I'm watching the Spurs/Clippers game, so Spurs keep on intentionally foul DeAndre Jordan because he's about a ~40% career free throw shooter. At one point he made 8 out of 20 and the announcer (I think it's Reggie Miller) is saying how the Spurs's strategy is getting into DeAndre Jordan's head. I mean, what the heck, 8 out of 20 is exactly 40%! I know they're always trying to sound sophisicated in these things, but he's literally shooting his average on the free throw line. Can't they acknowledge that this is actually perfectly normal within what you'd expect?
Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about...
Hack a Jordan
- Somehow, we still tolerate each other. Eventually this will be the only forum left.
*shrug* Fouls are a coward's tactic. Real ballers don't need chump tactics to block a shot. The game is at its best when it's not constantly interrupted, but some teams don't care - probably most, when they face real big men. Personally, I don't have any respect for the hack; if you really have game, you do what it takes to put the ball in or out of the basket without touching anyone.
“I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." --Frederick Douglass
Well the strategy itself is dubious but it'd be hard to make a rule around that because if you make it intentional foul gives you say the ball + shot or whatever then people will be 'accidentally' running over screens. I guess you can just not set screens but that'd likely have a significant impact on your offense too. What I thought was hilarious was Reggie Miller kept on sound like Poppvich had this super awesome plan on top of just intentionally fouling DeAndre Jordan because DeAndre Jordan was making pretty much exactly his career average on the line. I'm thinking if I flipped a coin twice and got head once, you can probably find an analyst that comes up with a long explanation on why this happened.
That kind of reminds me one time one of the analyst says there's always a guy that says soandso made a 'rookie mistake' but what happens when a veteran makes the same mistake? In reality those are pretty much like buzzwords that means nothing because usually the mistakes you see is something anyone could make, but it wouldn't sound sophisticated if you just say 'oh that guy screwed up and turned the ball over'. Let's say a guy was fouled on a three point play at the end of the game and he's a 66% career free throw shooter and he makes 2 out of 3, you'll never hear anyone say, 'well he made exactly what his average is'. Most likely they'll say he choked under pressure even though he made exactly his career average on the line.
That kind of reminds me one time one of the analyst says there's always a guy that says soandso made a 'rookie mistake' but what happens when a veteran makes the same mistake? In reality those are pretty much like buzzwords that means nothing because usually the mistakes you see is something anyone could make, but it wouldn't sound sophisticated if you just say 'oh that guy screwed up and turned the ball over'. Let's say a guy was fouled on a three point play at the end of the game and he's a 66% career free throw shooter and he makes 2 out of 3, you'll never hear anyone say, 'well he made exactly what his average is'. Most likely they'll say he choked under pressure even though he made exactly his career average on the line.
The sports radio i listen to on the the way to work was all over this thing. One host thought they should make a rule to ban this type of strategy while the other thought that it was such a rare situation that nothing needed to be done. I'm with the latter opinion. If your big guy sucks that bad at free throws and the other team keeps fouling him, maybe you have to bench the dude. The first commentator was saying that this is not what the fans paid for, but again, if you have a player who cant make a few uncontested shots then he probably shouldn't be playing in the league, or at least that game. This just proves that any 7 foot player is just automatically in the league, making some aspects of basketball relatively skill less. Good for the Spurs, exposing what a talent less hack this big guy actually is.
BUT, maybe refs should be able to have more freedom to decipher what an intentional foul is. Obviously these are intentional fouls, which is supposed to be illegal. "But it looks like a real foul." Yeah, but we all know it isnt, so call it.
BUT, maybe refs should be able to have more freedom to decipher what an intentional foul is. Obviously these are intentional fouls, which is supposed to be illegal. "But it looks like a real foul." Yeah, but we all know it isnt, so call it.
I'd personally like to see fouls treated more like hockey: you foul someone, you're out of the game for a couple minutes at a time. None of this "counting fouls" and "saving them for big plays" nonsense. It would make for a much faster, more athletic, less hacky kind of game.
“I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." --Frederick DouglassReplay wrote:I'd personally like to see fouls treated more like hockey: you foul someone, you're out of the game for a couple minutes at a time. None of this "counting fouls" and "saving them for big plays" nonsense. It would make for a much faster, more athletic, less hacky kind of game.
I completely agree. The foul system is one of the reasons I dislike watching NBA vs. most other sports.
Yeah basketball does boil down to a lot of fucking free throws at the end of games, whether close games or not. I think it is what is fundamentally wrong with the sport. That, and they get a million time outs.
March Madness is right around the corner, i cant wait to see a hundred zillion timeouts and free throws...
March Madness is right around the corner, i cant wait to see a hundred zillion timeouts and free throws...
