The Bucks and Losing the FTA Battle (Final Update)
TheJay first posted detailed research into the Bucks' free throw disparity nine months ago, providing context to the Bucks' struggles and real insight into what it might mean to the bottom line of wins and losses. He's now updated those numbers and provided some additional data which you can check out below. Big thanks to TheJay!
All the way back in January, I wrote about the Bucks allowing far more free throw attempts than they received. At that time, they had lost the free throw battle 32 times out of 38 games, a whopping 84.2% of the time. Two months later, I updated the numbers and found the team's personnel changes in the meantime improved that number a little bit. Of course, the season ended in April, but a final update six months late is better than never.
Note: as in the other two posts, I have considered a free throw attempt tie to be a "win" for each team when calculating percentages. Since I am concerned with losses, this does not skew the numbers from my perspective. Finally, my numbers (from basketball-reference.com) go back to the 1986-1987 season.
First, the historical team rankings:
| Rank | Season | W-L-% | -FTA | -FTA% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2009-2010 Bucks | 46-36 | 60 | 73.2 |
| 2 | 1999-2000 Bucks |
42-40 | 57 | 69.5 |
| 3 | 1992-1993 Bucks |
28-54 | 56 | 68.3 |
| 4 | 1995-1996 Bucks |
25-57 | 54 | 65.9 |
| 5 | 1986-1987 Bucks |
50-32 | 53 | 64.6 |
| 2000-2001 Bucks |
52-30 | 53 | 64.6 | |
| 7 |
1998-1999 Bucks |
28-22 | 32 | 64.0 |
| 8 | 2008-2009 Bucks |
34-48 | 49 | 59.8 |
| 9 | 2007-2008 Bucks |
26-56 | 48 | 58.5 |
| 2005-2006 Bucks |
40-42 | 48 | 58.5 | |
| 1989-1990 Bucks |
44-38 | 48 | 58.5 | |
| 12 | 1996-1997 Bucks |
33-49 | 47 | 57.3 |
| 1987-1988 Bucks |
42-40 | 47 | 57.3 | |
| 14 | 2001-2002 Bucks |
41-41 | 46 | 56.1 |
| 2002-2003 Bucks |
42-40 | 46 | 56.1 | |
| 16 | 1991-1992 Bucks |
31-51 | 45 | 54.9 |
| 17 | 1997-1998 Bucks |
36-46 | 44 | 53.7 |
| 18 | 2006-2007 Bucks |
28-54 | 43 | 52.4 |
| 19 | 1993-1994 Bucks |
20-62 | 41 | 50.0 |
| 1988-1989 Bucks |
49-33 | 41 | 50.0 | |
| 21 | 1990-1991 Bucks | 48-34 | 38 | 46.3 |
| 22 | 2004-2005 Bucks |
30-52 | 33 | 40.2 |
| 1994-1995 Bucks |
34-48 | 33 | 40.2 | |
| 24 |
2003-2004 Bucks |
41-41 | 27 | 32.9 |
In the eighteen games between my last update and the end of the season, the Bucks lost the free throw battle an additional twelve times. That bumped their -FTA percentage down slightly but left them comfortably in first place in team history.
The historical league rankings are fun as well:
| Rank | Season | W-L | -FTA | -FTA% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1998-1999 Celtics | 19-31 | 43 | 86.0 |
| 2 | 1993-1994 Pistons | 20-62 | 69 | 84.1 |
| 3 | 1997-1998 Celtics | 36-46 | 67 | 81.7 |
| 4 | 1992-1993 Mavericks | 11-71 | 66 | 80.5 |
| 5 | 1994-1995 Pistons | 28-54 | 65 | 79.3 |
| 6 | 1987-1988 SuperSonics | 44-38 | 64 | 78.0 |
| 2008-2009 Pacers | 36-46 | 64 | 78.0 | |
| 8 | 1989-1990 Heat | 18-64 | 63 | 76.8 |
| 1990-1991 Nuggets | 20-62 | 63 | 76.8 | |
| 10 | 1994-1995 Clippers | 17-65 | 62 | 75.6 |
| 2002-2003 Knicks | 37-45 | 62 | 75.6 | |
| 12 | 1988-1989 Heat | 15-67 | 61 | 74.4 |
| 13 | 2009-2010 Bucks | 46-36 | 60 | 73.2 |
| 1990-1991 Kings | 25-57 | 60 | 73.2 | |
| 15 | 1993-1994 Mavericks | 13-69 | 59 | 72.0 |
| 1988-1989 Hornets | 20-62 | 59 | 72.0 | |
| 2007-2008 Timberwolves | 22-60 | 59 | 72.0 | |
| 18 | 1987-1988 Warriors | 20-62 | 58 | 70.7 |
| 1989-1990 Hornets | 19-63 | 58 | 70.7 | |
| 2001-2002 Nuggets | 27-55 | 58 | 70.7 | |
| 2002-2003 Nuggets | 17-65 | 58 | 70.7 | |
| 2003-2004 Knicks | 39-43 | 58 | 70.7 | |
| 23 | 1998-1999 Warriors | 21-29 | 35 | 70.0 |
The Bucks slid another spot down the list in their final eighteen games. Whereas they were in second place in January and twelfth in March, they finished the year thirteenth. The Golden State Warriors had been above 70% in March, but they managed to work their way down to 68.3% and consequently no longer appear on the list. The Bucks are only the second team since 1986-1987 (and first in over twenty years) to finish over .500 while losing the free throw battle at least 70% of the time. They are the third such team to make the playoffs.
