Mason needs to shoot more ... just a little more

[Olympic Fan]

It's frustrating -- Mason is hitting 64.5 percent of his field goal attempts (49 of 76 attempts). But officially, Virginia's Mike Scott is leading the ACC in field goal percentage at 58.4 percent.

The problem is the the minimum qualifying standard is an average of five made field goals a game. With 49 field goals in 10 games, Mason is just one field goal short of the qualifying standard.

BTW, his FT average is down to 38.1 percent. That's Chris Burgess territory -- worse, since Chris was 43.5 for his two years at Duke.

Mason is second in the ACC in rebounding, fifth in blocked shots and tied for 10th in steals.

Also, Duke has four players hitting 40 percent or better on 3-pointers, which would rank them in the top 10 of the ACC ... but only Dawkins has enough 3-pointers (two made 3-pointers a game) to qualify.

[Reilly]

What's the rationale for making *made* FGs the minimum for FG percent leader? Shouldn't it be attempts? Of all the folks who shoot enough to make it difficult, this one has the best percent .... or maybe it doesn't matter ... just struck me as odd.

Other options: mins/game ... scoring average (could use double figures since it is 5 made per game ... guessing Mason wins there, as he averages double figures .... )

[Devilsfan]

It looks like teams may start a "hack a Shaq" on Mason at the end of close games. I dread when he goes to the line. He is such a great rebounder and I love his shooting the baby hooks from the court. I wish someone could help him improve that free throw shooting. Go Devils!

[wilko]

I'll be happy as long as the team continues to show progress/growth and win.
I hope that means Mason has some great games in that mix, but I can live w/o it as long as we pick up the "W".

I think some of that % you mention is due to the guards finding the right entry angle and making a good pass. They are learning.

[gumbomoop]

I'll take Olympic Fan's thread title in a different, but I hope relevant, direction. Mason does indeed need to shoot a little more, especially when he gets a nice pass that should allow him to go up immediately for an easy, easy 2.

A discouraging moment in yesterday's frustrating last 7 minutes was at the 6:34 mark. [Pause: the first 33 minutes were very impressive, in several ways.] At the 7:11 mark, Seth hit 2 FTs to put Duke up by 19. Easy. Washington came down, got a baseline drive, miss, nice tip-in at 6:58. Not great D, but hardly a momentum shift. Duke ball, Mason makes a drive-dish into corner to Andre, who passes inside to Ryan, who gets double-teamed and so makes a lovely pass to a wide-open Mason, who receives the pass head-high. But instead of laying in the ball, totally unguarded, or stuffing it with 2 hands, what did he do? He (a) took a rhythm dribble, and simultaneously (b) turned his back to the basket. This un-smart decision allowed a defender to arrive to foul him on his belated attempt to stuff it over his head backwards. He bricked the 2FTs; the first hit the front rim, second hit the back.

Now, to be fair, the Huskies did not immediately score the next 8 or 10 points. No, the lead dwindled more gradually. So my point here isn't to claim that this single play was responsible for Duke's semi-melt-down. Rather, it is that Mason has not yet learned to overcome his natural inclination to get his balance [footwork issue, surely] by taking a rhythm dribble, even when it means he is turning down a sure 2, giving defenders time to hack him.

The problem is two-fold: (1) bad FT shooting; (2) passing up sure 2, "choosing/preferring" to go to the line. By choose/prefer, I mean not that that's his intent, but that's the too-frequent outcome of his action.

I trust that in studying game film, K, Wojo, Capel, whoever, will use this specific moment to point out to Mason the value of keeping the ball high, going up with the ball, rather than down for the rhythm dribble, which is in this incarnation so often un-rhythmic, for both player and team.

I focus on this problem because I think it a serious flaw in Mason's game. In other ways, it's obvious to me that he is much improved, more confident, a solid threat on O, nice moves for little running hooks, left and right hands, strong rebounder, shot-block threat, pretty good passer, better-but-still-needs-improving footwork. I'm sure he's once again on NBA draft-watch stuff. Very happy with his progress [which was, incidentally, a definite focus on K's first TV show yesterday morn - Sat morns at 9:30 for those of you with DirecTV, channel 646, right after, gack, the Roy show]. By all means, Mason should shoot more, especially and obviously when he's wide open a few inches from the basket.

[phaedrus]

It's frustrating -- Mason is hitting 64.5 percent of his field goal attempts (49 of 76 attempts). But officially, Virginia's Mike Scott is leading the ACC in field goal percentage at 58.4 percent.

The problem is the the minimum qualifying standard is an average of five made field goals a game. With 49 field goals in 10 games, Mason is just one field goal short of the qualifying standard.

BTW, his FT average is down to 38.1 percent. That's Chris Burgess territory -- worse, since Chris was 43.5 for his two years at Duke.

Mason is second in the ACC in rebounding, fifth in blocked shots and tied for 10th in steals.

Also, Duke has four players hitting 40 percent or better on 3-pointers, which would rank them in the top 10 of the ACC ... but only Dawkins has enough 3-pointers (two made 3-pointers a game) to qualify.

How can the minimum attempts be so high as to exclude someone who, at 12.2 pts/game, is the conference's 17th leading scorer? That's a little ridiculous.

[Olympic Fan]

How can the minimum attempts be so high as to exclude someone who, at 12.2 pts/game, is the conference's 17th leading scorer? That's a little ridiculous.

I agree that it is ridiculously high, but that's the NCAA standard and the ACC has adopted it.

At the moment, just eight players qualify for the field goal percentage rankings -- they can't even have a top 10.

Terrell Stoglin is officially 8th in the ACC with a percentage of 44.5. Austin Rivers is in 7th place ...

A more reasonable standard would be six ATTEMPTS a game.

The 3-pt standard is even more ridiculous -- after Saturday's game, Seth Curry fell one 3-pointer below the qualifying standard, so he doesn't rank about the leaders in 3-point percentage. But his average of 1.9 3-pointers a game is actually sixth in the ACC. So he has the sixth most 3-pointers in the ACC, but doesn't have enough made to qualify for the pct. lead?

[JasonEvans]

The reason for qualifying standards is to keep someone who barely plays from going 1-for-1 and leading the league in shooting... or something silly like that.

But to make the standards so high that only very few people even qualify, it just defies any logic. If you ask me, the standard should be something like 3 or 4 FGA per game. The 3FG standard should be 2 3FGA per game, imo.

Then again, these are NCAA standards and the NCAA rarely applies logic to anything.

-Jason "silly" Evans

[davekay1971]

Mason needs to mix it up at the free throw line. Do something different. Anything. 50% of free throw shooting is 90% mental, right? Clearly whatever his current routine, he's got to just flip it around to get that 90% of the 50% that is mental out of the way.

Baby hook shot at the free throw line?
Underhand old-school style?
Bo Kimble honoring Hank Gathers left handed?
Michael Jordan eyes-shut?
Just turn away from the basket and launch it backwards over his head, maybe?

Anything. Even for a week. It'd help.

As for his shooting numbers, agreed with all of the above that the minimum being 5 made FGs a game silly. I'm sure he'll get there. One more baby hook a week. One more slam dunk a week. One more blooper. A ground ball...a ground ball with eyes.

Despite the free throws, I'm loving watching Mason's game this year. Just such an improvement in every aspect except the charity stripe. If he stays away from the Shaq/Wilt legacy of a career of futility from 15 feet and starts hitting in the 60-65% range going forward, he'll be an unbelievable asset in late game situations. How nice, with the game close, to have that option - throw it into the big guy and let him score or get fouled. You can do it Mase! Try the left handed technique for awhile, for Hank...

[DukieInBrasil]

one thing that may result from MP II's poor FT shooting is just removing him from the game when Duke gets to the one-and-one bonus. Vs UW, Mason got fouled far from the ball just to put him on the line. In that instance i think it back-fired as he made the 1st, missed the 2nd. Still, the memo's out, foul Mason, put him on the line, weaken Duke's offense. Now, if Mason and Miles and Ryan were more conscientious about trying to draw fouls on the opposing big-men throughout the game, putting them in foul trouble, maybe hack-a-Mason would lose its effectiveness by fouling the other big men out.
I agree with the previous idea that Mason's indecisiveness/poor foot work will lead to a lot of lost points by a) not even getting a shot off and instead going to the FT line and b) reducing the chances of an and-1 play where he might get fouled while going for the quick shot.
I remember Antwan Jamison destroying Duke once, he scored like 32 pts and had the ball in his possession for a total of like 45 seconds on O the whole game. He didn't waste time, he got the ball and went to the rack and either scored or got fouled or both. Now, Mason (nor Miles) is not as quick as AJ, but he's taller and can jump just as well, so being able to put a shot up at the rim quickly should not be a problem. Controlling the urge to reverse-dunk everything seems to be a problem.

[wilko]

Mason needs to mix it up at the free throw line. Do something different. Anything. 50% of free throw shooting is 90% mental, right? Clearly whatever his current routine, he's got to just flip it around to get that 90% of the 50% that is mental out of the way.

If the ball goes thru the net; BEFORE a toe hits the floor on the wrong side of the stripe... I'd recommend going with the stand broad jump for dunk approach.

[davekay1971]

If the ball goes thru the net; BEFORE a toe hits the floor on the wrong side of the stripe... I'd recommend going with the stand broad jump for dunk approach.

In all honesty, I thought about this but was concerned it might not be within the rules. Perhaps a finger-roll instead of a dunk. Heck, he might have a better FT percentage banking it off Ryan Kelly's head, the backboard, and in (does he get a bonus point if he calls his shot?)...

Mason gets...BUCKETS!

[Newton_14]

I'll take Olympic Fan's thread title in a different, but I hope relevant, direction. Mason does indeed need to shoot a little more, especially when he gets a nice pass that should allow him to go up immediately for an easy, easy 2.

A discouraging moment in yesterday's frustrating last 7 minutes was at the 6:34 mark. [Pause: the first 33 minutes were very impressive, in several ways.] At the 7:11 mark, Seth hit 2 FTs to put Duke up by 19. Easy. Washington came down, got a baseline drive, miss, nice tip-in at 6:58. Not great D, but hardly a momentum shift. Duke ball, Mason makes a drive-dish into corner to Andre, who passes inside to Ryan, who gets double-teamed and so makes a lovely pass to a wide-open Mason, who receives the pass head-high. But instead of laying in the ball, totally unguarded, or stuffing it with 2 hands, what did he do? He (a) took a rhythm dribble, and simultaneously (b) turned his back to the basket. This un-smart decision allowed a defender to arrive to foul him on his belated attempt to stuff it over his head backwards. He bricked the 2FTs; the first hit the front rim, second hit the back.

Now, to be fair, the Huskies did not immediately score the next 8 or 10 points. No, the lead dwindled more gradually. So my point here isn't to claim that this single play was responsible for Duke's semi-melt-down. Rather, it is that Mason has not yet learned to overcome his natural inclination to get his balance [footwork issue, surely] by taking a rhythm dribble, even when it means he is turning down a sure 2, giving defenders time to hack him.

The problem is two-fold: (1) bad FT shooting; (2) passing up sure 2, "choosing/preferring" to go to the line. By choose/prefer, I mean not that that's his intent, but that's the too-frequent outcome of his action.

I trust that in studying game film, K, Wojo, Capel, whoever, will use this specific moment to point out to Mason the value of keeping the ball high, going up with the ball, rather than down for the rhythm dribble, which is in this incarnation so often un-rhythmic, for both player and team.

I focus on this problem because I think it a serious flaw in Mason's game. In other ways, it's obvious to me that he is much improved, more confident, a solid threat on O, nice moves for little running hooks, left and right hands, strong rebounder, shot-block threat, pretty good passer, better-but-still-needs-improving footwork. I'm sure he's once again on NBA draft-watch stuff. Very happy with his progress [which was, incidentally, a definite focus on K's first TV show yesterday morn - Sat morns at 9:30 for those of you with DirecTV, channel 646, right after, gack, the Roy show]. By all means, Mason should shoot more, especially and obviously when he's wide open a few inches from the basket.

I generally enjoy your posts Gumbs as you always put a lot of thought into what you want to say, and I enjoy reading your posts and agree with you more often than not. I do want to defend Mason in this particular case though. When Mason caught that pass from Ryan, it appeared to me, that he was a bit off balance, a bit too far under to go straight up, and the defender (2 actually) had already closed. He took the dribble to get his balance back and yes he was going to do the trademark dunk. However, I will say this. Each and every time we have seen Mason go to that move, it was actually the right play. One, Mason is very comfortable with that particular dunk, and I believe it is a very easy play for him. It is much easier (and faster) for him to dunk it that way, than it would be to do what every other player does in that situation, which is attempt to turn all the way around and dunk it facing the basket, or try the reverse layup. In the Mich St game Mason drove baseline on the run, and missed a reverse layup. On a very similar play in the game before that one against Presbyterian, he did the 2 hand backwards dunk on the run and made it look easy. I remember thinking in the Mich St game when he missed the layup, that he should have went with the backwards dunk.