Well, in college they can't advance the ball after a time out, so while they still call the same number of time outs it doesn't even do much good versus in NBA where being able to move the ball is a very significant advantage. From statistical analysis there's actually very little value from the time out itself unless you've one of the top coaches running a play like Poppvich because your opponent gets to prepare for it and they get to rotate players who are better at defense for it, but moving the ball is a very significant bonus.
If you make intentional fouls always ball + free throw then people will be accidentally running over screens or something. One idea I saw is that you can elect to take the ball out of bounds instead of shooting a free throw, so then it wouldn't matter how many times you purposely foul someone, but then this would make comebacks less likely. To be fair to have a comeback in the current system requires something out of a manga anyway since the I think NBA teams average 1.something small per possession, so even a 40% free throw guy gets 0.8 points per possession and they have the benefit of always able to setup defense, and of course this gets even worse when you foul someone who shoots 80% of the time like they usually do at the end of a game as that guy's expected value per possession is much, much greater than yours so you're almost always just making the situation worse.
If you make intentional fouls always ball + free throw then people will be accidentally running over screens or something. One idea I saw is that you can elect to take the ball out of bounds instead of shooting a free throw, so then it wouldn't matter how many times you purposely foul someone, but then this would make comebacks less likely. To be fair to have a comeback in the current system requires something out of a manga anyway since the I think NBA teams average 1.something small per possession, so even a 40% free throw guy gets 0.8 points per possession and they have the benefit of always able to setup defense, and of course this gets even worse when you foul someone who shoots 80% of the time like they usually do at the end of a game as that guy's expected value per possession is much, much greater than yours so you're almost always just making the situation worse.
Watch (or even play) some real, serious street ball in a heavily urban court some time in a major city to see a totally different style of game.
That kind of court will def make you argue for it, and possibly kick your ass, if you call a foul on some minor little touch.
It makes the game exceptional, because it's all just up and down, up and down, over and over again until points are made, and it's a lot more exciting.
I actually played in a decently hardcore street baller game once in L.A. on a court on off hours while they were all just practicing. WAY above my level but it was a thrilling experience, the guys backed off me a bit (or I might have gotten injured, in all honesty) and I remember that even though I clearly wasn't up to that court's level, they were impressed that I tried my hardest and didn't mind that I'd asked to play, because I did play it as hard and fair as I could and I didn't disrupt the flow of the game too much.
That kind of play-for-the-sake-of-the-game-and-athleticism attitude is what's been lost in the NBA, I think, over countless telecasts, million-dollar salaries, and so on.
That kind of court will def make you argue for it, and possibly kick your ass, if you call a foul on some minor little touch.
It makes the game exceptional, because it's all just up and down, up and down, over and over again until points are made, and it's a lot more exciting.
I actually played in a decently hardcore street baller game once in L.A. on a court on off hours while they were all just practicing. WAY above my level but it was a thrilling experience, the guys backed off me a bit (or I might have gotten injured, in all honesty) and I remember that even though I clearly wasn't up to that court's level, they were impressed that I tried my hardest and didn't mind that I'd asked to play, because I did play it as hard and fair as I could and I didn't disrupt the flow of the game too much.
That kind of play-for-the-sake-of-the-game-and-athleticism attitude is what's been lost in the NBA, I think, over countless telecasts, million-dollar salaries, and so on.
“I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." --Frederick DouglassSeriously...if you get stuffed on those courts, and your arm gets slapped down along with the ball, it's like...
"No foul, blocked player needs to get to the gym and grow that arm."
"No foul, blocked player needs to get to the gym and grow that arm."
“I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." --Frederick DouglassThe problem is if you've a street ball style there's probably no way anyone's stopping a Shaq or LeBron. I mean sure you can foul him harder but given those rules he can also just shove you aside, and since someone like LeBron is physically stronger/faster than just about anyone else of course he's still going to win easily if both attacker and defender gets to be physical. Basketball likes to promote some kind of artistry with ball movement and fouls is there to make sure that the art stuff actually has a chance compared to LeBron just do a bull rush and ran over 3 guys and score anyway. Though of course on the reverse you've to ask if I am by far the strongest and fastest guy on the court, why shouldn't I just be able to run over everyone else? I have a feeling if fouls are called fairly or not at all you'd have a lot of NBA games that play like video games, because you'd just always pass it to the same guy that is stronger than whoever is defending him and there's nothing you can do to stop it. I remember when Shaq was dominant, it almost seems like he can only run a guy over so many times before the referee feels pity for the guy he ran over and call him for an offensive foul even though he seems to do exactly the same thing on every possession and I'm pretty sure it's all legal, and the only reason they mix up plays is because Shaq hits his quota of 'poor little guys he ran over' pretty quick so you got to switch up. One year, I saw Ranjo Rondo defending LeBron, and LeBron tried to post him up and just sent him flying and was called for an offensive foul. Note that Rondo is significantly weaker than a normal guy that is expected to guard LeBron, even though LeBron normally have no problem running through an appropriate sized defender, so why would Rondo guard him better? Because he's so weak compared to LeBron that the referee usually ends up siding with the little guy.
