Henry Abbott- "Deep Thoughts About Hack-a-Shaq

Quote:

---

Deep Thoughts About Hack-a-Shaq

April 23, 2008 6:04 PM


There was such a weird moment near the end of the third quarter of last night's Suns vs. Spurs game.

Brent Barry fouled Shaquille O'Neal, well away from the ball. The idea, of course, was to get O'Neal on the free throw line, where he is normally terrible. And then the Spurs would, of course, get the ball back.

The only thing was, it backfired terribly -- not because O'Neal hit the free throws, but because the Spurs were not, in fact, "in the bonus" whereby such a foul would give the Suns free throws. So the Suns got to take O'Neal out of the game (to stop this happening again), and take the ball out of bounds.

Upon reflection, if the Spurs were going to just use a foul, they should have played really aggressively on the ball -- maybe they'd get a steal, you know?

In no way did this foul help the Spurs, and it certainly hurt them, a little, by giving the team and the player another foul, giving the Suns a chance to make substitutions, and by making Brent Barry look stupid.

But, before you say "yeah, yeah, yeah, that was a fairly dumb and fairly meaningless play," take a minute. Think about this with me.

What the rule book was saying to the Spurs was, essentially: "Silly Spurs. You haven't fouled enough for us to reward you."

You see what I'm getting at?

In a small but meaningful way, that rule book is messed up.

First of all, you could make a case that no team should ever get an advantage by fouling. The whole point of making fouls against the rules is to stop teams from fouling, because fouling is contrary to the spirit of the game.

The idea is deeply ingrained in us now, that fouling is sometimes used to help the fouling team. Like when a team is down four with twenty seconds left, and has no other sure way to even get the ball back, let alone win.

But even that is weird, if you think about it. Free throws were designed as a gift to the fouled team. In that setting, however, when the team would much rather have the clock running and possession, free throws are instead a curse, or at best an unwanted test of nerves.

(If it were a birthday present, you'd unwrap it and say "oh I love it!" and then make sure your kids didn't do anything to it so that the store wouldn't take it back.)

Even if, thanks to the traditions of the game, you are OK with foulers being rewarded in some cases, in this Brent Barry case, it's especially weird.

If he fouls him twice, it's good for the Spurs. But if he only fouls him once, it's good for the Suns.

Okey dokey.

Nobody wants more radical solutions from sportsbloggers, but tough! I have some ideas about how to address this.

The current rules are such that if the referee determines that a player has been intentionally fouled for possession, away from the ball, in the final two minutes of a game, the fouled team can have a free throw and the ball back. That rule could be extended all game long.

Another idea that has been discussed would be, in those cases, away from the ball, the fouled team could pick any free throw shooter it wanted. Not a bad idea.

But here's my crazy, from outer-space, rule, that would change all of basketball: how about if any time any player in the NBA is entitled to free throws, the fouled team can elect to take it out of bounds instead.

It's too crazy to even really think about. And I have tried it out on some people on the phone, and nobody wants to give up giving a team that is trailing a way back into a close game.

They say it's the only way a team can come back if they're down four etc.

But I'm saying, we don't know that! At the moment, if a team is down four, and they start fouling, they end up winning, what (I'd actually love to see this research) 10% of the time?

And 100% of the time it's pretty terrible to watch a lot of what should be the most important and fun part of the game.

However, if the team was basically playing their asses off going for the steal, the block, the miss, the offensive foul, etc. what percentage of the time would they win? If teams went to some trouble to acquire and develop players who could succeed in that setting, and coaches put their thinking caps on to maximize their chances, would a team really be way less likely to win?

I don't know. Maybe.

But the game would sure be fast-paced, intense, and fun to watch.

And Hack-a-Shaq would be gone for good.

---

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/...html?post=true

This guy's an idiot, I just posted it for a good laugh. This guy wants to fix the game, IMO, he's ruining it.

Here's a solution for the Hack-a-Shaq, learn to hit free throws.

Abbot claims we messed up because they took Shaq out of the game before we could foul him a second time. That seems like it worked to me. Getting Shaq out of the game should be an advantage for us.

His answer was long so perhaps I missed the nuance of his argument? The fact that he always has to defend himself from being a Spurs hater makes me think otherwise. But for the most part I think he's fairly namby pamby, in some ways like Marc Stein.

