Silver about to kill Hack-A-Shaq

[N.O.Bronco]

Did you read what I was referring to?

I am saying, that if the answer to slowing the Warriors offense is to foul them and have them take it side out of bounds, why haven't teams done it to the Warriors this year?

Lol. You should of watched the video first. I figured it was pretty obvious that wasn't meant as a serious retort haha.

[MichaelMcNamara]

Personally I'm fine with the hack-a-whoever strategy. I get why the league wants to change the rules, but in a game where players only get 6 fouls there's only so much intentionally fouling that can be done and it not without it's owe set of negative side affects like most coaching decisions.

This is always my question - If you were to start the league today, is this the best way to set up the rules?

I never look at it as "changing a rule". I just see it as a constant search for the best rules. When these rules were written, nobody foresaw the loophole in it and that teams would use it.

Knowing all we know now, if we were to write the rules from scratch, I don't think we would write them the same way. Same goes with extra points in the NFL. People get all up in arms because it is a "change", but no way that we would have a throwaway play if we could start from scratch today

[MichaelMcNamara]

Lol. You should of watched the video first. It clearly wasn't a serious retort.

I watched it. It just would have made more sense if it included the Warriors

[N.O.Bronco]

I watched it. It just would have made more sense if it included the Warriors

I thought a joke that centered around the ludicrousness of calling a hack a shack 5 seconds into a game was a way to both bring humor to the thread and say indirectly that I agree with the crux of your point.

Plus why pass up a chance to post some classic Pop humor? Can't fault a man for that.

[thefuture]

What are you talking about? Yeah they do.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-S_soY5Jg_Q

Got to love Pop

[da ThRONe]

This is always my question - If you were to start the league today, is this the best way to set up the rules?

I never look at it as "changing a rule". I just see it as a constant search for the best rules. When these rules were written, nobody foresaw the loophole in it and that teams would use it.

Knowing all we know now, if we were to write the rules from scratch, I don't think we would write them the same way. Same goes with extra points in the NFL. People get all up in arms because it is a "change", but no way that we would have a throwaway play if we could start from scratch today

I'm all for change when I deem them necessary. If I were given full autonomy over the league it would look completely different than it does now. I just don't consider this a problem. I feel the same way about flopping. I put the responsibility on the refs not the players.

[Noggy]

They need to have a serious conversation about flopping. It's the worst thing in the game and doesn't get penalized anywhere near what type of impact it has on a game.

Hacking a bad FT shooter is still penalizing your team. Flopping and getting a fine is nothing.

flopping should be a 15 yard penalty

[pmarpelicansfan]

Just give the team the option to decline. Works okay on football

Couldn't teams just keep fouling Jordan or whoever to attempt a steal?

[MichaelMcNamara]

Couldn't teams just keep fouling Jordan or whoever to attempt a steal?

In the current system, you can foul a guy off the ball. That is the issue. If my system is implemented, Jordan wouldn't get the ball - just like he doesn't now.

But yes, theoretically, if the Clips dumped the ball into the post then teams could keep fouling him knowing that he won't take his free throws. But then, you just get into the penalty quicker for every time you foul somebody else. So, I doubt that would happen.

[greewe]

I'm fine with just about anything that gets rid of the "hack a..." strategy. It's not fun for the fans to watch, and it slows down the game.

I also would love to see a one game suspension for flopping starting with the third infraction. Fines mean nothing to these guys. But look at Westbrook's reaction after he thought he received his 16th T. Players care about missing games.

[Ludiculous]

4th and 3 from the 32 yard line, down 1 with a 4 seconds left. Team A kicks the field goal and its good! But wait, Team B jumped offsides and you know what that means: Automatic first down. No option to decline. Now Team A has one untimed down from the 27 to try to win it again.

We would all agree that would be stupid, right? If a team commits an infraction against another team, it should not FORCE the other team to do something offensively. They should have the option.

I have yet to hear one legit reason to not just simply give the team the choice of whether to shoot free throws or go side out of bounds. Obviously, in the final 2 mins of each half, you have the same rules we have now. But in the other 44, the team has the choice. Simple.

