I think the NBA is moving in the right direction if they start passing out fines for players flopping. It's getting ridiculous and there is no need for it in basketball (or soccer, for that matter).
Unfortunately, the league is missing the boat by not addressing the rules that allow the "Hack-A-Shaq" strategy for the majority of the game. The following quote came from Stu Jackson:
"But in the end, there wasn't enough support to change it. ... There was a feeling that by changing the rule you would be essentially rewarding a player for a lack of skill by allowing him to stay in the game."
There isn't anything wrong with Jackson saying that. But, I still disagree that you are rewarding a player for a lack of skill. You aren't rewarding him for a lack of skill if you change it, you are unfairly penalizing him for lacking a certain skill by not changing it. Shaq isn't a good FT shooter. If you don't give him the ball on offense, he should rarely be put in the situation that he has to shoot FT's. It's possible that someone (driving a big-rig) will run him over when he's setting a screen, thus sending him to the line. But, that's pretty unlikely.
FT shooting is a skill. So is ball-handling. Ditto for three-point shooting. If you can make Shaq shoot FT's, why not put in a rule that allows you to force DeSagana Diop to bring the ball upcourt? By not forcing Diop to handle the ball in the open court, aren't you "essentially rewarding a player for a lack of skill by allowing him to stay in the game"? And, while Jason Kapono led the league in three-point FG percentage at 48.3%, his Toronto teammate, PG TJ Ford, shot just 29.4% from behind the arc. There isn't a rule that allows you to force TJ Ford to shoot 24-footers, rather than trying to beat his man off the dribble. Aren't you "essentially ..." (do I really need to include the entire sentence?)? Diop is on the court to defend and rebound. Ford is out there to create off the dribble and lead an uptempo style offense.
"Hack-A-Shaq" isn't good for basketball, just like forcing Diop to handle the ball against pressure in the open court and forcing Ford to shoot from beyond the arc wouldn't be good for the game. So, why protect the rule that allows the "Hack-A-Shaq" strategy (and I use that term loosely)? It would be great if everyone in the league had a skill set similar to the one possessed by the likes of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James (with a little better "J"), Tracy McGrady, Manu Ginobli (without the flopping), Paul Pierce, Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki, etc. But, that's not the case.
I love watching Tyson Chandler play because he knows his role. He rebounds and plays defense. And, if Chris Paul throws it up by the rim, Chandler slams it down. More long, young, athletic players need to take a long, hard look at Chandler's impact on games. However, he doesn't shoot FT's well. He's limited on the offensive end in general, and I'm sure he doesn't have a great stroke from downtown. Does that mean he shouldn't be allowed to run alongside Chris Paul and his fellow Hornets? Come on.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Who needs technology?
Baseball needs replay. On Friday, October 13th, 2006, I wrote a post about the number of plays that might need a look during a game. I was on the conservative side (anything that might possibly need a review made my list) and the number was still relatively small. In the entire game (game 2 of the NLCS), I reached to find 11 that might be worth one look, with only three needing more than a cursory glance. As it turned out, the umps did a fantastic job in that game. Replay would have been worthless, the umps didn't miss any calls that replay would have overturned.
But, it is obvious from all the disputed HR's this year that replay is necessary - although I did enjoy watching Dmitri Young legging out a triple. While it is probably too early to bring in technology for balls and strikes and replay for rulings on check swings, can we at least agree that replay should be used for HR's?
Apparently not.
I can be stubborn and opinionated. However, I've been known to respect valid arguments contrary to my position. The problem is that most of the people speaking out against replay aren't making valid arguments.
In response to someone asking if replay should be used on HR's, one ESPN contributor (I think it was someone on baseball tonight, but I'm not sure exactly who) argued that using replay for HR's (which Steve Phillips is in favor of) isn't a good idea because HR's aren't the only important plays in baseball games. I'll agree that HR's aren't the only plays that the umps should try to get right. However, they are easy to replay and are pretty cut and dry usually. Thus, that would be a good place to start implementing replay. It would get replay into baseball and would prevent awful calls like the overrule on the Delgado foul pole homer against the Yankees that changed a correct call to an incorrect one.
Have you ever tried to mount a shelf to a wall? One of the first steps is to find the studs. While this isn't the only important part of the process, if you don't get it right, the end product might be sub-optimal. Sure, if conditions are right and you have the necessary expertise, you can determine where the studs are without a stud finder. But, if you have a stud finder, why not use it? It's a way to improve the chances that you get that step correct!