Well, to be fair, running over people at a full run isn't even legal in street ball. But someone Shaq's side will def knock you aside while you're guarding on a street ball court. I don't exactly see that as a minus. Big men are on the court because they're big men; they should be able to use that size.
“I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." --Frederick DouglassYou can't just trample somebody, no matter where you're playing. But in the NBA, if Shaq brushes your damn arm while taking a shot, the ref can technically call a foul. And yet defensive fouls like that aren't really fouls, unless a ref is in a peevish mood.
There is no particular well-defined line when it comes to calling fouls in my experience, no matter what the rule book says. I'd like to see fouls only called on serious contact. And even then, it's hard to do well, because the NBA is so full of floppers. I used to like the Kings; then I saw Vlade flop an ugly, dishonorable flop while I was rooting for them in the playoffs and never followed them again. Cameras caught him winking at a teammate, they replayed it in slow motion like three times...
There is no particular well-defined line when it comes to calling fouls in my experience, no matter what the rule book says. I'd like to see fouls only called on serious contact. And even then, it's hard to do well, because the NBA is so full of floppers. I used to like the Kings; then I saw Vlade flop an ugly, dishonorable flop while I was rooting for them in the playoffs and never followed them again. Cameras caught him winking at a teammate, they replayed it in slow motion like three times...
“I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." --Frederick DouglassWell people just refer to the LeBron/Shaq move as a bull rush but I'm pretty sure they're still quick enough to get a step ahead of the defender and then if you try to front him at that point you will get run over and it'd be your problem because your position is not set, but even if you didn't care about getting ran over by one of the strongest guy you'll ever face, that's still ineffective since he's already going full speed so he's just going to run you over AND still score.
Flop is an issue but I mean, if we are guarding LeBron or Shaq we wouldn't need to flop to get flung to the third row of the stands. Does that mean it's Shaq's fault because we're obviously quite puny compared to him? And yet you can see that refs eventually do side with the puny guys that gets sent flying after a while, probably because they're human too. I think both football and basketball has this problem because they're trying to sell the sports as some kind of quasi-art, but artistry doesn't do much against someone who is physically stronger/faster than you most of the time, unless you start calling fouls. On the flip side, you also have the guys who seem to just foul every time and just figure you can't possibly call every foul so whatever you got away with is obviously an advantage. That's how the Seahawks is said to win the last superbowl. One of the interesting question I always saw was what happen if say the Shaq-Kobe team played the Jordan era Bulls and you can play it like a video game? Well, how can Shaq-Kobe's team even lose? Everyone on the Bull's team would be fouled out before the first half ends if you play it like a video game. We know there is nobody on the Bulls team that is physically capable of guarding Shaq so it wouldn't matter what kind of cool stuff Jordan can do because Shaq is going to get 2 free throws every possession and eventually the Bulls will run out of players. Of course you can't possibly play like that in real life, but why? Because the referee won't allow you to foul out an entire team in the first half.
Flop is an issue but I mean, if we are guarding LeBron or Shaq we wouldn't need to flop to get flung to the third row of the stands. Does that mean it's Shaq's fault because we're obviously quite puny compared to him? And yet you can see that refs eventually do side with the puny guys that gets sent flying after a while, probably because they're human too. I think both football and basketball has this problem because they're trying to sell the sports as some kind of quasi-art, but artistry doesn't do much against someone who is physically stronger/faster than you most of the time, unless you start calling fouls. On the flip side, you also have the guys who seem to just foul every time and just figure you can't possibly call every foul so whatever you got away with is obviously an advantage. That's how the Seahawks is said to win the last superbowl. One of the interesting question I always saw was what happen if say the Shaq-Kobe team played the Jordan era Bulls and you can play it like a video game? Well, how can Shaq-Kobe's team even lose? Everyone on the Bull's team would be fouled out before the first half ends if you play it like a video game. We know there is nobody on the Bulls team that is physically capable of guarding Shaq so it wouldn't matter what kind of cool stuff Jordan can do because Shaq is going to get 2 free throws every possession and eventually the Bulls will run out of players. Of course you can't possibly play like that in real life, but why? Because the referee won't allow you to foul out an entire team in the first half.
I just want basketball to be less about overpaid pretty boys fouling and diving, and more about the kind of guys I saw playing street ball in LA.
