Drummond 'open' to going underhanded at the line

[fpower]

Neither is the arcade game where you physically shoot a basketball at a backboard/hoop.

If you're talking about those pop-a-shot games, the backboards are totally dead. That's different than a real backboard that has some bounce.

[Manocad]

Neither is the arcade game where you physically shoot a basketball at a backboard/hoop.

If you're talking about those pop-a-shot games, the backboards are totally dead. That's different than a real backboard that has some bounce.

No it's not. You hit the center of the square and the odds of a straight on shot going in are pretty good regardless of the shot elevation.

Do you people arguing this have a basketball hoop and have ever played basketball? Seriously. There's a reason that square is there. It's not to tell you that if you put the ball in the center of it your shot is probably NOT going to go in.

[Moses ShamMoses]

Arguing that it's easier to hit a bank shot from the elbow vs. straight on is a pointless tangent...free throws aren't shot from the elbow. And trying to refute it as an option by arguing that no players do it is also pointless because almost no players HAVE to consider it as an option. Simply put, Dre trying to bank his free throws is a very viable option.

Yeah it certainly should be in the mix of viable options. Didn't Eric Montross try banking free throws at one point during this Pistons tenure? I remember him being terrible at it too. IMO stop the madness, just call up Rick Barry already...

[Pharaoh]

Banking it is more likely than underhand IMO

No one shoots granny style so it's completely foreign.

I don't know why anyone is arguing with Manocad - not only is he right but it's the most likely answer to solving Dre's issue

[joedumars1]

From my personal experience I always thought banking ft's are way easier than underhand and seem to be more effective too. I suck at both tho. One of my buddies would always bank in the FT's when we played 21. It would get annoying because you knew it was probably going in, he had it down pretty good. You have some crazy boards happening to on misses.

[fpower]

Neither is the arcade game where you physically shoot a basketball at a backboard/hoop.

If you're talking about those pop-a-shot games, the backboards are totally dead. That's different than a real backboard that has some bounce.

No it's not. You hit the center of the square and the odds of a straight on shot going in are pretty good regardless of the shot elevation.

Do you people arguing this have a basketball hoop and have ever played basketball? Seriously. There's a reason that square is there. It's not to tell you that if you put the ball in the center of it your shot is probably NOT going to go in.

Lol, ok. Then I'll stand corrected. I thought the backboard being dead was a factor there. I'll admit that I've never thought about trying to bank in a free throw myself, so I'll take your word for it. Next time I'm in the gym I'll give it a shot.

[Han Solo]

[Manocad]

If you're talking about those pop-a-shot games, the backboards are totally dead. That's different than a real backboard that has some bounce.

No it's not. You hit the center of the square and the odds of a straight on shot going in are pretty good regardless of the shot elevation.

Do you people arguing this have a basketball hoop and have ever played basketball? Seriously. There's a reason that square is there. It's not to tell you that if you put the ball in the center of it your shot is probably NOT going to go in.

Lol, ok. Then I'll stand corrected. I thought the backboard being dead was a factor there. I'll admit that I've never thought about trying to bank in a free throw myself, so I'll take your word for it. Next time I'm in the gym I'll give it a shot.

The whole point of hitting the center of the square is that the "shot" then becomes incredibly short. If you hit the center of the square it's literally 12 inches to the center of the hoop. Therefore the elevation of the shot and deadness of the backboard have very little effect.

[Manocad]

JACKIE F***ING MOON, BITCHES

[Navas]

At some point, we might have to accept the fact that he's not a great free throw shooter. As for underhand, it's very awkward to shoot with.

That said, I won't be surprised if something's done about the overuse of the free throw rules this summer. It kills entertainment value.

[Kilo]

Underhand is a much more natural movement body mechanics wise that shooting overhand.

[bballnmike]

Brancazio calculated the optimal angle of the arc from the free throw line. If tossed at 32 degrees or less, the ball will most likely hit the back of the rim. “That doesn’t mean it won’t go in, but it will certainly bounce off the metal and reduce the chance of success,” Brancazio says. At angles greater than that, the ball has a chance of making a nice swish. The optimum angle for the shot, he finds, is 45 degrees—plus half the angle from the top of the player’s hand to the rim. “The shorter you are, the steeper that angle has to get to give you the best chance of making the shot,” he says. Of course, lobbing a ball very high so that it comes down nearly straight into the basket would be the most efficient technique, but a shot like that “is almost impossible to aim,” Brancazio says. Instead, he says, his formula makes it possible for a player to shoot with the largest possible margin for error.

Another reason why the granny shot helps a free thrower win cheers rather than jeers: It gives a backward spin to the ball. If a ball with backspin happens to hit the metal rim of the basket, the friction of contact suddenly reduces its forward velocity. “It’s like a drop shot in tennis. The ball bounces, but it doesn’t have a forward motion on it,” Brancazio says. This effect tends to freeze the ball at the rim and greatly increases the chance that it will tip into the basket rather than ricochet off.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/the-body/07-physics-proves-it-everyone-should-shoot-granny-style



Do it Andre!

[Lionlifer]

I vote for a sports therapist/psychologist before we bring in Barry, but that's just me

[bballnmike]

I vote for a sports therapist/psychologist before we bring in Barry, but that's just me

Agree. Apparently he's great in practice, which means it mental. If that still doesn't work, maybe underhand would put him in a different state of mind and he could be consistent in games too?

[Todd3]

I vote for a sports therapist/psychologist before we bring in Barry, but that's just me

Agree. Apparently he's great in practice, which means it mental. If that still doesn't work, maybe underhand would put him in a different state of mind and he could be consistent in games too?

That's it, in my opinion. He needs to develop a shot he's good at first, and then the mental aspect will take care of itself. If he's not good at making them first, no amount of mental exercises will change that. He will go into games focused, but quickly become frustrated if the ball is not going in.

I don't think making 65% overhand in practice is enough to give him the confidence he needs going into games. As Barry said, you're not a good FT shooter unless you make 80% or more. And that's in game. In practice you should be making even more than that. So Drummond needs to develop a shot he's actually good at in practice first (not just decent), and then that should give him the confidence to carry it over into games.

[Moses ShamMoses]

65% in practice is meaningless. You can only shoot 2 at a time in games so you can't shoot yourself into a rhythm like you can in practice...I doubt he shoots even 65% based on watching him warmup before games.

[Han Solo]

65% in practice is meaningless. You can only shoot 2 at a time in games so you can't shoot yourself into a rhythm like you can in practice...I doubt he shoots even 65% based on watching him warmup before games.