Why did the thought ever cross his mind that Pop didn't get exactly what he wanted out of that foul? Get Shaq off the court.

Now the Spurs can double Amare if necessary, without having to worry about him dishing it to Shaq for a dunk.

Actually, I think it all worked out as planned. CIA Pop at his best.

OP, you are the idiot here, not Henry. Giving the fouled team the right to take the ball from the side is a GREAT idea.

Abbott makes great points like this:

"First of all, you could make a case that no team should ever get an advantage by fouling. The whole point of making fouls against the rules is to stop teams from fouling, because fouling is contrary to the spirit of the game."

How is he wrong?

And this:

"The idea is deeply ingrained in us now, that fouling is sometimes used to help the fouling team. Like when a team is down four with twenty seconds left, and has no other sure way to even get the ball back, let alone win.

But even that is weird, if you think about it. Free throws were designed as a gift to the fouled team. In that setting, however, when the team would much rather have the clock running and possession, free throws are instead a curse, or at best an unwanted test of nerves."

How is he wrong?

And more:

"Even if, thanks to the traditions of the game, you are OK with foulers being rewarded in some cases, in this Brent Barry case, it's especially weird.

If he fouls him twice, it's good for the Spurs. But if he only fouls him once, it's good for the Suns."

Once again, perfect sense.

I HATE it when the last 1 minute 30 of a ball game degenerates into a foulfest FT-shooting contest. That is not basketball! It is behaving like a rules lawyer and using rules AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME.

Wake the fuck up, please. In principle, Abbott is spot on here.

This guy makes an interesting point...

Quote:

---

Spurminator50: I don't like Hack-a-Shaq either, but its funny how this is the second straight Spurs-Suns series that has prompted widespread demand for the NBA to change a rule that has been in place for years.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RuffnReadyOzStyle

OP, you are the idiot here, not Henry. Giving the fouled team the right to take the ball from the side is a GREAT idea.

Abbott makes great points like this:

"First of all, you could make a case that no team should ever get an advantage by fouling. The whole point of making fouls against the rules is to stop teams from fouling, because fouling is contrary to the spirit of the game."

How is he wrong?

And this:

"The idea is deeply ingrained in us now, that fouling is sometimes used to help the fouling team. Like when a team is down four with twenty seconds left, and has no other sure way to even get the ball back, let alone win.

But even that is weird, if you think about it. Free throws were designed as a gift to the fouled team. In that setting, however, when the team would much rather have the clock running and possession, free throws are instead a curse, or at best an unwanted test of nerves."

How is he wrong?

And more:

"Even if, thanks to the traditions of the game, you are OK with foulers being rewarded in some cases, in this Brent Barry case, it's especially weird.

If he fouls him twice, it's good for the Spurs. But if he only fouls him once, it's good for the Suns."

Once again, perfect sense.

I HATE it when the last 1 minute 30 of a ball game degenerates into a foulfest FT-shooting contest. That is not basketball! It is behaving like a rules lawyer and using rules AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME.

Wake the fuck up, please. In principle, Abbott is spot on here.

---

Lame. games can be won and lost during that foulfest ft shooting contest. it's part of the game. Some games go down to the wire, some games are blowouts, and sometimes it comes down to a ft shooting contest. what 46 minutes of basketball isn't enough?

I don't see Hack a Shaq, or even intentional fouling, "against the spirit of the game". It can be boring, but not an afront to the game of basketball. It's an element of strategy, and forces players to be more complete and coaches to play the chess match late in the game. I'm never going to be in favor of a rule change that will marginalize fundamentals even further in the NBA.

And how many NBA coaches would take up the offer that this guy's proposed rule change would give them? I'd be a lot more worried about the things that can go wrong on an inbounds play late in the game than sending a shooter to the line. Worse case scenario there is that I come up empty and with a shot a rebound. Worse case scenario on an inbounds late in the game? Hell, I can't even count how many things can go wrong there. Maybe a ref swallows his whistle and a defender gets away with a foul that gives the opponent an breakaway dunk. I'll take the risk of free throws over repeatedly trying to pass a ball in amongst 9 moving players.

A letter to the Sports Editor in my local paper this morning:

"The NBA needs to step in and take action when a team like the Spurs commits the "Hack A Shaq" all night long and makes a mockery of the game."

