The Bucks and Losing the FTA Battle (Update)

by TheJay on Mar 13, 2010 11:58 PM CST Comment 7 comments

Two months ago, I wrote about the Bucks' historic struggles with being outshot at the line. At that point, the Bucks had played 38 games and were outshot at the line in 32 of them, good for 84.2%. That was by far the highest percentage in Bucks history, and the second-highest in the league since 1986-1987.*

I happened to write that post following the first Bucks-Jazz matchup of the year. Now that the second resulted in a Bucks win, but moreso because Zorakathura asked, I think it is a good time to update the numbers. Note: these numbers are through the games of March 12.

As we all know, a lot has changed with this Bucks team since January 17. Jerry Stackhouse signed the next day, while one month later Primoz Brezec, Royal Ivey, and John Salmons arrived in exchange for Joe Alexander, Francisco Elson, Jodie Meeks, and Hakim Warrick. The re-shuffling re-vitalized the Bucks and vaulted them from 16-22 and out of the playoffs to 35-29 and sitting pretty as the fifth seed.

In the 26 games since my first post, the Bucks went 19-7, won the free throw battle 9 times, lost it 16 times, and tied once. In their current 11-1 run, they've won the battle six times. For simplicity's sake, I've counted the tie as a win since it obviously wasn't a loss (I have treated every team this way).

This means the Bucks have lost the free throw battle 48 of 64 times in 2009-2010, a 75.0% clip. The updated historical team rankings:

Rank	Season	W-L-%	-FTA	-FTA%
--	*2009-2010 Bucks*	*35-29*	48	*75.0*
1	1999-2000 Bucks	42-40	57	69.5
2	1992-1993 Bucks	28-54	56	68.3
3	1995-1996 Bucks	25-57	54	65.9
4	1986-1987 Bucks	50-32	53	64.6
	2000-2001 Bucks	52-30	53	64.6
6	1998-1999 Bucks	28-22	32	64.0
7	2008-2009 Bucks	34-48	49	59.8
8	2007-2008 Bucks	26-56	48	58.5
	2005-2006 Bucks	40-42	48	58.5
	1989-1990 Bucks	44-38	48	58.5
11	1996-1997 Bucks	33-49	47	57.3
	1987-1988 Bucks	42-40	47	57.3
13	2001-2002 Bucks	41-41	46	56.1
	2002-2003 Bucks	42-40	46	56.1
15	1991-1992 Bucks	31-51	45	54.9
16	1997-1998 Bucks	36-46	44	53.7
17	2006-2007 Bucks	28-54	43	52.4
18	1993-1994 Bucks	20-62	41	50.0
	1988-1989 Bucks	49-33	41	50.0
20	1990-1991 Bucks	48-34	38	46.3
21	2004-2005 Bucks	30-52	33	40.2
	1994-1995 Bucks	34-48	33	40.2
23	2003-2004 Bucks	41-41	27	32.9

As you can see, the Bucks have come falling back to the field. If they keep their rate over the last 26 games up over the final 18 games, they'll fall to 72.0% for the season, still enough for the top spot. Even if they outshoot their opponents at the line in every remaining game, this year's squad will wind up in a tie for eighth.

Perhaps of less concern than historical team rankings are historical league rankings. The 2009-2010 Bucks are no longer in second place:

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
--	*2009-2010 Bucks*	*35-29*	48	*75.0*
12	1988-1989 Heat	15-67	61	74.4
13	1990-1991 Kings	25-57	60	73.2
14	1993-1994 Mavericks	13-69	59	72.0
	1988-1989 Hornets	20-62	59	72.0
	2007-2008 Timberwolves	22-60	59	72.0
17	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
--	*2009-2010 Warriors*	*17-47*	45	*70.3*
22	1998-1999 Warriors	21-29	35	70.0

The Bucks are obviously now in the middle of the pack, but they're also not alone in the table. The Warriors make an appearance at the bottom of the table. As noted in my last post, the 1987-1988 SuperSonics are the only team on the list to finish with a .500 record. With the way the Bucks have been playing, I'd say they'll soon have company, except I have a feeling the Bucks will find a way to slide below 70.0%.

* - As noted last time, I used the Basketball-Reference.com Play Index to calculate these numbers. The Play Index goes back to 1986-1987.

FanPosts are user-generated blogs-within-the-blog. We ask that members abide by our community guidelines and keep things respectable. Thanks.

3 recs | Comment 7 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I love statistical analysis and comparison... good read...

