The Spurs are making a mockery of the NBA playoffs by fouling Shaq. What's worse, the refs are enabling them. Shaq just tried to dodge Brent Barry so that he wouldn't get fouled. It looked like something you'd see in a weekend flag football game, not an NBA playoff game. The fouls were obviously intentional (unless the Spurs just find Shaq irresistible - not likely), why aren't they called as such?
For all the flack the NHL has taken in recent years, at least they were proactive in making a rule change to uphold the integrity of the game. When a moron on the Rangers decided to dance in front of Devils G Martin Brodeur in order to screen him from seeing the action, the NHL made a rule change before the next contest in the series. They saw an obvious loophole and shut it off ASAP! David Stern should get a clue and do the same thing with the Hack-a-(insert name of poor FT shooter). Why wait until the off-season? Not allowing this absurd strategy (and I use that word reluctantly) doesn't favor a particular team. It favors the integrity of the game of basketball. Plus, it keeps the clock running.
Unfortunately, we've reached a point in society where people are always looking to cheat the system and get whatever advantage they can. I had to read "Teaching with Love and Logic" this semester and one of the things that stuck with me is an example about rules. One teacher had over 300 rules, each with a consequence if the rule was broken. One day, a male student threw a dead fish at one of the female students. "No throwing fish at girls" was not on the list. While obviously highly inappropriate, there wasn't a rule against it. How was the student supposed to know he wasn't supposed to throw fish at girls? I'll let you answer that one.
If Kurt Thomas fouls Shaq trying to block his shot, that's fine. Shaq gets a couple FT's (he just missed both of them). But, Brent Barry shouldn't be chasing Shaq around in the backcourt trying to grab him 50-60 feet from the basket. He doesn't have Kevin Love range, does he?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Maybe Shaq should learn to make 65% of his free throws. He has been paid a LARGE (and mostly deserved) amount of money over his career to play basketball. While, in the past, his physical gifts have allowed him to eschew the playthings of mortals, father time has now overtaken him and he, like the rest of us, must now squint at the shadows on the cave wall. Welcome to mortality Shaq, now genuflect at the altar of the freethrow (emphasis on FREE).
Your illustration of throwing the fish is not entirely analogous here. A closer parallel would be the case where the punishment for throwing a fish at someone is submitting to a punch in the face from the recipient of the fish. The thrower should not be held in low esteem if the target punches like a girl.
The throwing fish example wasn't meant to be "totally analogous." It was meant merely as an example that there are certain things that shouldn't be done even if there aren't explicit rules that don't allow them. Throwing fish at girls isn't reasonable classroom behavior. Similarly, intentionally fouling Shaq (or anyone else) 50 feet away from the basket in the 3rd quarter isn't reasonable.
I'm of the opinion that fouls on the opposite side of half court should never result in free throws. The most important examples are fouls committed during offensive rebounding, but I think it would cover this case as well.
If Shaq wanted to avoid heading to the free throw line, then, he could just hang out at the defensive end all the time.
The fact of the matter is that Brent Barry (or anyone else) chasing down Shaq (or anyone else) in that manner is obviously an intentional foul. Thus, it should be called an intentional foul. This would solve the problem. I don't understand why it isn't called that way, but the league should direct the officials to make that call.
It would be nice if Shaq could improve his FT shooting, but it isn't a requirement that everyone in the NBA is able to perform every basketball related skill at a certain proficiency. How does Dwight Howard shoot from downtown? Can Steve Nash challenge shots at the rim? You shouldn't be able to make the game a FT shooting contest for one person on the other team, much as you shouldn't be able to decide who everyone on the other team guards on your team, just as you can't mandate that Dwight Howard is not allowed in the key.
You can try to manipulate a defense into switching into unfavorable match-ups. You can try to force Dwight Howard off the block for catches and block him out to keep him off the boards. You can foul Shaq when he's going up for shots if you are going for the ball. You shouldn't be allowed to intentionally foul Shaq for the sole purpose of sending him to the line.
"[I]t isn't a requirement that everyone in the NBA is able to perform every basketball related skill at a certain proficiency." This is true, but as you note, it is completely legitimate in other cases to force players to perform the skills that they are not proficient in. What makes freethrow shooting so special? To me a prohibition against putting Shaq on the freethrow line would be akin to a prohibition against driving past Steve Nash.
