NBA: why doesnt the NBA allow the game to flow after a 24 second shot clock?

[Cry Havoc]

Not sure on what ground you are making assumptions like traffic cone and more FTAs... it is simply not true, this notion of intentional is not new and is in use... where it is used defenders are not becoming traffic cone and FTAs are not higher

Where it is used there is actually a slower pace of game. FIBA is somewhere between NCAA and the NBA. I understand the point you're trying to make, I just don't think it would work in the NBA. The game is completely different.

[Brazil]

Where it is used there is actually a slower pace of game. FIBA is somewhere between NCAA and the NBA. I understand the point you're trying to make, I just don't think it would work in the NBA. The game is completely different.

NBA has a different format and game is different, true... it does not mean it would not work or at least it is not worth the try.

NCAA is slower mostly because of the shot clock and coaches usually like to play half court basket also because they have 10 sec to bring the ball to front court and not 8 as per NBA and FIBA rules

For FIBA since they implemented the 24 sec and the 8 sec I don't see a major difference in terms of pace tbh... even though you could argue European teams usually use most of the shot clock and NBA teams are pulling the trigger a bit sooner (to be fair here I don't have stat or data to back up that claim), lower scoring is mainly due to the fact FIBA is playing 8 minutes less than NBA and you have less time outs. I believe, per 48, numbers are quite similar in fact.

To be sure nothing better than testing it, as far as I know D League rules are copy paste of NBA rules, that's a pretty nice place to start tbh...

[DMC]

Not sure on what ground you are making assumptions like traffic cone and more FTAs... it is simply not true, this notion of intentional is not new and is in use... where it is used defenders are not becoming traffic cone and FTAs are not higher

Let's make this simple:

What's the issue?

Me: Too much game time spent shooting free throws

You:


What's the goal?

Me: Fewer FTA in a game

You:

How would your proposition achieve that goal?

Me: Totally eliminate FT shooting

You:

[lefty]

let's no be that radical tbh.... 3 second violation is a good rule imho

no it's ing gay

It didn't bother perimeter players back then, the top dogs always found a way inside

So much gotry today, le'ts allow easy penetrations for today's NBA (lol I said today's NBA) perimeters players

[Brazil]

Let's make this simple:

What's the issue?

Me: Too much game time spent shooting free throws

You:


What's the goal?

Me: Fewer FTA in a game

You:

How would your proposition achieve that goal?

Me: Totally eliminate FT shooting

You:

not sure what you are trying to achieve with this post tbh... I'm pretty sure everybody understood what suggestion I'm making to improve flow of the game, you counter argue with stuff like it will increase FTA or defense would disappear, arguments that don't make sense for me as you can just watch and see where it is used those two things don't exist. smh

now where did you ever mention you suggest to eliminate FT shooting, how this would work ?

but to play your game

What's the issue?

You: Too much game time spent shooting free throws
Me: Flow of the game constantly interrupted by FTAs

pretty much the same

What's the goal?

Me: Fewer FTA in a game
You: Fewer FTA in a gmae

How would your proposition achieve that goal?

You: Totally eliminate FT shooting
Me: Implement intentional foul ala FIBA

feeling better ?

[Brazil]

no it's ing gay

It didn't bother perimeter players back then, the top dogs always found a way inside

So much gotry today, le'ts allow easy penetrations for today's NBA (lol I said today's NBA) perimeters players

I can respect that point of view... dat good ugly nba was cool

[lefty]

I can respect that point of view... dat good ugly nba was cool

It was ugly but it was intenese tbh

Today's NBA is more like NBA Jam

[Darth_Pelican]

It was ugly but it was intenese tbh

Today's NBA is more like NBA Jam

[DMC]

not sure what you are trying to achieve with this post tbh... I'm pretty sure everybody understood what suggestion I'm making to improve flow of the game, you counter argue with stuff like it will increase FTA or defense would disappear, arguments that don't make sense for me as you can just watch and see where it is used those two things don't exist. smh

now where did you ever mention you suggest to eliminate FT shooting, how this would work ?

Let's just get rid of the free throw. Problem solved. If you get fouled while shooting, you get 1 point and the ball out of bounds. That fixes everything and speeds the game up. If you're shooting a 3, too ing bad. You get 1 point and the ball out of bounds.

but to play your game

What's the issue?

You: Too much game time spent shooting free throws
Me: Flow of the game constantly interrupted by FTAs

pretty much the same

What's the goal?

Me: Fewer FTA in a game
You: Fewer FTA in a gmae

How would your proposition achieve that goal?

You: Totally eliminate FT shooting
Me: Implement intentional foul ala FIBA

feeling better ?