I know it is easy to surmise that he is simply trying to showoff with that move, but I honestly believe the main reason is because it is the most comfortable play for him. I have zero problems with Mason using that move, and I do believe that on the play yesterday, if he thought he could have just done a simple layup or dunk right off the catch, he would have. That was not about style points at all in my view.

[Kedsy]

I know it is easy to surmise that he is simply trying to showoff with that move, but I honestly believe the main reason is because it is the most comfortable play for him. I have zero problems with Mason using that move, and I do believe that on the play yesterday, if he thought he could have just done a simple layup or dunk right off the catch, he would have. That was not about style points at all in my view.

I was sitting close to that play, and I, too, wondered why Mason didn't go right up. I thought perhaps he didn't catch it clean, or maybe bobbled the ball for a moment, but it's also possible I imagined that.

[G man]

I personally could care less about who leads the acc in shooting %, but I agree getting mason the ball opens up the perimeter. Mason has developed a nice post game (good job coaching staff). He did not knock down those baby hooks much last year. Glad to see him hitting those shots. If he gets more of those chances defenses will have to start rotating week side help to him. Which is going to be tough to accomplish since we have great outside shooting.

[Kedsy]

If he gets more of those chances defenses will have to start rotating week side help to him.

Nah, they'll just foul him.

[sagegrouse]

It's frustrating -- Mason is hitting 64.5 percent of his field goal attempts (49 of 76 attempts). But officially, Virginia's Mike Scott is leading the ACC in field goal percentage at 58.4 percent.

The problem is the the minimum qualifying standard is an average of five made field goals a game. With 49 field goals in 10 games, Mason is just one field goal short of the qualifying standard.



My Christmas wish for Mason is "attitude." Demand the ball! Make the guards give it to you! Lobby the coaches! Make a general nuisance of yourself!

Mason could be one of the best players in country, but not as a shrinking Blue Devil.

Yeah, and FT shooting would be nice, too, but I think that will come.

sagegrouse

[gumbomoop]

When Mason caught that pass from Ryan, it appeared to me, that he was a bit off balance, a bit too far under to go straight up, and the defender (2 actually) had already closed. He took the dribble to get his balance back and yes he was going to do the trademark dunk. However, I will say this. Each and every time we have seen Mason go to that move, it was actually the right play. One, Mason is very comfortable with that particular dunk, and I believe it is a very easy play for him. It is much easier (and faster) for him to dunk it that way, than it would be to do what every other player does in that situation, which is attempt to turn all the way around and dunk it facing the basket, or try the reverse layup.

I know it is easy to surmise that he is simply trying to showoff with that move, but I honestly believe the main reason is because it is the most comfortable play for him. I have zero problems with Mason using that move, and I do believe that on the play yesterday, if he thought he could have just done a simple layup or dunk right off the catch, he would have. That was not about style points at all in my view.

We do disagree about several things here. I will claim to be objective enough that you might convince me about one or more of the issues here, but I admit it wouldn't be easy.

I have looked at this play [recorded] several times now, but to really settle this particular play, we'd probably have to sit in a room together with some sophisticated stop-action technology, as it did happen bang-bang. [And we'd still disagree, having invested something or other in our respective positions.] I've highlighted what I see as key points in our differing perspectives. Ironically, we seem actually to agree about most things, but draw different conclusions.

The easiest issue to deal with is the style-points thing. I agree with you that Mason was not trying to show off; it wasn't a matter of style points. I didn't mean to imply that, though I could understand that my intended constructive criticism might have come across as testy. I did in fact mutter unpleasantries in Mason's direction at the time; and the time was before the ragged end-game.

Beyond this, our agreement is actually a disagreement. I agree with you that the play he made is comfortable for him, but I differ, probably, in thinking he needs to get away from this rhythm-dribble comfort and get comfortable with going up with the ball immediately. This is an issue, I think, with many bigs, who are taught to keep the ball up, don't bring it down, etc. For Mason, this seems especially important, as taking the rhythm dribble gives the defender more time to hack him. That's what happened in this case. He gave up what the video seems to show as a sure 2, to take a comfortable rhythm dribble, which gave the defenders time to hack him.

As to whether he took the rhythm dribble to regain his balance, the video doesn't seem to show that, but I can't be 100% certain. As soon as Ryan received the pass [nice entry, btw, from Andre], immediately realized he was double-teamed, saw Mason open, he and Mason met eyes. In fact, Mason actually called for the ball; head and hand movements clearly indicated [here the video is definitive] that Ryan should throw him the ball. So, my interpretation is that on this play he expected to get the ball, which he did, and head-high [not, for example, down toward his waist where one might more easily justify a rhythm dribble].


I was sitting close to that play, and I, too, wondered why Mason didn't go right up. I thought perhaps he didn't catch it clean, or maybe bobbled the ball for a moment, but it's also possible I imagined that.

Expecting the ball, Mason did, I think - but again the video I'm reviewing isn't super-slow-mo - catch it clean, more or less exactly where he wanted it, head-high. He certainly was very close to the basket, but even if nearly directly under it, all he had to do was put his right arm to the right side of the board for a gimme. He certainly did not have to turn around, as he was already facing the basket, and at least slightly to the right side of the board.

Just to be clear, as I said in my earlier post, I both acknowledge and am thrilled with [I]Mason's many improvements. I posted in this thread to offer a different spin on Mason's need to shoot more, by tying it to his [I]need to score easy buckets and avoid being fouled. Just as a matter of common sense, all players should want to score easy buckets, whether or not they're fouled in the process. The rhythm dribble is often a useful thing for jump shooters; it helps them score. It seems to me that most coaches think it's not good technique - self-deceivingly comfortable - for bigs who receive the ball close to the basket. It doesn't help them score.

It may be that Mason is the unusual big who should not relinquish the rhythm-dribble balance-move. I assume, but do not know, save what I can occasionally [but only] infer from a camera shot of K after a muffed rhythm-dribble play, that the coaches are trying to get him to keep it high. If so, the coaching hasn't set in yet. If the coaches are not pounding this into his brain at every opportunity, well, K knows best.

Usually.

[-bdbd]

Mason Needs to shoot more ... just a little more[/U]

It's frustrating -- Mason is hitting 64.5 percent of his field goal attempts (49 of 76 attempts). But officially, Virginia's Mike Scott is leading the ACC in field goal percentage at 58.4 percent.

The problem is the the minimum qualifying standard is an average of five made field goals a game. With 49 field goals in 10 games, Mason is just one field goal short of the qualifying standard.



I agree. In light of Saturday's game I think he needs to take a LOT more shots, especially from the FT-line between games......



My Christmas wish for Mason is "attitude." Demand the ball! Make the guards give it to you! Lobby the coaches! Make a general nuisance of yourself!

Mason could be one of the best players in country, but not as a shrinking Blue Devil.

Yeah, and FT shooting would be nice, too, but I think that will come.

sagegrouse

Spot on Sage. I really want him to recognize his importance and superior capabilities, and stop "deferring" to the outside shooters. In order for this team to meet its ultimate goals (in addition to making FT's and playing under control down the stretch) we absolutely NEED Mason to start to assert himself. He certainly has the ability, potentially to even dominate games! It will also help his NBA marketability a great deal as well. Come'on Mason, YOU DA MAN!!

[Kedsy]

I really want him to recognize his importance and superior capabilities, and stop "deferring" to the outside shooters. In order for this team to meet its ultimate goals (in addition to making FT's and playing under control down the stretch) we absolutely NEED Mason to start to assert himself.

You think he's not asserting himself now? I disagree. Practically every time down the court he tried to get himself in position to score and called for the ball. Of course that's not all he did -- sometimes he set a pick, sometimes he moved to the high post, etc., but to me at least it looked like he was pretty assertive.

[Newton_14]

We do disagree about several things here. I will claim to be objective enough that you might convince me about one or more of the issues here, but I admit it wouldn't be easy.

I have looked at this play [recorded] several times now, but to really settle this particular play, we'd probably have to sit in a room together with some sophisticated stop-action technology, as it did happen bang-bang. [And we'd still disagree, having invested something or other in our respective positions.] I've highlighted what I see as key points in our differing perspectives. Ironically, we seem actually to agree about most things, but draw different conclusions.

The easiest issue to deal with is the style-points thing. I agree with you that Mason was not trying to show off; it wasn't a matter of style points. I didn't mean to imply that, though I could understand that my intended constructive criticism might have come across as testy. I did in fact mutter unpleasantries in Mason's direction at the time; and the time was before the ragged end-game.

Beyond this, our agreement is actually a disagreement. I agree with you that the play he made is comfortable for him, but I differ, probably, in thinking he needs to get away from this rhythm-dribble comfort and get comfortable with going up with the ball immediately. This is an issue, I think, with many bigs, who are taught to keep the ball up, don't bring it down, etc. For Mason, this seems especially important, as taking the rhythm dribble gives the defender more time to hack him. That's what happened in this case. He gave up what the video seems to show as a sure 2, to take a comfortable rhythm dribble, which gave the defenders time to hack him.

As to whether he took the rythm dribble to regain his balance, the video doesn't seem to show that, but I can't be 100% certain. As soon as Ryan received the pass [nice entry, btw, from Andre], immediately realized he was double-teamed, saw Mason open, he and Mason met eyes. In fact, Mason actually called for the ball; head and hand movements clearly indicated [here the video is definitive] that Ryan should throw him the ball. So, my interpretation is that on this play he expected to get the ball, which he did, and head-high [not, for example, down toward his waist where one might more easily justify a rhythm dribble].



Expecting the ball, Mason did, I think - but again the video I'm reviewing isn't super-slow-mo - catch it clean, more or less exactly where he wanted it, head-high. He certainly was very close to the basket, but even if nearly directly under it, all he had to do was put his right arm to the right side of the board for a gimme. He certainly did not have to turn around, as he was already facing the basket, and at least slightly to the right side of the board.

Just to be clear, as I said in my earlier post, I both acknowledge and am thrilled with [I]Mason's many improvements. I posted in this thread to offer a different spin on Mason's need to shoot more, by tying it to his [I]need to score easy buckets and avoid being fouled. Just as a matter of common sense, all players should want to score easy buckets, whether or not they're fouled in the process. The rhythm dribble is often a useful thing for jump shooters; it helps them score. It seems to me that most coaches think it's not good technique - self-deceivingly comfortable - for bigs who receive the ball close to the basket. It doesn't help them score.

It may be that Mason is the unusual big who should not relinquish the rhythm-dribble balance-move. I assume, but do not know, save what I can occasionally [but only] infer from a camera shot of K after a muffed rhythm-dribble play, that the coaches are trying to get him to keep it high. If so, the coaching hasn't set in yet. If the coaches are not pounding this into his brain at every opportunity, well, K knows best.

Usually.

Ok, I wrongly inferred that you thought it was style points when in fact you were actually locked in on the rhythm dribble as the driver of your disdain for the play. And the delay that caused, that led to the foul. That I can get on board with, especially if it is purely for rhythm and not about regaining balance. I also agree 100% that any time a big puts in on the floor in traffic in the lane, they are begging for trouble. Which is why I was thrilled with Miles yesterday on the play where he "gathered himself" withOUT a rhythm dribble, made a beautiful up and under move with one power step and threw down a hellacious dunk in heavy traffic. That was pure joy to witness from a guy who has many times been stripped in that same circumstance, by putting it on the floor. Very well done, and if Miles keeps playing like that, watch out because he can become a load to handle, and a perfect compliment to MP2 and Ryan. A killer 3-some when all 3 are performing at a high level with their 3 very different skillsets. More please.

I also agree with you 1000%, that due to his current troubles at the line, Mason has to insure he takes an easy bucket when presented, before allowing the defender to play Hack-A-Plum. One danger point there though, in that bigs on post moves absolutely have to seek contact in certain situations to insure they draw the foul in case they miss the basket. That is very important and free throw troubles notwithstanding, Mason has to seek that contact rather than reverting back to shooting 4 foot fade away "jumpers". Have not seen one of those all year, and do not ever want to see one from him again. So there is a balance to strike there.

Anyway, we may disagree on whether or not Mason had the balance an angle to take the easy two yesterday, but I believe we now are in agreement on the rest... Apologies for assuming style points played a factor in your thought process when it did not..

[gep]

Slightly off topic... but I think the hack-a-Mason will only go so far. I know Coach K talked about foul situations... 7 for one-and-one, 10 for 2-shot bonus. Also, the more the other team fouls Mason, the worse foul situation they get in to. They have to keep their best players in towards the end of the game, so fouling Mason only puts them in foul problems. And in many cases, there's not enough time or time outs to sub in-and-out just to foul Mason. But, maybe they do it anyway. So...

