| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
frijolero01
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 13324
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| saacman5033 wrote: | | The fundamental objective of basketball is to put the ball in the hoop more than your opponent. If a player can't make a respectable percentage of easy freebies, they deserve the embarrassment that accompanies the hack-a-whoever strategy. |
bingo.
They can't just change the rules just because a team exploits a weakness in a player.
_________________
Thank you, Kobe. We love you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| USCandLakers wrote: | | If someone on the other team can't do something, you take advantage of it, the league shouldn't go changing the rules just because that player is incapable. |
They wouldn't be changing the rules for the benefit of the player. They'd be changing it to make the games more enjoyable for fans.
| USCandLakers wrote: | | That's like making a rule preventing NFL teams from playing their secondary a certain way against Peyton Manning because he can't throw a deep ball anymore, and no matter how much time he spends in the gym, he can't throw a deep ball. |
Not quite. Any rule change wouldn't literally be limited to a specific player. That said, the NBA has already done this. The lanes were changed to limit Mikan and Wilt. Other similar changes have been done over the years.
| USCandLakers wrote: | | Some players can't play defense no matter how hard they train, no matter how hard they try. They have physical deficiencies. They get eaten up on the defense all the same. Change the rules and make it so you can't screen this player? |
Again, no one is saying a rule should be implement that is limited to a specific player. That said, they change defensive/offensive rules all the time. So, sure, if the NBA saw an issue with screens that was making the game less enjoyable, they would change the screen rule. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chronicle
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Jul 2012
Posts: 31935
Location: Manhattan
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have no strong feeling one way or the other
_________________
Kobe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| frijolero01 wrote: | | saacman5033 wrote: | | The fundamental objective of basketball is to put the ball in the hoop more than your opponent. If a player can't make a respectable percentage of easy freebies, they deserve the embarrassment that accompanies the hack-a-whoever strategy. |
bingo.
They can't just change the rules just because a team exploits a weakness in a player. |
The fundamental objective in basketball is for the TEAM to put the ball in the hoop more than its opponent. That doesn't require everyone being able to shoot from 10' out, and indeed if that ability was so important, and so fundamental to the objective, then poor shooters would be weeded out before they reached the NBA. Natural selection is a powerful force.
Also, I don't think this is analogous to a simple exploitation of a weakness. Sure, if a defender can't move to his right, you consistently attack him on that side. If he can't deal with screens, you consistently run screens against him, and so on. But all of those strategies are within the rules of the game. This is something that is outside the rules. You break the rules of the game in order to exploit the fact that the penalty is contingent and not severe enough to to be a disincentive.
It's like saying you want to punch guys when you're driving to the hoop, but only the ones with glass jaws, because, you know, strategy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
22
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How is it any different from intentionally fouling the other team when there is little time on the clock and you want to "extend the game"?
That's not looked down upon, but under the assumptions you're making LC, that's "breaking the rules of the game" in the same manner as hack-a-shaq |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saacman5033
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 786
Location: HNL
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 22 wrote: | How is it any different from intentionally fouling the other team when there is little time on the clock and you want to "extend the game"?
That's not looked down upon, but under the assumptions you're making LC, that's "breaking the rules of the game" in the same manner as hack-a-shaq |
That's a perfect example and nearly exactly the same as using the hack-a-shack as a strategy. The whole "this violates the rules" argument just doesn't fly here.
And besides using foul violations to gain an advantage, players use non-called violations to their advantage all the time like traveling and illegal screens. No, this is solely something that you consider removing for entertainment reasons. I'd like it to stay as I like seeing strategy options.
| LarryCoon wrote: | The fundamental objective in basketball is for the TEAM to put the ball in the hoop more than its opponent. That doesn't require everyone being able to shoot from 10' out, and indeed if that ability was so important, and so fundamental to the objective, then poor shooters would be weeded out before they reached the NBA.
|
Most terrible shooters are weeded out before reaching the NBA. For those that haven't been weeded out, no need to pity them if they can't be bothered to develop a decent shot. They're only paid millions to play a game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30710
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This is looking to make a change in the rules for effectively 3 guys in the league... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Runway8
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 22854
Location: La Jolla, San Diego
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | The “guys just need to make their free throws” argument isn't persuasive. There are many skills that give rise to an NBA player, and while shooting is highly selective, it is not necessary for an NBA player to be a good shooter – many mediocre or even poor shooters can make the league on the basis of other skills or attributes. It stands to reason that shooting ability will always be distributed (probably a skewed normal distribution), and that there will always be players for whom a high free throw percentage is unrealistic – so the Hack-A-Player strategy, if allowed, will always be effective. Guys just making their free throws will never be a solution to this problem, and it is unrealistic and non-empirical to believe otherwise. That leaves changing the system of meritocracy that gives rise to NBA players (so only good shooters can make the league in the first place), or changing the rules to disincentivize the Hack-A-Player strategy, as the only plausible solutions. The latter is much easier than the former, of course.