Someone else argued against replay by saying that the NFL uses replay and often doesn't get the calls correctly, even with replay. I will agree that replay in football is not optimal - anyone affiliated in any way with the University of Oklahoma can tell you that (OU got quacked in Eugene!). But, the argument is flawed. Whether or not a ball clears the fence is pretty cut and dry. Either it did, or it didn't. That is a much easier call than determining if a fumble went out of bounds before it went over the goal line when you don't have a perfect angle. It's also an easier call than whether or not a receiver would have come down in bounds if he hadn't been pushed by a defender (which is no longer a problem because they got rid of the force out rule) or the exact location of forward progress of a runner with a pile of bodies obscuring the view. Baseball replays would be, generally, much more straight forward than many of their football counterparts. Home run replays would be similar to the FG replay when the ball hit the neck on the goal post behind the crossbar and bounced back onto the field. It was obviously a good FG, just like it was obvious that the ball A-Rod hit went over the fence and only bounced back onto the field after it hit the stairs beyond the fence.
While replay in football might not be perfect, replay has been very successful in tennis. A fellow grad student in my department is a tennis fan and is convinced that it does wonders for players by allowing them to forget about the last play and play the next play because they don't have to worry about whether or not they got hosed by the official on the last play. If a player thinks the umpire missed a call, he can challenge and Hawk-eye tells it like it is. If Hawk-eye shows the ump missed it, then the player is right and benefits from the challenge. If Hawk-eye shows the call was right, then the player realizes the ump isn't screwing him over and he can move on to play the next play, which is where the focus needs to be.
And, yet another person put out the lame argument that games have been played for years without replay. Thus, obviously, there is no need to use replay now. What?
According to wikipedia, the first "medical" x-ray image was created in 1895. What happens if you think you broke your arm? You go to the doctor and get an x-ray. CT scans haven't always been available, but doctors use those now. MRI's, heart monitors, blood pressure monitors, etc. If additional technology can improve something without being obtrusive, why not use it?
I can come up with lots of examples, but I'll stop with just one more. We are in a very active tornado year. Meteorologists are able to forecast severe weather. So, residents can know in advance (usually a day or two around here) whether or not there is a decent chance of severe weather - tornadoes, hail, strong winds, etc. I'm pretty sure the meteorologists use technology (models, atmospheric pressure, temperature, and humidity measurements, etc.) to predict the severe weather - although meteorology isn't my specialty. The predictions allow storm chasers to know where they should position themselves. Then, using radar and reports from storm chasers, the meteorologists are able to keep the public advised about areas of severe weather, which is why entire towns can be destroyed by tornadoes and only a handful of people die in the devastation. In a related matter, as bad as Hurricane Katrina was, imagine if the warnings weren't issued leading up to the event and no one evacuated. Technology can be helpful, baseball, get with the program.
But, it is obvious from all the disputed HR's this year that replay is necessary - although I did enjoy watching Dmitri Young legging out a triple. While it is probably too early to bring in technology for balls and strikes and replay for rulings on check swings, can we at least agree that replay should be used for HR's?
Apparently not.
I can be stubborn and opinionated. However, I've been known to respect valid arguments contrary to my position. The problem is that most of the people speaking out against replay aren't making valid arguments.
In response to someone asking if replay should be used on HR's, one ESPN contributor (I think it was someone on baseball tonight, but I'm not sure exactly who) argued that using replay for HR's (which Steve Phillips is in favor of) isn't a good idea because HR's aren't the only important plays in baseball games. I'll agree that HR's aren't the only plays that the umps should try to get right. However, they are easy to replay and are pretty cut and dry usually. Thus, that would be a good place to start implementing replay. It would get replay into baseball and would prevent awful calls like the overrule on the Delgado foul pole homer against the Yankees that changed a correct call to an incorrect one.
Have you ever tried to mount a shelf to a wall? One of the first steps is to find the studs. While this isn't the only important part of the process, if you don't get it right, the end product might be sub-optimal. Sure, if conditions are right and you have the necessary expertise, you can determine where the studs are without a stud finder. But, if you have a stud finder, why not use it? It's a way to improve the chances that you get that step correct!
