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

[Streets]

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

I wouldn't say the 2 minute rule has hurt the integrity of the game, but I don't like that either. It's a cop out for coaches. Instead of a coach weighing the risk/reward of having a poor foul shooter on the floor the decision is made for them.

I don't enjoy watching hack- a " " either but the idea of changing rules because a handful of people are totally incompetent at their profession bothers me more.

D12, Shaq, Duncan, Deandre, etc. are "totally incompetent at their profession"?

Okay then...

[King_B_Mack]

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

D12, Shaq, Duncan, Deandre, etc. are "totally incompetent at their profession"?

Okay then...

At this particular part of it? Yes lol.

[jeebs9]

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

Didn't they use to Hack-a- Bruce Bowen and Tony Parker back in the day?

Didn't Shaq have like Free Throw specialist come to help him with his stroke? And didn't it result in like a .10% change.

[Vni]

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

Keep the hack'a but replace free throws by free throw line trampoline dunks. You'll thank me later.

[DIESEL]

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

D12, Shaq, Duncan, Deandre, etc. are "totally incompetent at their profession"?

Okay then...

I thought it was implied we were talking about a specific part of their profession, but if you need further clarification I'm talking about foul shooting.

So with that cleared up, am I wrong in saying any proposed rule changes would be the result of the inability of about 5 guys to be competent at a fundamental basketball skill? (still talking about foul shooting)

[jeebs9]

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

I think I've come to the point in this thread. I just don't want to see free throws for 5 minutes. Watching Jordan the other didn't make mad. It just put me to sleep. I think because the action/pace slowed down.

I think the stats say it doesn't effect the out come of game.

[JODYE]

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

In terms of points per possession, in reality there is probably a marginal difference. Especially when you factor in a team getting offensive rebounds.

Now, in terms of taking a team out of rhythm, I'd say that it probably does so more often than not. However what it also allows, is for the team that is being fouled to get set defensively in the half court. I think that's why the Spurs implore this strategy more often than not when given the opportunity because they have a great trust in their half court offense and why shouldn't they?

I think the argument in this thread is more so, the rules shouldn't be altered just because 5-6 players in the league are completely inept at one aspect of the game. Seems like a shortsighted decision if they decide to institute some rules to deter it from happening.

[TMagic]

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

I know this sounds totally silly...

But whats to stop, say, Deandre from inbounding the ball, then staying out of bounds if they know they are going to the Hack A Shaq?

If Pop gives the Hack A Shaq signal (lol), and Patty or whoever hangs back to foul Deandre, wouldn't Deandre staying out of play occupy the "fouler", thus giving the Clippers an advantage playing 4 on 4 on offense?

Just thoughts on what I be thinking. Lol

[wwharton]

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 a bad comparison. It'd be more like a QB spiking the ball to stop the clock. So if you want to call that a loophole, that's fine, but it'd still be silly to take it out of the game.

I've mostly presented my case in the other thread but I'm going to come from a different angle. Would you be against allowing coaches to sub in players late in the game to get their best defensive players/foul shooters/three point shooters in the game? Would you be against coaches calling late timeouts after a made basket so they can move the ball up to half court?

A casual fan probably hate the stopping of the clock in these situations... all the late timeouts called were already mentioned here. But if you are breaking down the strategy involved you're still enthralled in the game even when there is no action. I don't think it should be any different with this, people just aren't looking deep enough into the strategy of it.

On the surface, you foul a guy that shoots 40% from the line so you have a good chance at getting the ball back without giving up points. Going deeper, already mentioned was the stopping of momentum, but lets go even deeper than that. The main culprits here are among the best defenders in the league... and having them in the game drastically reduces the chance for a team to get an offensive rebound. Most of these guys are problems offensively too but if we go back to Shaq, it's very easy to see how a team's defense can get better if they don't have to face him.

But nobody is really connecting the impact the rest of these players' games have on this strategy. The bottom line is there is already a solution (and it's not just make your FTs)... the coach can take them out of the game. As a coach I want to do whatever I can to get the other team's best player out of the game. Is it a loophole to have everyone drive at a guy with 5 fouls to get him out of the game? This is no different. I have a huge problem with coaches deciding to not take these guys out of the game and then getting rewarded bc that produces a less entertaining product.

For comparison sake, JJ Reddick is a deadly shooter so why are his minutes limited? Because if you play him to long his defense may hurt you more than his offense can help. You may have a PG who's a great passer but turnover-proned. There are plenty of players that have weaknesses that can be exploited and their coaches are forced to limit how they are used bc of them. This is no different.

And it won't ever happen too much earlier in the game bc players are penalized when they foul someone. If you decide to put in a bum so you don't get your stars in foul trouble, you're risking that bum being put in position to make a real defensive play or take a big shot. Coaches have to make these decisions... screw them if they're deciding to leave someone who can't hit a FT in there.

