Hackashaq delenda est
- Thread starter Devizier
- Start date
Hooray for arbitrary rules for small portions of each quarter.
Hopefully next is 3's worth 4 between 10 and 8 minutes of each quarter.
Hopefully next is 3's worth 4 between 10 and 8 minutes of each quarter.
Changing rules because a handful of stars can't make free throws seems like a bad idea and bad precedent to set.
Like I ve said many times, the point of penalties is to provide a disincentive for certain behaviors. When they end up providing an incentive for said behaviors, it's a real perversion of the game.
Exactly. Basketball is a dumb, bashed-together sport where half of the rules exist to patch other rules. This is not a bad thing, but looking at any part of the game like it's a moral fucking imperative is nonsense.
Somewhere JVG is smiling and taking credit for this. All he did was bitch about it on air constantly.
So, do you think that the foul rules for contesting layups need to be changed so that players don't commit fouls that prevent easy layups?
I think the answer is make your FTs. Shaq and Wilt are often left off the GOAT because of FT woes. I am on record as anti Kobe, but at least part of his feud with Shaq was Kobe was the better end of game , big shot option because opponents could just hack Shaq.
To me it brings an element of strategy. If you are protecting a lead do you leave in the big shot blocker, but call a TO as soon as he gets the rebound? Does his deficiency as a FT shooter cost you a timeout later in the game? Do you take him out when ahead, but then maybe are weaker on D? As a basketball purist strengths and weaknesses are part of the game. This rule is about a few guys who just abysmally bad at FTs. The Cavs went to the hack technique on Bismack Biyombo in the playoffs, and he went 1-2 two times in a row and they abandoned it. You don't have to be very good to make this bad strategy. In the Lakers days Shaq outletted it quickly so the guy guarding him, or that he was guarding had to take the fouls. A few times teams lost big guy, or were in foul trouble. The rules kind of cover this. Coaches decide who they want out there at the end of the game, and many factors go into it.
FT ability is part of how people are guarded. Old timers say one the impressive things about Wilt was they tried to foul him almost every play and he still finished. There was never a hack Kareem, or hack Hakeem strategy. (Maybe Deandre Jordan should try out Islam). even in the summer league there was talk about the Cs #1 pick needed to prove he can make FTs to change how he is guarded.
It is harder to shoot as you get much taller than 6-7. When you get to 7 feet it is tough, so many big guys struggle, not because they don't practice. But they have massive advantages in other parts of the game. It is similar to the speed/weight trade off in football. Again part of the strategy.
To me it brings an element of strategy. If you are protecting a lead do you leave in the big shot blocker, but call a TO as soon as he gets the rebound? Does his deficiency as a FT shooter cost you a timeout later in the game? Do you take him out when ahead, but then maybe are weaker on D? As a basketball purist strengths and weaknesses are part of the game. This rule is about a few guys who just abysmally bad at FTs. The Cavs went to the hack technique on Bismack Biyombo in the playoffs, and he went 1-2 two times in a row and they abandoned it. You don't have to be very good to make this bad strategy. In the Lakers days Shaq outletted it quickly so the guy guarding him, or that he was guarding had to take the fouls. A few times teams lost big guy, or were in foul trouble. The rules kind of cover this. Coaches decide who they want out there at the end of the game, and many factors go into it.
FT ability is part of how people are guarded. Old timers say one the impressive things about Wilt was they tried to foul him almost every play and he still finished. There was never a hack Kareem, or hack Hakeem strategy. (Maybe Deandre Jordan should try out Islam). even in the summer league there was talk about the Cs #1 pick needed to prove he can make FTs to change how he is guarded.
It is harder to shoot as you get much taller than 6-7. When you get to 7 feet it is tough, so many big guys struggle, not because they don't practice. But they have massive advantages in other parts of the game. It is similar to the speed/weight trade off in football. Again part of the strategy.
The object of the game is to put the ball in the hoop. During gameplay, you have 5 super athletic pituitary cases with their hands between you and said hoop. Giving the other team 1-2 uncontested shots at the hoop from 10 feet away seems like a fair penalty for fouls. If you can't put the ball in the hoop from there, with no defense, my position is "tough (expletive deleted)".
If DeAndre Jordan or Shaq, or whomever, is so valuable defensively and on the glass that you want to leave him out there despite being a sub-50% shooter, that seems like a fair strategic choice to have to make. Otherwise, find a big man who can make free throws, it seems like he should be more valuable.
If DeAndre Jordan or Shaq, or whomever, is so valuable defensively and on the glass that you want to leave him out there despite being a sub-50% shooter, that seems like a fair strategic choice to have to make. Otherwise, find a big man who can make free throws, it seems like he should be more valuable.
I agree guys should do better making their FT's.
The took one arbitrary rule that impacted the last 2 minutes of the second and 4th quarters, and made it impact all 4. Don't love it, but no big deal
They took one arbitrary rule that impacted the last 2 minutes, and made it a full time rule. I approve of this change.
I also have no problem making riding a player like a horse an automatic flagrant foul.
