Printable View
Hack a DJ works. Or has ever worked. It looked bad during the season, we lost that game against them, and I remember at the time feeling like it broke our offensive flow. Here we are in the playoffs, and I'm pretty sure there are stats out there pointing out we don't really gain an advantage when we employ it, in the game or score in an overall sense.
Is it really working? Doesn't it just give CP3 rest?
It probably does give CP3 and their guys some rest, but it gives our older guys rest too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Godbama
Worked well with Josh Smith. I haven't seen it work so well with Clippers as of yet.
We won series in the past hacking 52% Shaq
It would be stupid not to do it to 40% Jordan
he made 6-17, and we were fouling him to protect a 2 point lead in the last few minutes of the game. it worked when our offense was stale
the Clippers kept getting offensive boards off of DJ's FT bricks and scoring. Spurs were up ten, went cold on the offensive end, and the Clippers started coming back.Quote:
Originally Posted by weebo
It works if we grab the FUCKING REBOUND
I think that had more to do with how bad DJ was clanking the ball of the rim. The offense going cold is more of a by product of not having someone that could initiate the offense. Parker with his injury and Manu fouling out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Godbama
Is it a net positive for the Spurs? Hard to say. I'm not completely sold on it.
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by testies
Drove me nuts.
The guards are not blocking out well either. Jordan and Griffin can get to the ball and play tippy tap.
Their guards snuck in a number of times.
This is a good post for discussion though.
Thanks.
We have been bombarded with stupid for a while.
I'm not sure it works in total either.
It stops the clock and usually gives the Clippers a point. And Spurs still have to get a rebound. Then Spurs still have to come down and score to make it all a net positive.
I think it's good once in a while but as it goes on, I would think Jordan's % goes up also as he gets "hot". If that's possible.
Funny that you aren't totally convinced it works, when I'm totally convinced it doesn't.
Last night it was a disaster on all counts: 2 FTs + a chance at an OReb (the Clippers got the OReb 3 times I think); players in foul trouble (Tim, Manu...); Clippers starters getting some rest; Spurs offense cooling off and players mentally disengaging from the game; if no OReb then Clippers defense set, which is harder to beat; sending signal from Pop that the players aren't good enough to beat the Clippers in a regular setting, so have to resort to tricks; chance to get 3 FTs, or even worse an And-1 if somebody else is shooting while Jordan is being fouled; pissing off the refs; pissing off the crowd; and last but not least, turning a 10-point lead into a 2-point deficit.
Jordan is a pretty bad free throw shooter, probably the most ideal candidate to do the hacking strategy. Spurs just couldn't grab the rebound or run a good offense on the other end. Spurs' half court offense is just terrible without a healthy Parker.
Pop has to either employ it or not. He cannot go at it half assed and then stop suddenly because "it didn't work". We'll never know if it works or not, but Pop probably knows as does Doc. Neither will say, but it's a strategy and it has a cumulative effect. Now DJ knows what's going to happen, he knows he's going to miss a lot of FTs and have millions watching him brick FTs during the playoffs. It's a pressure you cannot overstate, and it's easy to do. The price for it is giving up fouls and eventually some points, so you have to respond at the other end.
If the Spurs had a shitty FT shooter (pick one right now), other teams would do that to them. It's not much different than exploiting a match up. You have a guy who shoots decent from midrange and he's left open by choice, he's probably going to shoot. You live with his results because the others will absolutely destroy you from mid range.
I think DJ presents the small amount of control Pop can exert on the game and he likes exerting control.
This pretty much sums it up. No one on the Clips were particularly lighting it up either, so it's not like we were taking the ball out of the hot hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by will_spurs
I think if the Spurs showed they can handle the Clippers Pop has no reason to use that strategy. When it's close like that, even with a lead, Pop sees it as a viable method to change the tempo of the game, right when the Clippers crowd is trying to get into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by will_spurs
Yet the fact remains that the Spurs scored 0 (ZERO) points during the Hack-a-Jordan sequence. The Clippers were suffocating and it brought them back into the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
In favor of Hack a Jordan, the Clippers did have to pull him out the last couple minutes of the 3rd quarter to avoid the Spurs putting him on the line. That opened up space for our offense as once he's out, there are no shot blockers.
I think Kevin Harlan mentioned that the Clips are 16-2 (now 16-3) when teams do Hack-a-Jordan.
This. Sometimes 2-3 offensive boards on one god damn possession..was getting me irateQuote:
Originally Posted by testies
How much of the Shaq free throws related to him getting fouled after getting the ball down low? Much higher percentage scoring play than when a team is starting off its possession.Quote:
Originally Posted by hater
My issues are:
1.) When leading, let more clock run as opposed to taking foul with 23 or 22 seconds left on the 24.