I'm in Lakerland, I have to assume the writer is a Laker fan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurs_fan_in_exile

It can be boring, but not an afront to the game of basketball. It's an element of strategy, and forces players to be more complete and coaches to play the chess match late in the game. I'm never going to be in favor of a rule change that will marginalize fundamentals even further in the NBA.

---

Good stuff. I agree with this 100%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurs_fan_in_exile

It's an element of strategy, and forces players to be more complete and coaches to play the chess match late in the game. I'm never going to be in favor of a rule change that will marginalize fundamentals even further in the NBA.

---

Yep. Before you knew it, there would be "free throw specialists." Hell, it seems like that some nights anyway...

Abbott's ponderings are actually kind of intelligent there, not at all the typical "the NBA needs to change the rules to keep the Spurs from winning" garbage we usually hear this time of year.

Last year Suns fans wanted Stern to make Amare and Boris crossing the line an exception to the rule, and now they want the league to accomadate Shaq/them by not allowing hack-a-shaq.

I'm getting tired of this shit.

Next thing you know they'll argue that it is unfair for Steve Nash to have to guard TP because he's white, and that it is bad for the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

Abbott's ponderings are actually kind of intelligent there, not at all the typical "the NBA needs to change the rules to keep the Spurs from winning" garbage we usually hear this time of year.

---

More Abbott, Less Spurs homers = Win.

I don't see why they should change the rule to accommodate Shaq. Learn to shoot freethrows. If they do the same to Duncan, I'd also be pissed, but it doesn't matter because it's legitimate. When you're down and need to stop the clock desperately, that's what you do. It's just strategy. You do what you have to do to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronaldo McDonald

Last year Suns fans wanted Stern to make Amare and Boris crossing the line an exception to the rule, and now they want the league to accomadate Shaq/them by not allowing hack-a-shaq.

I'm getting tired of this shit.

Next thing you know they'll argue that it is unfair for Steve Nash to have to guard TP because he's white, and that it is bad for the game.

---

:nope

strategy

noun
1. an elaborate and systematic plan of action [syn: scheme]

Everytime the Spurs are up for winning the title somebody tries to taint that shit with something shitty. Last year, the Spurs were dirty/floppers, this year they are using Hack-a-Shaq which is cheating, and they still flop.

GTFO Haterz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronaldo McDonald

Last year Suns fans wanted Stern to make Amare and Boris crossing the line an exception to the rule, and now they want the league to accomadate Shaq/them by not allowing hack-a-shaq.

I'm getting tired of this shit.

Next thing you know they'll argue that it is unfair for Steve Nash to have to guard TP because he's white, and that it is bad for the game.

---

They are the Indianapolis Colts of the NBA :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sausage

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/...html?post=true

This guy's an idiot, I just posted it for a good laugh. This guy wants to fix the game, IMO, he's ruining it.

Here's a solution for the Hack-a-Shaq, learn to hit free throws.

---

Exactly. If Shaq could even just hit 55% of his FTs, that would ruin the strategy and force opponents to stay away from it.

Everybody complains about the fouls, nobody stops to think about how EMBARRASSING it is that a professional BASKETBALL player (let alone one who claims to be the most dominant force ever) can't hit 3 out of 5 shots from 15 feet away with the game stopped and nobody guarding him.

Think about it. As rough as he has been at times in his career, nobody ever plays hack-a-duncan because even on most off nights, he's going to hit enough FTs to ruin the strategy. You have to be monumentally bad for this to have ever worked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

Abbott's ponderings are actually kind of intelligent there, not at all the typical "the NBA needs to change the rules to keep the Spurs from winning" garbage we usually hear this time of year.

---

Could have fooled me.

I'm sorry, but free throw shooting is a part of the game, and a simple one at that. Giving the team the option is an interesting notion, but don't give me some BS about it being a purer form of the "spirit" of the game.

The foul system hasn't been a problem, and intentional fouls have never been talked about so much until now when the SPURS are the ones using hack a shaq. I don't remember these articles poping up all over the place when Phil Jackson or Don Nelson used Hack A Bowen or Hack a FILL IN THE BLANK.

Interesting... but more questions...

