http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/...html?post=trueDeep 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 subs utions, 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 en led 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.
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 up, please. In principle, Abbott is spot on here.
This guy makes an interesting point...
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.
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? , 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.
Good stuff. I agree with this 100%.
Yep. Before you knew it, there would be "free throw specialists." , 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 .
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.
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.
strategy
noun
1. an elaborate and systematic plan of action [syn: scheme]
Everytime the Spurs are up for winning the le somebody tries to taint that with something ty. Last year, the Spurs were dirty/floppers, this year they are using Hack-a-Shaq which is cheating, and they still flop.
GTFO Haterz.
They are the Indianapolis Colts of the NBA
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.
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?
"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 en led 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.
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 les. 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.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 04-24-2008 at 12:33 PM.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
