I guess what those of us are not getting is: Why can't you comprehend that fouling a player not involved in the play is NOT a basketball play? Soccer has a rule that a foul should not be called if calling it does not benefit the fouled team even if the foul is on a player with the ball. Why can't basketball has similar rule?
I have actually responded to this even before it was asked. YES, lots of very coordinated people, who can also make 15-foot jumpers, ALWAYS are seen improving their free throws. This happens in EVERY era. Congratulations to you and NBA players with enough eye-hand coordination to make 15-foot jumpers. Karl Malone was one of the best long-range shooters I've ever seen at the 4 position, so the fact that he could and did improve his free-throw shooting should be mind-numbingly obvious. It proves nothing about the problem at hand. What you have never responded to, and I don't expect you to -- I don't even want you to, because I am so done with this insipid "conversation"(sic) and "topic"(sic) is the following: as I have shown very clearly with historical statistics (and which you keep ignoring for some reason -- don't care why), there are also always a small group of guys who never improve their free-throw percentage. You claim and assume they just don't practice. I just disagree. These are people (like Wilt, like Dwight) who you don't want shooting 15-foot jumpers. You just cringe at the thought of DeAndre Jordan going up for a mid-range jumper. These guys can (and often DO) practice until the cows come home but still just basically lack the fundamental skills that allow most of us to nail free throws after practicing them. There will always be these guys, just like there will always be guys who can't dribble that well. So some people like the strategy of making people who are bad at things do those things. I'm not one of those people, but whatever -- it hopefully won't affect too many games. I'm just sad it affected some important games that my favorite team (by far) played this year. That I actually started doing work during a Rockets game because of hack-a means to the NBA that I was taking in even less of their advertising partners, but again, WHATEVER. You and Adam Silver will win the day. Tall guys can be short if they practice. Slow guys can be fast if they practice. And guys who can't hit the wide side of a bus from 15-feet will become 70% free-throw shooters if they practice enough. Cheers & bye.
I think this is an argument actually worth exploring rather than the discussion about whether a basketball play is judged by fan-ruling or an NBA committee. To what degree is the ability to shoot a basketball an inherent trait like height or athleticism? I think the vast majority of people will argue that shooting, like dribbling, like good defensive positioning, are all skills that can be improved upon unless you're really physically incapable (lacking arms, partially paralyzed, etc..). It's one thing to lack the ability to improve your shooting skill beyond a Steph Curry or Ray Allen. But what degree does one lack to improve their shooting skill on a FT to 50%? I'm genuinely curious because we've yet to see someone shoot something like 5% or 10%, no matter how ungodly athletic they were. Another issue worth bringing up, is that I'm sure all of us have seen the photo where Dwight hit 82% in practice. So it's also a matter of how much does your FT% dip in game. And is that drop-off something you can't improve upon much like height? Right now it seems Silver has taken the position of FT shooting being something people can improve upon, especially younger kids who might tailor their games after NBA players.
I don't like the "just hit your FT" argument no matter if it could be improved or not. There will always be some players who are lousy at some fundamental basketball skills such as shooting, dribbling, rebounding, etc. The question is, why is FT shooting singled out as something the other team can DIRECTLY exploit while all other deficiencies you have to exploit in much more complicated schemes that actually involve playing basketball rather than just hugging someone. If the argument is that FT shooting is a basketball skill, then is hugging a player 90 feet away from the ball and the basket a basketball skill? You see, the argument can be turned around and say, "Just play better defense."
To put shortly, it's not singled out. At least not by the NBA rules committee when the league first formed. It was only singled out by NBA coaches because they believed it to be a winning strategy. It only appears to be singled out now because the rule is being brought into question. And like other posters have mentioned, a team can't directly exploit it if you keep your big guy on the bench, or if the guy hits his FTs. But then we're talking in circles again because other have already brought up why that can be good or bad. I can see your point, but ultimately I see Silver's as well regarding a rule change for essentially aiding two players (and hurting every other team) and de-emphasizing the importance of free throws. I do believe there is a fine line here, hopefully Dwight can improve his shooting from it.
Just treat away from the ball intentional fouls (in the penalty) like technical fouls: anyone on the floor for the hacked team can shoot the FTs. Problem solved. Do it Silver.
This gives poor ft shooters a pass which is why I don't like the rules to be changed. This is similar to putting a penalty on teams using the zone because the opponent can't hit 3 pointers or putting penalty on having players run to the 3 pt line etc. Ft shooting is a weakness that should be exploited by your opponent just like poor rebounding, porous defense, broken jumpshot etc. So what implementing a BS rule like this means is De Andre Jordan can rest easy, his poor ft shooting won't be held against him same with Rajon Rondo and the rest of the 10 or so guys in the entire league who can't hit 50% on average. Why implement a rule that favors the few big men who are so bad they can't hit 0.500? I'll never know, just my opinion but if even Shaq is a better ft shooter than you, then it's you who has a problem and not the league.
Why are these small number of players so important to you that you want to give them a pass? Steve Nash can't block shots to save his life, why isn't he given a pas for his defense? Dwight Howard can't hit 3 pointers if you ask him to, why doesn't he get protection in your little clique? Everybody has weaknesses in their game, the NBA doesn't coddle them with rules that favor them. And again nobody is asking Dwight to hit 70%, just 50% is enough to invalidate the "Hack-A" strategy. Please give me an argument why Jordan has to be protected from hitting 50% when Shaq was able to do so without any of this BS protection going on?
