I don't have a problem with the coaches using the strategy. Those are the rules.

But I think that intentional fouls should be one shot and the ball. That includes attempts to draw charges that aren't plays on the ball and fouls to stop fast breaks.

While it can sometimes become a little painful to watch, I like the rule as-is. And it's not just 2 players. The below players all play significant minutes and shoot less than 60% from the FT line:

Howard
Jordan
Drummond
Whiteside
Noel
Faried
Thompson
Bogut
Capella
Hickson
Noah
Cauley-Stein
Henson
Ed Davis
Parsons
Rondo
Ezeli
Harrell
Amir Johnson
Nene
Koufous
Thomas Robinson
Manhimi
Al Jeff
Tony Allen
Nurkic
Harkless
Sefalosha
**** Jefferson
Mbah a Moute
Lavoy Allen
Demarre Caroll
Casspi
Josh Smith

There was a clip tonight on TNT asking Jordan why he doesn't try the under handed method and he just smirked and said he would continue as is before going to drastic measures like that. It's completely because it's "not cool" and would be "embarassing to shoot granny style".

Shaq said he would rather shoot negative 40% than shoot underhanded.

I understand that if these players could make their free throws, this would go away. However, this makes the game unwatchable. The rules committee needs to find some middle ground to allow some, but nothing like we saw in the Rockets game.

I would like to have a review of the flagrant 1.

Almost every moderately hard foul where the offensive player goes to the ground is now ruled a flagrant 1.

After event, this is the commentators:
"Hard foul given by Tavon Junojukovic. Officials want to review"
"It's a good hard foul, no contact to the head or shoulders, so this should just be a common foul"

"Well, they've ruled it a Flagrant 1. I guess they decided it was excessive force"
"That really surprised me (enter story from 1980s). I really don't see what they are seeing"

There are some surprising names on that list

Two of them are on my team.

I hate it but my goodness, learn how to shoot the damn ball.

I'm not a fan. It's like when high school teams score first then just dribble out the clock. Yes, it's within the rules but it's boring as hell to watch.

quote:

---

I understand that if these players could make their free throws, this would go away. However, this makes the game unwatchable. The rules committee needs to find some middle ground to allow some, but nothing like we saw in the Rockets game.

---

They have. It's called the last 2 minutes of the half and you get the shots and the ball.

These guys don't WANT to work on their FTs, and that is precisely why the rule should stay. If you don't want to try and get better at the weakest part of your game, then expect to have that exploited.

quote:

---

I understand that if these players could make their free throws, this would go away. However, this makes the game unwatchable. The rules committee needs to find some middle ground to allow some, but nothing like we saw in the Rockets game.

---

This. As a season ticket holder I am attending many games in person. I pay money to watch basketball, not a free throw shooting contest. I understand the argument that these guys make millions of dollars and should therefore learn to shoot a free throw, but that doesn't make the strategy any more watchable. I think the NBA needs to protect the entertainment value its product and therefore make a rule change to discourage off the ball "hack-a-whoever" strategy.

To recap, Spurs fans don't want to change the rule and Rockets fans do want to change the rule.

quote:

---

To recap, Spurs fans don't want to change the rule and Rockets fans do want to change the rule.

---

That sums it up pretty well.

Away from the ball fouls should have an option to decline free throws when in the bonus. Being in the bonus was intended to be a positive thing. Now it is being used to punish fans as well as the team in the bonus.

It can be effective but the amount is overstated. A team like the Clippers might average 1 point per possession in the half court whereas DeAndre FTs (~40% shooter) might be worth 0.8 points per possession. Therefore over 10 straight possessions "hack a Jordan" would expect to score 8 points whereas a full Clipper possession would expect to score 10 points. So fans get to watch DeAndre brick 12 FTs to gain 2 points.

That doesn't account for the fact that the fouling team doesn't get transition opportunities. Or the fact that a missed FT could be rebounded. This graph from the guys at 538 basically shows the "hack a Jordan" strategy to be a wash.

I don't think original basketball had dribbling. Should we take that away and make it ultimate frisbee with a soccer ball and a peach basket?

To me the distinction is whether you are trying to do something that would result in an advantage for your team if the foul isn't called.