It is odd because even though the Bucks aren’t the greatest at getting to the line they do so many other key things well that it really mitigates the damage of this…

by Superelkman on Mar 15, 2010 11:26 AM CDT reply actions

I don't think it's really harmful until you hit an extreme

The Bucks have backed away from the edge as their record has improved.

Even in extreme cases, there are probably other things coming into play: losing teams are probably fouling a lot at the end of games, for example.

Failure is just success rounded down.

by TheJay on Mar 15, 2010 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions

Awesome!

And to be clear, I’m referring to the research, not the Bucks’ FTA performance :)

Obviously looking at the overall historical rankings you can see it’s not a good thing to lose the battle at the line, but it’s interesting how it doesn’t seem very correlated for just the subset of Bucks teams.

www.BrewHoop.com

by Frank Madden on Mar 15, 2010 11:55 AM CDT reply actions

There isn't much of a correlation overall

I’m not that good with Google Docs, but I think you should be able to see the master team spreadsheet: link

Note that spreadsheet and the below information does not include 2009-2010.

And here’s a scatterplot of WL% against FTA WL% (click to enlarge):

The R-squared value is .1568, so there’s a small correlation, but again I it can be explained by the fact teams that win more get fouled more at the end of games and vice versa. And undoubtedly other things as well (better players, more calls, etc.).

Finally, just to put the number of ties out there since I did include ties as wins (not losses is a better way to put it, I guess):

Year G Ties Tie%
TIE 1987 943 29 .031
TIE 1988 943 27 .029
TIE 1989 1025 41 .040
TIE 1990 1107 47 .042
TIE 1991 1107 38 .034
TIE 1992 1107 41 .037
TIE 1993 1107 54 .049
TIE 1994 1107 49 .044
TIE 1995 1107 38 .034
TIE 1996 1189 42 .035
TIE 1997 1189 50 .042
TIE 1998 1189 50 .042
TIE 1999 725 28 .039
TIE 2000 1189 54 .045
TIE 2001 1189 49 .041
TIE 2002 1189 32 .027
TIE 2003 1189 55 .046
TIE 2004 1189 42 .035
TIE 2005 1230 54 .044
TIE 2006 1230 53 .043
TIE 2007 1230 46 .037
TIE 2008 1230 54 .044
TIE 2009 1230 55 .045

Failure is just success rounded down.

by TheJay on Mar 15, 2010 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions

I think there's a stronger correlation between winning games

and the FTM/FGA ratios (on offense and defense). They’re one of the four factors: http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/20040601_roboscout.htm .

The Bucks are truly horrible in it (as your numbers make obvious) – they rank dead last in FT rate differential with a -11.19 (the 2nd worst team are the Pacers with a -5.93 diff.). This number is so bad that I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s some kind of record. At least it’s the worst mark of the last 4 seasons.

Well, I looked it up and compared the FT/FGA differential of the 98/99 Boston Celtics that lead your all-time ranking, the first winning team ranked and the 09/10 Bucks:
98/99 Celtics : -10.80
09/10 Bucks: -9.0
87/88 Sonics: -8.5

So there have been worse teams – at least one. Still, the Bucks need to be really good in other parts of the game to make up for this weakness, namely in turnovers and rebounding. If they could go to the line more/foul less they’d be a contender (but for that they’d need different personnel and a different philosophy and for now the current combination is working).

by Joana on Mar 16, 2010 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions

Yeah, it’s tough to say how much of this is just the output of a bunch of so-so invidual defenders playing aggressively and trying to force turnovers. Defensively I think you can accept it given the overally efficiency numbers are still excellent, and I’m not sure how else a team with this kind of personnel can be much better from a preventing points perspective.

Offensively it’s much harder to make excuses, but obviously an offense that’s built to create open jump shots by definition doesn’t create a ton of free throw opportunities. And given the lack of guys who can create their own shots (Salmons, Bogut if you count post players), I’m not sure the offense is going to get much better.

The Bucks have improved on both sides since the Salmons trade, but it’s more pronounced defensively. Their FTA/FGA rate was a whopping 37.5% through the end of calendar year 2009, since Jan 1 it’s 33%. Still bad, but it’s gone down to 30.4% since the Salmons deal. Offensively they were at 22.8% through December, 24.8% since January 1. With Salmons 24.9%, so only a hair better than the post-2009, pre-Salmons period.

www.BrewHoop.com

by Frank Madden on Mar 16, 2010 11:05 PM CDT up reply actions