NBA Off Topic Thread

[ProfessaPackMan]

Nvmd…………

[ProfessaPackMan]

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

[VDusen04]

Quote: Originally Posted by TMagic

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

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

Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessaPackMan

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]

Quote: Originally Posted by The 24th Letter

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.

[inkcil]

Quote: Originally Posted by dubcity

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.

But there's more money to be made, so as someone running a business it's their job to try to make as much money (and entertainment) as possible. I'm not trying to be funny because I agree with your sentiment, but at some point it's just too much money out there for them to grab as the sport becomes more and more popular. Has less to do with basketball unfortunately as it does with business.

All over the business world there were a lot of things that was like "ok I see they had to do this trying to make up for money lost during the pre-vaccine days of the pandemic." But then they kept it that way because of the cash.

[ojandpizza]

Quote: Originally Posted by VDusen04

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.

Part of my issue is also that I don’t believe this described circumstance is even remotely close to being all of, or the majority of, take fouls.. there was one even committed last night (stupidly) when the defense had numbers. Most plays that would kill a sure fire break away dunk would be a clear path foul… that we already have a rule for. In most instances a take foul has defenders, it stops a break that more than likely would end in a shooting foul rather than some insane open court dunk.

Quote:

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.

A team will never have a reason to not commit a foul on a play that might lead to an easy basket or shooting foul. If that was the case teams wouldn’t foul players in the half court to keep them from getting a dunk at the rim. Basically identical to this same scenario but because this happens at half-court it’s bad.

[ojandpizza]

Quote: Originally Posted by VDusen04

. a penalty for not playing the game by the rules

Being able to use your fouls is playing by rules though. These examples are a foul, on the ball, not in a clear path situation, not from behind, they are breaking no rule of basketball by fouling a player with the ball.

Quote:

. 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.

I don’t find the two of these even remotely comparable. Hack-a-Shaq is an intentional foul away from the ball. It differs from a foul on the ball and that’s why it has the ability to be separated like that. This is a foul that is the same exact foul that happens in the half court and would be allowed. It’s a foul that if a player swiped at the arm is fine, but at the shoulder it isn’t.

This is like telling Steph he can’t shoot from 30+ feet anymore unless it’s at the buzzer because he’s intentionally shooting before the defense can get to him. Even if it’s the same exact shot if he were closer to the line. This same exact foul can happen, so long as it doesn’t possibly kill a break? Makes no sense to me.

[VDusen04]

Quote: Originally Posted by ojandpizza

Being able to use your fouls is playing by rules though. These examples are a foul, on the ball, not in a clear path situation, not from behind, they are breaking no rule of basketball by fouling a player with the ball.

A foul is literally an infraction. There's really nothing in the rules stating that breaking the rules is a strategic part of playing by the rules. We know that doesn't make much sense.

Of course, I have no desire to be an absolutist on this front. I get there's some wiggle room for winks and nods for certain plays. If we're hellbent on retaining the end-of-game fouls, fine, I'll concede them in spite of their illogic if it makes everyone happy. But I don't really think the Take Fouls are making anyone happy.

If you ask me as a player:

1. Would you prefer getting grabbed in the open floor as long as you can do it to the other team, too?

or

2. Would you prefer your defenders not grabbing you knowing you won't be able to grab them either?

I'm picking choice number two every day of the week. I have a difficult time imagining many players really preferring the first option ("Yes, please, more grabbing, less effort, less skills, that'd be great.")

And if you were to ask me as a fan:

1. Would you prefer watching a game where fast breaks can be broken up with zero-effort, intentional fouls?

or

2. Would you prefer watching a game where fast breaks are allowed to proceed without the ability to commit intentional fouls, where an unnecessary stoppage is prevented and the actual basketball skills of each team will decide whether that fast break is successful?

Again, I feel as though we'd be hard pressed to find anyone watching basketball at any level who's going to take a principled stand for preserving the intentional fast break foul for the sake of purposely stopping games with zero-effort grabs and hugs.

Quote:

This is like telling Steph he can’t shoot from 30+ feet anymore unless it’s at the buzzer because he’s intentionally shooting before the defense can get to him. Even if it’s the same exact shot if he were closer to the line. This same exact foul can happen, so long as it doesn’t possibly kill a break? Makes no sense to me.

With much respect, you lost me here. I imagine you're saying if one type of foul is okay then why aren't they all okay.

Putting aside that shooting a basketball is literally a skill of the game, whereas fouling is the complete antithesis of skill (in fact, it's a punishment for not sticking to the proper skills of the game), I am in support of eliminating obvious and easily curbable loopholes when available, even if it's not a blanket fix for all loopholes.

I really think it can all be summed up like this: I think think the Take Foul sucks. I don't think anyone will miss it (even when nostalgia for this era hits years from now). Because of that, I have zero problems with getting rid of it.