Is He Cured?

[lethalweapon3]

...Free Throws!

Josh has been quietly and smoovely sinking his shots from the charity stripe this year, and he seems to be better than ever at doing so.

In January, he closed out the month with eleven straight free throws made, resulting in a 51-for-63 (81.0%) performance.

The prior month, he went 47-for-70 (67.1%), and 48-for-66 (72.7%) prior to that.

Any of those figures are a long way from the nadir he reached in 2008-09 (58.8%). His present season-long rate (73.4%) would be a career high, surpassing his sophomore season (2005-06) clip of 71.9%.

Is it safe to assume Josh no longer wears the albatross of Shaqish free throw shooting, a deficiency once seen by many fans (yours truly included) to be another "lost cause" for him?

Have his mechanics clearly improved, and is that more attributable to feedback from ex-staffer Mark Price, or the Hoops Whisperer, or someone else?

And if Josh is indeed getting his groove back, should it change the team's offensive strategies at all? His free throw attempt rate is nearly as low as it was back in 2005-06.

~lw3

[cam1218]

...Free Throws!

Josh has been quietly and smoovely sinking his shots from the charity stripe this year, and he seems to be better than ever at doing so.

In January, he closed out the month with eleven straight free throws made, resulting in a 51-for-63 (81.0%) performance.

The prior month, he went 47-for-70 (67.1%), and 48-for-66 (72.7%) prior to that.

Any of those figures are a long way from the nadir he reached in 2008-09 (58.8%). His present season-long rate (73.4%) would be a career high, surpassing his sophomore season (2005-06) clip of 71.9%.

Is it safe to assume Josh no longer wears the albatross of Shaqish free throw shooting, a deficiency once seen by many fans (yours truly included) to be another "lost cause" for him?

Have his mechanics clearly improved, and is that more attributable to feedback from ex-staffer Mark Price, or the Hoops Whisperer, or someone else?

And if Josh is indeed getting his groove back, should it change the team's offensive strategies at all? His free throw attempt rate is nearly as low as it was back in 2005-06.

~lw3

Free throws? Josh isn't going to break Jamal or Reggie Millers record of free throws after a made three point shot. He isn't going to break it shooting jumpers either. I'm glad he is shooting those frees like he did a couple of years ago but he isn't really getting to the line on a consistent basis.

[AHF]

Free throws? Josh isn't going to break Jamal or Reggie Millers record of free throws after a made three point shot. He isn't going to break it shooting jumpers either. I'm glad he is shooting those frees like he did a couple of years ago but he isn't really getting to the line on a consistent basis.

Like you say, he won't draw the necessary contact shooting jumpers and would surely help his cause if he endeared himself a bit more to the refs.

[coachx]

Its so tragic and frustrating to watch a player that plays to their weaknesses rather then their strengths.

[lethalweapon3]

And if Josh is indeed getting his groove back, should it change the team's offensive strategies at all? His free throw attempt rate is nearly as low as it was back in 2005-06.

~lw3

Based on the responses, sounds like the answer is "yes," so far.

More specifically, it sounds like the onus is on Josh to drive more from the wing and post-up more often to get to the line, now that free throw shooting is no longer a strong liability, rather than forcing LD and company to "live with" his perimeter shots.

He appears comfortable taking initiative to bring the ball up the floor, when he has a little space and not much pressure, so his next step is to take the initiative to drive the ball to the rim from the perimeter instead of taking so many predictable jumpshots. My theory is he remains uncomfortable with his ballhandling, and compensates by shooting (and dribbling) wherever he is most likely to be free of his defender. If the coaching staff is helping him with his ballhandling, we may very well see another positive transformation in the near future.

And yes, playing nicer with the refs may help, too. Not crying wolf and screaming on every alleged hack may also cause refs to come around and blow the whistle more favorably.

~lw3

[lethalweapon3]

On the subject of Great Free Throw Transformations, how about the Chuck Wagon? The guy who used to shoot like this...

...has gone from 36.8% shooting two seasons ago (a merciful 0.3 FTAs per game) to 71.2% currently (1.7 FTAs per game). Amazing!