You contend that fouling Shaq turns the game into "a freethrow shooting contest." That is definitely not true because Shaq would lose a freethrow shooting contest against 99% of the players in the NBA. If fouling Shaq actually turned the game into a contest of freethrows, Shaq would not be an NBA player. More precisely, fouling Shaq forces Shaq to make FREEthrows at a greater rate than the other team converts offensive possessions. I am sorry, but you won't hear me weeping for the Suns because their $20M man can't make unguarded 15 footers with greater regularity than the other team scores the basketball against 5 defenders.
Even a girl, if properly trained (how to make a fist, how to leverage her hips, where to land the blow, etc.) can present a strong deterrent against would be fish flippers.
FT shooting isn't special. In the context of regular game action, if you foul Shaq then he has to shoot FT's. My problem is with the Spurs (or anyone else, for that matter) fouling Shaq in such a ridiculous manner.
Ben hints at the idea that Steve Nash isn't the world's best on-ball defender. If the Suns stick Raja Bell on Kobe Bryant, Bryant can't automatically decide that he doesn't like that match-up and single out Nash for a one-on-one possession. That's not the way basketball works. Similarly, you aren't supposed to be able to go grab whoever you want on the other team to make them shoot FT's.
I don't have any problem with the Spurs sending Shaq to the line. That's entirely legitimate. Where it becomes a mockery is in the way that they are committing fouls. There are plenty of creative ways to foul Shaq within the rules ... one deterrent to doing this is that it might not allow the Spurs such easy selection of the fouler.
For example, try to go over Shaq's back when he's going for a rebound. If Shaq sets a screen, "accidentally" try to run him over - he might get called for a foul. If Shaq gets a catch, go for the steal without being careful not to foul him.
And, Ben, if you're going to pull out pieces of what I write, at least do so in an intelligent fashion. I wrote "You shouldn't be able to make the game a FT shooting contest for one person on the other team ..." You took this and wrote:
"You contend that fouling Shaq turns the game into "a freethrow shooting contest." That is definitely not true because Shaq would lose a freethrow shooting contest against 99% of the players in the NBA. If fouling Shaq actually turned the game into a contest of freethrows, Shaq would not be an NBA player."
While you are correct in stating that Shaq wouldn't be in the league if NBA games were FT shooting contests, you missed my point and mistook it for one of your own.
You wrote:
"More precisely, fouling Shaq forces Shaq to make FREEthrows at a greater rate than the other team converts offensive possessions."
Exactly. I said you shouldn't be able to make it a FT shooting contest for one player on the other team. I didn't say between one player on your team and one player on the other team. Shaq's FT percentage (along with the offensive rebounding capabilities of the Suns) are in competition with the SA offense.
I know where I stand on this issue, and I think I'm right. The rules (let's not get into the integrity of the game) prevent ridiculous fouls like the ones Brent Barry committed ... the refs just didn't properly enforce the rules. It's a joke that the Spurs would try such a strategy and it's really sad that they get away with that crap.
I'm not saying that the Spurs shouldn't be up 2-0. It's entirely possible that they would have won game 2 without the fouling antics. But, I don't approve of such behavior and refuse to root for a team that acts in such a manner. Thus, "Another reason I don't root for the Spurs."
I would contend that the phrase "freethrow shooting contest" in the context in which it was used*, connotes a competition in which the ability to shoot freethrows is the only skill in play. Obviously, I, and/or any "intelligent" person, recognize that you were over-stating the position to make a point. My point was that I think you went too far.
To me, the only reason that the rules should be changed is if they are somehow "unfair" in that they do not appropriately penalize the offending party. I like that shooting freethrows wins and loses games. I actually wish that non-shooting fouls were still just one-and-one (in college and the pros).
Many of the attributes required to play in the NBA are bestowed by genetic fortune. It is true that not everyone can make themselves into great shooters, but I reject the notion that anyone cannot become a competent freethrow shooter through practice. The fact that Shaq, and others of his ilk, have CHOSEN not to do so seems to me to be no more than sloth.
I find the notion that the laziness of a few should be the instigator for rule changes designed to protect their indolence more offensive than Brent Barry fouling Shaq away from the ball.