I hope Mason figures out his FT. I think it starts with mechanics... then "muscle-memory". Mechanics can be learned, but "muscle-memory" can only be gained by repetition. Here's to a productive winter break. :cool:

[uh_no]

Slightly off topic... but I think the hack-a-Mason will only go so far. I know Coach K talked about foul situations... 7 for one-and-one, 10 for 2-shot bonus. Also, the more the other team fouls Mason, the worse foul situation they get in to. They have to keep their best players in towards the end of the game, so fouling Mason only puts them in foul problems. And in many cases, there's not enough time or time outs to sub in-and-out just to foul Mason. But, maybe they do it anyway. So...

I hope Mason figures out his FT. I think it starts with mechanics... then "muscle-memory". Mechanics can be learned, but "muscle-memory" can only be gained by repetition. Here's to a productive winter break. :cool:

I disagree with your initial paragraph. The frequent use of Hack-a-shaq in the league against several centers over the years indicates that it is effective (you would think no one would do it if it wasn't effective). What is the key consideration is that it doesn't have to be the center that fouls....it can be anyone....so simply take the guy with the fewest fouls....and there's bound to be one guy with 2 fouls....and foul....suddenly you get the ball back without duke having scored....In a 5-6 point game that's HUGE.

[Kedsy]

I think it starts with mechanics... then "muscle-memory". Mechanics can be learned, but "muscle-memory" can only be gained by repetition.

I think it's in his head. Not sure how you can practice your way out of that.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I think it's in his head. Not sure how you can practice your way out of that.

Well, his form doesn't often look the same. Part of that surely is concentration. But he just doesn't seem to have a routine that gets him doing the same motion every time. Sometimes he bends his knees and has good rhythm. But frequently he seems to be pushing the ball like a shot put. Minimal follow through. Poor wrist action. No ball rotation. It reminds me of shaq. And it seems weird b/c he's developed some nice touch with his hook shots. I've never understood why guys as big as him need so much movement in their free throw motion. It's like their trying to guide the ball to the hoop. They have plenty of strength with slight knee bend and simple elbow/wrist action. Like golf, the fewer things you move, the less chance there is something goes awry. I'm no coach, but if I were him, i'd be laying down throwing that ball up one handed all day long watching it come back down to the same spot from which it was released until the wrist flick felt consistently natural. Just a theory from watching. He just seems to be searching for a comfortable motion is not finding one that is repeatable right now.

[Kedsy]

Well, his form doesn't often look the same. Part of that surely is concentration. But he just doesn't seem to have a routine that gets him doing the same motion every time. Sometimes he bends his knees and has good rhythm. But frequently he seems to be pushing the ball like a shot put. Minimal follow through. Poor wrist action. No ball rotation. It reminds me of shaq. And it seems weird b/c he's developed some nice touch with his hook shots. I've never understood why guys as big as him need so much movement in their free throw motion. It's like their trying to guide the ball to the hoop. They have plenty of strength with slight knee bend and simple elbow/wrist action. Like golf, the fewer things you move, the less chance there is something goes awry. I'm no coach, but if I were him, i'd be laying down throwing that ball up one handed all day long watching it come back down to the same spot from which it was released until the wrist flick felt consistently natural. Just a theory from watching. He just seems to be searching for a comfortable motion is not finding one that is repeatable right now.

Well, I agree with you about his form. But from my own experience when I play, sometimes if I miss a few shots in a row I lose confidence. Then I start rushing my shot or making adjustments in the middle of a shot, which gets me away from my practiced motion and rarely if ever goes well. The adjustments aren't pre-planned, so then I start focusing on not adjusting in the middle of my shot, but then I'm not focusing on the things I need to shoot properly, so things go further south. I start hesitating before the shot, which screws up my rhythm further. Eventually, it can get to the point where I know I'm going to miss, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most of the time, the only way I can snap out of it is to shoot at an unoccupied hoop until I make several in a row, and then I can relax and get back to my practiced motion (except Mason doesn't have that luxury in the middle of a game). This is what I mean when I say it's in his head.

You can see it in his eyes and body language -- he has lost confidence and is second guessing himself in the middle of his shot. I assume that's why sometimes he flicks his wrist or short-arms the free throw. And every miss makes it worse.

[Wander]

Well, I agree with you about his form. But from my own experience when I play, sometimes if I miss a few shots in a row I lose confidence. Then I start rushing my shot or making adjustments in the middle of a shot, which gets me away from my practiced motion and rarely if ever goes well. The adjustments aren't pre-planned, so then I start focusing on not adjusting in the middle of my shot, but then I'm not focusing on the things I need to shoot properly, so things go further south. I start hesitating before the shot, which screws up my rhythm further. Eventually, it can get to the point where I know I'm going to miss, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most of the time, the only way I can snap out of it is to shoot at an unoccupied hoop until I make several in a row, and then I can relax and get back to my practiced motion (except Mason doesn't have that luxury in the middle of a game). This is what I mean when I say it's in his head.

Not to get too meta on you, but are you sure the in-your-head thing isn't all in your head? There was a cool study done by some guys at Cornell about this. To summarize: "the outcomes of previous shots influenced players' predictions but not their performance. The belief in the hot hand and the detection of streaks in random sequences is attributed to a general misconception of chance according to which even short random sequences are thought to be highly representative of their generating process."

I think Mason's mechanics just suck. And though I wish he were better at them, I'd still rather he put more time into practicing hook shots and dunks and rebounding than free throws. I think he's been our best player so far this year, even with the terrible foul shooting.

[tele]

I agree that Mason needs to shoot a bit more, and I think if he would add in a few turn and face jumpshots from close in, on out to midrange it would be a good addition to what he has been focused on around the basket in the post. Taking a few jumpers from the floor during the game would also help his free throw shooting. If all you are doing is hooks, dunks and close in stikbaks, you can lose your touch, or maybe more importantly your arc or loft. Don't need to loft the ball much when you are almost 7 feet tall and two or three feet from the rim. Plus it helps your form and rhythm if you can flow into a few jumpers in game, and not only try to only ever hit one static from the line during a game. With his improved footwork, hopefully he won't fall back into the turnaround fadeaway shots he took before.

That rhythm dribble, can get to be a bad habit, instead of the classic hold it high and go straight up with it, but sometimes I think players use it as a substitute for knowing how to locate their defender. That is something that gets overlooked and you wind up not just wondering why in the world they are putting the ball on the floor, but also why don't they just turn and lay the ball in the basket when there is no one behind them in position to guard them. Well, because you can't see what's behind you when you play with your back to the basket...except of course when you go to the line and see what everyone else on the court is usually looking at, an added unfamiliararity. Once you gather the ways to locate your defender it helps in a lot of other ways, something perimeter players don't worry about much for some reason.

Mason's playing great, and he still is gettting better.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Mason needs to shoot more ... except for free throws

[sagegrouse]

I think it's in his head. Not sure how you can practice your way out of that.

Of course, you can. That's one of the reasons there are sports psychologists.

sage

[mkline09]

Of course, you can. That's one of the reasons there are sports psychologists.

sage

He needs an old priest and a young priest to excerise those demons. :p

[Kedsy]

Not to get too meta on you, but are you sure the in-your-head thing isn't all in your head? There was a cool study done by some guys at Cornell about this. To summarize: "the outcomes of previous shots influenced players' predictions but not their performance. The belief in the hot hand and the detection of streaks in random sequences is attributed to a general misconception of chance according to which even short random sequences are thought to be highly representative of their generating process."

I think Mason's mechanics just suck. And though I wish he were better at them, I'd still rather he put more time into practicing hook shots and dunks and rebounding than free throws. I think he's been our best player so far this year, even with the terrible foul shooting.

Well, first of all I read that study and I don't think it's worth citing. The way they tried to measure the "hot hand" was quite flawed in my opinion.

Second, I play a lot and shooting is part mechanics and part confidence. If you lose confidence you don't shoot as well. I think anybody who plays would agree.

As for my own shooting, often when I make or miss it doesn't affect my next shot. Other times I become very confident and I shoot better. When I get in a funk, I don't shoot with the same motion and I rush my shot and I second guess myself in the middle of the shot. Call it what you want, but it's a lot harder to make a shot that way.

[wilko]

Of course, you can. That's one of the reasons there are sports psychologists.

sage

Here's how I'd solve it..
I'd find 4 HIGHLY attractive willing females and align them along the baseline under the goal.
For every made free-throw, one of the young ladies removes an article of clothing. For every miss; they re-dress.

I think turning the FT experience into something pleasurable would have a better result; as opposed to freezing up in the moment due to pressure.

[Wander]

Well, first of all I read that study and I don't think it's worth citing. The way they tried to measure the "hot hand" was quite flawed in my opinion.


I'm not sure how you could have a study that was more directly relevant. They looked at free throw statistics and showed that a player making/missing a free throw has no significant effect on whether the player makes/misses a subsequent free throw. More or less the exact conversation that we're having about Mason here.

I'd be more inclined to believe it was a confidence issue if the player in question was, for example, Dawkins or Curry. But Mason's a bad jump shooter all the time, so what's the point of trying to assign a mental cause here? He's just not a good shooter.

[Kedsy]

I'm not sure how you could have a study that was more directly relevant. They looked at free throw statistics and showed that a player making/missing a free throw has no significant effect on whether the player makes/misses a subsequent free throw. More or less the exact conversation that we're having about Mason here.

I'd be more inclined to believe it was a confidence issue if the player in question was, for example, Dawkins or Curry. But Mason's a bad jump shooter all the time, so what's the point of trying to assign a mental cause here? He's just not a good shooter.

Here's the study (http://www.psych.cornell.edu/sec/pubPeople/tdg1/Gilo.Vallone.Tversky.pdf), if anybody wants to look at it. What they appear to do is measure the probability of hitting the next shot if you hit the last one or last two or last three vs. if you missed your last shot or last two or last three. For free throws, they looked at the probability of hitting the second shot depending on whether you hit the first or missed the first.

They did not control for the type of shot you took (e.g., dunk vs. three-point shot); they did not control for the time of the game or the score or the defender. They assumed shot selection is random, which it isn't: a hot shooter will probably be defended more closely and may feel willing to take a riskier shot while a cold shooter might be defended more loosely and might shy away from risky shots and only take one they're sure they'll make (like a dunk or a layup).

Also, they're looking at the probability of hitting just one shot at a time. For example, if a 50% shooter has the following line (x = hit; 0 = miss): x0xxx0x0xx0x0xx. The way they did their study, it would appear like this:



hit after three misses hit after two misses hit after one miss hit after one hit hit after two hits hit after three hits
0/0 0/0 5/5 3/6 1/2 0/1


So was the shooter hot or is hot shooting a myth? After he hits a shot or two shots, he has a 50% chance of hitting the next one -- and 50% is his usual percentage, so there's no difference. Every time he he hit three in a row he missed. In fact, this guy was a much better bet to hit a shot after he missed than after he hit. The writers of the article concluded based on similar evidence (obviously with a higher sample size) that there's no basis to saying the shooter was hot. But if we were watching, we'd have definitely said the 50% shooter who hit 10 of 15 and never missed two in a row was hot. Who's right?

To me, the biggest thing they can't measure is how the shooter feels. They tried in the study to make shooters bet whether they were going to hit or not, but I'd suggest this was classic Heisenberg uncertainty principle, meaning the fact that the shooter was betting on his own performance made him tighten up and more likely to miss on his prediction.

When I feel like I'm on a roll, of course I don't hit every shot, but I'm sure my overall percentage is higher. When I "know" I'm going to miss, I almost always do, although sometimes I'll bank it in by accident or something crazy like that. In the end, I have no doubt that confidence affects one's ability to hit a shot, and no uncontrolled study will convince me otherwise.

But if you really don't believe that someone's mental state affects his form, then I suppose it's not worth arguing.

[Reilly]

I agree mental state and confidence affect form. Shooters get hot, make more.

I also believe that some bad forms cannot be overcome by confidence. One encounters Mars Blackmon's in every gym in the land ...

[Wander]

"They tried in the study to make shooters bet whether they were going to hit or not, but I'd suggest this was classic Heisenberg uncertainty principle, meaning the fact that the shooter was betting on his own performance made him tighten up and more likely to miss on his prediction."

So, if you're confident, then you're more likely to make a shot, but if you're confident and you actually say that out loud the trend reverses and now you're more likely to miss it instead? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Actually, I agree the study has some flaws in regards to the hot hand phenomenon in general, but few, if any, of your criticisms apply to the subsection on free throw shooting. Showing that a player has the same probability of making a free throw after a made free throw as he does after a missed free throw sounds like a very direct and convincing way to demonstrate that foul shots are independent events.