That said, to me the arguments all boil down to what is almost a fundamental statement about right and wrong. This is the only instance that comes to mind in all of team sports in which one side can break the rules in order to gain a competitive advantage. To me that’s anathema to the concept of sporting competition. |
I'm convinced!
Kind of like what if there was some loophole where we can force bad three point shooters to shoot three points? So I see what you're saying Larry. Why are we singling out one particular skill and saying you must be good at this!!
But the NBA is mainly worried about ratings and product. And I still say people don't change channels because of Hack a whoever. People stay tune to revel in a players success or failure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Runway8
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 22854
Location: La Jolla, San Diego
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jonnybravo wrote: | | This is looking to make a change in the rules for effectively 3 guys in the league... |
Well, they are essentially loopholes, and people fix loopholes all the time. There will be more bad free throw shooters coming down the pipe, but you can close the "hack-a-blank" loophole now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakersken80
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38792
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The NBA is probably looking at it from an entertainment perspective rather than a skills perspective. If they were worried about skills it wouldn't even be a question. But since they are in the entertainment business, they realize that free throw shooting contests aren't what the fans pay big money to see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You shouldn't be penalized for a violation that is meant to penalize the other team.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saacman5033
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 786
Location: HNL
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: | | You shouldn't be penalized for a violation that is meant to penalize the other team. |
So should they also stop allowing teams to foul when they're up 3 with little time remaining? Or not allow fouling when trying to catch up towards the end of games? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 3 to make 2 for the intentional off the ball fouls used in the Hack-a-Shaq strategy. You can still use the strategy, and the target still has to make free throws, but the risk-reward gets altered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Runway8
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 22854
Location: La Jolla, San Diego
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | 3 to make 2 for the intentional off the ball fouls used in the Hack-a-Shaq strategy. You can still use the strategy, and the target still has to make free throws, but the risk-reward gets altered. |
Honestly, that's all you need to tweak to get rid of it. The success rate of Hack-A-Whoever strategy is questionable as is, I don't think coaches will take the 3 for 2 gamble. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144474
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | The “guys just need to make their free throws” argument isn't persuasive. There are many skills that give rise to an NBA player, and while shooting is highly selective, it is not necessary for an NBA player to be a good shooter – many mediocre or even poor shooters can make the league on the basis of other skills or attributes. It stands to reason that shooting ability will always be distributed (probably a skewed normal distribution), and that there will always be players for whom a high free throw percentage is unrealistic – so the Hack-A-Player strategy, if allowed, will always be effective. Guys just making their free throws will never be a solution to this problem, and it is unrealistic and non-empirical to believe otherwise. That leaves changing the system of meritocracy that gives rise to NBA players (so only good shooters can make the league in the first place), or changing the rules to disincentivize the Hack-A-Player strategy, as the only plausible solutions. The latter is much easier than the former, of course.
That said, to me the arguments all boil down to what is almost a fundamental statement about right and wrong. This is the only instance that comes to mind in all of team sports in which one side can break the rules in order to gain a competitive advantage. To me that’s anathema to the concept of sporting competition. |
I agree. If a player is a poor rebounder, there isn't something against the rules that the other team can do to make him grab a rebound with everyone watching. I understand the strategy but never agreed with it. There is already an intentional foul rule on the books, FTs and then the team that gets fouled gets the ball out of bounds. Why not just instruct the officials to call that?
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 22 wrote: | How is it any different from intentionally fouling the other team when there is little time on the clock and you want to "extend the game"?
That's not looked down upon, but under the assumptions you're making LC, that's "breaking the rules of the game" in the same manner as hack-a-shaq |
Agreed -- I don't think it's any different. It's just another case of breaking the rules to gain a strategic advantage, because the risk/reward isn't set right. Again, back to my hypothetical question, what's the difference between that and punching a defender to get him out of the way, other than the risk/reward being different?
Nor do I think that stopping the clock in late game situations is a strategy that should be protected. If a team plays superior ball for 47 minutes and is up by seven, there's no compelling reason to give the other team extra opportunities. I was a cyclist -- I don't want the race organizers to spread nails across the road in the last mile of a 25-mile time trial, simply to preserve the ability for other riders to try to come back. The last mile should be like every other mile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mhan00
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32067
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Finally. It makes the games god awful to watch, and it is getting worse and worse. Just give teams the right to waive their right to fts if they want and opt to maintain possession instead. Problem solved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MIZ83
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Oct 2002
Posts: 400
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mhan00 wrote: | | Finally. It makes the games god awful to watch, and it is getting worse and worse. Just give teams the right to waive their right to fts if they want and opt to maintain possession instead. Problem solved. |
But that would mean that teams couldn't foul to stop the clock, hope for a miss or make a 3 versus 2 made FT's at the end of games; so it would eliminate some exciting finishes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christopher C
Star Player
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 6292
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | 22 wrote: | How is it any different from intentionally fouling the other team when there is little time on the clock and you want to "extend the game"?