~lw3

[AHF]

Hayes has one heck of a work ethic. Great "glue" piece for Houston.

[JackB1]

Josh is making 7 out of 10 free throws now! YAH!!!!! :thumbsupsmileyanim:

Too bad every time he forces up an ill advised shot that bricks off the rim, it's like he just missed 2 out of 2 foul shots.

The foul line is the perfect place for Josh...no thinking needed. Just shoot the ball in the hole.

Edited February 2, 2011 by JackB1

[AHF]

You say that as if his work ethic has something to do with how well he shoots free throws. As we all know from previous discussions, it has absolutely nothing to do with shooting free throws.

Clearly Josh's improvement from the line has nothing to do with how hard he works at free throws, its simply that an Indian healer resolved the mental block he had which released the evil spirits causing his decline in free throw percentage. Making an argument about work effort and how people respond to incentives in wages is pure tom foolery!

/sarcasm.

Strange that Chuck Hayes FT% has suddenly increased now that he is in a contract year. Funny that his initial large decline in FT% was precluded by him signing a 4 year guaranteed contract. I wonder if there were some sort of a way to explain this behavior in a rational way that has to do with incentive structure and tieing effort into FT%? Well that would just be pure craziness to explain this in such a way, lets just all agree this is Evil Indian Spirits haunting players at the free throw line, ok?

It certainly represents the work Josh has put in as well. There is nothing but upside to Josh improving his FT shooting. He definitely should be consistent at the line if he thinks he is up to shooting long perimeter jumpers.

With Hayes, it had to be something mental in the NBA. He shot 73% over 4 years at Kentucky. I mentioned the hard working bit mostly because the guy is just a beast with respect to his effort.

[AHF]

What it appears to me is you are willing to accept that increased work on free throws will lead to better free throw percentage and lower variance. However, when I mention less effort being exerted it appears you go "oh no, it cannot be that it has to be some mental block". To me this is a failure to understand the entire situation.

In my mind this is similar to a situation about increasing the number of safety features in a car will induce more risky driving. When people are confronted with this their initial reaction is "oh no, this is crap! I drive the exact same safetywise whether my car has dual side airbags or not". However if I present the idea telling someone that they will drive much more cautiously if I put a spear sticking out of the steering wheel then the reaction is typically "well of course that is the case! I don't want to die from a fender bender". But these are the two sides of the same coin. Same with free throws and effort. Give someone a large guaranteed contract and their effort at the free throw line will diminish, all else equal.

Claiming "mental block" is an unfalsifiable claim. Much like explaining gravity by saying "an indivisible little man goes over to the object and throws it to the ground at 9.8 m/s^2!" One cannot disprove this because no one can see this invisible little man. Without a clear link to a mental block (like Nick Anderson choking in the Finals, a pretty compelling reason) then that is just an unfalsifiable claim that doesn't carry much weight as being a valid reason for a clear downturn in performance. If "mental block" is the best way to describe the situation, then we should just describe every mistake made by players as a "mental block". Shawn Kemp getting fat? "Mental block". Vin Baker getting fat and missing tons of free throws? "Mental block". Jason Williams not making it in the league after his motorcycle accident? "Mental block".

It is asinine to think that it is a lack of practice that takes a guy from a 73% shooter over 4 years of college to a 37% shooter a few years later in the NBA. There is not way that level of deterioration is due to lack of work - particularly when this is during the same time period where his coach and NBA commentators single him out for working hard.

You could take people on this board who haven't played serious basketball for the last 5 years and they could shoot better than 37%.

I do think that hard work can improve form, etc. but the kind of thing that takes a guy like Nick Anderson or Chuck Hayes down to the level they were at is more mental than physical, IMO.

If you have any evidence he wasn't working on his free throws during that time, though, feel free to share.

[exodus]

Looks like hawksfanatic is still butthurt that his nonsensical theory about free throws being related to salary got punked.

Based on his "logic" there is no reason for Smith's foul shooting to go up 10% this year since his contract isn't up until 2013. But of course he will ignore this just like he ignores the fact that during first month of his new contract Smith was fine from the line.

