Thank god there are only two players and two teams that have to endure hack-a. It would be a shame to see a thrilling game in the NBA finals reduced to hack-a, for example.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NBA also "came out status quo" on hack-a-Shaq. "Rating don't show people are turning it off," Silver said.</p>— Jonathan Feigen (@Jonathan_Feigen) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Feigen/status/621112348246441985">July 15, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Silver cited basketball community did not want to send wrong message. "We'll continue to watch it." Said "strong sense" no need to change.</p>— Jonathan Feigen (@Jonathan_Feigen) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Feigen/status/621112781857759232">July 15, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The bar is not set high in free throw shooting to negate a hack strategy. The average PPP in the NBA 1.04. That means that, other issues aside, the free throw shooter needs to make 52% to negate the hack strategy. Certainly DMo, Capela and Jones will never be targets at about 60% from the line. However there are those other issues. Teams will continually hack players who shoot around 50% from the line hoping to get the ball and hit shots. However 60% from the line, which generates 1.2 PPP, the points generated rival shots within 3 feet of the rim. A team would have to be desperate to hack D-Mo or Jones.
Quite late but since someone necroed this up w/e. Your argument is actually an NBA player shooting fts is boring as hell and is causing player ratings to fall, I'm just pointing out there is no distinction between Harden shooting fts and De Andre Jordan shooting fts. The problems you should have with Jordan shooting fts and with Harden shooting fts are the same, and yet you act like seeing Jordan step up to the line is like the most boring **** ever you immediately turn the channel when the reality is Jordan shoots fts far less than Harden, Curry, LBJ etc. So if shooting fts is the problem because it is boring as **** then taking out the fts guys like Jordan do won't really make that big a difference because they shoot fts way less than those other guys. For the bolded point I think what you fail to realize is there really isn't an Hack-an-X problem, it isn't that widespread in fact several times teams tried to take advantage of this they lost the game (including the Rox). Out of the entire NBA playoff teams only two teams got hack-an-X...Clipps and Rox, this shows that only a small subset of guys can't hit fts accurately enough to avoid getting hacked...and even then it wasn't consistently used to abuse them. So that is why I don't like the Hack an X strat removed, because as long as it exists big men will still be required to work on their fts to at least be above 50%. I don't think that's too much to ask, Dwight and Jordan proved that even if they're bad at fts they can still make it enough so they aren't consistently abused by the Hack an X strat, the Clips lost even they tried to do it to Dwight and the Rox lost when they tried to do it to Jordan in the playoffs.
The riskiness doesn't just extend to good shooters like DMO or Jones, if 52% is the threshold then I believe Dwight and Shaq have career ft% higher than that. It's an extremely risky strategy that's why it's not used a lot, some people on the board just lost their marbles and exaggerated the hell out of it.
I don't think any intentional foul should be accepted off the ball. If it occurs naturally then fine, but if a player is actually climbing the back of another (like Paul on Howard) or hugging a player on purpose then that should be a shot and the ball back. Or, let the player shoot his two free throws but even up the boards by allowing one of the Rockets players to be closest to the basket on one side (if it happened to the Rockets) and the fouling team to have only one player close to the basket on the other side. A 50/50 shot at a rebound would almost eliminate teams doing this. The problem is: The poor foul shooter is normally a top defense or rebounder. So not only are you having him on the line but you are taking away that teams best rebounder off the block. An offensive team should not be penalized for having a player on their team that plays better defense than offense. It's like in baseball. In the 9th inning the pitcher can't choose which hitter to pitch to. Imagine if a defensive minded shortstop is picked every inning as one of the guys to get pitched to. In football you can't foul a guy off the ball to stop the offense from running a play and then force that player to be the one to quarterback the next play. Not doing something about this will cause the game to get worse, slow way down, and penalize the a great defender.
NBA is a busn. If it doesn't affects rating, who care about the game. I wonder how they determine rating. I would be much less likely to turn off a close games than non-close game. You would think hacking strategy is only used for close game. Close = in points and/or talent.
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.
If a guy isn't a good defender, then coach benches him. If a guy doesn't do what the coach says, the coach benches him. If a guy can't shoot FTs, the coach benches him. That's how it should be. It seems pretty stupid to change the rules of the game to accomodate the players who have flaws in their game. Maybe we should also change the rules, so that the players who are bad defenders could defend easier? Maybe eliminate the hand-checking rule again?..
^ Novel suggestion, I wonder where in the last 25 pages if anybody has made the not at all cliched "make your FT's" retort. Damn, you should telephone your local sporting discussion program on the Amplitude Modulation frequency near you to share this - those guys will eat it up.
That's NOT the argument. It's NOT that DeAndre Jordan shooting FT is boring. What's boring is stopping the game every possession to make Jordan shoot FT. Why don't you people get it. It's very simple. The problem is not FT shooting. The problem is preventing the game to be played. It doesn't matter whether it's Jordan or Harden or Curry or whoever. It's boring if you make them shoot FT BEFORE every possession is given a chance to be played.