* I cannot be sure that this reference to the original blog post has been done "in an intelligent fashion" because it appears this portion of the post has been redacted.
You seem to be suggesting that basketball should be more about pure shooting, and less about basketball, the complete skill set.
I think it should be more about basketball, and less about pure shooting. Evan seems to agree.
Do you find free throws entertaining? We shouldn't overlook that factor.
The post as it sits today is the same as it was when it came out.
Perhaps, you overlooked one of the comments.
You say "Many of the attributes required to play in the NBA are bestowed by genetic fortune." Your general point is acceptable, but I think "required" is a little strong. You aren't required to be a certain height, although height and wingspan can definitely be beneficial and the majority of players in the NBA aren't in the 5'6" range. I'm not going to say that Steve Nash isn't genetically gifted. But, if you had a scouting combine for NBA players (height, weight, body fat %, 40 time, vertical jump, etc.), Nash wouldn't be among the upper echelon of players. If you have a certain level of natural athleticism, it can mask flaws in your skill set and/or work ethic. But, what you lack in natural athleticism you can compensate for in the opposite fashion, at least to a certain extent. Plus, there is the cerebral part of the game.
Now, I'll shift gears.
Rules are a necessary part of just about anything. I believe that rules are supposed to help protect the spirit of a sport. Obviously, some people think that you should try to exploit/circumvent/etc. the rules to whatever extent you can - in sports and in real life. I don't think that's the case.
We've been talking about basketball and fouls. In the most general sense, who is supposed to benefit by the official calling the foul? Is it supposed to be the person committing the foul or the person being fouled? I'll answer my own question here and say that it is the person who is being fouled.
The following definition for "foul" comes courtesy of m-w.com: "to commit a violation of the rules in a sport or game". You don't see teams intentionally committing traveling, backcourt (over and back), or shot clock violations with regularity. Granted, occasionally at the end of a game a team will let the shot clock expire as a good will gesture to the opponent, rather than hoisting up a shot. My point is that you shouldn't benefit from violations. If you don't benefit from violations, you usually won't do them on purpose (coaches do get technicals in some occasions as motivational tactics or to change the officiating dynamic). Being able to send Shaq (or anyone else) to the FT line in the manner that the Spurs did it just doesn't fit with my beliefs about basketball (and sports in general).
What do you have against Shaq and people of his ilk?
I apologize for my assertion about the redaction, I forgot that the passage I was referring to was made in a comment, not the post. My mistake.
There are so many things that I would like to address, but in the interest of brevity I will only make a couple of comments.
Number 1, your comment about the foul should not benefit the fouler is the only part of your argument that I find seductive. However, I will come back over the top of this by pointing to the core of my argument which is that Shaq and the Suns would be the beneficiaries if he had could make just 60% of his freethrows.
60% is not a lot. It does not require a "pure" shooter. All it takes is repetition and the guts to knock them down when it counts. It is certainly not too much to ask of a professional basketball player. I played on a junior high team where if you could not make 12 out of 20 freethrows you were not allowed to play in the first quarter or the fourth quarter of the upcoming game.
fin (for me ... on this one, I'll hang up and listen)
The idea that the foul shouldn't benefit the fouler is the general premise of my entire argument. So, it's heartening to hear that you find it seductive.
I'm not sure what percentage Shaq would need to hit to make the Suns beneficiaries of the strategy. If there is a defensive lapse because guys aren't getting offensive touches, maybe SA's offense is more effective than normal? Also, if the Suns' offensive rhythm is disrupted, they might not be as effective on possessions where the Hack-a-Shaq is not employed. But, if Shaq shot in the high 60's (or maybe even the low 60's), coaches would be less apt to use the strategy.
You took Roy's "You seem to be suggesting that basketball should be more about pure shooting, and less about basketball, the complete skill set." sentence and pulled out the "pure." He didn't mean that it takes a "pure" shooter to knock down free throws.
So, if your coach has a very athletic 6'4" junior high player who only made 11 out of 20 FT's, he wouldn't play him in the 1st or 4th quarters of the next game? I'm not sure I'd employ such a strategy. And, if they can't play in the 1st and 4th, why let them play at all?
Post a Comment