Bibby is having the worst foul shooting season of his career this year, shooting 20% worse than last year. I bet Mr Math Wiz won't touch that one.

He didnt make any sense before so i guess there is no reason for him to start making sense now.

Edited February 3, 2011 by exodus

[AHF]

Oh yes, "mental block" makes much more sense than looking at the facts that Hayes started to decline FT% right after his 4 year guaranteed contract and now he is in a contract year. From now on anytime something goes wrong at all then we shall just deem it a "mental block".

And to respond to your asinine statement of "if you have any evidence.." where exactly is your evidence of this "mental block"? Your explanation isn't an explanation, its an unfalsifiable claim that makes no sense. In effect, you are begging the question by claiming "mental block" which you don't give any justification from. Why did free throw percentage decline? Errr...because some magical event (that we can never see or know or explain how it affects someone) made his free throw percentage decline. Wonderful, you've essentially said nothing but fluff while at the same time dismissing the idea that people exert less effort when their incentive scheme is fixed.

I fundamentally reject the idea that a drop from 73% to 37% for a player known for working hard during that time was due to less effort exerted. This isn't a 10 point swing in ft%, it is moving from the normal range to worst in the league and then back again to the normal range this year. Rebounding and other skills can vary dramatically with effort but there is no reason to think that someone's free throw stroke deteriorates to historic lows if they drop off their conditioning.

I don't reject the idea that effort may vary for players and that effort can impact ft%. I reject the idea that a dropoff from 73% to 37% for a player known for having an impressive work ethic is due to slacking off. You don't last long as the shortest center in NBA history as a slacker.

His coaches and teammates clearly say the opposite:

“He's a competitor,” Rockets assistant coach Elston Turner said. “It's the way he competes every night. It's the way he's coachable and knowledgeable. Those are things we love. When you can compete, sometimes it doesn't matter if you're undersized. Sometimes winning and losing is just a matter of who plays the hardest.”

“It's a pleasure to play with him,” Scola said. “He plays hard. He does everything a basketball player should do. He's a great teammate.”

The press seems to be in agreement:

By RICHARD JUSTICE Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle

All Chuck Hayes proves is that guys who care and work hard can still do special things.

I've never seen a quote questioning his work ethic. Trying to compare him to Vin Baker does your argument a grave disservice.

And, of course, there were reports that he was struggling mentally with his shot:

He had completely lost confidence in his shot -- even in his ability to make layups -- and his reluctance to shoot made him a colossal liability.

Edited February 3, 2011 by AHF

[AHF]

For some reason you also appear to be concluding that free throws involve no effort while rebounding and defense do. Well in the actual live game sense, yes this is true. However, that is not the effort I am talking about. I am talking about practicing before games and putting in your time to be successful. When someone skimps on effort, typically free throws are the first to go because they are the hardest to observe someone putting effort into them. Do coaches ever watch at practice whether or not someone is putting effort into free throws? I've never heard of a coach yelling "Hey Chuck YOU NEED TO FOLLOW THROUGH at the line" while I have heard of coaches yelling "Hey Chuck BOX OUT!"

I didn't say they involved no effort. What I said was that skimping on free throw practice -- which we have no reason to think has happened with Chuck other than results -- would not account for the kind of fall-off he saw in the 30's and 40's ft%.

Yeah I guess the human incentive scheme just doesn't apply to Chuckles, I mean it just cannot be that he ever slacks off! Just like it cannot be possible that someone as kind and upstanding as Tiger could ever cheat on his wife! I mean from everything I've heard he is a great citizen!

I am saying your premise is faulty.

First, as I said above, I don't believe that a negative 30+ point shift in ft% is going to be primarily attributable to work ethic for a professional basketball player. Guys who put in the time to play in a church league can better that.

