Do/should the Spurs Continue the Hack-a-Jordan for the rest of the series?

We saw tonight that Jordan continues to miss the majority of his free throws. His percentages are as bad as ever.

Yet, it seems pretty clear that Hack-a-Jordan has not led to immediate gains for the spurs on the offensive end, despite the extra possessions it is designed to provide the spurs. The Clippers actually collect the rebound 20% of the time off Jordan's misses, which negates the entire purpose of the hack strategy in those situations. Is 20% too much? 1 out of every 5 hack situations ends up with the Clippers reclaiming possession.

The Clippers tended to play more spirited defense on the other end to make up for the embarrassment of the hack strategy. The spurs also failed to score on any of the DJ hack possessions. Were the spurs just missing shots or did the Clippers efforts to shut them down mostly bear fruit? Is this an anomaly, or would it be the norm?

Obviously, the strategy has its pros and cons. The spurs get to rest players on the court while DJ takes free throws (Clippers too, though). They take the Clippers out of rhythm offensively (Spurs too, though). But is it this the right strategy when it comes to Clippers? While I enjoy seeing the Clippers frustrated by the Hack strategy as much as anyone, I'm not sold on the effectiveness of the hack. In just watching the game, the hack seemed to result in the Clippers pulling even.

All in all, I think Pop was a bit reckless in the way he employed the hack strategy in game 2. If it should be used at all, in what context? leading? behind? used to stop the clips' offensive momentum? After how many made free throws should it end?

Not at home....only on the road IMO.

Make their shooters make shots in SA.

i think it should be applied more on the road, to suck the life of the crowd out of it and restore order

Did Haralobs lose a bet?

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apalisoc_9

Did Haralobs lose a bet?

:lol

---

:lol probably. He's a douche, but he makes an interesting point w/r/t the hack in this game

I honestly think this Clipper team was really tired in the end... They have no bench... I think doing the HACK A JORDAN would only benefit them to take a breather.\

I think we should do it on the 3rd quarter to suck the life out of the arena. and finish strong on the 3rd going to the 4th.

I actually love haralabos..He knows basketball better than 90% of analyst out there..

I was just thinking he might lost a bet or something. :lol

If he's going to continue to miss them so badly that we can't get the rebound there is no point in hacking him.

It works better when you rebound and don't give up second chance points...

I prefer it when the team is losing, which goes against majority opinion..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malik Hairston

I prefer it when the team is losing, which goes against majority opinion..

---

Me too. When you're losing, it can get you back in the game. When you're winning, it can allow the other team to catch up.

Yes, totally.

It didn't work in this particular game, but you could see Pop's idea - the Spurs offense was doing well and the Clippers were all pumped up to make a run and reduce the lead. It ended up destroying the offensive flow of the Spurs and it completely backfired because of the offensive rebounds the Clippers got, but as a strategy it was good. It's just like creating and missing a good shot - the result wasn't what was expected in this exact instance, but it doesn't make the idea bad.

It's the swiftest kick in the nuts ever when that OREB goes back to the Clippers with a fresh 24. Especially If the first FT was made. Dangerous strategy that has it's place of course but can get out of control easily. And as we saw tonight, it can almost cost a game.

Certainly

I hate it with a passion. All it seems to ever accomplish is allowing the other team to focus purely on defense and they start playing lock down, we get no transition opportunities, and lose all our rhythm and ball movement. The ONLY time I would be for it is if both teams are absolutely on fire and scoring at will.

Yes.

The reason why, it is mentally draining on the FT shooter, Jordan and two, all the adrenaline build up in the Clip players just leaves them. That is why they were flat footed in OT. After every miss shot, Blake and Co. showed their frustration because the fatigue. Paul was a non factor for the last 2 minutes of the game and OT.

Spurs probably won't need to do it at home. But on the road, yes, it completely breaks the Clips rhythm and let's fatigue set in. Difference is, the Spurs have more horses to carry the load. Clippers don't.

We gonna blow these fuckers out in san antonio so it wont be needed

Even if desimian scores it disrupts their O. Of course you keep using it

I think it can be succesful but it's like playing with fire. Sometimes it will work (HOUSTON-Josh Smith game) and sometimes it almost will cost you the whole fucking game. We were up like 8-10 when they started doing it and the entire momentum changed. The Spurs were in a pretty good rythm and it seemed to take them out of it. I really really thought it was going to cost us the game and probably should have if Blake didn't just ghost dribble the ball straight to us. With that being said...Glad the Spurs pulled it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malik Hairston

I prefer it when the team is losing, which goes against majority opinion..

