This. I would add that the problem is the defense is choosing who gets to do what WITHOUT playing any defense. I also agree that using the last 2 minutes rule is not right. You should differentiate a "hack" and a real off ball fouls like fighting for position, setting off ball picks, etc. Off topic: Is it just me or does Josh Smith shoots worse FT when being hacked vs when in normal foul situations? Dwight seems to shoot bad sometimes and shoots well sometimes when hacked, not much different from normal fouls. But Josh never shoots well when hacked, but his overall FT percentage is actually not that bad.
I have difficulty believing that you played organized basketball and weren't taught from a young age that you need to be able to hit your free throws. No one is stating that Dwight or Josh Smith need to hit Jerry West levels from the line (~80%). 1 out of 2 renders the hack-a statistically moot, when you take into account points per possession + potential offensive rebounds. Since no one bothered to read this the first time around, I'll post it again: http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/eye-performance/201411/underhand-free-throw-shooting-george-johnson-rick-barry-deandre-jordan If what you say is true, and there is a ceiling for these precious few atrocious FT shooters, why do former and current NBA players & coaches disagree with you? Why are there so many examples (just recently Griffin, Duncan, Tiago Splitter) of players improving drastically at the line after starting out piss-poor? Have Dwight & Josh hired a free throw coach? If not, they should. Have they experimented with the underhanded shot? If not, they should. We'll have to agree to disagree about this one. They do, and they can. The basketball fundamentals equivalent to hitting a pathetic 1 out of 2 attempts consistently in terms of dribbling? Being able to dribble 3-4 feet, without defender harassment, without traveling or double dribbling. Everyone playing organized basketball ever has been required to shoot free throws. Not everyone is required to be a post-up master. A jump-shot master. These are specialized roles. Shooting free throws is not a "specialty." Shooting free throws well, let's say at 90% or so, absolutely is. If you find the act of shooting free throws unwatchable, why watch today's NBA? The old NBA, where defenders could hand-check and body up cutting guards in the lane, resulted in fewer ticky-tack fouls being called, and thus (ostensibly) fewer free throws in general. All of these hilarious comparisons to forcing CP3 to dunk, or JJ Barea to take contested layups, etc. are (perhaps intentionally?) missing the point entirely. Still waiting for someone to argue my assertion that shooting FTs at a clip of 1/2+ consistently is as fundamental as being able to pass to a wide open man on an in-bounds pass or dribble the ball a few feet without traveling or double-dribbling. And since no one has touched the former player quotes, I'll leave them again in case anyone wants to argue: "You're doing a disservice to yourself, a disservice to your team, if you aren't making these shots," he says. "I can't understand how anyone can live with themselves if they can't shoot 80 percent from the free throw line." - Rick Barry, career 90% FT shooter (underhanded) “You’re going to the free throw line to get FREE POINTS, i don’t know what you’re getting upset about.” - Reggie Miller "These guys work tirelessly at their jump shots. So if you’re tall... [] I always hear 'Oh, you have big hands,' but…no, it’s hard work, and it’s not just about bragging, it’s about taking someone with you ALL SUMMER… you don’t get better during the season, you get better in the offseason… and if you don’t want to get hacked, take yourself to the gym, lock yourself in there, and SHOOT. FREE THROWS. It’s that simple. It really is that simple.” - Chris Webber (jumped from ~50% to ~70-75% after 1 single off-season)
If you don't think there's a reasonable, rational, relatively logical reason to differentiate a "clear path" foul from a typical, standard foul... boy. We've got bigger troubles than I imagined.
Duh, of course. Sorry, but that's why its threadbare. Telling someone like Dwight to hit a reliably decent % of free throws is like telling me to practice dunking. It is just not going to work -- I am convinced of that. You quoting a bunch of pros who could shoot doesn't really affect the discussion, for me at least. Also, Rick Barry is a certifiable dolt -- I hear him on the radio constantly, so citing him probably hurts your argument. I realize the "just practice!" crowd feels differently than I do. Hopefully, we can both agree that bringing a game to a halt to watch the worst shooter on the court shoot free throws is not very entertaining. Free throws, in themselves, are a necessary evil. Intentionally short-circuiting the entire game to send the worst free-throw shooter to the line is not a necessary evil, at all.
Lol somad. It's pretty simple, chump - hit 55% or so+ of your FTs, and this business alllll goes awayyyyy. And yes, changing the rules because a dozen or fewer professional players can't hit their FTs for **** is absolutely doing so to mask a weakness in their fundamental game. You can hold the view that being able to hit 1/2 free throws consistently isn't as fundamental to the game as being able to dribble a ball or hit a wide-open layup during a layup drill... but at least understand that our perspective (and the perspective of a great many NBA players and coaches) is that having a "soft" 50/55% FT shooting floor is not a problema at all.
Except that it's not. Neither you nor anyone else has proven that Dwight has worked his ass off during the summer, hired a FT coach, locked himself in the gym till he hits 200 in a row, etc. etc. If DH does that? Hires the guy that got Shaq's FT% to 65% from 40% in ~2001 or so? And it still doesn't work? Then sure, bud. I'll agree with you at that point.