Second, you are arguing that even in the absence of any evidence that Chuck didn't adequately practice that we should assume he dropped to the 30's and 40's ft% because it happened at a time when he had a guaranteed contract rather than during the years when he was lauded for his work ethic and leadership at Kentucky, lauded for his work ethic and leadership on the USA Pan-Am team, working his way out of the NBADL, and during the time he was lauded for work ethic and leadership in Houston. I don't think that is anything but a circular argument:

Coaches rarely talk bad about a player's work ethic unless it has gotten so bad that they can no longer take it. And like I have said, its relatively easy to slack off on working your free throws because people don't monitor you.

We aren't talking about someone the coaches have merely not bashed. Plaeyers and coaches have gone out of their way to praise his work ethic for years. This is a guy that Tom Izzo said he would "give his right arm to have." It wasn't because of his incredible natural talents, but rather his determination and leadership.

You have picked a bad example here without any evidence of bad practice habits other than "the results show he must not have been practicing."

Yet your claim of "mental block" is still a non-reason. Why is his free throw percentage down? Well, because a "mental block" is decreasing his free throw percentage. OK, that is begging the question while at the same time you completely dismiss the idea of this being an incentive based issue. Why can't it be incentive based? Well...Chuckie could never do that!

I didn't completely dismiss the idea of incentives relating to free throw percentage. I said that:

a) the swing in % was too great from 8 years or whatever the exact number was of 60+ and 70+ seasons to be accounted for by the amount of practice;

b) there is no direct evidence of bad practice habits for Chuck;

and

c) there is a lot of evidence that coaches from Tubby Smith and Tom Izzo to his NBA coaches have raved about his work ethic and leadership which would be seemingly inconsistent with the idea that he so severely stopped practicing his free throws that his %s dropped into the 30's and 40's range.

Looking at our Hawks I am not seeing a strong case that incentives clearly drive performance in ft%:

Bibby has little correlation between his contract status and ft%. (His career high last year was immediately after signing a new contract, for example).

JJ is in the same boat. (His then career high came after his new contract in Atlanta and his % has never spiked in a contract year).

Josh's career high came in the middle of a contract - not a contract year.

Jamal has been very consistent and his career high was in the middle of a contract.

Zaza's career high came in the middle of a contract.

Al Horford's career high has come this season after signing a new contract.

Marvin's contract year was his worst ft% out of the last 5 - his career high seasons have all come in the middle of his contract and his numbers overall have shown little variation.

Etc.

[NineOhTheRino]

off topic but...

I wonder why Josh made the long-2 and 3pt his shot instead of the 10-15 footer like Al. Just strange for a naturally poor shooter to work on the hardest shot first.

Edited February 3, 2011 by NineOhTheRino

[AHF]

off topic but...

I wonder why Josh made the long-2 and 3pt his shot instead of the 10-15 footer like Al. Just strange for a naturally poor shooter to work on the hardest shot first.

Just my speculation, but I think he has always envisioned himself draining 3's. Josh is a guy with a flair for the dramatic and hitting a bit 3 is much more dramatic than a 10-15 footer. Also, if you are reasonably competent with both shots most guys hit a higher efg% on their 3's and the deeper perimeter shooting spreads the floor for others if the opponent respects the shot so it makes some sense. Rick Pitino's philosophy was to have every shot as either a 3 or a dunk in an ideal world. I think Josh saw himself doing both of those things.

[frosgrim]

Just my speculation, but I think he has always envisioned himself draining 3's. Josh is a guy with a flair for the dramatic and hitting a bit 3 is much more dramatic than a 10-15 footer. Also, if you are reasonably competent with both shots most guys hit a higher efg% on their 3's and the deeper perimeter shooting spreads the floor for others if the opponent respects the shot so it makes some sense. Rick Pitino's philosophy was to have every shot as either a 3 or a dunk in an ideal world. I think Josh saw himself doing both of those things.

That makes sense to me. Esp. Josh's love for the dramatic, game-winning play (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does need to be contained to be within the team philosophy).

[JackB1]

Funny thiing about Josh is he always says in interviews "We play best when we all share the ball".

So why doesn't he do that all the time? Josh played perfectly last night. He only took a couple of bad shots

and stayed in control. Why does his brain turn itself off sometimes?