I will say one thing that's kind of been mentioned, I don't know what happened to the intentional foul. It used to be that you had to at least do a little acting to not get called for an intentional foul off the ball in situations like this. If we want to compromise on a change, I'd say just bring that back.

Why do the rules change for the last 2 minutes if this strategy is a natural part of the game? Why is something good for 10 minutes of a quarter and not for the last 2? If you're on the "don't change it" side, did you oppose the rule change for the last 2 minutes?

Yes, I had a problem with that too... and before that rule, in close late playoff games the Lakers had their best player (arguably the best player in the NBA) sitting on the bench bc he couldn't hit free throws. I don't know the stats but it wouldn't shock me if even that small rule change made coaches more comfortable leaving these guys out there and creating this situation you all have problems with now.

[ProfessaPackMan]

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

Per ProBasketballTalk...

Report: 85 percent chance NBA implements new Hack-a-Shaq rule for next season

NBA commissioner Adam Silver said he’s “one the fence” about the Hack-a-Shaq strategy.

Someone else involved in setting the league’s rules isn’t quite so torn.

Ken Berger of CBSSports.com:

A rule change that would punish teams for intentionally fouling so severely as to eradicate the scourge from NBA games already is on the unofficial agenda for the competition committee’s July meeting in Las Vegas, a league source told CBSSports.com.

The person, who is familiar with the discussions, estimated the chances of a rule change in some form being recommended to the Board of Governors, passed and implemented next season at about 85 percent.

Rather than outlawing intentional fouling, the more likely scenario is for a consequence to be written into the rules. For example, an intentional foul away from the ball would result in a technical foul shot and possession. Thus, the end of Hack-a-Whoever as we’ve known it.

It’s unclear whether Berger’s example solution – a technical foul shot and possession after an intentional foul away from the ball – was completely his own idea or influenced by his source. If that’s indicative of where the league is headed, I see numerous problems:

1. What’s an intentional foul? Refereeing is difficult enough without judging intent on every away-from-the-ball foul.

2. How lax will defenses become away from the ball? The penalty is so punitive, players might play softer defense for fear of fouling and it being judged intentional.

3. Will offensive players flop more? Players already have no problem flopping for lesser rewards. If they can get a free throw and the ball, they might feign being intentionally fouled more often.

Another commonly proposed solution is giving the fouled team the option of free throws or just keeping the ball and taking it out of bounds. That would seemingly have fewer unintended consequences, but there’d surely be some.

The competition committee should examine this, but I’m not nearly as confident a rule gets passed.

Thoughts?

[ojandpizza]

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

Just leave it alone..

The only thing I don't really like about the rule currently is, using the last series as an example, Chris Paul takes off dribbling after the Clippers get a stop and they foul Jordan while he's still standing way back in the back court by himself.. Fouling a guy to stop the break when that player is no part of the break is just as bad as a clear path foul and in my opinion and should be called the same.. But maybe that's just me. I don't think you should be able to intentionally stop a fast break by fouling a player who's not even part of the play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ojandpizza]

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

Basically, in the idea you posted Pack, it would be on the ref to determine if the foul was intentional or not right?

That's easily doable, but I still don't think a change needs to be made because 5% of professional athletes cannot make a free throw.. Just make your damn free throws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wwharton]

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

I still don't know what happened to the intentional foul. Maybe I've been so much more focused on the rules in HS and college ball that I never noticed the NBA changed the intentional foul rule (rather than being light on enforcing it), but it's not a knew thought. Remember where Hack a Shaq came from, back then players waited until he touched the ball or made an attempt to not look intentional when fouling off the ball. What happened to that?

[jeebs9]

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

I still don't know what happened to the intentional foul. Maybe I've been so much more focused on the rules in HS and college ball that I never noticed the NBA changed the intentional foul rule (rather than being light on enforcing it), but it's not a knew thought. Remember where Hack a Shaq came from, back then players waited until he touched the ball or made an attempt to not look intentional when fouling off the ball. What happened to that?

Same here.... I never noticed the rule was changed.

[iLLWiLL9105]

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

Do the guys who like this rule realize the majority of the time it's used because the team is getting destroyed? I understand the whole make your free throws argument, but the flip side to that argument is man up and play defense. This "strategy" is never used against crappy offensive teams. Nobody is using Hack-a player against the Bucks. Why? Because there offense is trash.
Using this, to me, is essentially conceding your defense is just as suspect as Deandre Jordan's FT shooting honestly. So instead of finding a way to actually get a stop you exploit a BS rule to make sure you don't even have to ATTEMPT playing defense. That too me is a much bigger problem than someone not being able to shoot. Defense is half the game and this crap makes it possible for teams to completely disregard that half.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk