NBA Off Topic Thread

[dubcity]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

The play-in definitely opened the door for this BS. It got ratings, but then again there's plenty of nonsense they could do that would get ratings; doesn't mean they should do it.

[l3ulvl]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

Seeing the Magic win the lottery and remembering Webber was one of their picks had me going through the trade tree from that pick.

Magic trade Webber to GS for Hardaway (3rd pick in 93), 1996 1st, 1998 1st, 2000 1st.

Magic the following offseason trade the 1996 1st, 1998 1st and Scott Skiles to Washington for a 1998 1st and a 1996 2nd

A few months later, GS trades Webber to Washington for a 1996 1st, 1998 1st, 2000 1st and Gugliota (6th pick in 92)

So, if I did it correctly, to sum up a 3 team deal over a year and a half.

Magic got: Hardaway, 2000 1st, 1998 1st, 1996 2nd
Magic lost: Webber, Skiles

Washington got: Webber, Skiles
Washington lost: 2000 1st, Gugliota, 1998 1st, 1996 2nd

Warriors got: Gugliota, 2000 1st
Warriors lost: Hardaway, 2000 1st

so, I remember he was basically traded for Penny and picks, but it just blew my mind to learn that one of "future picks" was used on Vince Carter


I gotta stop going down these basketball reference rabbit holes because I just spent like an hour following all these transactions and it would've been like 5 hours if I hadn't cut myself off

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

NBA Off Topic Thread

Ultimately this likely changes things so little that it doesn’t make a huge difference regardless and if the people who get to see possibly 1 extra dunk every 4 games now is happy then it’s whatever..

But I will never think that it’s not absolutely ridiculous to tell a team how they can/can’t use their fouls. Fouls that they have to give as a result of playing good/smart defense.. the idea behind that just baffles me.

The take foul is no different than a player reaching for a steal on a break and committing a foul, fouling a bad free throw shooter late in a game before he can pass to a better free throw shooter, fouling a player in the half court who beat you off the dribble so he doesn’t get a layup, etc..

How do they call legit open court fouls now? Do you just have to move out of peoples way? Are they really drawing the line here for what players can make it “look” like a legit foul instead of “looking” intentional? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

But again, the amount at which it actually effects a game is likely minimal anyways.

I’m curious to see if teams decide the penalty is still worth just taking the foul.

I wouldn’t really say it’s the same as intentionally fouling at the end of a game because for example, fouling Giannis before he can pass to a. better shooter is just changing who shoots the free throws. The take fouls are preventing what many view as the most exciting play in basketball.

Transition game isn’t a HUGE part of the game but if this deters teams from doing take fouls, it should still be a pretty significant impact, especially for teams like Milwaukee that have an unstoppable force in transition. The take fouls cost us a ton of points in the playoffs last year and the regular season this year.

Now if they could do something about the flopping and the moving screens, I’d probably faint from joy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Majingir]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

so, I remember he was basically traded for Penny and picks, but it just blew my mind to learn that one of "future picks" was used on Vince Carter


I gotta stop going down these basketball reference rabbit holes because I just spent like an hour following all these transactions and it would've been like 5 hours if I hadn't cut myself off

That Carter pick was traded 3 times, and the 4th being to the Raptors.

But its interesting to wonder what the trade would've really been like for the Magic if the 2000 draft didnt suck.

In the end they dealt Webber for the #3 pick of the same draft (Hardaway), the 5th pick in 2000 (Mike Miller) AND the 10th pick in 2000 (Keyon Dooling).

And even going back further, before they got the 10th pick in 2000, they had 3 picks in a 4 pick span in 98. You package any 2 of those picks and you're probably getting Pierce or Dirk.

[The 24th Letter]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

The play-in definitely opened the door for this BS. It got ratings, but then again there's plenty of nonsense they could do that would get ratings; doesn't mean they should do it.

Sincerely asking-

What’s the argument against the play in again?

[ojandpizza]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

I’m curious to see if teams decide the penalty is still worth just taking the foul.

I wouldn’t really say it’s the same as intentionally fouling at the end of a game because for example, fouling Giannis before he can pass to a. better shooter is just changing who shoots the free throws. The take fouls are preventing what many view as the most exciting play in basketball.

Transition game isn’t a HUGE part of the game but if this deters teams from doing take fouls, it should still be a pretty significant impact, especially for teams like Milwaukee that have an unstoppable force in transition. The take fouls cost us a ton of points in the playoffs last year and the regular season this year.

Now if they could do something about the flopping and the moving screens, I’d probably faint from joy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think my thing is more so the amount it happens vs the outcry over it just isn't even remotely close. If we were seeing take fouls all game long that would be one thing, but we get them maybe once a game, once a half? There are only 4 fouls a quarter, it's not like all 16 of those are take fouls every game, or even half, or even a fourth.

But ultimately I just don't get how it solves what they want.. "Take fouls" are still going to happen, they will just be disguised as steal attempts. Which means now we will take even more time out of games to go and watch the slow motion replays over and over again to determine how good of an acting job players did. Likely increase risk of injuries (though to a small degree), and likely have more inconsistencies where Team A gets a common foul and Team B in the next half gets called for a take foul for the same play but there was a better acting job.. To me this just encourages more replays, more inconsistency, more things for players to try and trick refs into thinking illegitimate plays were legitimate.