I get the premise of where you are going but at the end of the day that rule is enforced because the other team can literally do nothing to stop that kind of foul.

But the hack a player rule can be stopped by one pulling the player that can't hit free throws and put a player in that can.

Or get the player to learn to shoot. Your getting paid millions of dollars to put a ball through a hoop and when it matters most you can't do it.

Free throws are part of the game. You get paid to literally work on your game everyday. Practice free throws and your weakness won't be exploited. Plain and simple.

[Ludiculous]

I'm all for change when I deem them necessary. If I were given full autonomy over the league it would look completely different than it does now. I just don't consider this a problem. I feel the same way about flopping. I put the responsibility on the refs not the players.

I agree with Throne, and will add it's not fair to protect players because they are bad at something. Just learn to shoot a free throw problem solved.

[DirtySouf]

I agree with Throne, and will add it's not fair to protect players because they are bad at something. Just learn to shoot a free throw problem solved.

Agreed

[thefuture]

Maybe there should be a rule against bigger players posting up against smaller ones as well?

[N.O.Bronco]

I get the premise of where you are going but at the end of the day that rule is enforced because the other team can literally do nothing to stop that kind of foul.

But the hack a player rule can be stopped by one pulling the player that can't hit free throws and put a player in that can.

Or get the player to learn to shoot. Your getting paid millions of dollars to put a ball through a hoop and when it matters most you can't do it.

Free throws are part of the game. You get paid to literally work on your game everyday. Practice free throws and your weakness won't be exploited. Plain and simple.

Why should a penalty - that by its nature and intent is meant to hurt the team that commits it - actually be beneficial to the team committing it? By its very nature it goes against the core of what a penalty is intended to do.

Frankly this argument should be applied to other areas as well. Silver is absolutely right to address this.

[BallSoHard]

I'm fine with the rule as is. The other coach isn't obligated to keep a player in, but i'd be fine w a rule change. The one i heard and was suggested in here was just giving them the option to shoot or not. It's the most obvious choice if you want to change it.

[Noggy]

Flopping should be a T

how can someone get a T for saying something stupid, but not for effecting the outcome of the game in a dishonest way?

[Ludiculous]

Why should a penalty - that by its nature and intent is meant to hurt the team that commits it - actually be beneficial to the team committing it? By its very nature it goes against the core of what a penalty is intended to do.

Frankly this argument should be applied to other areas as well. Silver is absolutely right to address this.

Because its a great strategy. Do I really have to explain it? They foul the person who doesn't shoot free throws well so he can brick one or both. It's not a penalty because the person being fouled can't shoot free throws.

[Ludiculous]

Flopping should be a T

how can someone get a T for saying something stupid, but not for effecting the outcome of the game in a dishonest way?

The problem with someone flopping is its not always caught in game. The refs make a alot of judgement calls in those split seconds which is why so many flops are missed in game yet the nba reviews and fines them immediately after the game

[Noggy]

The problem with someone flopping is its not always caught in game. The refs make a alot of judgement calls in those split seconds which is why so many flops are missed in game yet the nba reviews and fines them immediately after the game

And players saying ***** isn't always caught either. Either way it would discourage it. Think how much cooler the nba would be if instead of flopping like a rag doll at slight contact you held your ground or got up quickly so you wouldn't get a T for flipping like a whiny kid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[N.O.Bronco]

Because its a great strategy. Do I really have to explain it? They foul the person who doesn't shoot free throws well so he can brick one or both. It's not a penalty because the person being fouled can't shoot free throws.

That isn't addressing my point. Or the point MM made earlier when he started this line of reasoning.

A penalty is meant to penalize. It isnt meant to give the person committing the violation a likely advantage.

The fact you are calling it a strategy for the team committing the penalty actually reinforces the point being made.

[Ludiculous]

That isn't addressing my point. Or the point MM made earlier when he started this line of reasoning.

A penalty is meant to penalize. It isnt meant to give the person committing the violation a likely advantage.

The fact you are calling it a strategy for the team committing the penalty actually reinforces the point being made.

But it would be penalty is what I'm saying if the dude could make his free throws. He makes his free throws it hurts the other team because he scores, one player closer to fouling out and closer to being in the bonus.

