Why Not a Designated FT Shooter?

[huskyd]

I'm pleased that despite my fading eyesight, most of us who watched the Ft. Hays game saw the same things. One of those was UConn's on-going struggle with FTs.

So, I was thinking (dangerous territory according to my wife): what if wcbb created a Designated FT Shooter rule? Teams would list before each game at least a small number of players on their team who would take all of game's free throws. Only players eligible to play in a game (ie, no one disqualified for any reason including fouling out) could be used. And whether or not a designated shooter is actually employed would be a coach's decision. (No need to use anyone to shoot FTs for Azzi or Paige.)

When the leagues removed the 1 and 1, it made free throws even more important. Now everyone gets two goes regardless of a missed first try. And, of course, games can be won or lost at the end by the success or failure to sink FTs.

What would such a new rule accomplish? For one it would prevent a Hack-a-Shaq strategy in which the opponent's weakest FT shooter is intentionally fouled in a decisive moment. It would mean that teams could keep their best players on the court in critical situations even if those players were poor FT shooters. The net effect would be to permit teams to win by strengths instead of losing by weaknesses.

Ideally, every player would be versatile enough to do everything required of her, including shoot FTs. I suppose you could also argue that teams w/out good all-around players shouldn't win in the first place. But there's a significant difference, for example, between a team winning a game with a last minute score, and one that falls flat because of a missed FT.

Baseball adopted the DH rule; why not a DFTS rule?

 

[nwhoopfan]

Why should poor FT shooters be protected? Get better at shooting FTs, sit on the bench at crunch time. or live w/ the uncertainty and Hack-a-Shack strategies.

 

[MD#12Fan]

I'm pleased that despite my fading eyesight, most of us who watched the Ft. Hays game saw the same things. One of those was UConn's on-going struggle with FTs.

So, I was thinking (dangerous territory according to my wife): what if wcbb created a Designated FT Shooter rule? Teams would list before each game at least a small number of players on their team who would take all of game's free throws. Only players eligible to play in a game (ie, no one disqualified for any reason including fouling out) could be used. And whether or not a designated shooter is actually employed would be a coach's decision. (No need to use anyone to shoot FTs for Azzi or Paige.)

When the leagues removed the 1 and 1, it made free throws even more important. Now everyone gets two goes regardless of a missed first try. And, of course, games can be won or lost at the end by the success or failure to sink FTs.

What would such a new rule accomplish? For one it would prevent a Hack-a-Shaq strategy in which the opponent's weakest FT shooter is intentionally fouled in a decisive moment. It would mean that teams could keep their best players on the court in critical situations even if those players were poor FT shooters. The net effect would be to permit teams to win by strengths instead of losing by weaknesses.

Ideally, every player would be versatile enough to do everything required of her, including shoot FTs. I suppose you could also argue that teams w/out good all-around players shouldn't win in the first place. But there's a significant difference, for example, between a team winning a game with a last minute score, and one that falls flat because of a missed FT.

Baseball adopted the DH rule; why not a DFTS rule?

One of the best aspects of basketball, even today with 3-point shooting dominating, is that players have to be versatile, they have to have all the skills to be most effective. No long snappers or designated hitters.
BTW I've called for designated putters in golf for years. I'd be pretty good without the 3-putts.

 

[and one]

No way. Why? See @nwhoopfan above. Plus the average team FTP would be in the upper 80s or better. The NFL moved the extra point kick back so it wasn't so automatic. Don't want to be a hack-a-shaq victim? Practice, practice, practice.

 

[Centerstream]

But that would negate the traditional "who will be (intentionally?) fouled" as time and possessions are winding down. However, being a UConn fan, this doesn't happen very often.

 

[Dokey]

If you initiated this policy in WNBA, Arike, would be on bench. Drawing fouls is her game. Seriously, players earn trips to charity stripe with aggressive play and should be rewarded.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Think what it would do to scoring averages as well. If 1 or 2 players got to take all of their team's FTs, you'd start seeing 30+ ppg averages routinely, grossly inflated. All scoring records would have to have huge asterisks next to them.