Most probably grew up in impoverished neighborhoods. Some of them could probably hang with the NBA players, but would never be allowed to play due to age, obscurity, the fact that they never played for an accredited high school or were denied college engry on grades, 'hood-and-record, or what-have-you.
Those guys play a way more deeply athletic game than the NBA is becoming.
Most probably grew up in impoverished neighborhoods. Some of them could probably hang with the NBA players, but would never be allowed to play due to age, obscurity, the fact that they never played for an accredited high school or were denied college engry on grades, 'hood-and-record, or what-have-you.
Those guys play a way more deeply athletic game than the NBA is becoming.
“I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." --Frederick DouglassEhhh, the NBA is pretty physical, from what I've read. Sure, refs call fouls, but i'm pretty sure any of us would be totally legally trampled by those guys..
No doubt. Those guys are the top players in America and they play and practice eight hours a day. I am not dissing the athleticism of NBA players at all...just the flow of the game, and the hack/dive mentality.
Thing is, with that much money on the line, and careers at stake, they're going to do whatever the rules allow. That's why I think changing the rules to require far more contact for an official foul, but increasing the penalty for that foul, would help the game. Fouling someone isn't something you're supposed to encourage in any sport, but right now, the rules encourage it because the penalty for a foul is so light, so inevitably dozens of fouls are committed per game.
If you watch serious street ball, they'll often go three, four, five serious baskets - ten times up and down the court, sometimes - without anybody calling a foul or taking a break. That still happens in NBA games too...but not in crucial moments, or in the fourth quarter. Those inevitably turn into this how-many-fouls-do-I-have-left, stop-and-go, free throw extravaganza that just isn't as much fun to watch, it feels stilted to me.
I doubt they would ever change it, however, because that would mean shorter games, and less possibility for commercial breaks (fouls = commercials = $$), and the NBA is a billion-dollar industry first and everything else very much second, like all professional sports.
Thing is, with that much money on the line, and careers at stake, they're going to do whatever the rules allow. That's why I think changing the rules to require far more contact for an official foul, but increasing the penalty for that foul, would help the game. Fouling someone isn't something you're supposed to encourage in any sport, but right now, the rules encourage it because the penalty for a foul is so light, so inevitably dozens of fouls are committed per game.
If you watch serious street ball, they'll often go three, four, five serious baskets - ten times up and down the court, sometimes - without anybody calling a foul or taking a break. That still happens in NBA games too...but not in crucial moments, or in the fourth quarter. Those inevitably turn into this how-many-fouls-do-I-have-left, stop-and-go, free throw extravaganza that just isn't as much fun to watch, it feels stilted to me.
I doubt they would ever change it, however, because that would mean shorter games, and less possibility for commercial breaks (fouls = commercials = $$), and the NBA is a billion-dollar industry first and everything else very much second, like all professional sports.
Last edited by Replay on Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
“I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." --Frederick DouglassOn the other hand, I also wouldn't want to be responsible for turning the NBA into the NFL, contact-wise...which is another reason they'd never let it become too much like the street game.
Street ballers are "expendable". and NBA players are not.
*shrug* Maybe I should just go watch street ball leagues and forget about the NBA entirely.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/featur ... e-of-hurt/
Street ballers are "expendable". and NBA players are not.
*shrug* Maybe I should just go watch street ball leagues and forget about the NBA entirely.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/featur ... e-of-hurt/
“I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." --Frederick DouglassI just saw a comment by Doc Rivers saying hack-a-jordan works if the opponent is ahead but not when they're behind due to analytics. And by that he doesn't mean like if you're ahead by 10 with 5 minutes left you should foul DeAndrew Jordan (which will probably work, just because you're up by 10 with 5 minutes left), he means that in general, this strategy magically only works when the opposing team is ahead instead of behind. His reasoning was like 'if they're ahead and foul Jordan we can only get 1 point on average per possession but they can get 2 or 3 points on their possession and since they're already ahead it's totally over!'
I'm convinced it's a plot to trick the opponent into fouling Jordan on purpose when they're ahead. In general, the statistics do show that the hack-a-whatever strategy doesn't work, mostly because if it did then you'd indeed never be able to catch up to an opponent once they're ahead but taking out the guy who can't shoot free throws usually also prevents you from winning because that guy is invariably a key player too, so if other teams actually believed Doc Rivers that'd be better for the Clippers.
I'm convinced it's a plot to trick the opponent into fouling Jordan on purpose when they're ahead. In general, the statistics do show that the hack-a-whatever strategy doesn't work, mostly because if it did then you'd indeed never be able to catch up to an opponent once they're ahead but taking out the guy who can't shoot free throws usually also prevents you from winning because that guy is invariably a key player too, so if other teams actually believed Doc Rivers that'd be better for the Clippers.