I agree with the above. The logic I'm hearing from those arguing for a rule change is like this. Dunks are very exciting and people love seeing dunks. Yet there are some players who just have trouble dunking so why not lower the basket so we can get more dunks. I agree that the hack-a strategy is boring. The difference is that I put the blame on the players who can't hit free throws. The NBA is supposed to be the highest level of basketball with the greatest players. I expect those players to play up to that greatness. If some players can't excel at every part of the game then it is up to them to improve or the coaches to find ways of working around it.
I believe it was the great dramatist Moliere who once said something like "people who lead with Y U NO CAN READ?!? are dip****s". Sadly I'm incapable of reading posts that start off that way - i see where you declared it your last post while i was deleting - I love it. You realize you do tend to go to reading comprehension smack when you get boxed in and/or flustered. Self awareness man. It's not illogical to suggest that the hack a fouls are less basketball plays, whatever that means, than non hack a fouls, insofar as hack a fouls lack both basketball and play, and are explicitly designed to avoid and frustrate them instead. This is self evident and requires no further explication. Unclear why you staked your Internet dick to the contrary and had to take a weekend off from slinging lattes. But it's your life, and after all why bother with a barely literate person like me.
There's no moral component and it has nothing to do with giving shooters a pass. It's about giving a pass to people who want to watch basketball.
Every day I'll come in here and ask B-Bob & Sam Fisher until someone answers: Would you be in favor of "banning" the intentional off-ball hack before a player (on offense) crosses half-court only? If not, how come?
We've established that some players, a handful, will never be able to hit free throws consistently. So where I see a divide with a view like mine, and a view like yours is right here: poor FT shooters don't get a free pass. Every time they are actually playing basketball (e.g. about to shoot), the defense can send them to the line as punishment for their crappy FT shooting. Then they get 0 or 1 pt instead of 2. There's good strategy from the defense here. A smart defensive team can even employ it each time the offense is dumb enough to just *pass* it to the crappy FT shooter. There is ton of strategy here, and there is already a ton of penalty absorbed by the crappy FT shooter and the team that puts him on the floor. He is NOT getting a free pass from shooting free throws, by any stretch. But then, unlike really ANY other aspect of the entire game of basketball, we currently allow a team to suspend play and just make the crappy FT shooter shoot FTs. We can't do that with jumpshots, dribbling, passing or any other aspect of the game. You cannot force the offensive team to give the ball to one guy, except via this one loophole. To me, that's very odd, and not just a non-basketball play. It's a non-sports play. It will be exploited from time to time, resulting in great ugliness. But it's very academic at this point. The league isn't going to do anything about it. To noleum's suggestion, yeah I'd be fine with that half-court rule. Anything that could make a tiny improvement. But again, not going to happen.
Players like Hardeb, Lebron, Curry etc. shot more fts a game than Jordan or other layers who shot fts below 0.500. If the reason for removing the Hack-an-A is for entertainment then why are you singling out these guys instead of players like Harden who take almost 10 attemts a game? Why is Harden taking fts extremely exciting but Jordan taking fts are boring? Even if you remove the hack an X the amount of fts lessened will be less.
Because this is basketball and not boring: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7m3AoogCO8c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> This is change the channel: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/p1ESSHodpjk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Why aren't you singling out the greatest players in the game who are the reason why we watch, rahter than a cheap loophole that is designed to keep us from watching them? You actually posed that question?
The problem here is there is no evidence players cant hit fts more than 0.500. Shaq was able to do it, Dwight jad been able to do it, Hakeem, Patrick Ewing etc all were able to do it so whats the excuse for Rondo not being able to do it? And even if he really couldnt do it, why should he be given a pass for hitting way below 0.500? The reality is big men hitting below 0.500 is rare, this is why although hack an X has been done in the playoffs it is not done consistently, when the Roox tried it Jordan hit almost all of his fts and put the game away. You have to put evidence that this is being exploited but I havent seen it consistently lead to wins.
This is a strawman argument, I'm talking about Lebron shooting a ft vs Rondo shooting a ft. You claim that Rondo shooting a ft is boring and makes you change the channel so why is Lebron or Harden shooting a ft exciting? In terms of fts taken Lebron Harden et al take more fts a game than Rondo, Chuck Hayes, etc. so if your complaint is fts=boring why focus on Jordan? The 5 ft attempts he takes has very little imact on the overall number of fts tsken. I dont really understand the oint of your post, oobv highlight moves are way more exciting but they have nothing to do with fts or this thread.
It's not a strawman argument it's the very crux of the issue. FT shooting in the course of play is fine, a necessary evil. FT shooting over and over again as soon as the ball is inbounded due to off ball fouls in order to disrupt/prevent a game from happening is awful. This is a pretty simple distinction. Harden getting a FT after an and 1 is qualitatively different than a hack a - something you acknowledge. We're on the same page.
The hack-a-Lebron strategy doesn't work. The ref won't even call it! Just pistol whip him and take the ball. No call.