I just feel like the first time a player gets injured because the defender had to lunge towards the ball and make real contact instead of just patting him on the back, or we spend 10 minutes watching replay trying to determine if it was a take foul or a play at the ball instead of just inbounding and playing on, we'll be looking back at this change thinking it was pointless.

[ojandpizza]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

Sincerely asking-

What’s the argument against the play in again?

Personally I just think it was gimmicky in nature when the NBA doesn't have/need any tournaments. Would have made more sense to do something division based if they just had to have one, but they basically scratched those, and divisions are too varying over an 82 game season anyways.

The league already has 16 of 30 teams in the playoffs, more than half, this just expands that to 20 teams. And opens the door for some really poor low 30 win team to get in just because they got hot for a couple of games. Kind of diminishes the point of playing well over the course of a season. I realize it's not always a huge gap, but say the Spurs made it this year and T-Wolves didn't that's a 12 game difference. For some of these lower seeded teams that could be two months worth of wins you're saying just don't matter.

The games themselves have been great, highly entertaining. I don't think anybody would argue that. It makes sense, you have teams trying to claw their way into the postseason. But it just feels weird/wrong to make the NBA some do or die thing when it's never been that. Even when enjoying some of these games for being good games I can't help but be thinking to myself "why are we even entertaining this 10th place team in the first place"..

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

I think my thing is more so the amount it happens vs the outcry over it just isn't even remotely close. If we were seeing take fouls all game long that would be one thing, but we get them maybe once a game, once a half? There are only 4 fouls a quarter, it's not like all 16 of those are take fouls every game, or even half, or even a fourth.

But ultimately I just don't get how it solves what they want.. "Take fouls" are still going to happen, they will just be disguised as steal attempts. Which means now we will take even more time out of games to go and watch the slow motion replays over and over again to determine how good of an acting job players did. Likely increase risk of injuries (though to a small degree), and likely have more inconsistencies where Team A gets a common foul and Team B in the next half gets called for a take foul for the same play but there was a better acting job.. To me this just encourages more replays, more inconsistency, more things for players to try and trick refs into thinking illegitimate plays were legitimate.

I just feel like the first time a player gets injured because the defender had to lunge towards the ball and make real contact instead of just patting him on the back, or we spend 10 minutes watching replay trying to determine if it was a take foul or a play at the ball instead of just inbounding and playing on, we'll be looking back at this change thinking it was pointless.

I guess we'll have to see if they make this a reviewable play or not. It's not my preferred solution; I think a soccer-style advantage rule may be more effective in eradicating this from the game, but it has done a good job of eliminating it in Europe at least which I'm sure is why this is what they seem to be going with.

As I mentioned before, the prevalence of these plays really depends on a game to game basis. It cost Milwaukee a ton of points but I'm sure they were towards the higher end.

Take fouls aren't my main complaint with NBA basketball, but I'm definitely in favor of taking steps to get rid of them.

[VDusen04]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

I think my thing is more so the amount it happens vs the outcry over it just isn't even remotely close. If we were seeing take fouls all game long that would be one thing, but we get them maybe once a game, once a half? There are only 4 fouls a quarter, it's not like all 16 of those are take fouls every game, or even half, or even a fourth.

In a vacuum, sure, you could be talking about once a half or two times a game (or more, in a number of instances). But we should know that it goes a lot deeper than that. All buckets aren't equal, and a momentum-building open floor hammer dunk in front of the home court to kick-start an 8-0 run resulting in a time-out and frazzled opponents is unquestionably different from getting take-fouled, slowing the game, and maybe converting a cute little layup in the half-court.

Open floor opportunities can be like finding water in the desert for a team trying to get things cooking (or one trying to stymie an opponent's run). So having transition opportunities so freely and easily killed by purposely breaking the rules can be a kick to the groin. There was never a time where it wasn't frustrating to see the Pistons actually get a stop solid enough to initiate something in the open floor for once only to have it immediately snuffed by an intentional grab. Super wack.

But ultimately I just don't get how it solves what they want.. "Take fouls" are still going to happen, they will just be disguised as steal attempts. Which means now we will take even more time out of games to go and watch the slow motion replays over and over again to determine how good of an acting job players did. Likely increase risk of injuries (though to a small degree), and likely have more inconsistencies where Team A gets a common foul and Team B in the next half gets called for a take foul for the same play but there was a better acting job.. To me this just encourages more replays, more inconsistency, more things for players to try and trick refs into thinking illegitimate plays were legitimate.

I don't find this conjecture to be a certainty.

There's some things in NBA basketball that teams will milk only until they have a reason not to. Purposely stepping over the sideline for an intentional delay of game warning in the late 90's for one, random Hack-a-Shaq's all game long, for two. Once a very basic level of dissuasion was introduced for each instance, teams as a whole more or less stopped the activity altogether (sideline stepping) or reduced it to a level so minimal that we haven't cared enough to even consider it worthy of discussion in game threads anymore (Hack-a-Shaq).