Someone else argued against replay by saying that the NFL uses replay and often doesn't get the calls correctly, even with replay. I will agree that replay in football is not optimal - anyone affiliated in any way with the University of Oklahoma can tell you that (OU got quacked in Eugene!). But, the argument is flawed. Whether or not a ball clears the fence is pretty cut and dry. Either it did, or it didn't. That is a much easier call than determining if a fumble went out of bounds before it went over the goal line when you don't have a perfect angle. It's also an easier call than whether or not a receiver would have come down in bounds if he hadn't been pushed by a defender (which is no longer a problem because they got rid of the force out rule) or the exact location of forward progress of a runner with a pile of bodies obscuring the view. Baseball replays would be, generally, much more straight forward than many of their football counterparts. Home run replays would be similar to the FG replay when the ball hit the neck on the goal post behind the crossbar and bounced back onto the field. It was obviously a good FG, just like it was obvious that the ball A-Rod hit went over the fence and only bounced back onto the field after it hit the stairs beyond the fence.
While replay in football might not be perfect, replay has been very successful in tennis. A fellow grad student in my department is a tennis fan and is convinced that it does wonders for players by allowing them to forget about the last play and play the next play because they don't have to worry about whether or not they got hosed by the official on the last play. If a player thinks the umpire missed a call, he can challenge and Hawk-eye tells it like it is. If Hawk-eye shows the ump missed it, then the player is right and benefits from the challenge. If Hawk-eye shows the call was right, then the player realizes the ump isn't screwing him over and he can move on to play the next play, which is where the focus needs to be.
And, yet another person put out the lame argument that games have been played for years without replay. Thus, obviously, there is no need to use replay now. What?
According to wikipedia, the first "medical" x-ray image was created in 1895. What happens if you think you broke your arm? You go to the doctor and get an x-ray. CT scans haven't always been available, but doctors use those now. MRI's, heart monitors, blood pressure monitors, etc. If additional technology can improve something without being obtrusive, why not use it?
I can come up with lots of examples, but I'll stop with just one more. We are in a very active tornado year. Meteorologists are able to forecast severe weather. So, residents can know in advance (usually a day or two around here) whether or not there is a decent chance of severe weather - tornadoes, hail, strong winds, etc. I'm pretty sure the meteorologists use technology (models, atmospheric pressure, temperature, and humidity measurements, etc.) to predict the severe weather - although meteorology isn't my specialty. The predictions allow storm chasers to know where they should position themselves. Then, using radar and reports from storm chasers, the meteorologists are able to keep the public advised about areas of severe weather, which is why entire towns can be destroyed by tornadoes and only a handful of people die in the devastation. In a related matter, as bad as Hurricane Katrina was, imagine if the warnings weren't issued leading up to the event and no one evacuated. Technology can be helpful, baseball, get with the program.
Lack of Effort?
Jeff Van Gundy criticized the Boston Celtics for a lack of effort when they were caught off-guard in transition, allowing Tayshaun Prince to draw a foul on a drive to the basket and get FT's with 3:24 remaining in the 3rd quarter of game five. Van Gundy said "That's just bad, that's just bad effort by the Celtics" as Prince's 2nd FT was going through.
Van Gundy correctly pointed out that "the Pistons weren't even running hard" and "you should never get beaten down the floor" after a made basket. The problem is that Van Gundy was off the mark on his criticism. It wasn't a lack of effort that was the problem in this instance, it was a lack of concentration. While neither of them is acceptable, especially in game five of the Eastern Conference Finals with the series knotted up at 2-2, Van Gundy should be able to tell the difference and correctly relate the information to the public.
From the replay, it looks like Boston SF Paul Pierce was trying to pick up the man bringing up the ball, Detroit PG Chauncey Billups. He pointed to Prince, seemingly directly someone else to guard Detroit's SF. Unfortunately for Boston, PG Rajon Rondo was right next to Pierce looking to guard Billups. So, while both Rondo and Pierce were back on defense, one of them - presumably Pierce - was out of position. On subsequent (and preceding) possessions, Rondo is guarding Billups and Pierce is checking Prince.