[AHF]

What are you saying? To me you have yet to address the issue without begging the question. You dismiss my argument for lack of evidence (not true because my argument is focused on observables like contract status) while at the same time you argue for a completely latent variable. You are pointing to "flaws" in my argument where if you turn around and look at "mental block" you should realize that your story has 0 evidence and can never have evidence. So we dismiss my argument for "lack of evidence" to then accept an argument that cannot ever have evidence?

Let me ask you a question, why would a contract have incentives built in it?

I think you can influence free throw percentage and other performance numbers by practice and preparation. I also think that mental issues with things can be very real. An easy example is Dale Murphy having trouble throwing the ball back to the pitcher when he was a catcher. Are we really supposed to believe that was because he was lazy and didn't practice throwing to the pitcher enough? The kind of drop in ft% you are talking about with Hayes strikes me as being more akin to that type of mental block.

"Your mind won't let your natural abilities flow," Murphy says. "Your mind interferes, and you start thinking, Where am I throwing? What am I doing? instead of just throwing. Your mind starts working against you."

[What all players with a] mental block have in common is fear. Psychologists call it a fear of failure; athletes, when they acknowledge it at all, call it choking. Stanley says, "Now I see how many guys have it. I never realized before how much of the game is mental. You can see it when guys walk up to the plate, which guys are afraid. I'm sure they could see the fear in my eyes."

Murphy went from being a scatter-armed catcher who endangered his pitchers to a five-time Gold Glove winner in the outfield. "I did start to relax in the outfield," Murphy says. "I realized I could go out and throw it 240 feet. You're not trying to pinpoint it, you just try to get it close."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1139812/index.htm

There is plenty of evidence of these types of situations in sports for players like Hayes and Murphy who no one has ever suggested (other than people like you) have a work ethic problem.

[AHF]

Haha, convenient you dodged my question. But I will assume your answer to why incentives are built into contracts is to avoid the situation of one shirking. One puts an incentive into a contract to induce effort towards that goal. Like Nate Newton having a weight clause in his contract, incentives are built into try and create a scheme that makes sure the contractor puts optimal effort. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. I am not focusing on whether the outcome is desired or not, but if you KNEW someone would not shirk then putting incentives into a contract just don't make sense. If the person never shirks, no need for the incentives so just put down a fixed salary and move on. A lot of this stems from the risk-aversion for individuals.

Nothing with what I have said should make anyone say "oh no, thats not how contract theory operates!" its all a quick summarization of why one would put incentives into contracts. Now you claim Chuck has no work effort problem, so it must not be the case that this is an effort issue. OK well if good ole Chuckie doesn't have a work effort problem, then we should see he has a fixed salary in his contract. Do we?

http://blogs.chron.com/nba/2007/08/sunshine_state_of_mind_for_me.html

Oh my! Chuckles has an incentive based contract? But I thought you said we would never ever ever in a million years ever see Chuckie with an issue for work ethic? If thats the case, then why is it that we see the Houston Rockets structuring his contract with incentives? Cue some excuse of "well, they are trying to reward him in case he becomes really really good as opposed to just really good". Well what would cause that? Some magically ability fairy that gives Chuckie magic powers to be better? You seem to agree with me that this doesn't make sense and a big reason why people improve is that they work hard. But when I suggest that a big reason for why people become worse is that they do not work as hard, you say oh no they definitely work the same so its not effort based (sometimes you retreat from this a little and accept they may work less hard but that doesn't describe their performance completely).

To answer your question, incentives are in there for the teams for the reasons you stated and for players as a way to get more money in the contract. An incentive like "must play 50 games" isn't there to avoid shirking so much as a risk management tool for the team. Without seeing Chuck's incentive package, it is hard to know whether it was something his agent wanted or the team wanted but you can get a lot more money into a conditional contract (i.e., incentive based) than you can an unconditional contract. Are the incentives designed as clauses to improve Chuck's effort or to manage risk/reward?

Incentives are not unusual in contracts for players with weak work ethics for the reasons you mentioned above or in contracts for players with strong work ethics as a risk management tool. You can expect that Yao Ming's next contract will have incentives tied to the number of games he plays and not how much time he spends practicing. Hardworking players like Anderson Varajao get incentives built into their contracts because the team isn't willing to guarantee them the same amount of money regardless of performance that they will give with conditional performance incentives.

