Does it cause their offense to score (in the example used earlier) 46.3 points per 100 possessions less by subbing in guys with fouls to give? That's what it comes down to. I was mainly illustrating the point that a team can come up with enough fouls to give intentionally if they choose. Don't have to use the bottom of the bench exclusively. You make a good point about getting the ball off in time. However, look how much drama the Austin Rivers foul on Manu caused on the same basis of getting the shot off on time, continuation. I don't want to watch that garbage 10 times in a row. Also, the defending team can still tell the refs that they're planning to foul, and who, and they'll end up keeping an eye on it to some extent. You might be right. However, I don't imagine the league will make a rule change unless they feel certain that it will reduce stoppage from fouling and positively impact the watchability of the game. An "I could see it either way" argument probably isn't enough. With just the option to decline FTs and keep possession, I can honestly see it either way. Alternatively, one shot plus the ball would much more definitively disincentivize Hack-A-Shaq.
In short, because the defending team would keep fouling over and over due to reduced risk of penalty until they get a turnover. The long answer is spread throughout the thread. I see, gotcha.
The cost of having those extra fouls to give would mean actually playing these bench players for real possessions on both offense and defense to maybe intentionally foul if someone was being beat, and maybe have it called, and maybe the offensive player doesn't get the shot off at the same time or before the call. They would also have to be guarding the bad free throw shooter they wanted to intentionally foul or it wouldn't work, so a small guy on Dwight isn't going to work too well without risking the and-one. That's way too many maybes for me to think that it would be a workable strategy, much less a common one.
Totally get your point. My takeaway is lots of maybes. To get specific, if it's Dwight we're talking about, you can throw Hawes out there on him. He's played a total of not getting burn so far, so that's 6 extra fouls. Hawes this season has an OBPM of -2.9 and a DBPM of 1.0. The player he's replacing (DJ) has an OBPM of 0.9 and a DBPM of 3.2. That's a net net of of -6.0 points per 100 possessions. With Dwight generating 92.6 points per 100 possessions at the FT line, and the Rockets offense generating 107.0, the delta here is is 14.4 points. 14.4 pts per 100 possessions is still more than the 6.0 you're giving up with Hawes. Conclusion: Have Hawes intentionally foul Dwight away from the ball. You have a margin of 8.4 points per 100 possessions to play with the dilemma of getting the shot off in time. Also, DJ is only averaging 2.3 PF/G and Blake is at 2.6. That's an extra 7.1 PF/G to give from your bigs without subbing in anyone. Again, hard to say definitively how it would play out, but that's exactly the problem. Surely the league wants to be certain, so as to avoid changing the rules again 2 seasons down the road, or whatever.
Give the team that is fouled away from the ball the option to choose which on court player they want to shoot the free throw. Problem solved.
If I was mchale I would say to doc "look dude I won't hack Jordan if you don't hack dwight" This could be a 5 hour game if they both havked
You got Smith, Howard, Jordan, etc. Man, this series could get ugly real quick, every game could lasts 4+ hours.
That's a pretty tired argument, IMO. You can tell players to man up and do their job, hit their free throws, etc... from now til whenever. But the fact remains that there have always been great players in this league who were lousy at the line, and there always will be. It's pointless to debate why; it just IS. So, you can change the rules or you can continue to turn games into an unwatchable free throw contest. I'm sorry. This is not basketball. It's like watching a game of HORSE. For anyone in favor of keeping this rule in place, please answer me this: If the rule did not exist today, would you implement it to improve the game? It's like making a decision whether to sell a stock or not. You have to ask yourself "If I didn't already own this piece of crap, would I buy it?" If the answer is "no," then you should probably sell it. Or, you can always just sit there and hold it and watch your assets dwindle. Incidentally, I just heard Adam Silver on an interview and (contrary to what was said a couple of weeks ago) it doesn't sound like he is exactly hot to make a change here. Apparently, there is no evidence that people are actually switching the channel when the hacks are on in full swing. That doesn't mean that people are enjoying it, but rather that they like the game so much that they are willing to tolerate it.
I am so ready for a Dwight vs. DeAndre free throw contest. Rockets win any free throw contest hands down.