Effort and concentration are two entirely different things. To paraphrase OU Football Coach Bob Stoops' thoughts on the Sooners' secondary in recent years, if your players run fast in the wrong direction, they are even farther out of position. While OU's secondary didn't lack hustle, problems with concentration hurt because the effort wasn't productive. If you are concentrating, but don't put out a solid effort, you won't be at your best. But, even if you are giving it your all, you get into a similar amount of trouble if you aren't able to focus on the task at hand, which was what happened in allowing Prince to get to the FT line.
Van Gundy correctly pointed out that "the Pistons weren't even running hard" and "you should never get beaten down the floor" after a made basket. The problem is that Van Gundy was off the mark on his criticism. It wasn't a lack of effort that was the problem in this instance, it was a lack of concentration. While neither of them is acceptable, especially in game five of the Eastern Conference Finals with the series knotted up at 2-2, Van Gundy should be able to tell the difference and correctly relate the information to the public.
From the replay, it looks like Boston SF Paul Pierce was trying to pick up the man bringing up the ball, Detroit PG Chauncey Billups. He pointed to Prince, seemingly directly someone else to guard Detroit's SF. Unfortunately for Boston, PG Rajon Rondo was right next to Pierce looking to guard Billups. So, while both Rondo and Pierce were back on defense, one of them - presumably Pierce - was out of position. On subsequent (and preceding) possessions, Rondo is guarding Billups and Pierce is checking Prince.
Effort and concentration are two entirely different things. To paraphrase OU Football Coach Bob Stoops' thoughts on the Sooners' secondary in recent years, if your players run fast in the wrong direction, they are even farther out of position. While OU's secondary didn't lack hustle, problems with concentration hurt because the effort wasn't productive. If you are concentrating, but don't put out a solid effort, you won't be at your best. But, even if you are giving it your all, you get into a similar amount of trouble if you aren't able to focus on the task at hand, which was what happened in allowing Prince to get to the FT line.
Brown on Maxiell
PJ Brown was whistled for two fouls on attempted lob dunks by Jason Maxiell in the fifth game of the series between Detroit and Boston. On the first one, the officials called it a flagrant one.
While Mike Breen agreed with the flagrant call, Mark Jackson and Jeff Van Gundy disagreed. Then, after the second play, Jackson and Van Gundy said it was the exact same play. I hope they were just kidding around. If not, they have no business being on NBA telecasts, because they obviously don't understand what is going on.
On the first foul, PJ Brown didn't make a play on the ball. He didn't jump and contacted Maxiell as Maxiell grabbed the ball. Maxiell was off the ground and was above the rim. Brown's hands might have made it to Maxiell's elbow. While Brown didn't blatantly push Maxiell out-of-bounds or even foul Maxiell particularly hard, he didn't make a play on the ball either. The call seemed to be in line with similar rulings during the regular season and playoffs.
On the second one, Brown met Maxiell at the ball. In fact, Doc Rivers and the Boston fans thought Brown got to the ball first. Maxiell went for the ball with two hands and Brown only got one hand on it, so there may have been a foul with Brown's other arm, I'm not really sure exactly what the official called. Obviously, this was a case of Brown making a play on the ball.
Van Gundy and Jackson saying the two plays were exactly the same is just ridiculous. The first one was obviously a foul, the second one probably should have been a no call (and not like the no call at the end of the Spurs v. Lakers game last night). Brown made a play on the ball on the second one and he didn't on the first. Van Gundy and Jackson may have a legitimate argument that there wasn't excessive enough contact by Brown on the first one to warrant a flagrant foul, but by taking the absurd position they did after the second one, their opinions lost all credibility.
While Mike Breen agreed with the flagrant call, Mark Jackson and Jeff Van Gundy disagreed. Then, after the second play, Jackson and Van Gundy said it was the exact same play. I hope they were just kidding around. If not, they have no business being on NBA telecasts, because they obviously don't understand what is going on.
On the first foul, PJ Brown didn't make a play on the ball. He didn't jump and contacted Maxiell as Maxiell grabbed the ball. Maxiell was off the ground and was above the rim. Brown's hands might have made it to Maxiell's elbow. While Brown didn't blatantly push Maxiell out-of-bounds or even foul Maxiell particularly hard, he didn't make a play on the ball either. The call seemed to be in line with similar rulings during the regular season and playoffs.
On the second one, Brown met Maxiell at the ball. In fact, Doc Rivers and the Boston fans thought Brown got to the ball first. Maxiell went for the ball with two hands and Brown only got one hand on it, so there may have been a foul with Brown's other arm, I'm not really sure exactly what the official called. Obviously, this was a case of Brown making a play on the ball.