1. If the fouled team elects to inbound the ball, what will be their shot clock?

2. Would there be a limit to the number of times the team will inbound the ball? Do we say, they could inbound the ball until the opposing team's players fouls out? Damn. That would make the game even longer than shooting the ball at the stripe.

3. Why would we need to change the rule just because a minority of players do not know how to shot free throws?

4. Am I making sense? :lol

"But here's my crazy, from outer-space, rule, that would change all of basketball: how about if any time any player in the NBA is entitled to free throws, the fouled team can elect to take it out of bounds instead.

It's too crazy to even really think about. And I have tried it out on some people on the phone, and nobody wants to give up giving a team that is trailing a way back into a close game."

You'd think that somebody who claims to know as much basketball as Abbott would remember that NCAA experimented with this rule not that long ago.

The ends of close games became nothing short of an unmitigated disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny_Blaze_47

More Abbott, Less Spurs homers = Win.

---

I'd generally agree, but Abbott's editorial choices in the last week are suggesting (to me, at least) an agenda that is more anti-Spurs than anything else. Abbott has made it clear that he's rooting for the Suns -- he was rooting for the Suns against the Spurs last year, too. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with his willingness to publish views that largely diminish the Spurs' accomplishments by suggesting that they are the product of gamesmanship, conspiracies, and other forms of favoritism.

I realize that the sniping criticism (and cynicism) about the Spurs always been there, at least to some extent, until there is some begrudging acknowledgment during the Finals of the athletic prowess, teamwork, and ethic that wins titles. But I guess that what I percieve as intimations that the Spurs' successes are anything other than hard-earned have really gotten to me and are really frustrating this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K-State Spur

You'd think that somebody who claims to know as much basketball as Abbott would remember that NCAA experimented with this rule not that long ago.

The ends of close games became nothing short of an unmitigated disaster.

---

Really? When was that? What happened?

I can appreciate Abbott's idea and I wouldn't have a problem with addressing Hack-a-Whomever, but this seems like a very extreme rule change for the sake of a relatively rare occurrence in the NBA, and you'd still have a barrage of fouls at the end of games when teams are trying to catch up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

Really? When was that? What happened?

---

it was 6 or 7 years ago. used as an experimental rule in some of the 'exempt' games.

the team with the lead would continually take the ball out of bounds, which led to them just getting fouled and fouled and fouled...

the final minute of the game took about 20 minutes to complete.

even the people who had been in favor of the rule change said that it worked better in theory than it did in practice and scrapped it.

There's a mention of it in this article:

Quote:

---

COLLEGE BASKETBALL
All Fouled Up

In early-season basketball tournaments the NCAA has experimented with a rule that gives a team the option of shooting foul shots or taking the ball out of bounds after its opponent's 10th foul of a half. The rule, which was designed to keep basketball's endgame from turning into a tedious march to the free throw line, instead produced some bizarre—and tedious—finishes.

In Xavier's 81-79 win over Louisville last Thursday at the Great Alaska Shootout, the Cardinals were behind 80-79 with 26 seconds left when they started fouling. They fouled 10 times in the next 23 seconds before Musketeers coach Skip Prosser finally allowed star guard Darnell Williams to go to the foul line with :03 on the clock. Williams made the first free throw but missed the second, and a desperation 20-footer by Louisville's Reece Gaines clanked off the rim. "Well, that was an interesting finish," said Cardinals coach Denny Crum. "In all honesty, I'm probably not a big fan of it," Xavier's Prosser said of the rule.

---

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.c...7853/index.htm

Cheaters

I also believe the league should change every single rule that give teams advantages. Especially those used by the Spurs.

They should remove the 3 pt line, why reward teams for shooting a shot that has a lower chance of connecting rather than a shot that has a higher chance of connecting, such as a layup? Afterall, the point of the game is to outscore the other team in an efficient manner, we don't want to see shots that connect only 33% of the time, vs. ones that connect 60% of the time. If anything, a layup should count as 3 pts, and a 3pter should now count only as two points.

Whenver there is a jump ball, teams should be able to choose players to jump, instead of seeing these 7' guy jumping against some 6'2" guy who has no chance of getting the ball. The spirit of the jump ball is to give an equal chance to either team in getting possession of the ball, no?

