Let's Talk About The "Hack-a-Shaq" Strategy

[RedSceptile]

Re: Let's Talk About The "Hack-a-Shaq" Strategy

I prefer the game of basketball over the entertainment aspect. If you have a weakness it should be exploited point blank period. The hack a whoever is a legitimately useful and under appreciated tactic. If my best player can't hit free throws then you're effectively remove one of my weapons. Good on you. I don't care that casual fans only want to see dunks and crossovers. I want to see every tactic you can use to win. I'm a Rockets fan, if we get up against the Spurs I know that Popovich us going to hack Howard/Smith/Capela. At that point it's up to them to hit their free throws. If they have to sit because we're too afraid of the Hack A Whoever strategy then our game plan gets changed and we're playing right into their hand.

tl;dr Make your free throws.

[2KUte]

Re: Let's Talk About The "Hack-a-Shaq" Strategy

I'm fine with it, players just got to learn to shoot free throws, it's a part of the game. Our college team has a young talented big but I swear every time he heads to the line I think he's going to miss. Work on your free throws! I have a bigger problem with how long the playoffs take, I wouldn't mind shortening of series early on, bring back the 5 game series in the 1st round.

[dsallupinyaarea]

Re: Let's Talk About The "Hack-a-Shaq" Strategy

First of all, it's not a loophole. It's a perfectly viable strategy for getting teams back into games, controlling pace, taking crowds out of it, being able to get your defense set, stop the clock, etc.

Only quoted this part because you seemed to agree with me the rest of your post.

It is a loophole. You're exploiting what should be a penalty for strategic gain. It's similar to an NFL team committing false start on purpose to stop the clock during the 2 minute drill. They changed it to a 10 second run off because you shouldn't benefit from what was originally intended to be a penalty.

Just so I'm clear, those against it are right. These grown ***, professional *** players should learn how to make their free throws. But it's a lot faster to plug the loophole than it is to wait until everyone gets better at free throws.

EDIT: Just realized i never presented a solution. My solution: it should be treated like a flagrant 1. It's intentional, it's a non basketball play and it's away from the ball. That sounds like a flagrant foul to me. 2 shots and ball.

[RedSceptile]

Re: Let's Talk About The "Hack-a-Shaq" Strategy

Only quoted this part because you seemed to agree with me the rest of your post.

It is a loophole. You're exploiting what should be a penalty for strategic gain. It's similar to an NFL team committing false start on purpose to stop the clock during the 2 minute drill. They changed it to a 10 second run off because you shouldn't benefit from what was originally intended to be a penalty.

Just so I'm clear, those against it are right. These grown ***, professional *** players should learn how to make their free throws. But it's a lot faster to plug the loophole than it is to wait until everyone gets better at free throws.

EDIT: Just realized i never presented a solution. My solution: it should be treated like a flagrant 1. It's intentional, it's a non basketball play and it's away from the ball. That sounds like a flagrant foul to me. 2 shots and ball.

That's not even close to a Flagrant foul. Nowhere near the definition. If you had said free throws and possession I would have been fine but if you turn intentional fouls into Flagrant fouls you'd literally ruin basketball (because late game intentional fouling is a thing as well you know)

[dsallupinyaarea]

Re: Let's Talk About The "Hack-a-Shaq" Strategy

That's not even close to a Flagrant foul. Nowhere near the definition. If you had said free throws and possession I would have been fine but if you turn intentional fouls into Flagrant fouls you'd literally ruin basketball (because late game intentional fouling is a thing as well you know)

Just Googled the actual definition of a flagrant and you're right. Take out the flagrant foul thing and my solution still stands. Should be 2 shots and ball.

[King_B_Mack]

Re: Let's Talk About The "Hack-a-Shaq" Strategy

Only quoted this part because you seemed to agree with me the rest of your post.

It is a loophole. You're exploiting what should be a penalty for strategic gain. It's similar to an NFL team committing false start on purpose to stop the clock during the 2 minute drill. They changed it to a 10 second run off because you shouldn't benefit from what was originally intended to be a penalty.

Just so I'm clear, those against it are right. These grown ***, professional *** players should learn how to make their free throws. But it's a lot faster to plug the loophole than it is to wait until everyone gets better at free throws.

EDIT: Just realized i never presented a solution. My solution: it should be treated like a flagrant 1. It's intentional, it's a non basketball play and it's away from the ball. That sounds like a flagrant foul to me. 2 shots and ball.

That's not a loophole bro lol. A loophole would be my team having a ten point lead in the fourth quarter with about five minutes left and instead of playing the game the right way, I repeatedly dribble the air out of the ball for 22 seconds and then make sure I dribble the ball off a defender's foot to get a kick ball violation that resets the clock to 14 seconds to help me protect my lead.

If a team is down three points and you intentionally foul say Steph Curry to extend the game. I've never once ever heard of anybody calling that a loophole and certainly not putting a negative connotation to the word when doing it to describe that strategy. But suddenly fouling a guy that sucks at shooting a free throw for strategy is a loophole? You're given 6 fouls for a reason. Guys over the course of NBA history have specifically been on a roster to use 6 fouls during the course of a game and it's never been a loophole.

[dsallupinyaarea]

Re: Let's Talk About The "Hack-a-Shaq" Strategy

That's not a loophole bro lol. A loophole would be my team having a ten point lead in the fourth quarter with about five minutes left and instead of playing the game the right way, I repeatedly dribble the air out of the ball for 22 seconds and then make sure I dribble the ball off a defender's foot to get a kick ball violation that resets the clock to 14 seconds to help me protect my lead.

If a team is down three points and you intentionally foul say Steph Curry to extend the game. I've never once ever heard of anybody calling that a loophole and certainly not putting a negative connotation to the word when doing it to describe that strategy. But suddenly fouling a guy that sucks at shooting a free throw for strategy is a loophole? You're given 6 fouls for a reason. Guys over the course of NBA history have specifically been on a roster to use 6 fouls during the course of a game and it's never been a loophole.

On the ball foul vs. off the ball foul. You can say all but the most egregious on the ball fouls are basketball plays. But this is mostly semantics.

The original point is it's a bad product. I don't consider myself to be a casual fan and I can't watch this stuff. I can't imagine how off-putting it is to casuals.

[Streets]

Re: Let's Talk About The "Hack-a-Shaq" Strategy

I prefer the game of basketball over the entertainment aspect. If you have a weakness it should be exploited point blank period. The hack a whoever is a legitimately useful and under appreciated tactic. If my best player can't hit free throws then you're effectively remove one of my weapons. Good on you. I don't care that casual fans only want to see dunks and crossovers. I want to see every tactic you can use to win. I'm a Rockets fan, if we get up against the Spurs I know that Popovich us going to hack Howard/Smith/Capela. At that point it's up to them to hit their free throws. If they have to sit because we're too afraid of the Hack A Whoever strategy then our game plan gets changed and we're playing right into their hand.

tl;dr Make your free throws.

I think this is fair and is probably the opinion of most here. Like I said, we (OS) represent the minority. We are the collective that will watch the NBA regardless of what rules are in place because we love the game. Thus, we are not the target demographic. The rules are not being looked at to make us more or less happy, so my personal opinion is somewhat irrelevant.

Looking at it objectively, it is bad for the entertainment value of the game for casual fans. That's why it's getting looked into. The game of basketball will not come crumbling down if they change the rule and it's not like basketball will be void of strategy. Other strategies will still be viable, and the fans and players will adjust (quickly I'm sure).

If the motion to change the rule passes and teams complain, you could easily say, "well these are the rules, you need to adjust".

"Learn to play better defense. It's a fundamental aspect of basketball. By hacking people you don't have to play defense and it advantages poor defensive teams".

"Get better conditioning. By hacking people you don't have to run up and down the floor and it disadvantages younger teams."

(I don't believe these statements mind you, just playing devil's advocate).

The rule is fine as is (my opinion). If they change it, that will be the new rule, and that will be fine too. There will be advantages and disadvantages either way, but the most important advantages comes from an economical perspective as

- Stars stay on the floor longer
- Games drag out less
- The live crowd stays hyped (which translates in TV broadcasts as well)
- Casual fans can get more into the product

I know I'm pretty non-committal about "taking a side" on this but it's probably because I play a lot of games where the rules change to make the game "better" for casuals, and you just learn to adjust and roll with it. If it makes the game of basketball bigger than it is, then I understand it.

[King_B_Mack]

Re: Let's Talk About The "Hack-a-Shaq" Strategy

We can also look at this in the fact that ticket sales are at record breaking numbers right now. Viewership is doing just fine. Franchises are selling for big time digits, the Atlanta friggin Hawks are about to net about 800 million+ and the "Hack-a-" strategy has been going on since at least Shaq first got to LA over a decade ago. This is not hurting the game with casual fans all that much because they're still watching and spending money. This is kinda like the NFL acting like extra points are really killing the league. This is more of the vocal minority of people whining about changing the channel now have social media avenues to scream from the mountains and actually be heard as opposed to sitting on the living room couch yelling about this kind of stuff.

[Streets]

Re: Let's Talk About The "Hack-a-Shaq" Strategy

We can also look at this in the fact that ticket sales are at record breaking numbers right now. Viewership is doing just fine. Franchises are selling for big time digits, the Atlanta friggin Hawks are about to net about 800 million+ and the "Hack-a-" strategy has been going on since at least Shaq first got to LA over a decade ago. This is not hurting the game with casual fans all that much because they're still watching and spending money. This is kinda like the NFL acting like extra points are really killing the league. This is more of the vocal minority of people whining about changing the channel now have social media avenues to scream from the mountains and actually be heard as opposed to sitting on the living room couch yelling about this kind of stuff.

Because things are good, it doesn't mean they can't get better. I highly doubt the owners would vote to change for change's sake. And I doubt they would seriously look into it if it was a small minority complaining or they didn't think it'd improve the game experience for fans. Though I could be wrong.

Edit: As for solutions, I like 1 and the ball. Keep the game moving. If that's the idea behind the change, then I say go that route.

However, a more outside the box solution could be to adopt the football mentality and allow the coach to "decline the penalty". Foul stands, but instead of two shots you get to take the ball out. I'm sure there's probably holes in this but it's a thought

[ojandpizza]

Re: Let's Talk About The "Hack-a-Shaq" Strategy

Ultimately you need to just make your free throws. And I agree with any poster who says rules aren't being exploited, and it's part of them game.. I think changing the rule purely for the entertainment aspect of the same isn't something I would agree with.

But there is something strange about any other foul having to be a play on the ball without being penalized. and with this you can just walk up and put hands on a guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vtcha]

Re: Let's Talk About The "Hack-a-Shaq" Strategy

I personally feel they should tweak it a bit in essence that whoever has the ball in their hands, when the foul occurs, shoots the free throws.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: Let's Talk About The "Hack-a-Shaq" Strategy

For those that bring up the "entertaining me" aspect, is it REALLY stopping you from being able to be entertained a full 60 mins to the point where you stop watching or you're not watching altogether? Especially considering this is something that happens less than 4-5 times a game with most of them occurring when the game is already over and the opposing team is just holding off the inevitable?

Someone here mentioned the constant stoppages and TV timeouts that occur late in the game and I feel like those are bigger issues that impact the "entertainment" side more than this strategy.

[LowerWolf]

Re: Let's Talk About The "Hack-a-Shaq" Strategy

I don't know the NBA rulebook as well as I should, but I don't get why it's not an intentional foul when you go and wrap up a guy who's nowhere near the ball.

[dsallupinyaarea]

Re: Let's Talk About The "Hack-a-Shaq" Strategy

For those that bring up the "entertaining me" aspect, is it REALLY stopping you from being able to be entertained a full 60 mins to the point where you stop watching or you're not watching altogether? Especially considering this is something that happens less than 4-5 times a game with most of them occurring when the game is already over and the opposing team is just holding off the inevitable?

In a word, yes. During the regular season, I routinely turned the channel when games stopped being basketball and started being whatever this is.

Someone here mentioned the constant stoppages and TV timeouts that occur late in the game and I feel like those are bigger issues that impact the "entertainment" side more than this strategy.

We can change more than 1 thing to improve the game. This one got next.


I'm surprised the traditionalists are against changing the rule. At it's core, basketball is supposed to a free flowing game between offense and defense with minimal breaks. This stategy is the antithesis of that.