2015 Playoffs: (2) Houston vs. (3) LA Clippers

[Mandich]

I can't imagine how frustrating it to have shit talked to/about you almost everywhere you go.

The man made some bad decisions. Let it go.

As for the game, fouling out in 18 minutes with 7 points is not the kind of a game the Rockets from Dwight.

Harden taking 12 shots, the least in the Playoffs since the first game with Dallas. This is a guy who took 18 shots per game during the regular season.

He can still catch fire and steal a game, but I think it's certain the Clippers will advance.

[Jackal]

Dwight's a bitch. He crumbles in tough situations. Hats off to Jordan for being the more composed player this series.

[NovU]

For fugs sake, people need to stfu about needs of rule changes because of intentional fouling on DeAndre Jordumb. A basketball player that can't hit a wide open 5 footer deserves to be taken out of the game when exploited.

Series is at 3-2 now. The Rockets just needs one more to make this interesting. Here it comes. I called it here first.

[[Q]]

Clippers will make adjustments and end this at home.

and that was some bullshit that DJ didn't get 3 free throws on that intentional foul. I mean, my god he was already in the air when they called it. This was what I was talking about when Ginobili got that miraculous call last series. Or the ref had some money on it.

[Mandich]

There is no way Clippers are losing this series.

Harden went of this game, he had to do it once or twice.

[Andrew]

I still don't care for Hack-a-Whomever. It's not playing the game as intended, it's not really sport. Granted, it's on a poor free throw shooter that they're a liability, but it's not about "rewarding" them for being bad at the line; if anything, allowing Hack-a-Whomever is "rewarding" a whole team that doesn't feel like playing defense on a possession, by giving them an easy out. Like I said, it's not playing the game as intended, it's doing something that's against the rules, something that's an infraction, to win by exploit rather than playing the game within the rules. Put it this way: if it were happening in a basketball video game, people would be crying "cheese".

You can't fault teams for using a strategy as long as the rules allow for it. However, when you discover a loophole, exploit, or point of contention, you make changes to the rules/sport accordingly. When players started abusing the "rip through" move, they changed the rules, which was fair; the defenders were getting in the offensive player's airspace, but the offensive player was initiating (and often exaggerating) the contact. To that end, side out of bounds (unless you're in the bonus, obviously) is a good call. The no-charge zone was added to help with block/charge calls, though those rules are still kind of murky. Clear path fouls prevent defenders from taking an easy way out off of sloppy turnovers and crafty steals.

Perhaps the best example, and the one that pretty much saved the sport at the professional level, is the shot clock. At one point, it was a legitimate strategy to hold the ball and dribble out as much time as you liked, leading to the Fort Wayne Pistons defeating the Minneapolis Lakers 19-18 on November 22nd, 1950. Admittedly that game stands out as something of an aberration, but extreme stall ball was still a feasible tactic in the pre-shot clock era. It didn't make for good sport - I don't think anyone would want to see that happen today - so Danny Biasone's invention was a crucial step in the evolution of basketball. There was an issue with the game, and it was ultimately resolved.

As far as addressing Hack-a-Whomever, they don't even need to ban intentional fouls off the ball outright...and by ban, I mean impose an undesirable penalty. Just impose said undesirable penalty if the foul happens in the backcourt. A poor free throw shooter can thus evade that tactic by hanging back...but that also takes them completely out of the offensive play, meaning their team is playing 4 on 5. They're still very much a liability if they're left out there, since they can't provide their team with their usual production; since we're usually talking about bigs, that would generally mean offensive rebounding and post scoring, the absence of which can really hurt. With that approach, the game flows freely, poor free throw shooters can still cost their team by remaining out on the floor, and coaches have to make the decision whether it's worth keeping in the game.

[NovU]

It's not playing the game as intended, it's not really sport

This one's subjective. Even if it was a morally depraved tactic, reversing the rule to help out poor free throw players also sounds like a poor change. Basketball is about hitting shots and if you aren't able to hit shots the same way other players can do, it's your problem.

FREAK ATHLETES have become plenty in this league: Andre Drunkmond, Dwight, DeAndre, Stromile Swift, Hasheem Thabeet, etc. Many of them rely mostly on size and athleticism. Opposite would be Marc, Pau brothers, Tim Dunkon. This already feels like a league that importunate and values athleticism very heavily, more so than before. I don't see why we should change rules so we could possibly add even more values to freak athletes but less basketballer.

[Andrew]

I don't see it as really helping out poor free throw shooters, or rewarding them. If it is, then isn't allowing Hack-a-Whomever rewarding five players who don't want to play proper defense? The rules shouldn't allow for lazy or incompetent defenders to shut down a team by intentionally fouling away from the ball, 90 feet from the basket if desired. If you don't want to play defense or are incapable of defending competently, it's your problem.

Basketball is about making shots, yes. It's also about not doing the things that lead to what are considered fouls...infractions, illegal plays. You're not supposed to foul. It's unrealistic to expect that it'll never happen of course, but technically speaking, you're not supposed to.

The NBA wouldn't be changing the rules to help out poor free throw shooters. They'd be changing it to stop a tactic that leads to games turning into an utterly boring mess of a free throw shootout, instead of the free-flowing and up-tempo sport that basketball became, following the introduction of the shot clock. And like I said, if it's only an issue if the foul happens away from the ball in the backcourt, a poor free throw shooter is still a liability out there because if they're left out there, they need to hang back and leave their team playing 4 on 5.

I just don't get the argument that closing the loophole "rewards" poor free throw shooters, when the current rules could be said to "reward" an entire line-up for not wanting to defend, and, you know, actually play the game of basketball.

[NovU]

How would that be not helping out poor free throw shooters?

Rule change would definitely favor them, and mainly a very few very good players namely Dwight, Drunkmond, DeAndre. They share this common problem that they're NOT basketball first but athleticism first players. I would definitely see the rule change as to hide their deficiency as basketball players. Teams already go through great deals of trouble containing them. Rule change would only HELP them to get more minutes (also less reasons to practice shooting, but more athleticism!).

Personally I came to accept 'hack-a-someone' tactic has become part of the game. Teams that employ this tactic also takes on great risk too. As seen in this series, it halted Rockets offense to Half-Court basketball in which they struggled greatly. It is just another way to play the game.

BTW imagine what Shaq would have done if changes were implemented in his time. Or Dwight's time. It's almost not fair to them.

[Andrew]

How is it actually helping them? The only thing it wouldn't be doing would be sending them to the line with an immediate foul in the backcourt. They'd still have to make field goal attempts (and any free throws, if they're fouled anyway in the process of trying to stop them from scoring), rebound, box out, set picks, get back and defend, avoid fouling...play basketball. It doesn't offer them any advantage or opportunity that they don't already have.

You say that a rule change would hide their deficiency as basketball players. By that logic, doesn't allowing Hack-a-Whomever hide the defensive deficiencies of an entire team? Isn't that even worse, letting five players off the hook, instead of one? Wouldn't that mean more reasons to practice good defensive strategies, that are within the rules of the sport?

What would have Shaq done if the changes were implemented in his time? Probably have some games where he attempted less free throws. That's about it.

[NovU]

You will obviously see boost in their True Shooting Percentage. They're already extremely efficient players already under the current rule. More minutes, boost in %, less worries to get fouled, etc are obviously perks that will help them and their team out.

You say that a rule change would hide their deficiency as basketball players. By that logic, doesn't allowing Hack-a-Whomever hide the defensive deficiencies of an entire team? Isn't that even worse, letting five players off the hook, instead of one? Wouldn't that mean more reasons to practice good defensive strategies, that are within the rules of the sport?

You definitely want to play defense rather than putting league average freethrow shooter at the line. Problem with these oft-intentionally-fouled players are basketball secondary players that can't even hit wide open shots that rest of league are doing just fine at. There's a disadvantage for putting players like that on the floor, so what.

What would have Shaq done if the changes were implemented in his time? Probably have some games where he attempted less free throws. That's about it.

I remember reading about an article on Shaq that only thing that drags down his advanced stats is his freethrow shooting(which should be obvious). Otherwise his already legendary numbers would look much more ridiculous. He had a flaw in his game and he and his team had to pay for it.

[Andrew]

So they may - or may not, depending on whether they can capitalise on their opportunities - have better advanced stats. Alright then.

I'm talking about a tangible advantage, something helps them out play-to-play. If you don't foul them 90 feet from the basket, in their own backcourt, they've got to go down the floor, make the play happen, and finish with a bucket. Their weaknesses are still going to be weaknesses, and capable defenders and defensive schemes are going to find ways to slow them down or make key stops.

The only thing that changes is that they're not going to be handed a bunch of free throw attempts. Otherwise, they still have to play basketball, and make things happen at the offensive end.

[NovU]

Both Shaq and Rodman played through this shenanigan. Rodman dealt with this issue by simply making freethrows and making example out of it. Shaq at couple times also did the same, making teams to fear that he can get into a rhythm and hit freethrows.

So here is my stance. Andre Drunkenlord and DeAndre shouldn't have it easy imo. I think it has been a part of the game regardless how fun it is. Changing the entire system now for a couple players now seems unnecessary to me. Let them respond to it themselves as basketball players as previous players did.

[Mandich]

I really don't see the point of banning or changing the rules involving the hack. People are making a really big problem out of it.

It's just exploiting a players weakness. This has been a trend for quite some time in the NBA, so the players were able to prepare for it. They should practice and perfect their free throws, as simple as that.

So what if it ruins the fun of the game for someone. It's exploiting a weakness, and if it hurts your team take the player out.

