DMC
12-23-2015, 03:01 PM
I'd like to preface this by saying I already know there will be some player names and poster names and coach names dropped here, but I am referring to game play, rules and such. So without further delay:
The 2 for 1
I know the statistical relevance of this tactic. I know it's not going away. It fucking grates on me however to see a team that's beasting suddenly change their entire play style to try to take advantage of the 2 for 1.
As an example, during the Pacers game the 1st quarter was winding down and Manu trying for the 2 for 1 put up a bad shot attempt that ended up in a 3 point play the other direction. Prior to that the Spurs had a good rhythm and were scoring at will basically, but you could see Manu changed his tempo, slowed down and, realizing he had a 2 for 1 opportunity, took a contested long range 2 that clanked off the iron. The Pacers picked up, I think, 5 points in the remainder of that period so instead of keeping the momentum going, it was halted by some statistical carrot on a stick. Often times it will work for you, most of the time in fact according to the numbers, however I'd like to see teams use it more selectively instead of stopping momentum to use it.
The Intentional Foul Away from the Ball
There's been plenty of discussion regarding this and I don't think Sliver will make any rule changes to completely rid the league of it. If you do, you're rewarding guys for not being able to shoot a free throw, however as Silver said, the end user is the NBA crowd, and they don't want to stop the game every trip down the floor to watch some big oaf clank (or make) free throws, at least not in the regular season. I also don't want to see it. I think it's used because it's allowed, and until someone changes the rule so that the person with the ball is the one who takes the free throws, it's going to continue.
It's a can of worms to open however, in that a rule that changes the recipient of the free throws would also affect other aspects of the game. For example, you have a guy shooting a three and someone under the rim gets fouled by the defender during the shot. The shot goes (or doesn't go) and you now have a guy outside the 3pt line who has to shoot the free throws. Is he shooting 2 or 3? If he made the shot, does he take the free throw as well for a 4 point play even if not in the penalty (after all, he was shooting). These things could be ironed out but it's easy to see how the ripple effect would change other aspects of the game (in order to remain sensible) that perhaps we don't want to change.
Still, I'd like to see it changed. Perhaps just taking the ball out of bounds if it's away from the ball, however that could stop a fast break or otherwise disrupt the offensive momentum. The goal should be to remove, as much as possible, the coach's ability to affect the game while it's in progress other than calling plays. Tactics like intentionally fouling, jumping out at the 3 point shooter and these things should be closely examined to see how to make them less abrasive. Flopping certainly isn't as prevalent as it was in the past, perhaps the penalties fixed that.
There are other things that probably will change. The NBA will probably issue penalties to broadcasters who openly question the integrity of officiating since the NBA is a product that's being licensed to these outlets and their officiating is part of that. Imagine Sean and Bill discussing how shitty HEB steaks are, during the game. It could be true, but pointing it out is damaging to the league. Coaches get fined, I wonder if broadcasters will have to sign an agreement in the future.
TL/DR
2 for 1 sucks sometimes
Hack-an-Ape sucks sometimes
Filler material about refs
The 2 for 1
I know the statistical relevance of this tactic. I know it's not going away. It fucking grates on me however to see a team that's beasting suddenly change their entire play style to try to take advantage of the 2 for 1.
As an example, during the Pacers game the 1st quarter was winding down and Manu trying for the 2 for 1 put up a bad shot attempt that ended up in a 3 point play the other direction. Prior to that the Spurs had a good rhythm and were scoring at will basically, but you could see Manu changed his tempo, slowed down and, realizing he had a 2 for 1 opportunity, took a contested long range 2 that clanked off the iron. The Pacers picked up, I think, 5 points in the remainder of that period so instead of keeping the momentum going, it was halted by some statistical carrot on a stick. Often times it will work for you, most of the time in fact according to the numbers, however I'd like to see teams use it more selectively instead of stopping momentum to use it.
The Intentional Foul Away from the Ball
There's been plenty of discussion regarding this and I don't think Sliver will make any rule changes to completely rid the league of it. If you do, you're rewarding guys for not being able to shoot a free throw, however as Silver said, the end user is the NBA crowd, and they don't want to stop the game every trip down the floor to watch some big oaf clank (or make) free throws, at least not in the regular season. I also don't want to see it. I think it's used because it's allowed, and until someone changes the rule so that the person with the ball is the one who takes the free throws, it's going to continue.
It's a can of worms to open however, in that a rule that changes the recipient of the free throws would also affect other aspects of the game. For example, you have a guy shooting a three and someone under the rim gets fouled by the defender during the shot. The shot goes (or doesn't go) and you now have a guy outside the 3pt line who has to shoot the free throws. Is he shooting 2 or 3? If he made the shot, does he take the free throw as well for a 4 point play even if not in the penalty (after all, he was shooting). These things could be ironed out but it's easy to see how the ripple effect would change other aspects of the game (in order to remain sensible) that perhaps we don't want to change.
Still, I'd like to see it changed. Perhaps just taking the ball out of bounds if it's away from the ball, however that could stop a fast break or otherwise disrupt the offensive momentum. The goal should be to remove, as much as possible, the coach's ability to affect the game while it's in progress other than calling plays. Tactics like intentionally fouling, jumping out at the 3 point shooter and these things should be closely examined to see how to make them less abrasive. Flopping certainly isn't as prevalent as it was in the past, perhaps the penalties fixed that.
There are other things that probably will change. The NBA will probably issue penalties to broadcasters who openly question the integrity of officiating since the NBA is a product that's being licensed to these outlets and their officiating is part of that. Imagine Sean and Bill discussing how shitty HEB steaks are, during the game. It could be true, but pointing it out is damaging to the league. Coaches get fined, I wonder if broadcasters will have to sign an agreement in the future.
TL/DR
2 for 1 sucks sometimes
Hack-an-Ape sucks sometimes
Filler material about refs