I'll again ask - isn't it much simpler to just say that Mason Plumlee isn't a good shooter without invoking psychology?

[Grey Devil]

Although Miles is no JJ when it comes to FT percentage (so far in his career he's at 62%), IMO his form is good and I (at least) feel much more comfortable with him on the line. Maybe Miles just needs to sit down with Mason and have a good brotherly conversation with him about the form, consistency, and psychology of shooting free throws. If Mason could shoot FTs at that rate we wouldn't be having this conversation and we'd all breathe a little easier when he steps up to the line. (Or at least I would!)

Grey "undoubtedly the coaches have already tried this, but maybe it's worth another try" Devil

[Kedsy]

So, if you're confident, then you're more likely to make a shot, but if you're confident and you actually say that out loud the trend reverses and now you're more likely to miss it instead? Doesn't make much sense to me.

You've never done anything where it becomes harder when you're nervous? There's such a thing as trying too hard to justify yourself. At least there is for me. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. You can tighten up and screw things up that you'd do easily if you weren't thinking about it.


I'll again ask - isn't it much simpler to just say that Mason Plumlee isn't a good shooter without invoking psychology?

No, it isn't. Or, perhaps I should say it may be much simpler but I don't think it's an accurate reflection of the problem. Because I've seen the look on his face and his body language when he steps up to the line. And I've heard he's not so bad in practice. Back in the day, I heard Chris Burgess was a great free throw shooter in practice. Hit 34% in games his freshman year.

Steve Blass won 19 games in 1972. The following year, all of a sudden, he couldn't come within five feet of the plate. I saw him pitch in an exhibition game in Cooperstown in 1973 and it was astonishing to watch how difficult it was for him. He was one of the best pitchers in baseball the year before. Was it as simple as saying he was a bad pitcher? You don't think it was more likely to have a psychological explanation?

[gep]

Found the "old" video of JJ Redick describing his FT shooting. Seems like he has a definite routine and rythym... which I assume is obtained by countless repetition. And, he does say that confidence is key.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AZmMs1Uohw

[gus]

Who's right?

I'll go with the people analyzing the larger data set.

I plugged in a 50% shooter into a random number generator. He missed his first 3, then made 9 in a row. Does he have a hot hand? Over 10,000 shots he had streaks of 14 makes, and also 14 misses. Was he cold during that 14 miss streak?

Of course not. It was a random number generator. No one wants to think sports are just a complicated random number generator, but that's really what it boils down to. That's why strong shooters are always guarded, regardless of how many misses they have. That's why good shooters will get the green light from Coach K, regardless of whether they've already missed a few.

[House G]

Slightly off topic... but I think the hack-a-Mason will only go so far. I know Coach K talked about foul situations... 7 for one-and-one, 10 for 2-shot bonus. Also, the more the other team fouls Mason, the worse foul situation they get in to. They have to keep their best players in towards the end of the game, so fouling Mason only puts them in foul problems. And in many cases, there's not enough time or time outs to sub in-and-out just to foul Mason. But, maybe they do it anyway. So...

I hope Mason figures out his FT. I think it starts with mechanics... then "muscle-memory". Mechanics can be learned, but "muscle-memory" can only be gained by repetition. Here's to a productive winter break. :cool:

I have no idea if the mental component of poor FT shooting is in anyway analagous to putting in golf, but if you play golf and have ever had the "yips", you will know what I am talking about. When I got the yips about 10 years ago, I tried numerous suggestions. The only thing that cured me was when I turned around and putted left-handed. It took a while to get myself lined up visually but now I putt better than I ever did. I was able to completely get rid of my old "muscle-memory" problem. This video of Rick Barry discussing his underhand style reminded me of what I went through with putting:

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=9bqa-Hw0TpY

[gus]

I'll go with the people analyzing the larger data set.

I plugged in a 50% shooter into a random number generator. He missed his first 3, then made 9 in a row. Does he have a hot hand? Over 10,000 shots he had streaks of 14 makes, and also 14 misses. Was he cold during that 14 miss streak?

Of course not. It was a random number generator. No one wants to think sports are just a complicated random number generator, but that's really what it boils down to. That's why strong shooters are always guarded, regardless of how many misses they have. That's why good shooters will get the green light from Coach K, regardless of whether they've already missed a few.

I should have included this...

http://xkcd.com/904/

[Kedsy]

No one wants to think sports are just a complicated random number generator, but that's really what it boils down to.

Well, I would argue that just because something can be simulated using a complicated random number generator doesn't mean they're the same thing.

There is absolutely a psychological component to all sports. I don't see how anybody can question that just because you can flip "tails" nine times in a row.

[uh_no]

Well, I would argue that just because something can be simulated using a complicated random number generator doesn't mean they're the same thing.

There is absolutely a psychological component to all sports. I don't see how anybody can question that just because you can flip "tails" nine times in a row.

No, but the question is whether that psychological component causes the events (FT) to be independent or not, and that is still an open question.

[Wander]

You've never done anything where it becomes harder when you're nervous? There's such a thing as trying too hard to justify yourself. At least there is for me. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. You can tighten up and screw things up that you'd do easily if you weren't thinking about it.


Trust me, no amount of confidence or prediction or betting games is going to turn me into a decent jump shooter. :)

Look, I'm with you completely that there's a big mental element to sports. As you say, just because a model accurately predicts something doesn't mean that the model accurately describes what's going on. If someone's a 60% free throw shooter, it could be that the nights that he shoots 30% he was feeling sick, was exhausted because it was a fast-paced game, didn't like the color of the gym, or was dumped by his girlfriend. But I just don't see any evidence that these mental things are so incredibly sensitive that they vary from shot-to-shot - and in the case of free throw shooting, there's actual evidence against it. If it really was the case that making the first few free throws gave confidence to make other free throws more likely, you'd see it come up in the distribution. But you don't. I suppose you could argue that college kids might be more sensitive to such an effect than pros are or that individual players might be special cases, but when you take into account that Mason is a bad jump shooter anyway and that his free throws just look awkward, I don't find it an appealing or likely explanation.

[Kedsy]

Trust me, no amount of confidence or prediction or betting games is going to turn me into a decent jump shooter. :)

Look, I'm with you completely that there's a big mental element to sports. As you say, just because a model accurately predicts something doesn't mean that the model accurately describes what's going on. If someone's a 60% free throw shooter, it could be that the nights that he shoots 30% he was feeling sick, was exhausted because it was a fast-paced game, didn't like the color of the gym, or was dumped by his girlfriend. But I just don't see any evidence that these mental things are so incredibly sensitive that they vary from shot-to-shot - and in the case of free throw shooting, there's actual evidence against it. If it really was the case that making the first few free throws gave confidence to make other free throws more likely, you'd see it come up in the distribution. But you don't. I suppose you could argue that college kids might be more sensitive to such an effect than pros are or that individual players might be special cases, but when you take into account that Mason is a bad jump shooter anyway and that his free throws just look awkward, I don't find it an appealing or likely explanation.

I don't know why you're arguing about a shot-to-shot basis. I have heard he does much better in practice, but I haven't heard any numbers, but I assume if he made less than 60% in practice we wouldn't have heard he shoots his free throws better there. So let's assume Mason makes 60% of his free throws in practice, yet only 40% in games. What possible explanation could there be for that, other than pressure or other psychological reasons? This is what I mean when I say it's in his head.

[Newton_14]

I don't know why you're arguing about a shot-to-shot basis. I have heard he does much better in practice, but I haven't heard any numbers, but I assume if he made less than 60% in practice we wouldn't have heard he shoots his free throws better there. So let's assume Mason makes 60% of his free throws in practice, yet only 40% in games. What possible explanation could there be for that, other than pressure or other psychological reasons? This is what I mean when I say it's in his head.

Have to agree with you on this Kedsy, as an athlete that played basketball, and baseball in my schoolboy years and recreational golf today. Confidence matters and it matters a lot. I saw a golf instructor giving a demonstration one day and he was talking to the crowd with a wireless mike and ripping drive after drive right down the middle, demonstrating what it's like for a golfer to hit shots on the range. Then he addressed a ball and said ok, now, I am on the first tee, in front of the crowd, water down the left side, out of bounds to the right, and every muscle tightens up, and the golfer starts "thinking". He said that same golfer that just hit 25 balls right down the middle, roped hooked his first real drive of the day into the water. Why? Game Pressure.

With basketball, game pressure is a huge factor. No study can mimic that. I hate to be unfair to Jumbo since he is on hiatus and not around to defend himself, but I want to use Jon Scheyer as an example. In the National Title game, when Singler was called for traveling on one of our last possession's while driving, he kicked it to the corner to Jon. AFTER THE WHISTLE had blown, Jon calmly stroked a 3 just for the heck of it and nailed it. Jumbo always argued that had the travel not been called, Jon would have had 20 points instead of 17 and would have been the MVP instead of Kyle. I never agreed with that for this reason. Jon did not take that shot under game pressure. He heard the whistle, he relaxed, and shot what he knew was a meaningless 3. Had the whistle not blown and the play remained live, Jon would have taken that shot under full National Championship on the line game pressure. There is no way we will ever know if Jon would have still made the shot. It's just not the same thing at all.

I have been to every home game but one and watched Mason shoot a lot during pre-game. I noticed early on that he was making many more shots than last year from mid-range and from the foul line. His shot looks so much better, much free-er with a smooth release, than it did in previous years. He has made much progress with the stroke. He has taken a couple of mid-range jumpers in games and nailed them. However, at the free throw line, he tightens up and it impacts the release and his stroke. The opposite ends of the spectrum were the Kansas and Washington games. He made a couple early in the Kansas game, got confident and got on a roll making 7 of 9. Body language was great.

Saturday, (coming off struggling in the CSU game) he missed a few early, and the more he missed, the worse the confidence and body language got. I have maybe never felt sorrier for a kid. It was killing him and his stroke was worse than it had been all year.

So I fully believe a lot of it is mental and not only that, his confidence is hurting his mechanics. Which can happen. If he can make a few an regain some confidence he will likely have a better looking stroke and make more. Long ways to go though.

One last golf analogy. When Greg Norman collapsed on that fateful Sunday in the 96 Masters, Jack Nicklaus commented that Norman had a "swing flaw" meaning mechanics issue, that reared its head under extreme pressure, and if he did not overcome that, he would never win another major. When he handled the pressure his mechanics stayed sound. When he didn't, the mechanics broke down. Confidence helps keep the game pressure and subsequent mechanics breakdown at bay.

[gus]

I think mental attitude is important, but you all are overstating its impact.

I play pool. Pool is a game of probabilities. My shot choices are dictated by what I judge to give me the highest odds of winning (not dictated by what I judge to be the most makeable shot). There are some difficult shots I feel very confident in shooting. There is one shot in particular I felt was a strong suit for me, despite being a difficult shot. Until I sat down an analyzed my actual success with it, and realized that despite my confidence I was hurting my odds by shooting it. Now I shoot that shot with less confidence, less frequency, but with equal success.

In team 8 ball, many people think having the break is an advantage. I've kept detailed statistics in my league. It is not. beginner and intermediate players win more often when not breaking. This holds true for professionals too. But ask any player if they'd prefer to break, and most will say yes. They'll think of the match where the other player broke and ran out when the game was on the line. They'll ignore the statistic that the person with the break wins somewhere between 45 and 48% of the time.

On my team, if I'm choosing who to play in a crucial game, statistics drives the answer, not who feels good and who doesn't. My two stronger players, who win around 65% of their matches, usually win when I put them up, even when they don't feel confident. My weaker players usually lose, even when they claim they're ready or fired up.

I'm running a baby pool for my family. The odds of a boy being born to a couple of European descent is a little over 50%. 67% of the people playing chose girl for the latest addition. Why? Because the last 4 kids have been boys.

People think SUVs are safer than cars. Statistics show they're not. http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

People think Jordan is the greatest clutch shooter of all time. This article (http://chasing23.com/michael-jordan-game-winning-shots/) makes that argument, breaking down all his potential game winning shots in the playoffs, and showing he made 50% of his "clutch" shots in the playoffs. Do you know what his field goal percentage is for all shots during the seasons covered? 50.5%

Human beings perception of probabilistic events are deeply flawed. We want to believe people can overcome the odds. We want to believe in the superhuman hero who shrugs off his odds to make the game winning shot. We want to believe that all we need to improve is to believe!. It's hogwash, as cold and rational look at data will show you. There is no clutch. There is no hot hand. There is cold, boring and inhuman math.

[Kedsy]

I think mental attitude is important, but you all are overstating its impact.

Statistics are important, but you are overstating their impact. Coaching choices should often be guided by statistics. Even playing choices should often be guided by statistics. But most sporting events are not run by random number generators.