Now explain how the inentional foul rule you suggest would lead to fewer FTA in a game. The punishment for intentionally fouling is what if not more FTA? Oh and you give them the ball too. You're trying to find a deterrent, but that rule isn't the deterrent, it's just another way to get free throws and the ball. A deterrent is when the big can hit his FTA. That would stop it right in its tracks, as evidenced by the fact that only 5 or so guys have any issues with it. So you think stopping 5 or so teams from having some nights where they shoot more FTs because of intentional fouling would outweigh the freethrow attempts you'd install by saying free throws and the ball? That just gives the same team another chance to do the same play and get 2 free throws and the ball again.

With very tall players, you're never making a play at the ball, always the player.

[Brazil]

Now explain how the inentional foul rule you suggest would lead to fewer FTA in a game. The punishment for intentionally fouling is what if not more FTA? Oh and you give them the ball too. You're trying to find a deterrent, but that rule isn't the deterrent, it's just another way to get free throws and the ball. A deterrent is when the big can hit his FTA. That would stop it right in its tracks, as evidenced by the fact that only 5 or so guys have any issues with it. So you think stopping 5 or so teams from having some nights where they shoot more FTs because of intentional fouling would outweigh the freethrow attempts you'd install by saying free throws and the ball? That just gives the same team another chance to do the same play and get 2 free throws and the ball again.

With very tall players, you're never making a play at the ball, always the player.

when you said let's just get rid of FTs I obviously thought you were pushing an extreme to back up your line of thought. At the beginning you were advocating that a player should be able to make his FTs... problem solved. It solved the hack a off the ball but it is marginal if goal is to improve flow of the game.

Then you are losing me on the punishment for intentionally fouling is what if not more FTAs.... Today a foul leads to FT intentional or not or an inbound, inbound or FTA stop the action. If you give back the ball to the fouled team you oblige defense to defend the ball and not the player especially if after two intentionals a player is out of the game... this should result in cleaner defense = less fouls = less FTAs. I don't see in what universe this would increase number of FTs.

The unsportsmanlike foul or intentional whatever you call it is not limited to off the ball action. This rule is not there just to take care of the 6 bigs who cannot shoot FTs and avoid the two coaches using a hack a, it is also to prevent the arm grabbing avoiding easy lay up and FTs contest at the end of the game.

With very tall players you fight for keeping him back at the basket, to steal when he puts ball on the floor etc... in fiba basketball very tall players are defended normally no more no less than nba... you just don't hack them off the ball or grab their shirt, arm etc.. to prevent a lay up.

[DMC]

when you said let's just get rid of FTs I obviously thought you were pushing an extreme to back up your line of thought. At the beginning you were advocating that a player should be able to make his FTs... problem solved. It solved the hack a off the ball but it is marginal if goal is to improve flow of the game.

The flow of the game wasn't the "goal" though. Fewer FTA was the goal. You even said so yourself.

Then you are losing me on the punishment for intentionally fouling is what if not more FTAs.... Today a foul leads to FT intentional or not or an inbound, inbound or FTA stop the action. If you give back the ball to the fouled team you oblige defense to defend the ball and not the player especially if after two intentionals a player is out of the game... this should result in cleaner defense = less fouls = less FTAs. I don't see in what universe this would increase number of FTs.

You're using a deterrent or an incentive, not a rule, to hope the flow of the game changes. The rule would, by definition, result in FTA if violated. Creating a rule that puts a player on the line to reduce FTA doesn't seem like a good solution. It seems like you're focused on the "flow" aspect but attacking the "FTA" aspect. If FTA is hindering the flow, then all FTA are hindering the flow. Get rid of FTA. Improve the flow as much as possible. You just want to deter certain fouls that lead to FTA.

The unsportsmanlike foul or intentional whatever you call it is not limited to off the ball action. This rule is not there just to take care of the 6 bigs who cannot shoot FTs and avoid the two coaches using a hack a, it is also to prevent the arm grabbing avoiding easy lay up and FTs contest at the end of the game.

Which are part and parcel of denying easy points. The other side of that is being a traffic cone.

It absolutely is only about those few who cannot hit the FT. We wouldn't be having a discussion about it otherwise.

With very tall players you fight for keeping him back at the basket, to steal when he puts ball on the floor etc... in fiba basketball very tall players are defended normally no more no less than nba... you just don't hack them off the ball or grab their shirt, arm etc.. to prevent a lay up.

You keep referring to FIBA but then claim you're not trying to create a FIBA environment. Seems like you are. The NBA and FIBA are two different animals. Are you for making goaltending legal?

[Brazil]

The flow of the game wasn't the "goal" though. Fewer FTA was the goal. You even said so yourself.

Discussion started about how get a game more fluid than today... fewer FTA or inbounds are a way to achieve that knowing NBA won't cut time outs and for economical reason.

[...] You just want to deter certain fouls that lead to FTA.

yes exactly

Which are part and parcel of denying easy points. The other side of that is being a traffic cone.