 

[jchusky]

aside Dorka, the other players missing ft I don't think it's technique I think it's mentality. Rest assured if this does not improve for the players, other teams are going to keep fouling them and sending them to the ft line.

 

[Zanzman]

aside Dorka, the other players missing ft I don't think it's technique I think it's mentality. Rest assured if this does not improve for the players, other teams are going to keep fouling them and sending them to the ft line.

And the other teams will run out if players

 

[Sonny44]

I'm pleased that despite my fading eyesight, most of us who watched the Ft. Hays game saw the same things. One of those was UConn's on-going struggle with FTs.

So, I was thinking (dangerous territory according to my wife): what if wcbb created a Designated FT Shooter rule? Teams would list before each game at least a small number of players on their team who would take all of game's free throws. Only players eligible to play in a game (ie, no one disqualified for any reason including fouling out) could be used. And whether or not a designated shooter is actually employed would be a coach's decision. (No need to use anyone to shoot FTs for Azzi or Paige.)

When the leagues removed the 1 and 1, it made free throws even more important. Now everyone gets two goes regardless of a missed first try. And, of course, games can be won or lost at the end by the success or failure to sink FTs.

What would such a new rule accomplish? For one it would prevent a Hack-a-Shaq strategy in which the opponent's weakest FT shooter is intentionally fouled in a decisive moment. It would mean that teams could keep their best players on the court in critical situations even if those players were poor FT shooters. The net effect would be to permit teams to win by strengths instead of losing by weaknesses.

Ideally, every player would be versatile enough to do everything required of her, including shoot FTs. I suppose you could also argue that teams w/out good all-around players shouldn't win in the first place. But there's a significant difference, for example, between a team winning a game with a last minute score, and one that falls flat because of a missed FT.

Baseball adopted the DH rule; why not a DFTS rule?

Actually your idea is not new. Back in the early part of the previous century that was the rule. My grandfather, being quite short didn't see much action on the court, was the designated free throw shooter for the Potsdam NY HS team. During one half time he made 64 straight foul shots just to entertain the fans. If I'm not mistaken, I don't think he had to be in the game; he came in off the bench to take all the foul shots.

Anecdote #1.
This HS team was so good that they usually beat the college teams around, often winning by scores of 100 - 10 or so.
Don't believe me? Well, there was another rule; after every basket there was a jump ball so if you could control the jump, you always had the ball.
I saw some of the wrinkled oldnewspaper clippings. Unfortunately, when my Grandfather died they they were gone forever.

Anecdote #2.
One other story he told me. They were beating the c**p out of one college team when their adversaries started throwing, elbows, punches, beating them up, etc. After the half his coach told the college coach that if they don't stop the violence he wouldn't let them touch the ball in the second half. They didn't, and they didn't.

 

[jchusky]

But that would negate the traditional "who will be (intentionally?) fouled" as time and possessions are winding down. However, being a UConn fan, this doesn't happen very often.

that's why I don't see Dorka playing in the last few minutes of big games down the road. Any team will just try to swipe her and send her to the ft line and keep the ball out of Paige or Williams.

 

[Plebe]

So, I was thinking (dangerous territory according to my wife): what if wcbb created a Designated FT Shooter rule?

Aside from the merits of such a rule change, it would make no sense for only WCBB to decide this. It'd need to be changed at all levels of basketball, starting with FIBA and WNBA on down, to make any sense at all.

Otherwise you could have players turning pro without having shot a single free throw in their entire college career.

 

[eebmg]

or a (DD) Designated Dunker.

Can earn your foul points by Dunking if you choose. Oh, I forgot, we are getting Ayanna with Amari

 

[Stymie]

Who to foul and whose hands to get the ball to is an integral part of late game strategy in close games.
Why remove it?
If Dorka or any other player can’t hit those shots, either they’ll have to improve or be pulled in those situations.
Simple as that.
Change the rules???
Sound like crybabies.

