re: Shooting free throws underhand is superior; However almost no one does it

quote:

---

and i can appreciate that but do we have actual stats to point to underhand freethrows being a better alternative? there is a formula in this thread but i legitimately dont see how it applies to underhand shooting and if someone could explain it that would be great

---

Listen to Gladwell's Revisionist History podcast on this subject. It's pretty damn interesting.

Gladwell's argument is as follows:

1. Underhand shooting starts from a much more natural position. Our arms hang loosely in front of us 99% of the day as opposed to holding a ball in front of us as most people do to start an overhead shot.

2. There are fewer moving parts in an underhand shot. Similar to point 1, it's a very simple shot mechanically whereas an overhead shot requires more from your lower body as well as much more movement and bend in your arms and wrists. Almost all sports mechanics are about simplicity so this leads to the underhanded shots supposed superiority.

3. As some have said, it's a softer, more forgiving shot. Not sure what the physics are that support this, but that's what he claims.

4. The only real example we have of someone who completely changed was Wilt. He went from being like a sub 40% free throw shooter historically to a plus 60% free throw shooter the one season he switched to underhand. As mentioned in this thread, when he scored 100 he was like 28 of 32 on free throws which is still the most free throws ever made in a game. That sort of improvement (50% in a season) is unheard of in sports. Granted one person isn't a very responsible sample size, but it's still quite an improvement.

Gladwell's entire podcast is that the only thing limiting the underhanded shot's popularity is the stigma associated with it. Wilt himself switched back to over handed after that one season even though he knew it was a worse shot for him.

It's definitely an interesting argument.