Van Gundy and Jackson saying the two plays were exactly the same is just ridiculous. The first one was obviously a foul, the second one probably should have been a no call (and not like the no call at the end of the Spurs v. Lakers game last night). Brown made a play on the ball on the second one and he didn't on the first. Van Gundy and Jackson may have a legitimate argument that there wasn't excessive enough contact by Brown on the first one to warrant a flagrant foul, but by taking the absurd position they did after the second one, their opinions lost all credibility.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Can the NBA be saved?
I just finished a post that centered on a missed foul call at the end of the fourth game in the series between the Lakers and Spurs (I'm not sure what Reggie Miller is doing saying it was a foul but it was a good no call ... isn't that a little contradictory?). Anyway, moving on ... some may think I'm being critical of the referees. Perhaps, to some extent, I am. But, I don't think you can channel all the blame for "poor" officiating on the officials.
From my perspective, it is almost impossible to officiate NBA games correctly. Fortunately, I have a solution, so stay tuned. But, first, let me outline the problem. Traveling, flopping, illegal screens, palming, etc. are so prevalent that officials' hands are tied. If you call an illegal screen, or three-in-the-key, at one end, you almost have to call one on the other side to even things out later on. But, there are so many violations that you can't even come close to calling them all. If you called Tim Duncan for every moving screen, either he wouldn't set screens or he'd pick up a lot of "cheap" fouls.
There are two ways for the NBA to go. The first, the "status quo" approach, is for officials to go on trying to manage the madness. They will continue to call the occasional blatant travel and illegal screen. They'll ignore some flops and give good actors calls based on other ones. And, the players will continue to try to stretch the limits of what they can get away with.
Or, the league can try to get a handle on things. It will be painful at first. It will be ugly early on. But, in the end, the league will get the game of basketball back. The solution is to call every illegal screen. Additionally, officials need to call traveling. If Bruce Bowen (watch him, he does) moves both feet after catching the ball before he shoots, call it a travel - he did it late in game 3 (I think) to put the Spurs up 84-78.
Additionally, the league should think about ratifying the way fouls are dealt with. I don't like watching a parade of FT's. I can't imagine fans enjoy games with 60-80 FT's between the teams. Additionally, a foul call should penalize the team that commits the foul. So, a system should be implemented that penalizes the offending team enough that they choose not to foul so frequently. Instead of 2 FT's for a regular shooting foul and 3 for a foul on a 3-pointer, the shooter could get 3 for a normal FG and 4 if they are behind the line. Similarly, if they make the shot, instead of one additional FT, they would be given two. And, the officials should call more intentional fouls for fouls committed that don't include reasonable plays on the ball. Hopefully, the additional FT's would remove unintentional intentional fouls from the game. But, in the event that they don't - you might still foul Shaq if he's going up for a lay-up - an intentional foul would still warrant two shots and the ball out-of-bounds.
Don't worry, I still have a couple more modifications. If you penalize players enough for fouls, you don't need disqualifications because of 6 personal fouls. If a left tackle gets 3 false starts and 4 holding penalties in a football game, he isn't kicked out by the refs (he might be benched by his coach). Why? He's breaking the rules and committing fouls. But, he's also hurting his team with each violation. Why not apply the same principle to basketball? This will keep us from absurd situations like the Celtics v. Nets multi-OT game from a few years back when Brian Scalabrine was the best player on the floor at the end because of all the DQ's. Okay, that might be hyperbole, but I thought it was ridiculous that the best players from both teams were on the bench in a playoff game because they'd fouled out in OT.
And, finally, team fouls only apply to unintentional, non-shooting fouls. This will limit the number of FT's you get for fouls that don't take place in the offensive zone. You don't get FT's if you take a charge. Why should you get FT's if you are fouled going for a defensive rebound? That's ridiculous. However, if you don't ever get FT's on those fouls and the number of fouls doesn't matter, you can foul the crap out of people going for offensive rebounds without any problem. So, you can have 3 (seems reasonable, right?) such fouls per quarter without any penalty, but the opponent starts getting 3 FT's for every violation starting with number four. Note: ticky-tack touch fouls where no advantage is gained don't need to be called in the flow of action.