I can see that happening with Take Fouls. You know who doesn't have an issue with take fouls? Virtually every other level and league of basketball in the world. I'm not convinced super covert, mega-disguised take-fouls forcing 20 minutes of review every game are hills most wish to die upon.

And if teams stop intentionally fouling and instead start trying to steal the ball instead, great. That'd be a move in the right direction. And if guys try to pull off obnoxiously obvious fake steal attempts, I hope they do get reviewed and punished so people can stop acting like knuckleheads.

I just feel like the first time a player gets injured because the defender had to lunge towards the ball and make real contact instead of just patting him on the back, or we spend 10 minutes watching replay trying to determine if it was a take foul or a play at the ball instead of just inbounding and playing on, we'll be looking back at this change thinking it was pointless.

At some point we're going to have to come to terms with basketball being a semblance of a contact sport where guys can get injured by playing from time to time.

If we're going to spend all this time talking about guys needing to be responsible for their bodies (for plays in which they couldn't have possibly even known their limbs would be coming in accidental contact with a player behind them) then it's safe to expect them to not purposely commit fake-not-fake-fake-take fouls so reckless that they put opponents at risk.

[TMagic]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

The take foul is kind of interesting because in a lot of those situations (probably majority of them) the offense would probably not want the foul called.

It takes me back to some pick up games where I'd have the ball with the advantage on a break and a dude would "foul" and call it FOR ME

A lot of them had me saying "Ain't no foul. I ain't call ****" because it really wouldn't have been enough to stop me from scoring and this includes plays where I would score at the basket. And they still want us to take the ball out, no point. It's a cheap, weak move to pull.

"I got you big dawg"

Naw you didn't [emoji23]

[ProfessaPackMan]

NBA Off Topic Thread

It’s the Hack-a-Shaq BS all over again.

So let’s cut the BS and acknowledge that this is being changed strictly for “Entertainment purposes”.

Because as an actual basketball strategy, especially in this context, it’s a smart tool to employ as a coach.

But how dare they not let me see the same breakaway dunk that I already see 10-20 times a game.

[ProfessaPackMan]

NBA Off Topic Thread

Nvmd…………

<url>

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

Yeah I realized that after I hit that submit button, that’s why I deleted it 🥴 lol

[VDusen04]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

It takes me back to some pick up games where I'd have the ball with the advantage on a break and a dude would "foul" and call it FOR ME

A lot of them had me saying "Ain't no foul. I ain't call ****" because it really wouldn't have been enough to stop me from scoring and this includes plays where I would score at the basket. And they still want us to take the ball out, no point. It's a cheap, weak move to pull.

"I got you big dawg"

Naw you didn't [emoji23]

You just gave me PTSD. That and the open-floor double-knee-braced old-man wrap-ups were the bane of my existence.

It’s the Hack-a-Shaq BS all over again.

So let’s cut the BS and acknowledge that this is being changed strictly for “Entertainment purposes”.

Because as an actual basketball strategy, especially in this context, it’s a smart tool to employ as a coach.

But how dare they not let me see the same breakaway dunk that I already see 10-20 times a game.

It's two-pronged for me.

Ethically, I'm not going to be on board with mostly anything that enables committing intentional fouls. Fouls were implemented as a penalty for not playing the game by the rules, with the explicit intent of adequately dissuading players from breaking those rules. If that process has broken down to the point where guys are countlessly committing intentional fouls as a legitimate form of strategy (rather than something to generally be avoided), we've likely taken a wrong turn somewhere along the way.

It's all been a bit of a slippery slope. "Make him earn it" fouls on drives to the hoop were tough to discern intent except on the most obvious plays, so we let it be. End-of-game fouls gave us hope when we were losers, so we let it be. But then the spread of the intentional foul became a bit more insidious and cumbersome, with game-killing Hack-a-Shaqs and fast break killing Take Fouls.

Frankly, I don't see any reason not to take a shot at killing the Take Foul. What do we get without it? We get more legitimate basketball. And as a byproduct, is more legitimate basketball going to lead to an increase in entertainment? Likely.

We've spent decades closing loopholes and that's how the world goes around. At some point it'd be nice to look back at the list of NBA "glitches" that have been closed over time. I lost no sleep over losing Hack-a-Shaq, I lost no sleep when they outlawed intentional delay of games on last second inbounds passes, I never yearned for a return to the days of grabbing players from behind when they were alone in the open floor, and I'll lose no sleep if the Take Foul gets the axe. None of those ever had anything to do with actually playing basketball.

[dubcity]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

Sincerely asking-

What’s the argument against the play in again?

A few things. I don't like that after an 82 game season we're putting 20 teams in the post-season (and yes I would call it that), including teams that are 14 games below .500. I'd you finish with the 7th-8th best record you should get those spots.

Also, it's a one time gimmick that had no reason to continue, but because of the viewership and social media interaction of course it kept going. And that's the same reason we're going to have this pointless mid-season tournament. They could add dozens of gimmicks that would result in more people talking about the product, but that doesn't mean they should do any of them. It ain't broken.