 

[Stymie]

Simple strategy, because of UCONN’s depth, may be to let the opposition foul out trying to send her to the line.
UCONN has very capable 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th (?) options for the 4-5 spots.
Eventually, the opposition will have players fouling out, multiple players on the floor with 4 fouls and end of bench players on the floor at crunch time.
BTW- in limited time on the floor, Deberry was a real physical presence. Tremendous upside.
Will be a force sooner than anticipated.

 

[Centerstream]

that's why I don't see Dorka playing in the last few minutes of big games down the road. Any team will just try to swipe her and send her to the ft line and keep the ball out of Paige or Williams.

You say this after 1 game or was this her M.O. at OSU?

 

[jchusky]

You say this after 1 game or was this her M.O. at OSU?

this was before a meaningless exhibition game

 

[jchusky]

And the other teams will run out if players

Stanford who carries 17 players is gonna run out of players?

 

[Zanzman]

Stanford who carries 17 players is gonna run out of players?

With your theory of fouling sounds like it

 

[jchusky]

With your theory of fouling sounds like it

I'm stating that in a close game in the 4th coaches are gonna know if she is on the floor and she has a bad free throw % they are going to foul. They can do this with a player off the bench to do it that hardly plays or someone that doesn't have a high foul count. If she doesn't improve over the span of the season I find it hard to believe that Geno is gonna risk putting her in crunch time minutes.

 

[Zanzman]

Did Phil bench Shaq?

 

[D J B]

I'm pleased that despite my fading eyesight, most of us who watched the Ft. Hays game saw the same things. One of those was UConn's on-going struggle with FTs.

So, I was thinking (dangerous territory according to my wife): what if wcbb created a Designated FT Shooter rule? Teams would list before each game at least a small number of players on their team who would take all of game's free throws. Only players eligible to play in a game (ie, no one disqualified for any reason including fouling out) could be used. And whether or not a designated shooter is actually employed would be a coach's decision. (No need to use anyone to shoot FTs for Azzi or Paige.)

When the leagues removed the 1 and 1, it made free throws even more important. Now everyone gets two goes regardless of a missed first try. And, of course, games can be won or lost at the end by the success or failure to sink FTs.

What would such a new rule accomplish? For one it would prevent a Hack-a-Shaq strategy in which the opponent's weakest FT shooter is intentionally fouled in a decisive moment. It would mean that teams could keep their best players on the court in critical situations even if those players were poor FT shooters. The net effect would be to permit teams to win by strengths instead of losing by weaknesses.

Ideally, every player would be versatile enough to do everything required of her, including shoot FTs. I suppose you could also argue that teams w/out good all-around players shouldn't win in the first place. But there's a significant difference, for example, between a team winning a game with a last minute score, and one that falls flat because of a missed FT.

Baseball adopted the DH rule; why not a DFTS rule?

No. Just no. If it ain't broke....

 

[Aluminny69]

Why should poor FT shooters be protected? Get better at shooting FTs, sit on the bench at crunch time. or live w/ the uncertainty and Hack-a-Shack strategies.

It's exactly this way in Soccer. The Coach gets to pick who takes a penalty kick, limited to who was on the field. The same for shootouts at the end of tie games. If Soccer fans were being consistent, they would welcome this rule change.

 

[Vowelguy]

Rest assured if this does not improve for the players, .

The “this” being the sample of one exhibition game?

 

[nwhoopfan]

It's exactly this way in Soccer. The Coach gets to pick who takes a penalty kick, limited to who was on the field. The same for shootouts at the end of tie games. If Soccer fans were being consistent, they would welcome this rule change.

Well I'm not a soccer fan, so this doesn't apply to me.

I gotta think penalty kicks occur less frequently than FTs, so it's not an exact comparison. End of game shootouts have literally no comparable component in basketball. In basketball a coach gets to choose who shoots FTs following a technical foul. Also if the player who was fouled is injured and has to leave the game, the coach can select the replacement shooter.