In the comments of my second post, there was a brief discussion of the correlation between winning the battle at the line and winning overall. I noted there was not much correlation between the percentages in my post and overall winning percentage. Joana noted there may be a stronger correlation between winning games and FTM/FGA ratios (see this page for more). Joana also noted the 2009-2010 Bucks were awful, trailing their opponents in that statistic by 9.0%. I decided to look further into that. Here are the 23 teams with a differential of -7.50% or worse:
| Rank | Season | W-L | W-L% | -FTA% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1997-1998 Celtics | 36-46 | .439 | -13.76 |
| 2 | 1992-1993 Mavericks | 11-71 | .134 | -13.62 |
| 3 | 1998-1999 Celtics | 19-31 | .380 | -10.80 |
| 4 | 1990-1991 Nuggets | 20-62 | .244 | -10.39 |
| 5 | 1989-1990 Heat |
18-64 | .220 | -10.28 |
| 6 | 1998-1999 Warriors | 21-29 | .420 | -9.92 |
| 7 | 2002-2003 Nuggets | 17-65 | .207 | -9.27 |
| 8 | 2007-2008 Timberwolves |
22-60 | .268 | -8.60 |
| 9 |
2009-2010 Bucks | 46-36 | .561 | -8.54 |
| 10 | 1988-1989 Heat | 15-67 | .183 | -8.44 |
| 11 |
1987-1988 Supersonics | 44-38 | .537 | -8.41 |
| 12 | 1993-1994 Pistons | 20-62 | .244 | -8.39 |
| 13 | 1994-1995 Pistons | 28-54 | .341 | -8.24 |
| 1987-1988 Knicks | 38-44 | .463 | -8.24 | |
| 15 | 1990-1991 Kings | 25-57 | .305 | -8.00 |
| 16 |
1998-1999 Timberwolves | 25-25 | .500 | -7.98 |
| 17 |
2005-2006 Bulls | 41-41 | .500 | -7.93 |
| 18 | 1993-1994 Mavericks | 13-69 | .159 | -7.78 |
| 19 | 2004-2005 Hawks | 13-69 | .159 | -7.66 |
| 20 | 2008-2009 Bucks | 34-48 | .415 | -7.58 |
| 21 |
1994-1995 Clippers | 17-65 | .207 | -7.57 |
| 22 | 1989-1990 Supersonics | 41-41 | .500 | -7.54 |
| 23 | 2000-2001 Magic | 43-39 | .524 | -7.53 |
Two Bucks teams appear here. Intriguingly, they were the two teams coached by Scott Skiles. Another Skiles team, the 2005-2006 Bulls, also made the cut. While it's notable the 2009-2010 Bucks hold the record for worst differential by a winning team, I am more interested by the top two teams on the list. How is it they managed to be nearly three percent worse than the next closest team?
Is it true this differential correlates more to winning percentage than winning (and tying) or losing the free throw battle? In the discussion under my March post, I posted a graph with an R-squared value of .1568, suggesting there was a weak correlation between the two stats. Here is a similar graph showing the connection of FT/FGA differential and winning percentage:
If you are having trouble reading that chart, you can click to get the full size image. That graph shows a R-squared value of .1713, slightly stronger than simply losing or not losing at the line, but still not very strong. That actually squares pretty well with the post originally linked by Joana, that said while FT/FGA differential is one of the four most important offensive factors in basketball, it should be weighted much less than the other three.