Hell with it, if the purpose of the FT is to discourage fouls, teams can have a designated foul shooter like they did in the 50s, Brent Barry would average 28 ppg just on FTs alone.

All revenues should be shared amongst the 30 franchises too! It's unfair that a crappy team like the Knicks and Clippers can never loose $ because of the market, while teams in smaller markets must put up a quality product to survive. Afterall, the spirit of the salary cap and luxury tax is to give all teams a fair chance, no?

On the other hand, how about teams actually practicing shooting FTs so people won't use Haq-a-Shaq?

Since when is gamesmanship and strategy bad? That is part of what alludes me.

I mean, leaving aside all of the other variety of issues here (long term rules in place, adjustments because one player refuses to learn a fundamental skill, etc) - part of the game is strategy. And if you disagree, then you must not think coaches are important to the game.

Running certain plays, running certain line-ups, setting up specific defenses and stratagems - that's always been a part of the game. Using the rules to your advantage - always been part of the game. That's why guys will bounce balls off their opponents when they are falling out of bounds. That's what clock management is all about. That's what foul count and timeouts are all about. Working the rules to find an advantage.

It's part of the high-level of play. It's part of what separates the NBA from street-ball. Intentional fouling is just another piece of that. This hack-a-player fouling is perfectly legal and has been forever; it's an issue now because sports writers who jocked the Suns are disgruntled about their losses and because Pop rarely resorts to this tactic. People are bitching because they hate seeing the Spurs win, and this is easy to latch onto. No one complained about hack-a-Bowen when it happened back in the day; then it was a legit strategy.

People are acting like the game is some pure spirited thing that has been distorted by (the Spurs and) lame rules. But working the rules has always been a part of the game, and is a piece of every other strategy one devises in order to give one's team the advantage. Bottom line - gamesmanship is not a bad thing or an evil thing. It's part of the competition.

Abbott's takes on this series have been horrible. While this wasn't as bad as his last piece, it's stupid in its own right. Why the hell do people care about Hack-a-Shaq all of a sudden? It's been around for a decade. Why change it now when it has been used hundreds of times in NBA history?

It's like the national media's first response to the Spurs winning is to change rules. Tim and David pack the paint? Change the illegal defense rules. David draws charges under the basket? Add the charge circle. Pop instructs his players to hand check on the perimeter? Eliminate handchecking.

Part of the reason the Spurs haven't been able to win back-to-back is because the rules have changed so much year to year recently. It used to preferred to have physical defenders like Mario Elie and Jaren Jackson. Then after handchecking was eliminated, those types of players became worthless defensively.

Last year after Stoudemire and Diaw clearly violated the "don't leave the bench" rules, everyone wanted to change the rules. Even this year, when the Spurs were manipulating the D-League call up rules, the NBA changed the rules in the middle of the season.

I just don't understand why the first reaction to Spurs success is rule changes. Don Nelson has been using Hack-a-Shaq tactics for like twenty years now. The Spurs have mixed results and now hacks like Abbott are coming up with ways to eliminate it? WTF?

When you can't beat em, just pussy out and beg to change the rules.

If you can't make a 15 foot uncontested shot from straight-on with consistency, then your game is bad, not the rules. If I got into the NBA and shot 15% on free throws, should we change the entire rulebook because my team is being hurt instead of rewarded? Of course not, the team should either bench me or make me work with a shooting trainer.

Shaq is fat and lazy and won't stick to shooting free throws. Look at that one year he actually did well, then he gave up and went back to whatever he is doing now.

If you suck so much at something that a rule that is meant to help you hurts you, then you better have a good reason for sucking.

And about the game coming down to a free throw shooting contest. Same principle. If you choke under pressure and miss your free throws, then it's your fault your team lost, not the rules. A championship caliber team will do what it takes to win. If they miss the free throws, then they aren't skilled enough. Get out of the kitchen if you can't handle the fire.

The Spurs are the team equivalent to what Wilt Chamberlin was to individual accomplishment. They're such bad asses that you feel the need to change the rules after they make you their personal bitch.

timvp is right on the $

All these national media guys keep whining about things that all come down to on basic argument... That life isn't fair.

Amare and Diaw getting suspended for breaking the rules isn't fair.
Intentionally putting shaq on the line because he's a bad free throw shooter isn't fair.