It absolutely is only about those few who cannot hit the FT. We wouldn't be having a discussion about it otherwise.

You keep referring to FIBA but then claim you're not trying to create a FIBA environment. Seems like you are. The NBA and FIBA are two different animals. Are you for making goaltending legal?

It is not only about those calls, it is also about the intentional foul to prevent a basket and the late fourth quarter FTs contest. The "hack a" is marginal in this discussion.

You are right to point out what seems to be a paradox but I'm referring to FIBA to illustrate it is doable and don't transform defenders into cones. Now I'm not in favor of 4 quarters of 10, of 3 pts line closer, of smaller basketball court or even goaltending. I just think the unsportsmanlike foul rule used in FIBA could be a good option to reduce the number of FTAs and improve the flow of a game already sliced by one big half time and 8 long time outs, no need to add 2/3 min of hack a, 10 FTAs to prevent easy lay ups and again some FTAs at the end of the game when a team foul off the ball.

Not a big deal, just a suggestion worth imo to experiment

[DMC]

Discussion started about how get a game more fluid than today... fewer FTA or inbounds are a way to achieve that knowing NBA won't cut time outs and for economical reason.

Then your goal is a more fluid game, not necessarily fewer FTAs.

yes exactly

Which is why I stated that any FTA is just as annoying as any other FTA. Game situation is different. If you are down one with 1 second to go, you want to shoot that FT. It's not annoying to watch that. It's just as annoying to watch James Harden take 20FTA as it is to watch Jordan take them. Your rule proposal only really addresses the ones that Jordan would be taking most of the time. That's because you think Harden's FTs come in the flow of the game and they are stoppages just like anything else. If Jordan drove through traffic and flailed his arms to get to the line, it would be a non-issue for those opposed to intentional fouling who use "game flow" as a reason.

It is not only about those calls, it is also about the intentional foul to prevent a basket and the late fourth quarter FTs contest. The "hack a" is marginal in this discussion.

Every sport has rules the opposing side will use in desperate moments. Walking a good hitter, for example, is a concession you make as a gamble. You give a guy a free base, just like you give a guy in the NBA a free throw or two. If the guy you put on base is dangerous to you, but the next batter is more likely to hit into a double play or just an out, you're safer to not pitch to the slugger and instead go with the higher percentage play. In football, players use up the play clock and call a timeout with 1 second remaining. They will take an intentional pass interference before allowing a touchdown. They will taking a holding penalty over a QB sack. The NBA is no different. You're wanting to find ways to nullify the defense and just have SSOL style play where no real tactics exist other than raising a hand. You can no longer hand check, can't be in the paint more than 3 seconds, can't moving screen... it goes on and on. I personally don't want to see a 3pt shooting league where no one ever attacks the rim, but I also don't want a bunch of James Harden type defenders who just hope they can get it back at the other end. I don't want to see 40pt quarters being more common than not.

You are right to point out what seems to be a paradox but I'm referring to FIBA to illustrate it is doable and don't transform defenders into cones. Now I'm not in favor of 4 quarters of 10, of 3 pts line closer, of smaller basketball court or even goaltending. I just think the unsportsmanlike foul rule used in FIBA could be a good option to reduce the number of FTAs and improve the flow of a game already sliced by one big half time and 8 long time outs, no need to add 2/3 min of hack a, 10 FTAs to prevent easy lay ups and again some FTAs at the end of the game when a team foul off the ball.

Not a big deal, just a suggestion worth imo to experiment

But if you transform the NBA using FIBA as a template, you're creating FIBA 2.0. FIBA isn't that great.

[Brazil]

But if you transform the NBA using FIBA as a template, you're creating FIBA 2.0. FIBA isn't that great.

fair enough

I just think FIBA rules about fouling make more sense to me than actual NBA. I don't like the "Oh you've blown me out on defense so I will grab your arm to make sure you won't have the easy lay up" it is rewarding bad defense and penalizing good offense and I don't either like the "1 mn left in the fourth we are trailing by 4, let's foul those dudes and hope they miss and get a miracle 3 somewhere" taking ing forever to finish the game. It is just bad logic to me and a flow killer.

[DMC]

fair enough

I just think FIBA rules about fouling make more sense to me than actual NBA. I don't like the "Oh you've blown me out on defense so I will grab your arm to make sure you won't have the easy lay up" it is rewarding bad defense and penalizing good offense and I don't either like the "1 mn left in the fourth we are trailing by 4, let's foul those dudes and hope they miss and get a miracle 3 somewhere" taking ing forever to finish the game. It is just bad logic to me and a flow killer.

You grab that person more than a couple times and you're in foul trouble. There are checks and balances to prevent it from becoming epidemic.

[Spurtacular]

[thread] apalisoc_9 : I'm a dumbass attention " [/thread]

[140]

lol @ OP jumping ship