Yes guys should have to make free throws, and a strategy against a Shaq where you try to foul him in the low post when he has the ball before he can throw down a monster dunk is a perfectly reasonable strategy and yes very much a basketball play. But when you have a guard jumping on the back of another player and riding him like a horse away from the ball, that's not basketball. Nor is just grabbing a guy when he is 50 (or 100) feet away from the ball.
But in this case.
The took one arbitrary rule that impacted the last 2 minutes of the second and 4th quarters, and made it impact all 4. Don't love it, but no big deal
They took one arbitrary rule that impacted the last 2 minutes, and made it a full time rule. I approve of this change.
I also have no problem making riding a player like a horse an automatic flagrant foul.
Yes guys should have to make free throws, and a strategy against a Shaq where you try to foul him in the low post when he has the ball before he can throw down a monster dunk is a perfectly reasonable strategy and yes very much a basketball play. But when you have a guard jumping on the back of another player and riding him like a horse away from the ball, that's not basketball. Nor is just grabbing a guy when he is 50 (or 100) feet away from the ball.
I agree from an elegance point of view, guys should make their free throws. And if our concern was that existing rules were making it so guys like Howard and Drummond weren't seeing the floor, I'd say "tough cookies - make your free throws. If you can't do that, maybe you shouldn't be playing."
But that's not what we're getting. Instead, we often end up in situations where one team is hacking, and the other team is just accepting it. That's the problem. Now, that seems like an odd outcome to me to be honest, but that's where we're at. We're not getting the elegant outcome we wanted, but instead a bizarre unwatchable outcome.
This is really another way of saying what Nick said above. The purpose of a penalty for a foul isn't to get more fouls. If that's the outcome you're getting, something is amiss. Maybe this isn't the best fix, but short of just not letting teams play guys who aren't at least 60% from the line or something, I'm not sure what would work.
But that's not what we're getting. Instead, we often end up in situations where one team is hacking, and the other team is just accepting it. That's the problem. Now, that seems like an odd outcome to me to be honest, but that's where we're at. We're not getting the elegant outcome we wanted, but instead a bizarre unwatchable outcome.
This is really another way of saying what Nick said above. The purpose of a penalty for a foul isn't to get more fouls. If that's the outcome you're getting, something is amiss. Maybe this isn't the best fix, but short of just not letting teams play guys who aren't at least 60% from the line or something, I'm not sure what would work.
Okay, but we're not getting that. We're just getting long stretches of unwatchable basketball. Yes, it's an embarrassment that this is the solution, but the other solution (telling players to try harder) isn't working. What else is there?
The game adapts to its players as much as players adapt to the game.
Why did basketball essentially disallow zone? Because offenses weren't good enough in the 70s and 80s, and (later) because plus defenders like Bird and Magic would overwhelm opponents. IOW, the game got boring. They re-allowed it as players got better offensively to the point that the game was differently boring.
Rules and counter-rules are to keep a fun product on the floor, as bowiac says. How do they systemically keep the game fun to watch with the best players on the floor?
Why did basketball essentially disallow zone? Because offenses weren't good enough in the 70s and 80s, and (later) because plus defenders like Bird and Magic would overwhelm opponents. IOW, the game got boring. They re-allowed it as players got better offensively to the point that the game was differently boring.
Rules and counter-rules are to keep a fun product on the floor, as bowiac says. How do they systemically keep the game fun to watch with the best players on the floor?
I love me some Larry Bird, but I can't stand by and say his defense was so good they changed the rules. Score got low in the 90s because they allowed so many handchecks. Or are you saying defenses were not good enough to guard Bird and Magic? Zones came in 2001, so some thought it was more about Shaq than anybody else.
If the hoop was 3 feet across, I'd be draining 3's for 12 million a year. It's 13 & 15. The hoop is 18" and the back of hoop to backboard is 6".
I agree with your assertion but not your solution. Free throws and incessant time outs make the last 2 to 5 minutes of most basketball games unwatchable. Basketball needs rules much more like hockey. If I were in charge of the basketball world, there would be no free throws at all. Free throws are the least entertaining game elements to watch. They get eliminated. If a player commits a foul, that player is off the court, in a penalty box, creating a four on five situation for 24 seconds or until the team fouled makes a basket. If it is a flagrant foul, then it is a four on five for 30 seconds or until the team fouled makes two baskets. Players would be allowed to substitute like in hockey, with no stoppage of play, but only in front of their own bench. Teams would be allowed only one timeout per half. The games would flow so much better and would be much more entertaining to watch.
Only compared to average shots. Strategic fouling is obviously not used in average situations.
If someone forgets to lock their front door, does that make it acceptable to exploit the situation and rob them? "Lost your valuables? Though s---. You should have locked your door." Of course the victim should have locked the door, but the outcome is still unacceptable. Big men similarly ought to be able to hit 60% from the line, but many cannot and the result is unwatchable basketball.
Any rule or system that rewards someone for committing an offense needs to be re-evaluated.