These so called "adults" have the minds of children. Life isn't and is never going to be fair, and it is a GREAT thing.

Because life isn't fair we have the opportunity to better and differentiate ourselves by putting in effort into something that most people arent willing to do. The Spurs are willing to work to master both sides of basketball, offense and defense, and they have won multiple championships. The Suns play one dimensional team ball and come up short. Put the work in to get better defensively as a team, don't go rent a fat Shaq, expect your problems to be fixed, then cry about a lack of fairness when you still come up short.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I'd generally agree, but Abbott's editorial choices in the last week are suggesting (to me, at least) an agenda that is more anti-Spurs than anything else. Abbott has made it clear that he's rooting for the Suns -- he was rooting for the Suns against the Spurs last year, too. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with his willingness to publish views that largely diminish the Spurs' accomplishments by suggesting that they are the product of gamesmanship, conspiracies, and other forms of favoritism.

I realize that the sniping criticism (and cynicism) about the Spurs always been there, at least to some extent, until there is some begrudging acknowledgment during the Finals of the athletic prowess, teamwork, and ethic that wins titles. But I guess that what I percieve as intimations that the Spurs' successes are anything other than hard-earned have really gotten to me and are really frustrating this year.

---

Just last week? No, he's been a Spurs hater since True Hoop appeared on ESPN and probably before then too. But screw him...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

This guy makes an interesting point...

---

Precisely. Henry Abbott is a complete Phoenix tool when he's not a Portland tool. Suddenly this rule needs revising because the Spurs are using it.

http://www.ncaa.org/releases/rules/1...99050701ru.htm

yikes.

- Mars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duncan228

A letter to the Sports Editor in my local paper this morning:

"The NBA needs to step in and take action when a team like the Spurs commits the "Hack A Shaq" all night long and makes a mockery of the game."

I'm in Lakerland, I have to assume the writer is a Laker fan.

---

I bet it is. I bet it is. :depressed

Stuff like this can get intersting though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duncan228

A letter to the Sports Editor in my local paper this morning:

"The NBA needs to step in and take action when a team like the Spurs commits the "Hack A Shaq" all night long and makes a mockery of the game."

I'm in Lakerland, I have to assume the writer is a Laker fan.

---

We hacked him once in game 1 and 3 times in game 2. That's "all night long"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RuffnReadyOzStyle

Wake the fuck up, please. In principle, Abbott is spot on here.

---

No... you wake the fuck up, please. The game is won by the team that puts the little ball through the ring the most times. Period.

So you would think that the rules of the game would reward players who can put the little ball through the ring. Not protect the ones who can't.

There is already a rule in place to protect players like Shaq, who can't put the little ball through the ring... it's the one that puts a player out of the game after he commits his 6th foul. No team could play the Hack-A-Shaq all night, because they would run out of players.

And remember, Shaq gets rewarded every time a team attempts this strategy. He gets to stand directly in front of the basket and shoot two uncontested shots. What more could any player ask for?

The only way it could be considered a penalty is when a player lacks the fundamental basketball skill of being able to put the little fucking ball through the ring. The rules don't penalize Shaq. His lack of ability does.

I'm sorry... but when you play a sport where the whole idea is to put a ball through a ring, and you get paid millions of dollars every year to do so... you ought to be able to put the silly ball through the fucking ring.

And you're complaining as a fan of the game? A fan of a game where the objective is to put the ball through the ring? And you think it ruins the game when a player gets an unobstructed opportunity to do that, and he can't? And somehow that is the fault of the game, or the rules?

Honestly, watching Shaq shoot free throws is at least as entertaining as watching Jerry Springer, or any of the "reality" TV shows where people humiliate themselves. I think a lot of people would pay money to watch a guy who gets paid $20 mil a year throw up brick after brick, while they laughed at him and threw tomatoes.

I actually think the rules as they stand make the end of tight games a LOT more interesting. normally, when a team is up 5 with a minute to go, you know the other team still has a chance. Eliminate the FT's, and such a game is essentially OVER - turn off the TV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

The only way it could be considered a penalty is when a player lacks the fundamental basketball skill of being able to put the little fucking ball through the ring. The rules don't penalize Shaq. His lack of ability does.

---

Bingo.

The only response i have to this article and all hidden hate towards the Spurs is...

FUCK i love being a Spurs fan.