It's nothing like the shot clock hack because in this situation a player has a chance to hit and realize 2 wide open shots.

[air gordon]

I really don't see the point of banning or changing the rules involving the hack. People are making a really big problem out of it.

It's just exploiting a players weakness. This has been a trend for quite some time in the NBA, so the players were able to prepare for it. They should practice and perfect their free throws, as simple as that.

So what if it ruins the fun of the game for someone. It's exploiting a weakness, and if it hurts your team take the player out.

It's nothing like the shot clock hack because in this situation a player has a chance to hit and realize 2 wide open shots.

I agree with this. It's the nba. Make the damn shot. It's annoying it happens but in the end, make the freebies and it stops

[bowdown]

I think it would be pretty lame if they change the current rules. Make your fucking freethrows. If you can't, well everybody has their weaknesses. DeAndre Jordan is a physical freak. If you take away his one weakness that he didn't work hard to eliminate himself then you're just cheapening the competition for the sake of "entertainment value". BTW this entertainment value is subjective anyways. To me its more entertaining the way it is. One team has a glaring weakness so just like in any other form of competition the opponent should exploit it. If you just keep changing the rules that work perfectly fine in almost all instances just to hide a glaring weakness of a few players then that's not fair competition in my eyes.

The current freethrow rules work really well and almost always reward the offense for the infractions committed by the defense. Why change it for the few people who are really weak in an area most other people succeed in?

[Andrew]

They why bother addressing flopping, or rip throughs, or anything else?

Everyone's saying make your damn free throws. Fair enough, but I say play some real defense.

[air gordon]

Define "real" defense

Thus is one of the few times the defense has an edge in an otherwise offense rule friendly league

Will you still have problem if the bulls pull a hack a tristsan Thompson and it leads to a win?

[Andrew]

As I said before, within the rules of the sport, as opposed to intentionally doing something that is technically against the rules (ie committing a foul).

Would I have a problem with the Bulls doing it? Yes and no. Like I said before, as long as the rules allow for it to happen, it's a legitimate tactic and you can't fault teams for using it. It's like the Paul Pierce "pivot into the defender and draw the foul on a jumpshot" move. It's cheap, it really shouldn't draw a shooting foul because the offensive player is initiating contact, but as long as they're calling it that way, it's a savvy play. But having said that, I don't care for what stuff like that or Hack-a-Whomever does for the sport, and would rather not see it. If it is going to be a part of the game, then like I said, you can't fault teams for doing it as long as they're able.

[shadowgrin]

You say that a rule change would hide their deficiency as basketball players. By that logic, doesn't allowing Hack-a-Whomever hide the defensive deficiencies of an entire team? Isn't that even worse, letting five players off the hook, instead of one? Wouldn't that mean more reasons to practice good defensive strategies, that are within the rules of the sport?

Good point but you could flip it around and say hack-a-big also lets the opposing team off easy because they won't have to run their offense with the difficulty of being guarded by defenders because the offense is being given the chance to make two points with an unguarded shot from 15 feet.

Even with the current situation the defense is still at a disadvantage if they opt to do the hack tactic (as it should) because the offense is given an open shot to the basket, all the offense have to do is convert those two shots, while the defense when they gain back possession still has to run an offense against opposing defenders and add to that the penalty of gaining a foul from their hack.

[Andrew]

That's true, there is a risk involved in the strategy. There's always the chance that a poor free throw shooter will pull a Wilt Chamberlain-like 28/32 from the line, at which point the defense would have to re-think the approach. Which does come back to knocking down your damn free throws.

All the same, I don't think it makes for good sport, so I'd be all for a minor change that restricts its usage, but still means that leaving poor foul shooters in the game carries its own risk (such as having to hang back in the backcourt to avoid being hacked, leaving their team to play 4 on 5). If they don't make a change, it's something I'll just have to grin and bear while grumbling a little to myself when I see it, like some of the inconsistent block/charge and continuation calls. And again, as long as teams can do it, you can't fault them for going to that strategy.

[air gordon]

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/23 ... -Shaq-Rule

Continue to grin and bear it

I'd like a hack a Tristan to happen but that's for another thread

[Andrew]

Welp, so be it.

I still say clean up the murkiness with block/charge calls, but that too is a topic for another thread.

[NovU]

Voting is fun, ROcKetS in 7.

Remember I said Rockets are a real deal this year? I still think so. But I will be rooting for the Clippers because I like them little more. I thinks this is a 7 game series once again. Letz guh.

Series is at 3-2 now. The Rockets just needs one more to make this interesting. Here it comes. I called it here first.

LoL wudda I tell u

Suddenly the Rockets are looking fiiiine. They've got the homecourt advantage and also the momentum.

[stereoxide]

I guess my it will all soon be over comment came a little too early.
Damn J-Smoove!!!

phpBB [video]