I’d be very curious to know if there’s a difference between the offensive rebounding rate on FT’s in general vs. the offensive rebounding rate on the front end of a 1 and 1. This is just anecdotal observation, but it seems like the team missing the front end almost never gets that rebound.
Also, a missed front end is one of the easiest stops a defense will ever get. A turnover may be forced or unforced. To regain possession with a missed front end, all a team had to do was foul someone and grab the rebound on a missed FT.
Don’t have the data handy to calculate that, but it would be much lower than shots from the floor. Just because the defense is setup to rebound the shot and not recovering or moving.
According to this article, in the 2014/15 season, the offensive rebound rate for FTs was 11.5% and 26% for other shots, though for the latter the number was dependent on shot distance.
Aside from the various reasons already given that while a missed front end is bad, it is not identical to a TO, is that it has created a foul by the other team, which puts your team closer to the double bonus and could lead to a player on the other team being benched/fouling out/playing more hesitantly on defense.
Those numbers are a bit low for NCAA (they are from the NBA). The NCAA avg for offensive rebounding rate is 29.2 and that includes FTA and FGA. But I’d expect the ratio to be somewhat similar.
For team statistical purposes, I’d like to see a missed front end of a 1-and-1 counted as an 0-for-2 on the team FT totals. Count it as a missed team FT (much like there are team rebounds). To me that would give a better accounting of points missed by poor shooting.
I’d like to see them get rid of the 1-and-1. If a team shoots 70% from the line (about average), the expected value of the 1-and-1 is 1.19. That’s good across a game, but isn’t a huge reward, especially when you consider it eliminates the chance of scoring 3, has the other team have a 51% chance of scoring 1 point or less, improves your ability to get the rebound, and stops the clock.
It doesn’t discourage fouling enough and gives teams who play it right a disproportionate chance of making a comeback late, particularly when a team can influence or even choose who on the other team shoots the FTs. Just go right to the double bonus even if it’s a foul or two later. It might lessen the chance of exciting comebacks, I guess, but would reward and encourage good basketball.
Sure, it’s an additional foul. But it’s a free defensive stop if you miss the front end. I’ve said all I’m going to say about this, I think those who wanted to see my point.
Actually, I will add one thing, since people seem to want to weigh every aspect of this. Missing the front end of a one and one is deadly for another reason. It puts you back on defense immediately. This is an essential part of understanding what is actually happening in a game. It’s why defensive stops are at such a premium. And offensive rebounds (they extend defensive possessions). Playing defense is grueling, both physically and mentally. A possession that ends in a 1 and 1 often doesn’t take up that much of a shot clock. So the defending team didn’t have to exert much on that defensive possession. And the team that got fouled may be coming off of 30 seconds of intense defending and now has to do it all over again. Sure, the game stops briefly for the single free throw, but that’s a much shorter stop than the pause for double free throws. Back to back defensive possessions are momentum builders for the other team. And it’s not as bad, but it’s similar to guys getting stuck on the ice in the defensive zone in hockey. Defense breaks down when you have to play too much of it. True in all sports.
I like the pressure of having to hit the front end of the 1 and 1. It drives me utterly bonkers when my team misses the first shot, but late game basketball is all about how you handle pressure. It’s a moment guys either step up to or come up short in the face of, and that’s exciting.
This is a better argument for why they should eliminate the 1-and-1 (rewards fouling) than why a missed front-end is more like a TO than a missed shot – which are different in a number of ways that several posters have pointed out. Also, possessions that result in 1-and-1s are only necessarily short if they arise from end of the game intentional fouling. It also allows you to set your defense, unlike a TO or even a missed FG.
I don’t know the math, and they can certainly occur in late shot clock situations, but they seem to frequently occur early shot clock (keep in mind that they are, by definition, non shooting fouls). You seem a bit fixated on the notion that I have no point if the two things are not completely identical. I mean, fine, fraternal twins, but not identical? And you do not get to have your defense set because in a 1 and 1, you have your rebounders going for the potential rebound. So, no.
I would agree that I kind of wouldn’t mind losing the 1 and 1’s that happen prior to the end game, but I still find 1 and 1’s in the last few minutes to be nerve wracking and pretty thrilling. It’s a moment of being put to the sword, and that’s sports.
If it is true that we should not think of missing the front end of 1 and 1 as a turnover, then shouldn’t you adjust the expected value of being rewarded a 1 and 1 in a way that also includes the expected value attached to the offensive rebounds that happen approximately 10 percent of the time when a team shoots a free throw?
It would be an interesting change in the rules if the team awarded a foul was able to choose to forgo actually shooting the 1 and 1 and able to just reset the possession top of the key at their own discretion.
Should we consider missed wide open threes from Steph Curry in the NBA, which certainly have an expected value above most college 1-and-1’s, a turnover? Hell, should we have done that for Nik Stauskas at Michigan? His “expected value” for a three point shot over his career was 1.323, much better than the 1.19 that was calculated for 1-and-1’s. It most likely accounts for any difference in offensive rebounding. So basically, every missed three point shot by Stauskas was LITERALLY a turnover.
Here’s what I think. I think it’s a laughable stretch to say any shot with any expected value is the exact same as a turnover, which always have an expected value of zero, and I think this is a really dumb debate to be having.
I am not sure if you understood the intent of my comment. I think Dylan was right to suggest we frame this discussion in terms of expected value. Following that suggestion, I was simply pointing out that if a person is resistant to comparing missing the front end of a 1 on 1 to a turnover, then, one might expect that person, when discussing the expected value of a 1 and 1, would also incorporate the expected value of the 10 percent chance at an offensive rebound on the missed foul shot. So, I am pointing out that one of the differentiators (the 10 percent chance of an offensive rebound) was not included. I was also trying to imply that there might be reason that the differentiator was not included—because it is negligible. The devil is in the details sort of thing—not including the differentiator when expressing the expected value of a 1 and 1 hints to the fact that for practical purposes most people agree with realmirman whether they themselves realize it or not.
Your asking me about Steph Curry missing 3 pointers is weird.
And I’m saying that if we’re talking about expected value, you lose more expected value from a Nik Stauskas in college missed three, so why aren’t you trying to call those equivalent to turnovers?
You trying to say any missed shot is the same as a turnover is weird and wrong.
I am pretty sure only one person has said that missing the front end of a 1 and 1 is the same as missing any other shot. That person was you. You are right, in the context of this conversation it is a very weird thing to say.
Haha, what? What are you even talking about? We’re talking about if it’s the same exact thing as a turnover. That’s what started this conversation, and that’s what is being debated. And it’s incorrect.
Again, you lose a higher expected value from a missed wide open three from good shooters than you do from missing the front end of a 1-and-1. It’s stupid to try and argue which kind of shot miss is worse. It’s incredibly complex and there’s probably no answer. It’s even dumber to try and argue that any shot miss is effectively equivalent to a turnover.
I can’t say that I have gotten into ALL of this conversation, but in the Women’s NCAA game they have gone away from 1 and 1’s. I believe they play 10 minute quarters, shooting 2 shots on all fouls after the 5th team foul of each quarter. Should this be a model the men’s game goes to?
I would think that would favor a team like Michigan who doesn’t foul much and would punish a physical team like MSU because the foul situation is a bit more punitive. Plus this would get rid of the whole 1 and 1 debate we have going on!