2.) Gives a team with no bench time to catch their breath.
3.) Defense can reset; less fast break opportunities
4.) Bad shots lead to bad rebounds. Spurs need three solid rebounders in the key and still won't get everything.
From here (http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/web...ding_data_dump), about 15% of free throws lead to offensive rebounds while 34% of all other shots lead to offensive rebounds. Not a perfect formula, but:
- Average points from a possession: ORtg gives a good measure but it's a circular calculation as possession doesn't end on offensive rebounds
- Player shoots 50% from FT line plus team has 15% chance of grabbing OReb. Assuming a 105 ORtg, a Hack-A results in an effective 108 ORtg. If the OReb% is higher at 25%, you would need the FT shooter to be a 47% guy instead of 50%.
- Formula is (FT%) + (1 - FT%)*(OReb%)*(Assumed points per possession) as the possession is effectively restarting.
Need to evaluate factors like how good the offense is (Clippers are very good), how bad the FT shooter is, and what the likely outcome is from the re-possession of the ball.
Also need to analyze the hole it puts your offense in. PPS is lower when not in a fast break situation, and fast break is less likely after a free throw than in open play.
It works really well unless you do not get the rebound.
Cause vs correlation. They got shot opportunities.Quote:
Originally Posted by will_spurs
the spurs were struggling pretty bad offensively after the midway point of the 4th. we didnt score a single point from 6:41 left until 3:40... duncan was missing layups, we had some turnovers, etc. the spurs were up 88-80 or 88-78 (can't remember which) and the clippers clawed back. at that point we started hacking DJ and it preserved the lead.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
We were 88-78 and finished 90-88. So yes, a 10-point lead became a 2-point lead (and shortly after a 2-point deficit).Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Cause vs correlation is irrelevant here, as the outcome is always "they should have shot better and turned the ball over less". Regardless of the reason the result is clear: Hack-a-Jordan didn't work at all. The Spurs stopped doing it and managed to turn the tide. You can believe it's a coincidence, I don't.
I think it can work in certain situations, like if Paul was torching us, it could force the ball out of his hand and stop the flow of the game. It also obviously gets in these dudes heads. But when you're up already I think it's just retarded tbh. Pop just trolling the fuck out of LA imo
i actually thought hack a jordan worked really well last nightQuote:
Originally Posted by will_spurs
I prefer it when the team is losing, tbh..most people prefer doing it with a lead, but I disagree..
Doing it while you're losing stops the clock to buy more time for a run, along with rest..if you had built a 10-point lead prior to Hack-a-Jordan, you were clearly doing something right, why change it?
Pop's timing was puzzling IMO..
Why change your strategy at a time where your plan was succeeding? It's the equivalent of the Spurs running a successful high pick&roll on 5 consecutive plays against a weak defender, yet subsequently deciding that they're going to stop doing it, despite the opponent not adjusting their defensive coverage..
If you have a 10-point lead, you were clearly doing something right, stick with it IMO..premature panic move..
if it gives Old Man Riverwalk a few seconds to rest on the court, I'm for it in a losing situationQuote:
Originally Posted by Malik Hairston
I thought it was a great thing to do when the Clipper started running. Took Paul and Blake out of the game. But the Spurs have a great defense. They don't need to resort to hack-a-plays often. No way you do that with Wingstop on the perimeter. If they are trotting a lineup of Parker/Mills-Beli-Manu-Diaw-Baynes out there, though, they should hack.
It woulda worked yesterday if the Spurs were able to box out on the rebounds + Duncan made those 2 gimmes + they call the Jordan hack before Redick made the 3 + Belli's turnover wasn't a live turnover. The lead would still have been around 6 or 8 but instead of 6 minutes left in the quarter, there would be 2 minutes left.
Do it when opponent is on a run to break the dynamic and cool off the bleed
Does not make sense doing it when you have the lead and you are showing you keeping dat lead
Quote:
Originally Posted by will_spurs
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Therein lies the problem; it's a complex system that requires more data than you can actually collect to know if it worked or not. You'd need to know what the outcome would have been otherwise, you cannot collect that data. You have to know what momentum was doing for point production, what rest was doing for OT production, anything and everything and still people would disagree because there are also other factors involved.
Cause vs correlation.