People think Jordan is the greatest clutch shooter of all time. This article (http://chasing23.com/michael-jordan-game-winning-shots/) makes that argument, breaking down all his potential game winning shots in the playoffs, and showing he made 50% of his "clutch" shots in the playoffs. Do you know what his field goal percentage is for all shots during the seasons covered? 50.5%

The problem is you think shooting while under immense pressure should be just as easy as shooting two minutes into a near-meaningless regular season game. It isn't. Humans are not machines and they feel things like pressure. Most perform worse under pressure. The ones who perform the same under pressure truly are "clutch." If Jordan shot the same percentage on game winning shots in the playoffs as he did in the season, then to me that's amazing.


Human beings perception of probabilistic events are deeply flawed. We want to believe people can overcome the odds. We want to believe in the superhuman hero who shrugs off his odds to make the game winning shot. We want to believe that all we need to improve is to believe!. It's hogwash, as cold and rational look at data will show you. There is no clutch. There is no hot hand. There is cold, boring and inhuman math.

This has nothing to do with belief or perception. This has to do with being human, and performing differently based on psychological factors. Which pretty much every human does. I repeat that just because you can run a computer simulation that mimics real life doesn't mean that real life is the same as a computer simulation.

If Austin Rivers injured his elbow but tried to play through it and shot 2 for 15, you'd agree that part of his uncharacteristically poor performance was probably due to the injury, right? It wasn't just due to the coin coming up tails a lot, right? Why won't you accept that a psychological problem could have the same effect?

[Kedsy]

The problem is you think shooting while under immense pressure should be just as easy as shooting two minutes into a near-meaningless regular season game. It isn't. Humans are not machines and they feel things like pressure. Most perform worse under pressure. The ones who perform the same under pressure truly are "clutch." If Jordan shot the same percentage on game winning shots in the playoffs as he did in the season, then to me that's amazing.

Just to add to this, it occurs to me that Jordan's season-long shooting percentage of 50.5% included a boatload of dunks and layups. His percentage from outside probably wasn't close to 50%. I didn't read the article, but I assume that the vast majority of his playoff game-winning shots were NOT dunks or layups, meaning he didn't just shoot the same (which as I said in my earlier post would be amazing) but in fact shot a lot better in playoff game-winning situations than in regular season situations. To me, that sounds "clutch."

[gus]

Statistics are important, but you are overstating their impact. Coaching choices should often be guided by statistics. Even playing choices should often be guided by statistics. But most sporting events are not run by random number generators.

Sporting events are not run by random number generators. Sporting events *are* weighted random number generators.



Humans are not machines and they feel things like pressure. Most perform worse under pressure. The ones who perform the same under pressure truly are "clutch." If Jordan shot the same percentage on game winning shots in the playoffs as he did in the season, then to me that's amazing.

If you want to argue that some people are adversly affected by pressure, I'll agree. That's not what I'm contesting.

Most people define "clutch" as performing *better* when something is on the line, not staying on average. I'm saying that "clutch" in that sense, is a matter of perception, and not a matter of reality. The "hot hand" is a matter of perception, not a matter of reality. The "cold hand" is largely a matter of perception, not a matter of reality. If a shooter approaches a free throw with confidence, or with trepidation, but his mechanics are unaffected... his chances of making the free throw are unaffected. Of course psychological problems can negatively affect performance, if those problems lead to problems in mechanics or affects decision making. But don't confuse statistically normal events, like several missed shots in a row, with psychological problems affecting performance.

[gus]

Just to add to this, it occurs to me that Jordan's season-long shooting percentage of 50.5% included a boatload of dunks and layups. His percentage from outside probably wasn't close to 50%. I didn't read the article, but I assume that the vast majority of his playoff game-winning shots were NOT dunks or layups, meaning he didn't just shoot the same (which as I said in my earlier post would be amazing) but in fact shot a lot better in playoff game-winning situations than in regular season situations. To me, that sounds "clutch."

Certainly a good point, but I'd also point out that 50.5% includes three pointers, desperation heaves, games where he was playing through injury or while sick. In other words, there are a lot of factors to consider. Also, the sample size on his "game winning attempts" is miniscule.

But the bottomline is, you have to explain away a lot of data to arrive at the conclusion that Jordan was clutch*. He wasn't. He was consistent.

People build narratives to explain random events. You see it from the frivolous (Duke lost because I wasn't wearing a blue t-shirt) to the more serious (cancer clusters, or coincidental miscarriages, illnesses and deaths following vacccines, etc). I am subjected to financial news all day long, it's always evident when tv personalities, paid to talk, try to find narratives to explain fluctuations in the markets. Sometimes it's just randomness, and not investors reacting to [correlated event].

Human beings are just not wired to think intuitively about probability. Take the infamous Monty Hall problem. Most people get it wrong, because the correct answer doesn't feel right.

ETA- incidentally, I'm in no way immune from this. I made the same mistake in one my previous posts, ascribing what could just be randomness too. I only know for a fact that one person chose girl because the last few babies have been boys. I also know one person chose boy, because she figured more people would choose girl.




* Again, I'm using the more common definition of clutch: performing *better* than average when the stakes are high.

[Kedsy]

Sporting events are not run by random number generators. Sporting events *are* weighted random number generators.

I have played in many sporting events, and I can assure you this is untrue.


If you want to argue that some people are adversly affected by pressure, I'll agree.

That is what I've been arguing.


Most people define "clutch" as performing *better* when something is on the line, not staying on average.

If you stay on average when most people perform worse than average, then you *are* performing better.


If a shooter approaches a free throw with confidence, or with trepidation, but his mechanics are unaffected... his chances of making the free throw are unaffected.

What I'm saying is this hardly ever happens, and is certainly not happening in Mason's case. People's confidence and/or trepidation almost always affect their mechanics. This is one reason why sporting events are not weighted random number generators.

[Kedsy]

People build narratives to explain random events.

I agree with this. And yet I still maintain that psychology affects performance. I'm sorry, but there is such a thing as a hot hand and a cold hand. I have felt them. When I feel "hot," my mechanics are better, in large part because I feel comfortable based on my "hot hand." When I feel "cold," my mechanics are worse, mostly because I lack confidence or I'm trying to fix my problem on the fly and I can't get back to my practiced motion.

Some players want the ball with the game on the line and it doesn't diminish their effectiveness. They are clutch. Others either don't want to take the big shot or get too nervous to take it correctly. They are not clutch.

I guess what I'm saying is you could be 100% correct about how people see and mischaracterize random events, and still be wrong about hot handedness and clutchness. They are distinct and only marginally related questions.

[gus]

I guess what I'm saying is you could be 100% correct about how people see and mischaracterize random events, and still be wrong about hot handedness and clutchness. They are distinct and only marginally related questions.

I fairly sure I'm correct, and "hot handedness" is neither distinct nor just marginally related to the phenomenon I'm describing. It is a direct result of people's failure to intuitively grasp probability.

But, just like there are people who cannot be convinced that "switching doors" is the right strategy in the Monty Hall problem, I'm sure I can't convince you on this. ;) We'll have to agree to disagree.

[wilko]

Man, I'm glad I have a head full of hair.
The way some of you guys are splitting hairs, it might be cause for concern among the follicly challenged.

If Masons Desire to MAKE the shot is greater than his FEAR of missing the shot, I cant help but think his conversion % will increase.

[delfrio]

Just a quick note on the psychology element -- there is a lot of work on the hot-hand, the feeling of flow (the ease and confidence associated with good performance), etc. And I'm not disputing that psychology affects performance in some ways. What many people fail to understand however (especially people who talk about their own experiences as evidence), is that a large portion of this psychology may occur after the fact. That is, your confidence isn't directing your shot, your shot is directing your confidence. Evidence shows that behavior precedes our interpretations of our behavior, and so feeling "on" or confident in the moment is basically our conscious way of evaluating our unconsciously-directed action.

[greybeard]

Duke does not play through pass penetration. Pass penetration is like Christmas for Mason. This is not, in my view a function of asking for, or demanding, the ball. Rather, it is the gestalt of the offense, what the coaches (WoJo and Collins) can see, what limits their vision, and what the players learn to look for because that is what they are supposed to look for.

Give Mason, his brother, and Kelly (when he plays inside), the chance to be the ones whose vision counts, who initiate offense, and I think all will play better inside. K and the coaches are not Mason. If Mason feels the dunk, that a blast to the basket is available, won't put him in danger, I have to think he will go for it or lay it in. If he is unsure who might be charging at him from a step or two away and maybe undercut him, or, as others put fort as another alternative, might not feel he has his feet under him, he won't-he'll do something else. You think anyone told Singler how to maneuver when he caught it inside,or any of any number of bigs of lesser talents on other teams right now? I don't. More importantly, I think Mason doesn't, and I would not blame him if, on this, he decided that he would call the shots for himself. I also think Mason has terrific instincts and feel around the basket. He doesn't touch it enough, and is not integral to the offense except when a little can make an exceptional assist, or when Mason is holding his guy off with a guy on his back and for all the world a pass is demanded.

Mason can dribble half the length or more and finish creatively. You throw him the ball as soon as it crosses half court, and get it inside as often as he moves for and can receive it, you devise an offense which has him doing that, off an inside screen aks like the ones Singler received, you'll have 20 per game, easy.

This is not an issue, in my view, of Mason's creation. It has been how Duke has played for years, and, despite an obvious superior inside talent, a guy who can really move and catch it on the move and finish, they, I still think it's WoJo and Collins, can not see that game and therefore do not know how to coach it. Duke sure gets more than its share of exceptional outside players and almost always has an exceptional way of deploying them to get the bulk of its scoring from them. Anyway, for whatever reason, that seems to be how Duke rolls.

[Kedsy]

But, just like there are people who cannot be convinced that "switching doors" is the right strategy in the Monty Hall problem, I'm sure I can't convince you on this. ;)

Well, thanks for lumping me in with the idiots who play "Let's Make a Deal." But, you see, I think you can't convince me because your argument is contradictory. You admit psychological factors can affect performance but deny performance is affected by psychological factors.

You also seem to rely on the premise that anything which can be mathematically modeled is nothing more than a math problem. You assume real life problems have constant weights you can plug into your random number generator (i.e., you can characterize MJ as a "50% shooter" because his average was 50%, as if that's something he is instead of something he did).

Because in real life, as opposed to a math problem, a player can make an effort to improve himself through practice and hard work, to play harder or less hard depending on circumstances, to lose or recapture his mechanics depending on his mental state, to wilt under pressure, or thrive.

And that's why you can't convince me.

[gus]

Well, thanks for lumping me in with the idiots who play "Let's Make a Deal." But, you see, I think you can't convince me because your argument is contradictory. You admit psychological factors can affect performance but deny performance is affected by psychological factors.

You also seem to rely on the premise that anything which can be mathematically modeled is nothing more than a math problem. You assume real life problems have constant weights you can plug into your random number generator (i.e., you can characterize MJ as a "50% shooter" because his average was 50%, as if that's something he is instead of something he did).

Because in real life, as opposed to a math problem, a player can make an effort to improve himself through practice and hard work, to play harder or less hard depending on circumstances, to lose or recapture his mechanics depending on his mental state, to wilt under pressure, or thrive.

And that's why you can't convince me.

That Monty Hall thing was a joke. I am included in the people who needed convincing about the mathematically correct answer, so I don't think that's a sign of idiocy. Regardless, i apologize for offending you.

I started off by saying pyschological factors do matter, but that they are not as important as you're making them out to be. Your objection to my arguments is probably existential: people don't like the notion that there is no fate, and that life is a serious of random events.

As for the rest of the post, it's a bit of a strawman. I never argued that people are unchangeable, nor that people can't improve themselves through practice and hard work. I just accept that the concept of a "hot hand" is perception, not reality. Data supports my view. (Incidentally, don't ignore Delfrio's post). I chose the word "accept" carefully too -- this is not what I want to believe.

[gus]

I just realized you might not know what I meant with the Monty Hall problem.

It's a probability puzzle: You're on a game show, where the host (monty) lets you choose one of three doors. Behind one of the doors is a prize (let's say a new car). Behind the other two are goats.

After you choose a door, Monty opens one of the other two doors, revealing a goat, and gives you the opportunity to keep what's behind your door, or switching to the other unopened one. What should you do, presuming you'd rather have the car than a goat?

[Kedsy]

I just realized you might not know what I meant with the Monty Hall problem.

It's a probability puzzle: You're on a game show, where the host (monty) lets you choose one of three doors. Behind one of the doors is a prize (let's say a new car). Behind the other two are goats.

After you choose a door, Monty opens one of the other two doors, revealing a goat, and gives you the opportunity to keep what's behind your door, or switching to the other unopened one. What should you do, presuming you'd rather have the car than a goat?