It's a strategy because it helps more than it hurts but it would be a penalty if the player could make the free throws.

Free throws are a part of the game and you are changing the rules because a player does poorly in one aspect of the game.

So in football that would be like this kicker kicks field goals poorly so because of that we are going to give the team one more down to try and score a touchdown.

I'm addressing the over all need to change it in the first place. It remains a penalty if the opposing player makes the free throws it becomes strategy when they can't shoot them.

I'm arguing that you are literally changing a rule because a player can't make free throws, something that he is paid millions of dollars to do. You play a lineup with guys that shoot free throws at high rate we aren't even having this discussion. No fouling, no penalty. But if you have a player on the opposing team with a glaring weakness. You better believe that I am 100% going to exploit it.

[Ludiculous]

And players saying ***** isn't always caught either. Either way it would discourage it. Think how much cooler the nba would be if instead of flopping like a rag doll at slight contact you held your ground or got up quickly so you wouldn't get a T for flipping like a whiny kid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's the dream.

[N.O.Bronco]

But it would be penalty is what I'm saying if the dude could make his free throws. He makes his free throws it hurts the other team because he scores, one player closer to fouling out and closer to being in the bonus.

It's a strategy because it helps more than it hurts but it would be a penalty if the player could make the free throws.

Free throws are a part of the game and you are changing the rules because a player does poorly in one aspect of the game.

So in football that would be like this kicker kicks field goals poorly so because of that we are going to give the team one more down to try and score a touchdown.

I'm addressing the over all need to change it in the first place. It remains a penalty if the opposing player makes the free throws it becomes strategy when they can't shoot them.

I'm arguing that you are literally changing a rule because a player can't make free throws, something that he is paid millions of dollars to do. You play a lineup with guys that shoot free throws at high rate we aren't even having this discussion. No fouling, no penalty. But if you have a player on the opposing team with a glaring weakness. You better believe that I am 100% going to exploit it.

The NBA is built on the idea that the results of penalties aren't automatically given. That is true. However they are designed with the intent that percentages are in the favor of the team that had the penalty committed against them. Hack-a-shack is a very specific strategy where you target a low percentage FT shooter and hack them into the penalty to disrupt offensive rhythm and put the percentages of the penalty closer into your favor then the status quo. It has a very defined parameter. It breaks the intent of the penalty and pushes the percentages into the favor of the opposing team. That can't be denied. You yourself admitted it. So we have a situation where the team committing a penalty has a higher probability of being rewarded then penalized. Which goes against the intent of the penalties in the NBA. Which goes against the intent of this rule when it was created.

The rule is in need of change because the current penalty in that specific situation is foundationally broken because it fails to achieve the original intent of the rule when it was designed.

Your football analogy misses the point entirely. Correcting this wouldn't be anything like that. MM already made a good football analogy if that makes this easier for you to see the point people are making.

[Ludiculous]

The NBA is built on the idea that the results of penalties aren't automatically given. That is true. However they are designed with the intent that percentages are in the favor of the team that had the penalty committed against them. Hack-a-shack is a very specific strategy that has a very defined parameter. It breaks that intent and puts the percentages in favor of the opposing team. That can't be denied. You yourself admitted it. So we have a situation where the team committing a penalty has a higher probability of being rewarded then penalized. Which goes against the intent of the penalties in the NBA. Which goes against the intent of this rule when it was created.

The rule is in need of change because the current penalty in that specific situation is foundationally broken because it fails to achieve the original intent of the rule when it was designed.

Your football analogy misses the point entirely. Correcting this wouldn't be anything like that. MM already made a good football analogy if that makes this easier for you to see the point people are making.

I'm arguing however that it shouldn't be the NBA that corrects the penalty it should be the players. the player is the one that takes the free throws. If you don't want the possibility of doing more harm to your team than good than as a coach you put on player that won't happen too. And as a player you get good at free throws plain and simple. It's only certain teams and certain players that hack a player happens too. so why do we have to change a league wide rule when it ONLY affects players and teams that are poor free throw shooters.

So to put it in your terms the penalty is only foundationaly broken when/if the player can't make free throws.