In sum, the 2009-2010 Bucks made the playoffs despite rarely winning the battle at the free throw line. While not winning the free throw battle does not preclude winning a given game, losing it game after game after game makes it tough to make the playoffs or finish over .500. However, last year's Bucks showed it is not insurmountable. Ideally, the addition of Corey Maggette, Chris Douglas-Roberts, and others, as well as a full season of John Salmons will make it easier for the team to win at the free throw line and win overall.
FanPosts are user-generated blogs-within-the-blog. We ask that members abide by our community guidelines and keep things respectable. Thanks.
11 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thanks for the update, nice article
That’s a nice piece of trivia; last season Bucks actually beat a league record.
Skiles’ teams play very aggressive defense, over-help to deny dribble penetration, give no easy layups and try to flood the strongside and then get deflections when teams try to swing the ball. On the other side, his teams use lots of curls and pop action, lots of plays designed to get open jumpers in the baseline or the elbows (because he hasn’t had better options in most of his teams) . Maybe that Phoenix team with Kidd, Cliff Robinson and Rodney Rogers had a positive FTM/FGA ratio diff., but I doubt many others Skiles teams were able to cross that hurdle. I’d expect every of them to be below the league average on defensive FTM/FGA ration – including the 10/11 Bucks.
On the other hand, I agree that the addition of Maggette + a full year of Salmons should help the Bucks to balance things a little more. I’m sure this was an important factor to go after Maggette. Drew Gooden himself is another player who’s competent getting to the line. These 3 may very well lead the Bucks in fouls drawn, replacing Warrick/Redd/Ukic who were the leaders in FTs per poss. in last season’s original roster – 3 players that didn’t play much. They’ll take over the minutes of players who weren’t that good drawing fouls – Bell, Ilyasova, LRMAM, Delfino, Stackhouse, Thomas. So, I’m also expecting a clear improvement on this aspect of the game.
Side note, I recently read a paper on the four factors and how they correlate to regular season and playoff success. It’s suggested that the importance of FTM/FGA differential in winning games may be greater in the playoffs (even though its impact is still minor relatively to other factors). Let’s see if I can post an image of the relevant table:

Source: Winning NBA Games in Regular Season versus Playoffs, Teramoto and Cross, JQAS
Some great points, Joana
There are definitely attributes of Skiles’ style of play which will lead to certain stats being skewed, and I think FTA is certainly one of them—particularly on the defensive end, where the Bucks’ aggression has both good and bad effects that manifest themselves in certain statistics.
I’m curious how much progress can be made on that front without sacrificing in other areas.
by Frank Madden on Oct 11, 2010 6:46 PM CDT up reply actions
VERY in depth stuff!
Appreciate the work. Free throw disparity is a funny thing, it’s hard to tell just how much is under your control sometimes. One thing I’m interested in is the correlation between FGA’s at the rim and FTA.
"I'm not Nostradamus or anybody, so I don't know. Luckily, this is the worst injury I've had in my career so far."
- Drew Gooden, on the severity of his toe injury.
Wait one damn minute. TheJay's a pinkeye guy? My homeboy.
Yeah, well, sometimes I drink.
by Dikembe Meiztombo on Oct 11, 2010 7:52 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
pinkeye?
"I'm not Nostradamus or anybody, so I don't know. Luckily, this is the worst injury I've had in my career so far."
- Drew Gooden, on the severity of his toe injury.
by Jacob Grinyer on Oct 11, 2010 7:57 PM CDT up reply actions
You're gonna need to reference Brew Crew Ball for that one. I'm the resident basketball fanatic.
Yeah, well, sometimes I drink.
by Dikembe Meiztombo on Oct 11, 2010 8:10 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm guessing it means basketball fan?
"I'm not Nostradamus or anybody, so I don't know. Luckily, this is the worst injury I've had in my career so far."
- Drew Gooden, on the severity of his toe injury.
by Jacob Grinyer on Oct 11, 2010 8:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Correct, sir.
NBA = pinkeye in the local beisbol community.
Yeah, well, sometimes I drink.
by Dikembe Meiztombo on Oct 11, 2010 8:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Haha Thanks
Not too familiar with the local baseball lingo
"I'm not Nostradamus or anybody, so I don't know. Luckily, this is the worst injury I've had in my career so far."
- Drew Gooden, on the severity of his toe injury.
by Jacob Grinyer on Oct 11, 2010 8:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Oh man, the front page?
If I had known that was in store, I wouldn’t have taken six months. I’m glad the post was interesting.
I never use a big word when a diminutive word would suffice.
it'll be real interesting to see how Maggette impacts on the Bucks in this area......
on both ends of the floor
That," says LeBron, "is for everyone that watches me play. They witness something special. You're all a witness.

by 

