I did understand the reference. And people who think they have a better chance to win if they switch have no conception of probability. And I don't think that describes me, although you might disagree. If you didn't mean to offend me then I'm sorry I was offended.

Perhaps we have a definitional issue. I think the definition of a "clutch" player is someone who performs better under pressure than most people. Since you admit that many people are adversely affected by pressure, it follows that the people who are not affected are "clutch." I don't see how an understanding of randomness plays into it at all.

Similarly, if you accept the idea that psychological state can affect shooting mechanics, then the people whose psychological state allows them to follow their practiced motion as perfectly as they are able are "hot" and people whose psychological state forces them to abandon their mechanics are "cold." Again, I don't see how mathematics or random theory play into it.

This all started because I said Mason's free throw problems were in his head. What I meant was, his mental state is forcing him to lose what little mechanics he has. I stand by it.

[Kedsy]

Your objection to my arguments is probably existential: people don't like the notion that there is no fate, and that life is a serious of random events.

Also, I don't believe in fate. But I do think when people make choices it's not just a random event.

[gus]

I did understand the reference. And people who think they have a better chance to win if they switch have no conception of probability. And I don't think that describes me, although you might disagree.

In this instance, I can unequivocally say you are wrong. Switching is the better strategy. Happy to take that to a new thread if you want to debate it.

And the plane takes off.

[Newton_14]

In this instance, I can unequivocally say you are wrong. Switching is the better strategy. Happy to take that to a new thread if you want to debate it.

And the plane takes off.

Yes, by all means create a new thread on the Off topic board. I really want to hear how switching in that scenario makes one ounce of difference in the chance of winning the car vs the goat.:D

Now, can we talk mechanics a bit? Me, and a friend who sat together at the CSU game picked up on something. On a couple of Mason's misses in that game, it appeared that on the release of the shots, the last finger to come off the ball was his ring finger, and on one it even looked like it came off his pinkie. Very bad. Earlier in the year, Mason almost always had good rotation, but little arc, and poor distance control. The most common misses were short, hitting the front of the rim, and when he tried to correct, he over corrected and missed long. In the CSU game and Washington game, his mechanics really broke down, where he was either "short-arming/pushing/guiding" and/or the ball coming off the side of his hand (ring/pinkie finger).

I was always taught, from a very early age attending camps, and from coaches, that the last finger to leave the ball should be the index finger. My soph year in High School a new coach came in and taught that the last finger to leave the ball should be the middle finger. He said that was how it was taught in the Mid-West where he came from. I did not switch, but some guys did.

I have no idea what the Duke Staff teaches in that regard, but for sure it isn't the ring finger or pinkie! :) I would imagine they are putting in a lot of time with Mason to help him improve. Hopefully he can improve. I surely don't want to see him experience the misery he went through Saturday again, and we need him on the court late in games for defense. Plus, he is leaving 5 or 6 points out there in most games. He could easily be averaging 15/16ppg to go with the 10+ rebounds were it not for the free throw woes.

[gus]

Yes, by all means create a new thread on the Off topic board. I really want to hear how switching in that scenario makes one ounce of difference in the chance of winning the car vs the goat.:D


Done!

[Wander]

And people who think they have a better chance to win if they switch have no conception of probability.

Game, set, match!

Seriously though, look into it - it's an incredibly interesting thing to think about. Everyone I've ever met, including myself, incorrectly thinks that switching doesn't increase your chances of winning the first time they hear the problem. It's a nice demonstration of the human mind's difficulty in thinking about this kind of stuff.

[gep]

Duke does not play through pass penetration. Pass penetration is like Christmas for Mason. This is not, in my view a function of asking for, or demanding, the ball. Rather, it is the gestalt of the offense, what the coaches (WoJo and Collins) can see, what limits their vision, and what the players learn to look for because that is what they are supposed to look for.

...

This is not an issue, in my view, of Mason's creation. It has been how Duke has played for years, and, despite an obvious superior inside talent, a guy who can really move and catch it on the move and finish, they, I still think it's WoJo and Collins, can not see that game and therefore do not know how to coach it. Duke sure gets more than its share of exceptional outside players and almost always has an exceptional way of deploying them to get the bulk of its scoring from them. Anyway, for whatever reason, that seems to be how Duke rolls.

Back to Mason's touches... I agree that, to my untrained and novice "eyes", I think that Mason is ready to be that dominant post-player that the ball should go to at least once on every possession, in a position for him to make a move or pass to an open shooter if the double-team comes. I think he's ready for this, even if Duke hasn't seen such offense in a few years. :cool: Now, only if someone can help him with FT's, he'll be awsome.

[Kedsy]

Game, set, match!

I read the other thread, and the wiki page. And, because I still can't entirely believe it, I suppose I have to admit to not understanding probability theory properly (despite taking two statistics courses at Duke).

Having said that, it's a completely different "game, set, match" from the original question. As I explained a few posts above, I don't see how probability has any bearing on whether or not Mason's free throw problems are largely in his head:



Perhaps we have a definitional issue. I think the definition of a "clutch" player is someone who performs better under pressure than most people. Since you admit that many people are adversely affected by pressure, it follows that the people who are not affected are "clutch." I don't see how an understanding of randomness plays into it at all.

Similarly, if you accept the idea that psychological state can affect shooting mechanics, then the people whose psychological state allows them to follow their practiced motion as perfectly as they are able are "hot" and people whose psychological state forces them to abandon their mechanics are "cold." Again, I don't see how mathematics or random theory play into it.

This all started because I said Mason's free throw problems were in his head. What I meant was, his mental state is forcing him to lose what little mechanics he has. I stand by it.

[Kedsy]

I just realized you might not know what I meant with the Monty Hall problem.


I did understand the reference.

Also, in the interest of full disclosure, and at the risk of embarrassing myself, when I said I understood the reference, in retrospect I did not understand the reference.

Long ago, I heard a different "Let's Make a Deal" problem which had a different answer. Or maybe I heard the same one but didn't understand the answer. Or maybe I dreamed the whole thing. In any event, since I didn't understand the reference when I got offended, I obviously shouldn't have been offended. Olive branch offered on that one (though I still stick with my points about the rest of this discussion, as I mentioned in my previous post).

[CDu]

Having said that, it's a completely different "game, set, match" from the original question. As I explained a few posts above, I don't see how probability has any bearing on whether or not Mason's free throw problems are largely in his head:

Well, I think you two are arguing past each other at this point.

I do think people underestimate the effect of randomness on any particular outcome. However, that does not mean that non-random factors affect various outcomes, nor does it mean that each event is a completely independent event.

[gus]

Olive branch offered on that one (though I still stick with my points about the rest of this discussion, as I mentioned in my previous post).

Well, I've made an extraordinary claim (that is, something that flies in the face of what most of us intuitively believe) without offering up extraordinary evidence. So I'm not surprised I haven't convinced you. I thought it was an interesting discussion anyway.

[Kedsy]

Well, I've made an extraordinary claim (that is, something that flies in the face of what most of us intuitively believe) without offering up extraordinary evidence. So I'm not surprised I haven't convinced you. I thought it was an interesting discussion anyway.

I put a new example in the OT thread in which I tried to explain part of my reluctance to accept studies like the Cornell one we've been discussing (and also to confirm whether I actually understand the Monty Hall problem). I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

[toooskies]

Well, I think you two are arguing past each other at this point.

I do think people underestimate the effect of randomness on any particular outcome. However, that does not mean that non-random factors affect various outcomes, nor does it mean that each event is a completely independent event.

I personally don't think that randomness is as precise as gus is making it out to be. If it were precise, you would be able to define the cause of that randomness. At first glance, the cause may simply be "a shot generated by a player has a random chance of going in, based on variation in that player." But advanced measuring metrics have more to say about that. For instance, a player may be more likely to hit a shot when he dribbles left than when he dribbles right. Austin Rivers hits a different percentage of three-pointers depending on whether he shoots from the top of the key versus from the wing, and he makes it a lot more if his man is playing off of him. Whether he makes it or misses it depends on whether the exact actions his muscles executed will propel the ball through the hoop or not. And that's before you ever consider the defender pushing, bumping, or otherwise influencing the player physically during the shot.

Ultimately, basketball ends up being a series of choices. Deciding whether the player is far enough away from you or not to drive on him; deciding whether to try to get off a shot or pass; deciding whether to try to draw a foul or make the shot legitimately. Most situations have randomness, but a player can be a 80% shooter in some situations and a 20% shooter in others. A great practice free throw shooter can do poorly in games, and it's not due to randomness. I believe it was Dockery who was Duke's best free-throw shooter in practice, despite Redick being one of the best in-game FT shooters ever?

It very well may be that when Mason shoots two shots, he shoots one and the result is random; but depending on how he misses it, he adjusts his mechanics. If he shoots the first one short "randomly", he may purposely adjust to shoot his next shot longer, but that moves the point at which he's aiming for, making it a much different distribution of outcomes. Depending on the result of both shots and the time till his next free throw, Mason might try to correct himself again. The result of all these decisions to try to improvisationally "fix" his shot may simply make his body not know what it's doing, having an effect on the base "random" shooting altogether. In that way, his foul shooting is severely influenced by the decisions he's made, despite the fact that ultimately whether his muscles will execute what he's trying to do will vary from attempt to attempt.

[COYS]

I personally don't think that randomness is as precise as gus is making it out to be. If it were precise, you would be able to define the cause of that randomness. At first glance, the cause may simply be "a shot generated by a player has a random chance of going in, based on variation in that player." But advanced measuring metrics have more to say about that. For instance, a player may be more likely to hit a shot when he dribbles left than when he dribbles right. Austin Rivers hits a different percentage of three-pointers depending on whether he shoots from the top of the key versus from the wing, and he makes it a lot more if his man is playing off of him. Whether he makes it or misses it depends on whether the exact actions his muscles executed will propel the ball through the hoop or not. And that's before you ever consider the defender pushing, bumping, or otherwise influencing the player physically during the shot.

Ultimately, basketball ends up being a series of choices. Deciding whether the player is far enough away from you or not to drive on him; deciding whether to try to get off a shot or pass; deciding whether to try to draw a foul or make the shot legitimately. Most situations have randomness, but a player can be a 80% shooter in some situations and a 20% shooter in others. A great practice free throw shooter can do poorly in games, and it's not due to randomness. I believe it was Dockery who was Duke's best free-throw shooter in practice, despite Redick being one of the best in-game FT shooters ever?

It very well may be that when Mason shoots two shots, he shoots one and the result is random; but depending on how he misses it, he adjusts his mechanics. If he shoots the first one short "randomly", he may purposely adjust to shoot his next shot longer, but that moves the point at which he's aiming for, making it a much different distribution of outcomes. Depending on the result of both shots and the time till his next free throw, Mason might try to correct himself again. The result of all these decisions to try to improvisationally "fix" his shot may simply make his body not know what it's doing, having an effect on the base "random" shooting altogether. In that way, his foul shooting is severely influenced by the decisions he's made, despite the fact that ultimately whether his muscles will execute what he's trying to do will vary from attempt to attempt.

I think it's also a question of sample-size. While Austin might be more likely to make a basket going right than left or from the wing rather than the top of the key, over the course of many, many games his shooting percentage will essentially account for this variation by including his tendencies, the frequency of bumps or no-call-fouls by defenders, etc. However, on a small scale, the variation depending on how and where Austin takes an individual shot can be significant. For example, let's say Austin's field goal percentage is 46% after playing in 1,000 games (don't ask me how he's played this many games for Duke, but no one is complaining!). However, over that time he shoots 48% when dribbling right but only 43% when forced to dribble left. In a late game situation, Austin is called on to make the game winning shot. Knowing that he is slightly better going to his left, coach K draws up a play that allows him to dribble right, thereby allowing Austin to take a shot that has a better chance to go in than his 46% field goal percentage would suggest. Or maybe even Austin knows this and makes sure that he goes right when trying to make a game winning shot, thus increasing the odds of making a single shot. To go back to the idea of "clutch," I agree with those that say that Michael Jordan's percentage of 50% in "clutch" situations is impressive because most of those shots were not layups or any similarly easy shot. His 50.5% career percentage includes layups while I bet his 2pt jumper percentage was below 50%. However, I wonder if this was the result of Michael Jordan being better than everyone else at making shots under pressure or if it was actually a combination of the coaching staff and Jordan himself putting himself in a position to take a shot that yielded the highest possible percentage. His turn around jumper on the baseline was basically unguardable given his hops and skill level. Over the course of the game, he might not be able to get that shot every time and probably took more difficult shots. But in the situation where a game-winning shot was needed, he took a shot that he was most comfortable with, therefore increasing the percentage that it would go in.