I do think there is, just like there is with off ball intentional fouls since before you were a twinkle in the eye of a swarthy young latex salesman, sonny boy. Glad we were able to reach consensus.
I don't have a problem with changing the rule or trying to make the game more watchable. I have a problem with people randomly claiming that something is a "basketball play" but being unable to define it. Or claiming that it's somehow unreasonable to exploit a particular player's weakness when that's not the case in all the other situations where we encourage exploitation of weaknesses. Fouling off the ball is as much a basketball play as anything else - for exactly the reason you base your argument: the league says so. There is no specific definition of a basketball play - all they are is whatever the NBA says they are. The NBA can (and does) change what it thinks is a basketball play, but just say that it's to make it more entertaining for fans instead of coming up with some bizarre "fairness" or "its not basketball" rationale. I actually love the solution posted earlier where it's treated as an intentional foul in the backcourt. That way, the offensive player has a choice if they suck at FTs: stay in the backcourt or risk being fouled. It maintains the penalty for sucking at FTs. This fixes the aesthetics while not helping the player out. I think it would be dumb to change the rule in a way that makes bad FT shooters more valuable relative to where they are now just to make basketball more watchable.
It's only a loophole if the NBA didn't want it the way it is. When they changed the rule to ban it during the last 2 minutes, they intentionally left the strategy available the rest of the time.
Bingo. This times 1 million. It still shames and punishes atrocious FT shooters, and encourages them to improve their % each offseason. Nah, son. Just... no. You seem to think that the NBA does and should only create and change rules based on "watchability." I think that's a load of bull. Clearly, off-ball intentional fouls are different than clear path fouls, which are different than off-ball non-intentional fouls, which are different than... you get the point. You think there needs to be a rule change for X Y and Z reasons. We think everything is rendered moot if these awful FT shooters work in the offseason to get their % to a reasonable level.
Big men shooting free throws is almost as painful to watch as pitchers batting in baseball. Thankfully, both eyesores will probably be eliminated from their respective sports sooner than later.
So basically they should get rid of the Hack-a, you've just chosen to lash yourself to a trivial debating point that is raised in response to the self-defeating, circular, arguments against abolishng the Hack-a ("IT'S PART OF THE GAME! MAKE YOUR FT'S") In the abstract - I don't have any problem with nominally defining intentional on-the ball fouls as more related to basketball (since, you know, there's a basketball involved) than hugging a man outside the play - you apparently do. I think the involvement of the basketball, a critical distguishing bright line factor in rendering one thing more of a basketball play - you apparently don't - the league has done so for 50 years as you note below. Except when it's not, in the last 2 minutes. And then it's not. And so we're inconsistent, which is your main objection, which is irrelevant, for reasons that I stated last week.
This rule will be changed. There will be a deeper penalty for intentional fouls. And it will be because the league is concerned about the watchability of their product. My guess is that change comes this offseason.
Agree. I hate the practice. Hate it when SAN uses it against the Rockets. Hate it when HOU uses it against the Clippers. I was hoping we would though... the NBA wasn't as apt to make a rule change when Pop uses it against us. But as soon as the Rockets used it against the Clips? A nationally televised game with a popular team? All of a sudden, the TNT announcers are complaining about watchability, and length of games, and you just know the league will make the change now...
Make no mistake, the Rockets were using it at least in part to make a point about how horrible it is in order to bolster the case for getting rid of it. I hope we use it again tonight, and again in Game 6. In fact I hope Game 6 we start out with Dorsey, Papanikolau, Johnson, Capela and McDaniel in the game and they foul on 36 consecutive possessions.
I agree with you. If the Rockets are to leave the playoffs this round, I hope they make it as unbearable as possible to watch so the league takes action. If it was impacting a player people around the country liked I think it would already be done. The biggest reason it hasn't been changed is because the face of the rule right now is Dwight Howard and people hate him.
Nah, the league just never foresaw that it would become a whole-game strategy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack-a-Shaq Just extend that rule and be done with it.
I didn't lash myself to anything. I made very clear point about basketball plays and loopholes and gaining advantages by fouling and only those things. You're the one that those to respond with a snarky b****fest. If you didn't have a problem with my point or thought it was trivial, there was no need to respond. In the future, you can avoid this problem by responding to what people actually post instead of what you imagine they post. If this is true, McHale should have been fired at halftime. In the first quarter a 2-1 playoff series, the only thing the Rockets should have considered was the best strategy to win. If they think it helps them win, do it. If not, don't. Nothing else should be in play. If trying to make a point to change the rule next year even played a tiny factor in his decision making, he's an idiot. Hack-a-Shaq has been in the league for 15-20 years now. It's not new this year, though it's used more these days (possibly because coaches are smarter or because there are more bad FT shooters out there - not really sure). They've changed rules several times over the last 2 decades - if they had wanted this gone, it would be gone. The fact is that the league knows about the strategy and intentionally has left it in the game. They may finally have changed their mind and likely will change the rule next year, but the current rule is in no way a loophole. You could have made that argument when it was first used in a way that no one had thought of before, but not 15 years later.
