion to make a field goal attempt/the motion that precedes an attempt, and you are fouled it is a shooting foul. Same thing if Trier is on a 1 on 1 fast break, he gathers at the free throw line and starts his two long steps before he takes off for a dunk, if the defender fouls him on either of those steps it is a shooting foul, it doesnt have to happen after he leaves his feet for the dunk. The college game needs the NBA continuation rule already and this is just another reason to have it, because the refs butcher that call all the time.

I'm just going to put it out there:

The refs called it on the floor because he probably wouldn't have made the shot from that distance. There's an aspect of reffing that deals with engineering the outcome, and that call is engineering the outcome.

The unconscious (or maybe even conscious) thought is that 3 shots is a disproportionate benefit for a shot that would never have gone in. It sort of sidesteps that the situation is only there because Cal's player made a dumb play.

There's no chance that a foul with 0.6 seconds left in a half isn't a shooting foul unless the offensive player has no idea what the clock is. It takes more than 0.3 to get a shot off period. Even ignoring the gathering aspect, the shot has to be in motion by that point or it isn't going to beat the buzzer.

For TucsonClip: You've made good points, and I don't think we have a ton of disagreement. I don't think Lauri is likely to go top 3 just due to how stacked this class is. In a normal or weak class, I would think he would be either a borderline top 3 guy or a definite top 3 guy. This year, the class is just so loaded with talent that I think he would need a team to fall in love to hit top 3-4.

Merkin wrote:

EVCat wrote: Never understood how players can miss an open 15 foot shot, with no one guarding you, and don't even have to jump. A 15 foot set shot with 10 seconds to shoot.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Mental. Regularly, you don't actually think about shooting. Free throws are nothing but time to think.

That said, a lot of players aren't always converting the open 15 footer either.

Yea, ruling out things like hand size, as long as you get down adequate technique and/or aren't throwing lasers up at the hoop, to me at least, free throws were all muscle memory. I'd consistently have 90 plus makes out of 100 at the end of practices in high school and I was a below average 3 point shooter. It came easy to me once I was fully taught the importance of routine and I will spare you all mine. Fatigue was what gave me issues. If I took 100 shots right after suicides, my makes dropped to the high 70s or 80s. In games, I was usually in the low to mid 80s and it was solely fatigue, I can only think of a couple of instances when I had big time nerves at the line.

As Space pointed out, the mental side of things is the other big factor. Remember Jordin Mayes freshman year? Dude shot 45% from 3 and only 50% from the line, and most of that season he was in the 30s. One of my old college teammate's stepfather was a self-made multi-millionaire and motivational speaker. He was taught this exercise, long story short, basically muscle memory for the brain. You determine the weakness and every day, multiple times a day, you read "I can" mumbo jumbo until your brain is tricked from "I cant" to "I can" and the results follow. Somebody on the Utah Jazz put him in touch with Karl Malone, who was Shaquille-like at the free throw line in the infancy of his NBA career. He had Malone do the exercise. Malone when from 48%, to 59%, to 70%, to 76%, and he maintained in the mid to high 70s for the remainder of his career absent one season.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
I'm just going to put it out there:

The refs called it on the floor because he probably wouldn't have made the shot from that distance. There's an aspect of reffing that deals with engineering the outcome, and that call is engineering the outcome.

The unconscious (or maybe even conscious) thought is that 3 shots is a disproportionate benefit for a shot that would never have gone in. It sort of sidesteps that the situation is only there because Cal's player made a dumb play.

There's no chance that a foul with 0.6 seconds left in a half isn't a shooting foul unless the offensive player has no idea what the clock is. It takes more than 0.3 to get a shot off period. Even ignoring the gathering aspect, the shot has to be in motion by that point or it isn't going to beat the buzzer.

Certainly possible. Part of me says, call it by the rules, but I'd be lying if I never got pissed when a ref whistled a foul that, while certainly a foul by rule, it was on the complete opposite side of the court, away from the ball and had no impact on the play. When fouls affect shots, I just have a hard time agreeing with playing the what-if/gauging make probability on any shot. We have all seen enough half-court "prayers" in our lifetimes to know there is still a probability that that shot, with a full head of steam, still has a really good chance to draw iron or hit glass and from there, anything can happen. Same goes for all of the dumbass fouls wildcats have committed over the years when the dude is six feet behind the arc and fading away on a contested shot as the shot clock expires. That is not a no-effect on the action call, that IS the action plus the action of an actual shot attempt.