Like someone said, I appreciate a thread that's actually not about player fans and focuses on basketball. Up until this year, I was thinking that it was really useful and something that would always help the spurs hold the advantage over the Clippers and Rox in particular if we played them. However, this year has really made me reconsider the strategy. It did work well with Josh Smith, but I remember seeing some stat with Deandre that said when he took 15+ free throws the Clippers actually had a great record, and last game it looked like it also kind of killed our momentum. I like the strategy in cases where we are either up about 10 and trying to stop the come back, or if they are shooting extremely well and we need to just put an end to the rhythm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by testies
I don't mind it if it's used, like others have said, when we're down. Also, if they start getting momentum and the crowd starts getting into it, then it is good to use it as a momentum killer. Really takes the crowd out of it and the players too.
you can come up with an estimate by taking Jordan's FT% for the season (40) and translating it into points per possesion (0.4) and comparing it to the clippers eFG% and turning that into points per possession.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
of course, there's no guarantee that it will work during a given game, because maybe the clips would have been cold anyway, or maybe DJ ends up hitting 7 in a row. so yeah, its correlation. but you can still play the numbers and put yourself in a favorable position.
Disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malik Hairston
Sure, it made it more difficult on the offense, but they had a gassed Duncan and Diaw, as well as no Ginobili or Parker and given the opportunity, obviously a Clippers team that was playing with maximum intensity. In other words, struggling to score down the stretch was inevitable.
It was less a "premature panic move" and more a I-know-my-team-and-I've-seen-this-movie-before move. Think of it as a preemptive measure that had the added benefit of buying Duncan and Diaw some on court rest.
Hack-a-Jordan disrupts the game's rhythm. The only time it would make sense to do it is when you're trying to disrupt the rhythm of the game to your advantage. If you've already got a good rhythm don't mess it up.
I generally am for it, but it almost backfired yesterday. Timmy had 5 fouls in 4th quarter and OT. If one bad call went against him he's out of the game and the spurs probably lose the game. Luckily Manu was playing poorly or else Manu's absence would have hurt more as well.
I'm for it, but the right people need to foul and as has been mentioned, get the fucking rebound.
I like it. It messes with their minds...and puts you in control of the game. YOU are dictating what they do, not them. For that reason alone, I like it...especially against a horrible FT shooter. Plus, we are better in half court game than them. If we want to keep the tempo high...well, we just don't hack them. So, we control the tempo of the game totally.
ThisQuote:
Originally Posted by testies
Lots of good points here.
I'll also say the Clippers are an emotionally fragile team. They need some outside persecution to rally around, and the hacking does it.
Paul, as a superior point guard, is able to keep their offense running when needed.
My biggest beef is that it destroys the Spurs' offensive rhythm. It kills the flow completely.
it doesn't and has never worked. It hurts the Spurs more than the other team. The statistics bear it out.
I think it also has a mental affect on Jordan, which seeps into the rest of his play. Even if we he makes them a a higher percentage than normal, it's still added strain on him that will dull his edge. Those extra bits of concentration I'd rather he use on free throws, which will sap his effort on rotations blocks etc.
Yeah I thought it was bad timing as well. Pop has said that Hack-a-whoever has a negative affect on our offense/defense and he factors that in when deciding to employ the tactic. I don't know what he saw that made him think it was time to start hacking and unfortunately no reporter has the balls to ask him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malik Hairston
in hindsight its probably why Pop was playing Marco over green. Marco can give you something off the dribble in addition to good shooting (and apparently terrible late game turnovers), and his defensive deficiency didn't matter since they were hackingQuote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
Silver unsure about intentional fouling, expects discussion
Quote:
The league could allow coaches to decline the foul and keep the ball, as in football; allow them to keep possession after the free throws; or do nothing at all.
I think the league will add this rule in the offseason. Allow teams to refuse free throws and inbound the ball on fouls away from the ball.
As for the hacking itself, I would love Pop to really mess with the Clippers' minds and do a stop-and-start. Hack Jordan, then let the Clippers have one possession without a hack. Two more hacks, one non-hack, one hack, two non-hacks, etc.
I agree that hacking is a situational thing. I don't think being ahead or behind should matter much. Instead it can be used to buy rest for important defensive players like the starting lineup minus Parker. A Mills/Manu/Beli/Bonner/Baynes lineup looks horrible on paper, but in a prolonged hacking situation it can put up points, buy rest for the top 3 bigs, and foul trouble on Bonner or Baynes doesn't really matter.
The Spurs are simply a shit rebounding team. Most times they just refuse to box out, one of the easiest things to do in basketball. Two years ago it cost us a title and they still didn't learn.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJR210
I would say that the hack strategy is more psychological than numerical. If you use it against a team with great support in their own arena, it becomes easier to backfire. If Jordan makes even one, the fans cheered like crazy. Given that Jordan seems to be a rather emotional player it fired him up defensively as well as all the other Clipper players. It made them try even harder. I think that for the hack strategy to work best, it needs to be done while at home where being 50% from the line is still subjected to ridicule.