[tnt]Hack A Howard

Spot on.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Playoff Buzz: Hack-a-(whoever) could be on the way out. <a href="http://t.co/mam778bLiq">http://t.co/mam778bLiq</a></p>&mdash; Ken Berger (@KBergCBS) <a href="https://twitter.com/KBergCBS/status/595300251881332737">May 4, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

Anyone else find it annoying when media members refer to it as "the hack-a" like it's some sort of dance?

Maybe Reggie Miller's voice ruined it for me.

 

Give the player the option to decline the free throws and take it side-out.

Like in football how you can decline penalties.

 

I have no idea what you're asking, but I voted Howard.

 

So, unlimited fouls for the defending team? Every time a defender gets beat, they could foul away from the ball and whistle the play dead, before the team with possession even gets a shot off. Wash, rinse, repeat until they get a turnover. Not much of an advantage, and equally choppy, ugly non-basketball basketball.

Eventually the defense is going to get into the penalty, and someone is going to have to shoot FTs. You'd have to give the shooting team the option to select who takes them.

Or, the league could start calling fouls away from the ball like they do clear path fouls, or even a shade of that: ONE Freethrow + Possession

 

Reggie Miller's voice has ruined many things for many people.

 

It wouldn't be unlimited fouls, the foul counts against the player committing it, but the fouled team would get to make a decision on whether to shoot free throws or take the ball out.

If the fouling team fouls Ariza away from the ball to avoid drives, you let Arizs take the shots. If it's Howsrd, you choose based on how he's doing that night. However, if the Rockets keep taking the ball out, and the other team racks up the fouls, eventually they're going to be in foul trouble.

 

Players still foul out, so I don't see it as "unlimited fouls" every time someone gets beat working. Plus good free throw shooters would take the shots rather than the ball. Plus, if a shot attempt goes up at the same time or before the off the ball intentional foul, it would count so using it when someone got beat would be pretty dangerous. The ref might not even see the intentional foul if they aren't told it's going to happen ahead of time like they usually are now. So I don't think intentionally fouling until you forced a turn over is a realistic strategy.

 

You have to get to the point where the strategy is statistically not worth it. It's actually already pretty close now.

1. As it stands, Dwight in the postseason is a 46.3% FT shooter. A trip to the line for two shots is would generate, on average, 0.926 points.
2. Josh Smith is a 43.5% FT shooter these playoffs, which would generate 0.870 points.
3. Letting the Rockets run their offense normally (reg season, don't have playoff numbers), they generate 1.070 points.
4. Conclusion: Worth it to foul, at least until it appears they get into a rhythm at the line, as bad shooters are known to do.

Alternatively, one shot plus the ball breaks down as following:

1. Josh Smith: 0.435 pts + 1.070 pts = 1.505
2. Dwight Howard: 0.463 pts + 1.070 pts = 1.533
3. 1.533 > 1.070
4. Conclusion: DO NOT FOUL AWAY FROM THE BALL AT ALL COSTS

Although there's something to be said for destroying the rhythm of the opposing offense, you also are forfeiting fast break opportunities off of long misses because you're giving the other offense the chance to set. Also risking the shooting team grabbing an offensive rebound on a second miss. Anybody have access to relevant data that could lead to a better model?

 

Hmmm.

Is that the Larry Smith who refused to start Yao Ming in the last a few games of his rookie season and cost Yao Ming his ROY?

 

Yeah, you and RayRay are right; "unlimited" is incorrect. But don't forget that Dahntay Jones, Hedo, Epke Udoh, CJ Wilcox, Jordan Hamilton, Spencer Hawes, and Lester Hudson have a combined 42 fouls to give. AS A GROUP in the playoffs so far, they are averaging 1.000 PF/G on 7.7 MPG.

We're not talking about good FT shooters, though.

Either way, the whistle would still get blown pretty much constantly, and it has the same affect on viewership as the manifestation of the current rules.

 

If they want to end it completely, they just extend the current rules that only apply to the last 2 minutes to the whole game. 2 shots and the ball for intentional fouls off the ball.

I think that if they do anything else, then they either want the strategy to be valid for a part of the game, or they want to speed up the game by eliminating the free throw part.

Perhaps a compromise is setting a limit of say 8-12 fouls and once that limit is passed it's 2 shots and the ball. That would give 3-7 hack-a-whoever's per half depending on what they set the foul limit to.

 

Ding Ding.

A team may decline the bonus for off the ball fouls.

Eleven words is all they have to add to the rule book and Hack-a-Shaq is effectively dead, and the game hardly changes at all.

Another way to look at it is the NBA already heavily penalizes intentional off-the-ball fouls in the last two minutes of the game for a reason. The time has come to extend a similar rule that acts as a deterrent of the cop-out (ahem, strategy) for the other 46 minutes.

 

Sure but your going to put in worse players so they can hack intentionally in hopes that next time the other team takes the ball out they don't get beat again? You think these worse players are going to increase your chances of eventually generating a turn over, or increase your chances of them or someone else getting beat? Then you have to either play these bench players on offense or take a time out to sub between offense and defense? I can't imagine that strategy being used effectively. It sounds about as effective as intentionally fouling a 85% plus free throw shooter and hoping they miss both.

I just don't see it. Keep in mind that a team usually tells the ref they are going to intentionally foul and who they are going to foul so that they get the call right away. A ref isn't going to be looking for it if it only happens when someone on your team is getting beat. By the time someone is getting beat to the point where you think fouling off the ball is a good idea, they are probably getting a good shot attempt up.

Sending a bad player in to intentionally foul now works because they foul before the ball even crosses half court. If they have to play defense and offense, and make a decision of when to foul and when not to based on if they think someone is getting beat, then I can't imagine that generating a net positive for the fouling team very often.

 

First time I heard that suggested, I thought it was brilliant. After playing it out, I think it could very easily lead to some unintended consequences that would yield equally unwatchable, non-basketball oriented basketball. Explained above.

Maybe so. If people think there are a lot of missed calls and flopping now, just wait until every bit of off-ball contact carries a dramatically higher penalty, reward.

 

I'm not sure I understand your points above. Why would allowing an offensive team to decline shooting free throws for off-the-ball fouls increase the amount of fouls in a game?

Just to be clear. I'm not suggesting the same penalty that you see in the last two minutes be applied to the other 46 minutes. Just a less harsh penalty that still acts as a deterrent (i.e., just making the bonus optional).

 

Clippers can't hack us with Jordan on their squad so i'm not worried. Jordan's playing 36 minutes a night and shooting like 38% from the line. That's more minutes per game and a worse FT% then any other big on our squad by far.