Some examples of plays that would not provide an advantage if the foul is not called (and all coming from a fan of a team that regularly draws fouls on all of them) :
sprinting over in front of a driver, planting your feet, and folding your hands over your junk. You're not going to get a block or a steal. IMO, this should only be an offensive foul if the offensive player is clearly trying to plow through the defender. There are way too many plays where the driver is trying to avoid contact but still gets tagged with a foul.

Pump faking and then leaping forward/sideways directly into a closeout should be an offensive foul if there is any call. Again, way too many instances where the defender is trying to avoid contact, but the offensive player initiates it and gets the call. Plus, it's dangerous because a lot of the time it results in the offensive player putting a shoulder into the defender's exposed ribs.

And hacking a guy at half court is not an attempt to get a steal or impede his progress. It's not a basketball move. From a strategic standpoint, I've been saying since last year that I don't think it works, and that 538 graphic shows exactly why. You give up fast breaks and semi-transition while exposing yourself to increased risk of giving up offensive rebounds (which are very high efficiency scoring opportunities for the free throw shooting team).

I don't have a problem with teams leveraging every possible strategy to win, but the NBA is ultimately in the entertainment business and it is absolutely miserable to watch.

I would favor a rule change where any player on the court at the time of a foul would be allowed to shoot free throws.

Interesting stuff http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2016-01-26/louisville-basketball-chinanu-onuakus-game-overshadowing-his?cid=ncaammsocial_tw_sf19723524



Louisville player is embracing the granny shot style of FT's. Interesting to see if more will follow.

quote:

---

To recap, Spurs fans don't want to change the rule and Rockets fans do want to change the rule.

---

Honestly, the first time I remember liking the strategy was when Don Nelson used it on Bruce Bowen in the 2003 WCF. Spurs were running the Mavs out of the building until Dallas went to that tactic and it worked like a charm.

quote:

---

To recap, Spurs fans don't want to change the rule and Rockets fans do want to change the rule.

---

What's funny about that is for many years the Spurs were always one of the worst FT shooting teams in the league year in and year out. I remember how we used to always joke about signing a new player and saying "well, he's a terrible FT shooter, he'll fit right in."

I think Chip Engelland made a tremendous difference in improving all the Spurs players.

I just don't like the idea of changing a rule because some players refuse to improve their FT shooting, but also agree that it sucks to watch. I don't know what the answer is honestly.

Says a lot about Duncan that his FT% is .760 over the past 4 years. It was .688 from 98-12. In 2004, he shot under 60%.

As I mentioned above, I would just penalize away from the ball intentional fouls with free throws and the ball at anytime during the game. I would still allow on the ball intentional fouls (ie, not provide the team with the ball). This way I think a team makes a decision whether it wants the ball to move through the hands of a poor free throw shooter. The team can penalize itself by basically only have 4 players involved in the offense or risk having the poor free throw shooter fouled by involving that player in the offense or choose to remove the poor free throw shooter from the game.

quote:

---

As I mentioned above, I would just penalize away from the ball intentional fouls with free throws and the ball at anytime during the game. I would still allow on the ball intentional fouls (ie, not provide the team with the ball). This way I think a team makes a decision whether it wants the ball to move through the hands of a poor free throw shooter. The team can penalize itself by basically only have 4 players involved in the offense or risk having the poor free throw shooter fouled by involving that player in the offense or choose to remove the poor free throw shooter from the game.

---

But then you severely penalize normal basketball fouls such as both players trying to gain position on the blocks or getting caught on a hard screen.

quote:

---

quote:

---

As I mentioned above, I would just penalize away from the ball intentional fouls with free throws and the ball at anytime during the game. I would still allow on the ball intentional fouls (ie, not provide the team with the ball). This way I think a team makes a decision whether it wants the ball to move through the hands of a poor free throw shooter. The team can penalize itself by basically only have 4 players involved in the offense or risk having the poor free throw shooter fouled by involving that player in the offense or choose to remove the poor free throw shooter from the game.

---

But then you severely penalize normal basketball fouls such as both players trying to gain position on the blocks or getting caught on a hard screen.

---

How would that be an intentional foul?