WRT Mason's free throws, it is possible that Mason physiology makes it hard for him to repeat a free throw motion consistently. Although there is a way of shooting that feels most comfortable to him and yields a higher percentage of made shots than when he breaks away from this form, he is unable to get to the point that he can consistently replicate that form throughout the course of the game. However, he even if he seems to deviate from the most effective shooting form randomly, he discovers that at the end of games when the pressure is highest, he is better able to concentrate and recall the best shooting form. Thus, psychology does factor in to the extent that when Mason concentrates in a certain way, he does increase the chances that a single shot will go in. However, over the course of a large sample size, his free throw percentage reflects both his physical ability to make shots and the effect his psychological state has on his ability to make shots.

In short, what I'm saying is that the psychological component IS probably factored in by a person's shooting percentage over a long period of time and probably has zero effect on any long-term projections. However, in a single moment, psychology can be a factor because it will affect the type of shot (free throw form, location on the court, dribble right or left etc.) that a player takes and each type of shot has a probability of going in that is distinct from the players over all shooting percentage.

[Kedsy]

In short, what I'm saying is that the psychological component IS probably factored in by a person's shooting percentage over a long period of time and probably has zero effect on any long-term projections.

Well, this might be true if his tendencies stayed the same over time, or at least in a constant pattern. I'm not sure psychology works that way.

[COYS]

Well, this might be true if his tendencies stayed the same over time, or at least in a constant pattern. I'm not sure psychology works that way.

That's true. Statistics assume that any patterns or changes in a players psychology essentially cancel each other out over a long enough period. However, it is hard to determine a "pure" starting point, especially for a player that is not fully developed like Mason. While there are players that are already great free throw shooters and others that are terrible and never improve, has Mason reached a point that both his physical and mental abilities are fully formed as they apply to free throws? Almost certainly not. I think he's definitely capable of being much better at the line and that, at this point, both the psychological and physical factors that affect his percentages can change to vastly alter the probability of his making or missing a free throw the very next game, much less in two months or in two years.

[-bdbd]

Back to Mason's touches... I agree that, to my untrained and novice "eyes", I think that Mason is ready to be that dominant post-player that the ball should go to at least once on every possession, in a position for him to make a move or pass to an open shooter if the double-team comes. I think he's ready for this, even if Duke hasn't seen such offense in a few years. :cool: Now, only if someone can help him with FT's, he'll be awsome.

I think that we are on the same page. Several days ago in this thread I stated that I wish Mason was being more assertive, in light of his strength and abilities on the interior. I clarified that I didn't think he fully appreciates how good he really is, and how he really is often our best option for scoring. At a minimum, I'd love to see every possession down the court - or at least most possessions - have at least one or more touches come his way. His conversion percentage is just so much higher than most of the rest of the team that we should want the ball to go through him more often. Yes, I realize that you can't look at that in a vacuum, and that defenses will adjust if we go through MP2 on every time down the court, but in my view he doesn't demand it enough, and/or the penetrations/feeders don't get it in to him on the interior as much as we might like.

Mason is certainly capable of carrying more offensive load. And, tangentially, that will open up more opportunities for the gunners and penetrators as defenses focus more on stopping Mason.

-BD "Sure is nice to see MP2's solid improvement over these three years -BD

[CDu]

Back to Mason's touches... I agree that, to my untrained and novice "eyes", I think that Mason is ready to be that dominant post-player that the ball should go to at least once on every possession, in a position for him to make a move or pass to an open shooter if the double-team comes. I think he's ready for this, even if Duke hasn't seen such offense in a few years. :cool: Now, only if someone can help him with FT's, he'll be awsome.

I don't think every possession is realistic, or even preferable. Especially not with this many quality options, some of whom are better at attacking off the dribble. But I do think he's ready to be a consistent option that we feed the ball to regularly. And I think in this past game, we fed him pretty often.

[Kedsy]

His conversion percentage is just so much higher than most of the rest of the team that we should want the ball to go through him more often.

Actually, thanks to his free throw percentage, Mason's offensive efficiency (points per 100 possessions) is the worst on the team, except for Mike.

Offensive rating:


Player ORate
------ ------
Andre 127.3
Ryan 117.8
Seth 117.6
Miles 117.1
Quinn 115.3
Josh 108.5
Austin 105.8
Tyler 105.3
Mason 100.6
Mike 77.8


So he's converting at a significantly worse rate than even Josh and Tyler. Doesn't mean I don't want Mason to see the ball frequently, but I don't know that we want every possession to flow through him.

[sagegrouse]

I personally don't think that randomness is as precise as gus is making it out to be. If it were precise, you would be able to define the cause of that randomness. At first glance, the cause may simply be "a shot generated by a player has a random chance of going in, based on variation in that player." But advanced measuring metrics have more to say about that. For instance, a player may be more likely to hit a shot when he dribbles left than when he dribbles right.



Tooskies: "I personally don't think that randomness is as precise as gus is making it out to be." Uh,... randomness is like a coin toss, a throw of the dice, or a drawing from a random number table. It is, er, random. And, believe me or not, but shot-making in basketball is a random event that no amount of data will reduce beyond a certain point.

"If it were precise, you would be able to define the cause of that randomness." No, it is random. It may have a mean result and some higher moments (like variance), but it is random. It it were "precise," as you are speculating it would not be random. It would just be a predictable value with unknown causes.

sagegrouse
'Sorry to rise to the bait, but it took years (decades?) to get these concepts fixed in my random mind'

[Kedsy]

And, believe me or not, but shot-making in basketball is a random event that no amount of data will reduce beyond a certain point.

I admit there may be random elements involved in shot-making. Does that make it a random event? There are also non-random elements, which in my mind have a stronger impact on whether or not the shot goes in.

[-bdbd]

Actually, thanks to his free throw percentage, Mason's offensive efficiency (points per 100 possessions) is the worst on the team, except for Mike.

Offensive rating:


Player ORate
------ ------
Andre 127.3
Ryan 117.8
Seth 117.6
Miles 117.1
Quinn 115.3
Josh 108.5
Austin 105.8
Tyler 105.3
Mason 100.6
Mike 77.8


So he's converting at a significantly worse rate than even Josh and Tyler. Doesn't mean I don't want Mason to see the ball frequently, but I don't know that we want every possession to flow through him.

Fair enough Kedsy. I was referencing the conversion stats sans free-throws, which someone had earlier posted. But it is reasonable for you to include them... HOWEVER that leaves out the impact of the foul trouble this strategy imposes on the other team, the rebounding opportunities it opens up (when the other team's best big is defending MP2 instead of positioning for a rebound), and what it opens up incrementally for Duke's other players (as their defenders sag off to help defend MP2). What we really need to see is Duke's conversion percentages per possession when MP2 gets touches (including 2nd, 3rd chances) and for possessions when he does not...

:rolleyes: :confused:

[sagegrouse]

I admit there may be random elements involved in shot-making. Does that make it a random event? There are also non-random elements, which in my mind have a stronger impact on whether or not the shot goes in.

A variable is a "random variable" if any portion of it is subject to random variation -- even if 99 percent of the mean value is fixed and the other can vary over only a small range. Basketball shooting is pretty much all random, in that any shot can be missed, as many of us have proven.

sagegrouse

[Kedsy]

Basketball shooting is pretty much all random, in that any shot can be missed, as many of us have proven.

Why would the fact that a shot can be missed mean it is random?

[gus]

I admit there may be random elements involved in shot-making. Does that make it a random event?

By definition, yes.

[gus]

Why would the fact that a shot can be missed mean it is random?

The answer to your question is embedded in your question.

[sagegrouse]

Why would the fact that a shot can be missed mean it is random?

Kedsy, "random" doesn't mean "wild and foolish," "all over the map," or anything out of the normal vernacular. It simply means that a variable or measure or metric has elements of uncertainty.

sage

[greybeard]

1. We have all buit into our habitual movements, including the smallest of them, poor, self defeating or cross-motivated components. These are Undesireableif your object is to have repeatable, reliable, efficient, action to accomplis the task at hand.

2. To change the habitual you must first identify what they are through maiking minor changes and being to discern the differencesthat slight changes make. To do that, you must work at a low amplitude. The Hector Weber principle, underlying most studies in all types of perception and changes in attitude, behaviors, etc., is that a person is able to discern differences only to the extent that they constitute more than 20 percent of one's sensory input or efforting--you shoot from distance, widening your stance makes something easier, lighter in your shot, you will not notice it because the amplitute for the pressure of shooting from distance is too great.

3. Another reason to shoot from in close is that many movements of segments of the body are not differnentiated. Your eyes are habituated to move up only to the extent that your head does--ergo, if you shoot from distance you will not know the extent that your inability to differentiate throws your weight back towards your heals and what impact that has on your abiolity to shoot reliability. In fact, to reach the basket, you might use a throwing motion that implicates the muscles on the doral and rear side of your body including your shoulder and arm, and thus produce wildly different results. How will you know?

4. Learning to differentiate partsof the body and to break habits is not easy. It becomes much more difficult the more difficult the objective because achieving the objective inhibites the willingness and ability to try something new. Practicing from very close range and moving out slightly and trying to stiffen your fingers, soften them, tighten your abs, soften them, etc, will affect the feel of the shot, your ability to change spin, ark, touch, etc by making one change and then combinations and understand which styles go with different combinations that produce the reliable, easy, and effective results you are after and feels most comfortable to you.

5. Why the off hand first. The off side will not have habituated the cross-motivated, self-defeating aspects of the building blocks of shooting that the strong side has and the same goes for the overall performance of the task at hand in total. So, there will be less to do and it will be easier to chose something that makes no sense--using the rear muscles around the shoulder area to throw the ball instead of just shooting it, having the big muscles move the little ones in a logical sequence in a linear way directed towards the rim.

6. You develop other more effective choices (notice the plural) with your off side those choices have a way of transferring to your strong side. You at least know the feel of what you are after and some of the movements and muscles and tonus of those muscles that produce those choses and a feel for those muscles or the degree of tension in parts of the body that get in the way.

THERE IS MUCH MORE I CAN SAY ABOUT THIS. SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT I DISCOVERED THIS WAY OF SELF IMPROVEMENT WHEN I WAS A TEENAGER AND WAS ABLE TO DEVELOP A SKILL DIVERSITY AND PERFICIENCY THAT BELIED A PERSON WITH MY SET OF MUSCLES--I COULD SHOOT FOUL SHOTS IN VARITY OF STYOES LIKE NOBODY'S BUSINESS AND HAD CONSIDERABLE RANGE ON MY OTHER SHOTS WIICH i COULD AND DID SET UP AND DELIVE WITH A SIMILAR DIVERSITY (I'D CALL THEM JUMP SHOTS BUT I AM NOT SURE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE QUALIFIED). IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THIS APPROACH, THE STRATEGIES EMBODIED, ARE A SMALL PART OF THE BODY OF WORK LEFT BEHIND BY MY MAIN MAN MOSHE FELDENKRIS.

I HAVE IT ON GOOD AUTHORITY DR. J APPROACHED TO HELP WITH HIS FOUL SHOOTING. THE STORY GOES THAT MOSHE TOLD DR. J. THAT HE DID NOT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT SHOOTING A BASKETBALL TO BE OF HELP AND DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME TO TRY AND LEARN, BUT OFFERED THAT HE COULD UNDERSTAND WHY THE DOCTOR WAS HAVING SUCH DIFFICULTY.

What do they say about repeating something that does not produce results and expecting a differnt result. i'M BETTING THAT WHATEVER EFFORTS IMPROVEMT MASON IS UNDERTAKING EMBODY NONE OF THIS MODE OF SELF DISCOVERY--IT DOESN'T HURT TO HAVE SOMEONE TO WORK WITH WHO WOULD PUT UP CONSTRAINTS THAT WOULD AT ONCE ADD NEEDED DIFFERENTIATION, MAKE CLEAR WHAT ACTIONS ARE SELF SABOTAGING, AND MAKE CLEAR WHAT ACTIONS COULD BE ADDED THAT REVEAL THEMSELVES TO MASON TO BE EFFECTIVE. He would then have a choice about how he shots foul shots; along the way, the brain gravitates towards choosing what is easy.

later, grey [I didn't put 200 horurs of self exploration and teaching techniques without coming away with something of value] beard

[Kedsy]

Kedsy, "random" doesn't mean "wild and foolish," "all over the map," or anything out of the normal vernacular. It simply means that a variable or measure or metric has elements of uncertainty.

OK, I can accept that (I never thought it meant "wild and foolish" or anything like that, anyway). But I don't understand why the idea that shot making is random precludes the ideas of psychological factors affecting free throw performance, or hot and cold shooting, or clutch play?

[CDu]

OK, I can accept that (I never thought it meant "wild and foolish" or anything like that, anyway). But I don't understand why the idea that shot making is random precludes the ideas of psychological factors affecting free throw performance, or hot and cold shooting, or clutch play?