What game does the NBA want? Do they want basketball? Or, do they want street ball? It's time to choose, and I'd go for the former.
From my perspective, it is almost impossible to officiate NBA games correctly. Fortunately, I have a solution, so stay tuned. But, first, let me outline the problem. Traveling, flopping, illegal screens, palming, etc. are so prevalent that officials' hands are tied. If you call an illegal screen, or three-in-the-key, at one end, you almost have to call one on the other side to even things out later on. But, there are so many violations that you can't even come close to calling them all. If you called Tim Duncan for every moving screen, either he wouldn't set screens or he'd pick up a lot of "cheap" fouls.
There are two ways for the NBA to go. The first, the "status quo" approach, is for officials to go on trying to manage the madness. They will continue to call the occasional blatant travel and illegal screen. They'll ignore some flops and give good actors calls based on other ones. And, the players will continue to try to stretch the limits of what they can get away with.
Or, the league can try to get a handle on things. It will be painful at first. It will be ugly early on. But, in the end, the league will get the game of basketball back. The solution is to call every illegal screen. Additionally, officials need to call traveling. If Bruce Bowen (watch him, he does) moves both feet after catching the ball before he shoots, call it a travel - he did it late in game 3 (I think) to put the Spurs up 84-78.
Additionally, the league should think about ratifying the way fouls are dealt with. I don't like watching a parade of FT's. I can't imagine fans enjoy games with 60-80 FT's between the teams. Additionally, a foul call should penalize the team that commits the foul. So, a system should be implemented that penalizes the offending team enough that they choose not to foul so frequently. Instead of 2 FT's for a regular shooting foul and 3 for a foul on a 3-pointer, the shooter could get 3 for a normal FG and 4 if they are behind the line. Similarly, if they make the shot, instead of one additional FT, they would be given two. And, the officials should call more intentional fouls for fouls committed that don't include reasonable plays on the ball. Hopefully, the additional FT's would remove unintentional intentional fouls from the game. But, in the event that they don't - you might still foul Shaq if he's going up for a lay-up - an intentional foul would still warrant two shots and the ball out-of-bounds.
Don't worry, I still have a couple more modifications. If you penalize players enough for fouls, you don't need disqualifications because of 6 personal fouls. If a left tackle gets 3 false starts and 4 holding penalties in a football game, he isn't kicked out by the refs (he might be benched by his coach). Why? He's breaking the rules and committing fouls. But, he's also hurting his team with each violation. Why not apply the same principle to basketball? This will keep us from absurd situations like the Celtics v. Nets multi-OT game from a few years back when Brian Scalabrine was the best player on the floor at the end because of all the DQ's. Okay, that might be hyperbole, but I thought it was ridiculous that the best players from both teams were on the bench in a playoff game because they'd fouled out in OT.
And, finally, team fouls only apply to unintentional, non-shooting fouls. This will limit the number of FT's you get for fouls that don't take place in the offensive zone. You don't get FT's if you take a charge. Why should you get FT's if you are fouled going for a defensive rebound? That's ridiculous. However, if you don't ever get FT's on those fouls and the number of fouls doesn't matter, you can foul the crap out of people going for offensive rebounds without any problem. So, you can have 3 (seems reasonable, right?) such fouls per quarter without any penalty, but the opponent starts getting 3 FT's for every violation starting with number four. Note: ticky-tack touch fouls where no advantage is gained don't need to be called in the flow of action.
What game does the NBA want? Do they want basketball? Or, do they want street ball? It's time to choose, and I'd go for the former.
No Foul? How 'bout a travel?
It looked like LA Lakers' G Derek Fisher fouled SA Spurs' G Brent Barry on the Spurs' last possession. No foul was called and Barry missed a last-second 3 that would have given the Spurs a much-needed victory to even the series.
Anyone who knows me - or has read this blog - knows that I'm not a Spurs fan. But, how do the refs let that one go? It was obviously a foul ... or a travel. There was no way Barry would get three FT's on that one. Why? He traveled (switched pivot feet - take a look for yourself) before he got the shot up. So, if he is fouled, travels, then shoots, he obviously wasn't fouled on the shot.
Speaking of traveling. Did anyone see Tim Duncan's dunk (after a travel) in the first half? Or, did people see when Manu Ginobli caught the ball on the wing and switched pivot feet at least twice (illegal the last time I checked) before putting the ball on the floor? Of course, I'm pretty sure Kobe traveled on his last break-away dunk, after Ginobli and Oberto (I think) fumbled a hand-off.
