https://www.swish22.com/store/#!/Store/c/11391505/offset=0&sort=normal

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5717585&forum_id=2:#48887792)

Multiple players in division 1 shoot over 90% FT and don’t sniff the NBA. Exponentially more over 85%.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5717585&forum_id=2:#48888023)

the best free throw shooters is probably some 300lb autist that can't do a lap around the court without getting winded.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5717585&forum_id=2:#48888052)

Michael Jordan had a career 83.5% free throw percentage

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5717585&forum_id=2:#48890760)

Lol at the fags itt that cant make fucking free throws.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5717585&forum_id=2:#48887774)

Would you hit 70+ today? Going from that to 80 sounds possible.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5717585&forum_id=2:#48888016)

5’10” white dude who can shoot FTs at 85% and hit open threes over half the time still has no chance to make a team without having a base level of athleticism that most don’t have.

Also, your math seems off to me. A 70% FT shooter has a far greater than 2% chance of making at least 80 out of 100 I think right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5717585&forum_id=2:#48888135)

i agreed with you there but you also have to admit that basketball players shooting ability is a major factor and they can expect to be well above average even when factoring in strenous practice. while some people who could not compete in the nba will have better average free throw, most people will not regardless of how much they train.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5717585&forum_id=2:#48888320)

i doubt very much that if pros are shooting 75% that many amateurs are hitting above that even in ideal conditions and after getting into a groove.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5717585&forum_id=2:#48890215)

it makes sense that a C who is going to get fouled a lot and play defensively would have such a big swing between practice and game FT%. but notice that howard is still only hitting 82%. meaning a SG like kobe is only hitting 91% in practice conditions.

now consider that if bryant, a generational shooting talent, is hitting 9 out of 10. and howard, also a generational talent, who has practiced shooting 500x more than someone could in a month, is only hitting 8 out of 10, what the odds are that some balding lawyer is hitting anywhere close to that even after practicing for a month?

~80% is considered a good shooter in practice at the college level. no, your average balding lawyer is not getting anywhere close to that in a month.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5717585&forum_id=2:#48890354)

We’re saying that a 70% shooter making 80+ FTs out of 100 is nearly 3 standard deviations off? I’ll have to accept it because I’ve lost the capability to calculate this sort of thing myself after senior year of college.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5717585&forum_id=2:#48889093)

the larger the sample size, the more unlikely it is for the results to deviate from the true odds. our brains are great at heuristics and see 70% and 80% as roughly the same. and so we think a 70% chance might happen 80% more often than 1 out of 50. after all, it'll often happen 5 times in a row, so surely the sequence where it hits 80 out of 100 is more than 2%? but it's not. it's just math, and it's how casinos make money while all the players still feel like they're winning.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5717585&forum_id=2:#48890206)

Would depend on the finer details.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5717585&forum_id=2:#48888031)

Everyone quoting the low percentages for college/NBA players doesn't understand that shooting freethrows at irregular intervals between sprinting around is way different from 100 in a row in an empty gym. I'm sure game conditions would take 10% off for me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5717585&forum_id=2:#48888326)

The average FT percentge of the worst DIII teams is about 60% and it's 70% for the average team.

So an xo poster hitting 80/100 in an empty gym is actually not as crazy as a lot of other sports hypos posted here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5717585&forum_id=2:#48889558)

Its far easier to get in a good shooting rhythm in a gym by yourself than it is to do so in a game. Thats why you see video clips of d-1 and pro players hitting dozens of shots in a row in practice but shooting at a far lower percentage in a game.

Anybody that played basketball competitively, shot well, and still has good shooting form could likely do this with a month of dedicated practice.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5717585&forum_id=2:#48888996)

people tend to have cognitive biases predicting events involving high or low likelihood events. if you're shooting 70% of your free throws you'll often been hitting 5 in a row, so it's easy to think "sure i could hit 80 out of a 100", but the statistical odds of that happening are very low over a sample size that large.

bowling is probably the best example because it's essentially the same as free throw shooting in terms of getting into a groove making the same shot. a bowler rolls a strike about 60% of the time. perfect 300 (12 strikes in a row) games happen frequently. 900s (36 strikes) happen too, but much more rarely. and bowling 80 out of 100 shots strikes almost never happens. but after a 900 an observer might think "oh they could definitely hit 80 out of 100". it's a similar cognitive bias to think watching a coin land on heads 5 times in a row and thinking "tails is due", except that in high chance situations our brains tend to expect the probable outcome happening more frequently than it actually does.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5717585&forum_id=2:#48889857)