The incentives do two other things that make them attractive to agents and players: (1) it makes the total value of the player's contract contracts look larger which feeds the ego and gives them more prestige and (2) it makes the agents look good and helps him build clients. You have incentives in contracts that are clearly not there for any real incentive purpose but are requested by the player and agent to make them feel good reporting the total potential value of the deal.

What is the value of the following incentives for inspiring additional effort from the player?

$1.5 million dollar bonus for Luke Ridnour if he wins Defensive Player of the Year.

$100,000 for Nick Collison if he wins the League MVP

$500,000 for Adonyl Foyle if he wins the League MVP

Those are real incentives from their contracts. Does anyone in the world think that Ridnour is honestly going to spend more time in the gym because he thinks that with a few more hours practice he will be DPOY? No one who isn't delusional can say that with a straight face.

Incentives primarily serve the goals of incenting harder work and managing performance risk but they also are in contracts for a variety of reasons - not the least of which is making someone like Andrew Bogut and his agent look like Bogut signed for $72+ million instead of a contract that only guarantees $60M.

On the issue of tying severe drops in free throw shooting with laziness, I will loop back to the underlying point, though, that I do think that the free throw shooting and throwing to the catcher are largely mental in cases where a player with a track record of being able to perform and working hard falls off a cliff like Murphy and Hayes did.

[AHF]

Chuck has likely and unlikely incentives so one can assume that he has incentives that are not ridiculous like "Wins DPOY" or whatever. As far as a "risk management tool" that doesn't make sense in the context of the CBA. Speedy had no "risk management tool" built in his contract. Did the ASG pay the majority of it? No, they had insurance pick that tab up. Have the Rockets paid the majority of Yao's contract these past seasons? Probably not. So to claim risk management in the context of an NBA contract doesn't make sense in the idea of "risk" being injury. Now it may pertain to another "risk" which would be the risk that Chuckie starts shirking.

And I'm not understanding your claim of "a way to get more money in the contract". What is the way that the player earns more money? Seems to me that this again gets right back to the issue of shirking. The Rockets are constrained by the Salary Cap when making these contracts, so its not like more money is created in the contract. And when the salary cap for a year is looked at, teams are still constrained by whether or not an incentive is likely or not. So if the Rockets/NBA believe the incentive is likely then they factor that into their salary cap as if it has already happened. Again, the mechanism is still to try and induce effort. So I don't know what you mean by this statement as the way I see it it still comes back to effort inducement.

You think a clause that says a player gets additional incentive play for playing in 50 games constitutes an effort inducing clause and not a risk management clause?

We are going to have to agree to disagree if you think insurance alone is enough. You also realize, of course, that insurance doesn't cover many significant injuries. If a player misses 40 games out of a season, that is money the team never sees. Insurance only kicks in if the player misses 41 or more games and only covers the additional games - the first 41 games missed are merely satisfying the deductible. So if a guy misses 50 games, insurance only covers 9 of them.

When Elton Brand missed 74 of 82 games, the Clippers paid 9.2M out of his 15.3M salary.

The risk management rationale is very much a factor in incentives even when you are talking about pure performance as opposed to injury. "Andrew Bogut isn't worth the money he wants because I don't think he is capable of averaging 12 rpg like his agent claims he will average but if he averages 12 rpg then he would be worth more so we'll include an incentive clause that only kicks in if Bogut raises his game. This satisfies Bogut who thinks he will be worth that much and gives us protection if e doesn't meet his performance promises - for any reason." That is a risk management tool. "Andrew Bogut is too lazy on the boards and we need to induce him to try harder. Let's stick in an incentive to get him to work hard." That is an effort inducement tool - which is really a way of saying it is a subcategory of risk management in that it helps manage the risk that the player will shirk.

Both are reasons for the contract.

Give me your best explanation why you think Dale Murphy was a shirker with the Braves when he was a catcher.

Edited February 4, 2011 by AHF