---

Exactly. I don't understand why the media has been spewing this myth that Hack-A-Shaq works better when you're ahead. It stops the clock and gives your opponent free points, which is exactly what you don't want when you're ahead. Commonsense dictates that it works better when you're trailing. People shouldn't overthink this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uriel

Exactly. I don't understand why the media has been spewing this myth that Hack-A-Shaq works better when you're ahead. It stops the clock and gives your opponent free points, which is exactly what you don't want when you're ahead. Commonsense dictates that it works better when you're trailing. People shouldn't overthink this.

---

they really want it gone

Yes, but against the Clips I would only do it if a player like Paul, Redick or Crawford are just lighting it up. In the particular game last night, imo the strategy broke the Spurs rhythm when they were playing straight up pretty well. Not only that, they gave up offensive rebounds off missed free throws. It's also dangerous when the fouls are taken by key players. I'll be honest, when it went to OT, I thought TD would foul out and the Spurs would lose the war of attrition.

Well right off the bat, it's always going to be a horrible strategy if you can't grab a damn rebound. So I hope they put some emphasis on this for the future...Clippers got so many extra possessions off missed FTs last night.

Anyways, I don't mind the strategy against the Clippers. They have the best offense in the league at 1.124 points per possession. DJ would have to shoot ~55% from the line to match that level of offense...if he shoots his average (39.7%), that's only .80 ppp. That'd be terrible offense for any team, much less the best offensive team in the NBA.

Some problems though:

1) One of the biggest keys to this series will be how LAC's starters handle heavy minutes. Their bench is terrible, and Doc has shown that he's going to ride out the starters. At some point, you'd imagine fatigue will set in. But when you're doing Hack-a-Jordan, you completely slow the pace down and give them a chance to catch their breath. Griffin might've played 47 minutes, but it wasn't quite as grueling as it would've been had the game not been slowed down for several minutes down the stretch.

2) It's killed our offense too, not just theirs. It takes away any opportunity for transition offense...you're not going to get any transition Green or Patty 3s when you're getting rebounds off FTs or taking it out from under the basket.

3) It potentially gets guys in foul trouble. We got a bit lucky that Tim was able to play so many minutes down the stretch with 5 fouls. Manu fouled out (I seem to recall 2 of those being on DJ). Also, it puts the other team in the bonus earlier...but usually Pop doesn't go to the strategy unless they're already in the bonus, so that makes it less of a problem.

I don't think trailing or leading should factor into it. I would use the hack to stop runs and take the home crowd out of the game. I hope we don't see nearly as much of it in San Antonio, especially because Jordan actually shoots better on the road (37.4% FT at home, 41.7% on the road).

The big thing Voulgaris missed is that the Clippers getting 19% of the rebounds on Jordan's misses is actually good for the Spurs. During the regular season, the Clippers as a team got offensive rebounds on 22.8% of their misses (28th in the league), while the Spurs got defensive rebounds on 77.3% of opponents' misses (4th in the league). A 19% offensive rebounding rate for the Clippers is an 81% defensive rebounding rate for the Spurs. Both of those numbers favor the Spurs.

If so be smart about it, if that is all you are going to do, bring in deep bench to shadow and foul, Baynes, KA, Ayers don't rack up fouls on people you are going to need in the game. If it is something you are going to do immediately they shouldn't be that big a liability on defense, on offense well that my be an issue.

If you ask me, hack a Jordan should be a valid strategy, but only on certain situations. And there are clearly 3 situations.
#1 Whenever a Spur turns it over and is a fast break, Hack-a-Jordan.
#2 Whenever we have an obvious mismatch on defense with Blake Griffin, Hack-a-Jordan.
#3 If (god forbid) Bonner is on the court, (he should) Hack-a-Jordan.

they didn't score after them but dammit they had some good looks. they just couldn't capitalize

It's a great strategy. However, it's only truly effective on the road as it sucks the life out of the crowd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by $pursDynasty

If so be smart about it, if that is all you are going to do, bring in deep bench to shadow and foul, Baynes, KA, Ayers don't rack up fouls on people you are going to need in the game. If it is something you are going to do immediately they shouldn't be that big a liability on defense, on offense well that my be an issue.

---

Nah, because they still have to play offense. Foul trouble is an obvious risk of too much hacking, but the Spurs lose too much on offense if they play guys like KA and Ayers.

On the other hand, Belinelli and especially Bonner become much more viable when they don't have to play defense, and Bonner can foul out with impunity.