That's not looked down upon, but under the assumptions you're making LC, that's "breaking the rules of the game" in the same manner as hack-a-shaq |
Agreed -- I don't think it's any different. It's just another case of breaking the rules to gain a strategic advantage, because the risk/reward isn't set right. Again, back to my hypothetical question, what's the difference between that and punching a defender to get him out of the way, other than the risk/reward being different?
Nor do I think that stopping the clock in late game situations is a strategy that should be protected. If a team plays superior ball for 47 minutes and is up by seven, there's no compelling reason to give the other team extra opportunities. I was a cyclist -- I don't want the race organizers to spread nails across the road in the last mile of a 25-mile time trial, simply to preserve the ability for other riders to try to come back. The last mile should be like every other mile. |
And just from an aesthetic standpoint, lots of free throws at the end of a game are not fun to watch. How much more fun and interesting would it be to see a great on-the-ball defender try to force a steal, or multiple players execute an effective trap to force a turnover rather than intentionally foul to put a player on the line and stop the clock? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dont_be_a_wuss
Franchise Player
Joined: 29 Mar 2012
Posts: 21501
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If guys should make their free-throws, its a part of the game, etc. etc. were how the rules committee felt, then they wouldn't have eliminated the strategy in the last two minutes. Obviously there is something they don't like about, or it wouldn't have been outlawed at the end of games. Its only logical that it would progress beyond the two minute rule. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Telleris
Star Player
Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2371
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This rule change was inevitable with the new tv deal because the people who stand to lose the most from keeping it are the tv broadcasters being turned off because it's awful to watch.
_________________
I believe everything the media tells me except for anything for which I have direct personal knowledge, which they always get wrong |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ExPatLkrFan
Star Player
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 3986
Location: Mukdahan, Thailand
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Telleris wrote: | | This rule change was inevitable with the new tv deal because the people who stand to lose the most from keeping it are the tv broadcasters being turned off because it's awful to watch. |
It's doesn't happen often enough IMO to make a rule change. Really this is being driven by announcers that hate it and gripe about it ad nauseum during their broadcast. Yeah we know this is taking an extra twenty minutes out of your precious day, too (bleep) bad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Runway8
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 22854
Location: La Jolla, San Diego
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ExPatLkrFan wrote: | | Telleris wrote: | | This rule change was inevitable with the new tv deal because the people who stand to lose the most from keeping it are the tv broadcasters being turned off because it's awful to watch. |
It's doesn't happen often enough IMO to make a rule change. Really this is being driven by announcers that hate it and gripe about it ad nauseum during their broadcast. Yeah we know this is taking an extra twenty minutes out of your precious day, too (bleep) bad. |
That is an excellent point. Announcers play a pivotal role in shaping and conditioning public perception. Dion Sanders was just on FIRST TAKE and he talked about this very subject How old school football announcers play a role in shaping your perception of Cam Newton. I've said it several times already in this thread, PEOPLE DO NOT CHANGE THE CHANNEL. They like watching the drama of a terrible free throw shooter unfold. Nevertheless, it doesn't bother me either way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
22
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | 22 wrote: | How is it any different from intentionally fouling the other team when there is little time on the clock and you want to "extend the game"?
That's not looked down upon, but under the assumptions you're making LC, that's "breaking the rules of the game" in the same manner as hack-a-shaq |
Agreed -- I don't think it's any different. It's just another case of breaking the rules to gain a strategic advantage, because the risk/reward isn't set right. Again, back to my hypothetical question, what's the difference between that and punching a defender to get him out of the way, other than the risk/reward being different?
Nor do I think that stopping the clock in late game situations is a strategy that should be protected. If a team plays superior ball for 47 minutes and is up by seven, there's no compelling reason to give the other team extra opportunities. I was a cyclist -- I don't want the race organizers to spread nails across the road in the last mile of a 25-mile time trial, simply to preserve the ability for other riders to try to come back. The last mile should be like every other mile. |
Gotcha LC, I see your point 
The league show know though, when they change the rules there will still be other loopholes elsewhere, so at certain point enough is enough.
I personally enjoy hack-a-Shaq because it adds an element of drama to me. And remember when Pop used it to start the game against Shaq when he was in PHX? That was friggin great! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mhan00
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32067
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MIZ83 wrote: | | mhan00 wrote: | | Finally. It makes the games god awful to watch, and it is getting worse and worse. Just give teams the right to waive their right to fts if they want and opt to maintain possession instead. Problem solved. |
But that would mean that teams couldn't foul to stop the clock, hope for a miss or make a 3 versus 2 made FT's at the end of games; so it would eliminate some exciting finishes. |
Easy fix: just make fts mandatory again the last two minutes of the game when it becomes fts and the ball for deliberate hacks. Fts are by far the most boring part of the game, and they can lengthen the game considerably. I rarely watch games live anymore so I can fast forward through commercials and fts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