I heard Silver say something to that effect in an interview during the draft. That's really weird logic, IMO. In other words, "We haven't pushed people to the point where they are actually so fed up that they turn the game off." Mr. Silver — You seem like a much better commish than the shorter, fatter guy you replaced. However, just because people are willing to tolerate something doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed. I have a cat that I think is the coolest animal on earth, but he is also one of the most vocal creatures alive. Just because I don't get rid of him doesn't mean I don't really wish he would just shut the f*$# up sometimes. Your logic is absurd, and frankly, a little smug. At least the shorter fatter guy used the term "basketball reasons" to justify his nonsense. <iframe style="display: none;" allowtransparency="true" scrolling="no" id="rufous-sandbox" frameborder="0"></iframe>
The thing is you're just one person, the commish and NBA peeps can't go about listening to every single person out there because as we've seen in this thread different people have different views. What they need to do is listen to what the majority of NBA fans want, and based on the ratings study they've done people turning off during hack an X is not significant compared to the people who dont give a **** and watch the games anyway. Just because you're up in arms about this doesnt mean everyone else is too.
Well, we all (each) count as just one person, but that's beside the point. All I am saying is that it is ridiculous logic to say it's OK just because people aren't changing the channel during that part of the game. I can't stand what it does to the game, but I am not about to turn off a game because of it. I suspect that most people who don't like it feel the same way. And if I were the only one "up in arms" about this, then there wouldn't be a national discussion about it, would there? If you are OK with it that's absolutely fine by me; but don't try to marginalize my opinion and frame it as "just one person" who is disgruntled about the rule. There are plenty of people on both sides of this argument — both fans and players. Don't make this personal. The point you missed is that Silver's logic is flawed, or at least a little lacking in one of the basic tenants of customer relations. It's like saying that "we know a lot of people think this lessens the product we offer, but as long as they keep buying it we have no incentive to address the issue."
I read through that interview as well and I remember Silver also saying that he was not alone in his belief. A lot of GMs and former NBA players stood on the same side of the issue. They feared that this would cause younger athletic high school and college big men to disregard working on free throws. Silver's not alone in this and I simply don't see the NBA caving on this any time soon.
Doesn't really matter. I think RC Buford and Mark Cuban got to the Commish. But seriously, in his interviews about this and other subjects, he does come off as a little impressionable. Whomever gets his attention last on a subject....gets his attention. Daryl Morey's alone time with Silver: "And the deliberate fouling, it's ruining the game, it makes the game unwatchable, plus it's against the spirit of real competition..." Silver hears Miss Othmar's (Charlie Brown teacher) voice while Morey speaks: "Wah wah wah, wah..." (while thinking) "What a nerd, I don't need to be around other nerds..." Mark Cuban (before thinking he had DeAndre Jordan, and now again that DJ screwed him like a three-dollar ho) "We don't need to change the rules, really it's just two teams, just TWO teams, hey, if you can't make free throws..." Silver hears: "We don't need to change the rules, really it's just two teams, just TWO teams, hey, if you can't make free throws..." (while thinking) "Cubes is so cool, hey, if I work out maybe I won't appear so nebbish? Yeah!"
Hack-a has evolved into a strategy play that takes advantage of a rule that should on average harm the offending party. If we're going to bring other sports into this. It would be like in baseball when a pitcher purposefully walks a big hitter and sets up for a double play against the next guy. There is absolutely nothing the hitter can do in this situation. Having to look at the catcher stand up and play catch with the pitcher at a professional level is a joke. When a pitcher throws a ball it's supposed to count as a mark against him. And we can't say the spirit of the rule was to allow this strategy. Why hasn't the MLB taken a stance here?
Correct. There are a lot of people who have reasonable arguments for keeping it. I just wish Silver had brought those forward and not run with the weak line he used.
jayfree's analogy is much more accurate, in my opinion. Throwing non strikes, in your analogy, is clearly part of the game. It was intended for pitchers to be able to throw the ball in or out of the strike zone as they saw fit. The catcher standing up is actually a more efficient 4 pitch walk than "faking it" and just having the pitcher throw outside four times. To me, that has nothing in common with repeatedly hugging an offensive player who is nowhere near the ball, in order to stop the game, (again, not once, but repeatedly). Some of us feel that is not really a basketball play. Four corners offense (legislated out of the game via the shot clock) is much more a basketball play than hack-a, but they got rid of it a long time ago. My analogy for hack-a would be this. Imagine the pitcher can throw the ball into the other team's dugout and plunk whoever he wants to put on base. He can load the bases with fat players to encourage a double-play. "Technically," you and Adam Silver would say, the pitcher's pitch might really be that bad. Who can say he can't throw into the other team's dugout?" Where everyone else would say, "this is stupid as ****. Stop it." I don't know what's more frustrating: watching hack-a completely interrupt and ruin a basketball game, (and I for one DO turn it off), or watching people on Clutchfans defend it. But you guys and Silver win. We get to enjoy another season with Jordan and Dwight (and even random dudes in the NBA Finals this last year) encountering hack-a if a game is on the line. I still wish y'all would double down and get Silver to institute new rules where a team could make the opposing center bring the ball up the court and make the ball boy try to dunk. So awesome.