I don't see any reason both can't be present. I just think it's very hard to tease out how much (if at all) each is influencing the results. I think people tend to underestimate the role of randomness. However, I don't think that means that other such things as hot/cold shooting, psychology, etc don't have any role in the outcome.

[sagegrouse]

OK, I can accept that (I never thought it meant "wild and foolish" or anything like that, anyway). But I don't understand why the idea that shot making is random precludes the ideas of psychological factors affecting free throw performance, or hot and cold shooting, or clutch play?

Of course they can, but there is a residual random element in shooting (and other aspects of basketball).

sage

[Kedsy]

Of course they can, but there is a residual random element in shooting (and other aspects of basketball).

Well, I suppose with your definition (which I have accepted as the true definition), almost all aspects of life have a residual random element. But Wander and gus seem to think the random nature of life precludes the other stuff, and that's what I've been disagreeing with for the past several days.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Has anyone else noticed that when Mason shoots free throws, it sure looks like he is holding the ball in his palm. I'm no shooting coach but one of the first things I ever learned was that you hold the ball in your fingers - you don't let it sit on the palm of your hand. The tv camera may be playing games with my view of his shot, but if I'm right, this cannot be helping him control the ball or feel comfortable. Kinda of surprising to see. Anyone else notice this?

[jv001]

Has anyone else noticed that when Mason shoots free throws, it sure looks like he is holding the ball in his palm. I'm no shooting coach but one of the first things I ever learned was that you hold the ball in your fingers - you don't let it sit on the palm of your hand. The tv camera may be playing games with my view of his shot, but if I'm right, this cannot be helping him control the ball or feel comfortable. Kinda of surprising to see. Anyone else notice this?

I've noticed the same thing with Mason's FTs. I was taught to shoot the ball with my fingertips, because this gives the ball the correction rotation if you have your elbow in the right position. It sure looks like Mason has the ball in the palm of his right hand. Shooting the ball this way can cause the arc to be flat. Austin's shot looks to have the elbow in an incorrect position and he has a lot of free throws rim out. GoDuke!

[SupaDave]

As I watched last night - Mason didn't try ONE time to get in any kind of rhythm before he shot his free throws. Why isn't anyone telling him that he can dribble it a few times? I'm almost positive that will get him up to 50% alone. Otherwise he's pushing the ball at the rim instead of shooting it.

[roywhite]

As I watched last night - Mason didn't try ONE time to get in any kind of rhythm before he shot his free throws. Why isn't anyone telling him that he can dribble it a few times? I'm almost positive that will get him up to 50% alone. Otherwise he's pushing the ball at the rim instead of shooting it.

Can't pinpoint it or find a link, but I believe a few games back, the coaches and Mason agreed that it might work better for him to just get the ball and shoot, rather than go through a long pre-shot ritual.

Who knows what to do now?
I'm inclined to think he just isn't very good at this skill, and is unlikely to progress beyond a certain point, but 60% would be great....sure would help the team.
Gotta give Mason a lot of credit for playing so well outside of the free throw shooting; he seems to be able to separate the misses from the rest of his game, which has come along quite well.

[devildeac]

Can't pinpoint it or find a link, but I believe a few games back, the coaches and Mason agreed that it might work better for him to just get the ball and shoot, rather than go through a long pre-shot ritual.

Who knows what to do now?
I'm inclined to think he just isn't very good at this skill, and is unlikely to progress beyond a certain point, but 60% would be great....sure would help the team.
Gotta give Mason a lot of credit for playing so well outside of the free throw shooting; he seems to be able to separate the misses from the rest of his game, which has come along quite well.

His mannerisms/rituals, for lack of better words, are almost reminding me of Chris Burgess' now. It looks like he can't wait to get the FT shooting done with each time he steps to the line. I still like Jim Sumner's description of his impresion of Burgess: "He looks like he was just handed a snake" when the ref hands/bounces him the ball at the FT line now. Jim will correct me if I have misquoted him, I'm sure ;-) .

[flyingdutchdevil]

I'm inclined to think he just isn't very good at this skill, and is unlikely to progress beyond a certain point, but 60% would be great....sure would help the team.

60%? That's currently 20% higher than his current percentage. I would be happy with 50% for the remainder of the season.

It must be nerves, right? No one can be this terrible in a repetitive motion. Plus, the coaching staff must be all over the mechanics.

IMO, Mason is our best player, our most consistent player, and one of our top defenders (which on this team, is really really important). But when I resort to playing drinking games when Mason is at the line, that's just not good for my liver.

[greybeard]

Has anyone else noticed that when Mason shoots free throws, it sure looks like he is holding the ball in his palm. I'm no shooting coach but one of the first things I ever learned was that you hold the ball in your fingers - you don't let it sit on the palm of your hand. The tv camera may be playing games with my view of his shot, but if I'm right, this cannot be helping him control the ball or feel comfortable. Kinda of surprising to see. Anyone else notice this?

I'm sure that he has been told that a thousand times and has been given drills to help him do that and makie a number of other improvements.

You want to have Mason use his fingers. Tell him to try bringing his fingers much closer together, with his thumb touching his index finger. The left hand will have to be placed very softly to the side of the ball and stay on the ball until just before the final release. The ball will be on his fingers and, this, by the way, is an excellent way of shooting inside the three shots (can't speak to outside the three).

Mason has way too much knee bend and takes all the momentum created by straightening out of the shot. His legs are just near coming to a natureal point of stoping as the ball approaches just above his chin and is a reasonable distance from his face. If he allowed that momentum to begin straightening his arm, the vector would be much closer to vertical, the arc would be higher, the release of the wrist/hand much more fluid and natural, the shot will feel to Mason as if the ball could not possibly reach the basket, it will; the shot will be smooth,feel effortless, be reversible (he'd be able to stop almost at any point along the way and retrace his steps; and the shot produced will be repeatable and quite effective.

Instead, Mason currently pauses, actually stops, the momentum is lost, brings it up to his forehead, hairline (not a bad shooting position), stops again, and then straightens and releases using only his small muscles. He literally shot puts or throws the ball toward the basket (different variations of the two) with poor results.

Ideally, I'd like to see far less knee bend or far less straightening of the legs, only a smidge, starting with the ball higher and a perhaps a little more extended from his face, depending on his knee been, and an extension and release animinated by the force created by pushing into the ground with the big muscles and coming onto the front of his feet as opposed to starting there with little forward and up momentum.

I could tell Mason that--I am sure that his coaches have told him such things or what they all know about effective foul shooting, and none of it will sink in and none of it will be owned by him. He will never learn through a natural process, but instead his head will be filled with alot of concepts that he only vaguely remembers and causes confusion, unless he puts all or most of it out of his mind and goes with a mismash with that he same ineffective habituated patterns showing up, albeit perhaps more subtlely.

You and I take up the piano, and start taking lessons, each with an objective in mind (to master drills) to master finger combinations, posture, easy music pieces. It will be a long process and progress will be slow. The process will not be satisfying nor will the results.

A young kid, 4 or 5, sits down at the piano, starts fooling around with the keys, listens, feels, and shortly begins creating music. Achieving something is not the kid's intention, he or she is exploring, playing, following what feels and sounds nice, pleasing, logical, and is effortless, choosing those qualities as opposed to the opposite. In an hour or less, we hear music. The next time, we will hear music of a different sort. Not immediately either time, just the natural process of learning. later. G

[dukedoc]

At least he's not, you know, doing this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuaUPqM89zw)

[ice-9]

Both Kedsy and Gus are right. :) It is about probability, and it is about a player's psychology.

When we look at a player's shooting percentage, say 50%, it actually isn't very helpful at all. It may not even be predictive. Because that 50% number is determined by many, many inputs. A person shooting 50% in the NBDL won't shoot 50% in the NBA, because who defends you matters. A person shooting 50% overall will shoot better when he is near the basket, and worse when he is far away, because where you shoot matters. Whether that shot is taken when feet are set vs. moving also matters. How tired the player is when he shoots. Etc., etc., etc. Essentially, there are a million things that go into that 50%.

But if you can boil a shot down to it's most specific, most defined form (e.g. shooting against X defender at Y position with Z setup and A, B, C, D, et al)...the "atom" equivalent of a shot if you will, and you ask that player to repeat that shot a million times (and assuming he doesn't get tired from one shot to the next), then that is when basketball becomes like a random number generator. A 50% shot is a 50% shot because every relevant variable is fixed. There is no such thing as a hot or cold hand in this simulation; it's truly random.

You aggregate all these percentages up from all these different possibilities of a shot, and you can get a very good sense of the player is capable of. His P distribution, or potential if you will. But it's a distribution, not an outcome, because the outcome that you do get is derived by the inputs of the distribution's variables.

Confidence is one of those variables, and the degree of confidence is the input. A confident player will hit a higher percentage, while a player that is not confident will hit a lower percentage. Over the course of a season, it "averages" out (I mean that in the strictest sense of the word) and the overall percentage seems random. But it isn't. If you can find a way to improve that person's confidence more consistently, he will end up with a higher percentage. That's because he is accessing a different outcome with the different input, even if from the same distribution.

Same P distribution (probability), different input and outcome (psychology). So that's how both Kedsy and Gus are right.

[Kedsy]

Both Kedsy and Gus are right. :) It is about probability, and it is about a player's psychology.

Well, I knew I was right, I just didn't know why. ;)

Seriously, thanks for a very well expressed explanation. And one not involving Monty Hall.

[gep]

As I watched last night - Mason didn't try ONE time to get in any kind of rhythm before he shot his free throws. Why isn't anyone telling him that he can dribble it a few times? I'm almost positive that will get him up to 50% alone. Otherwise he's pushing the ball at the rim instead of shooting it.

I posted about dribbling before shooting FT's in the Rick Barry thread before reading this... I think dribbling will at least establish a rhythm... which has gotta help :confused:


Can't pinpoint it or find a link, but I believe a few games back, the coaches and Mason agreed that it might work better for him to just get the ball and shoot, rather than go through a long pre-shot ritual.


I think I recall this too... but this "quick release" doesn't seem to help either. Maybe watch that JJ video on how he shoots FT's... and recite something to himself. Again, rhythm :cool:

[greybeard]

Rabbit's foot?

[tele]

Not to be contrarian, but I noticed some improvement in Mason's free throws, and thought his overall game was outstanding. Still not quite there yet in the resulting made fts but I think in a game or two he could be at 50 or 60% easily. He was just 3 for 3 acouple of games ago so this is not a great reach.

Two things he did in the last game are cause for encouragement. One, when he got the ball in the post he turned and faced the basket, this is a step in the right direction, no pun intended (really). He actually did a step through move, with ball fake? and powered to the rim and scored. It is worth noting he was doing this against a mobile, strong, 7 footer. Very impressive. How does this help his free throws, turning and facing is precurser to turning and facing and taking the jump shot. Once he starts doing this and routinely knocking them down, he is going to be close to unguardable, at least one on one. Also making a few faceup jumpers during the game will help when he goes to the line, as Greybeard has described in better detail.

Second, he got the ball in the high post and again turned and faced, he didn't take the jumper, he drove and made the left handed layup instead. But again, he was facing the basket with the ball around the ft range and had the open shot, just didn't take it, yet. Once he knocks a few of those down, like Miles has done, then when he goes to the line it will seem like an easier shot than what he has already been taking during the game, and not an unfamiliar ordeal. Lance Thomas improved his free throw shooting and the improvement coincided with his increased confidence in taking "his shot" that 15 foot jumper from the elbow, just coincidence??

A few made jumpers here and there from the floor and he can be 60%, or so I surmise.

[JNort]

I didn't think we needed another thread about Mason and his free throws so I will put my thoughts in here. Watching the game today I noticed Mason had really nice form (at least in this game) and he went 4-6.

Side note, I wonder how many people would have taken a bet that Mason shoots better at the line than Seth in this game.

[Saratoga2]

I didn't think we needed another thread about Mason and his free throws so I will put my thoughts in here. Watching the game today I noticed Mason had really nice form (at least in this game) and he went 4-6.

Side note, I wonder how many people would have taken a bet that Mason shoots better at the line than Seth in this game.

I can't argue with you that Mason made 4 for 6 and that was good. I don't agree that his form was good though. He seemed to have the hitch in his delivery, hesitating slightly during his motion and the ball was back to being flatter again. I actually think he went back toward the form that caused him to miss at an alarming rate. Hope he really looks at film with a coach before becoming satisfied.

[jv001]

I'll have to go back and watch it to see if I'm correct, but it looked like Mason actually shot one of his free throws with his finger tips. It seemed to have more arc and the ball hit nothing but net. Looks like he's been working hard on his FT shooting. Way to go young man. GoDuke!