Anyone who knows me - or has read this blog - knows that I'm not a Spurs fan. But, how do the refs let that one go? It was obviously a foul ... or a travel. There was no way Barry would get three FT's on that one. Why? He traveled (switched pivot feet - take a look for yourself) before he got the shot up. So, if he is fouled, travels, then shoots, he obviously wasn't fouled on the shot.
Speaking of traveling. Did anyone see Tim Duncan's dunk (after a travel) in the first half? Or, did people see when Manu Ginobli caught the ball on the wing and switched pivot feet at least twice (illegal the last time I checked) before putting the ball on the floor? Of course, I'm pretty sure Kobe traveled on his last break-away dunk, after Ginobli and Oberto (I think) fumbled a hand-off.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Doug Collins and Points Per Shot
At the end of the Jazz v. Lakers game, Doug Collins spent some time running through "the Bryant efficiency numbers," which are just the points per shot. The idea is fine. Sure, you don't want Kobe getting to the FT line because he shoots a good percentage and might be converting old-fashioned three-point plays. Like with any player, you'd like them to take as many shots as you can get them to take to get however many points they get. If Kobe takes 35 shots to get 25 points, you're probably better off than if he only takes 15 shots to get 25 points.
Maybe Gregg Popovich is just trying to improve the efficiency numbers for Shaquille O'neal and Melvin Ely when he employs the ridiculous hack-a-(insert name of poor FT shooter) strategy. See, even if Shaq (or Kobe on an off day) goes 1-6 from the line, they still get an extra point without adding any FGA. However, I doubt Shaq bricking 5 of 6 is probably going to benefit the Suns.
If you want to wrap FT's and FG's together, adjust the FGA so you are dividing the points by the number of possessions a player is using up. And, it might help if you subtract out FT points earned via technical fouls, as those aren't directly related to a player's offensive efficiency (one could argue some might be related because of defensive three seconds). I'd probably excluded FT's that result due to fouls that occur outside the offensive zone (like loose ball fouls at the other end of the court) because they aren't related to offensive efficiency either.
Maybe Gregg Popovich is just trying to improve the efficiency numbers for Shaquille O'neal and Melvin Ely when he employs the ridiculous hack-a-(insert name of poor FT shooter) strategy. See, even if Shaq (or Kobe on an off day) goes 1-6 from the line, they still get an extra point without adding any FGA. However, I doubt Shaq bricking 5 of 6 is probably going to benefit the Suns.
If you want to wrap FT's and FG's together, adjust the FGA so you are dividing the points by the number of possessions a player is using up. And, it might help if you subtract out FT points earned via technical fouls, as those aren't directly related to a player's offensive efficiency (one could argue some might be related because of defensive three seconds). I'd probably excluded FT's that result due to fouls that occur outside the offensive zone (like loose ball fouls at the other end of the court) because they aren't related to offensive efficiency either.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Spygate
If I hadn't spent time around high school students in math and science classes the last couple of years, I would be flabbergasted by the commentary on the lack of new information in the "spygate" saga. While Matt Walsh may not have added any new information, the lack of new information does not prove that the Patriots didn't tape the Rams' walk-through before the Super Bowl.
Think back to geometry for a second. If an angle is right (90 degrees), it's not acute (less than 90 degrees). However, if it's not acute, it could be right or it could be obtuse (greater than 90 degrees). So, back to "spygate", if Walsh had tapes of the walk-through, then someone taped said walk-through. Apparently, Walsh doesn't. But, all you can conclude from that is that Walsh doesn't have it. You should not jump to the conclusion that there is no possible way that such a tape exists. Logically, you can't jump to that conclusion.
If someone throws a perfect game in baseball, you know that he also threw a shutout. However, if you are told that a pitcher through a shutout, you'd be a fool (and wrong almost all the time) to assume that the pitcher threw a perfect game - although, with the lack of complete games these days, you might jump to the conclusion that the guy threw a no-hitter.
Matt Walsh already said he wasn't the source that said the Patriots taped the Rams' walk-through. It's possible that someone made that up. However, shouldn't the league try to investigate that potential lead before closing the "spygate" case? Well, they should if the end goal is to determine everything the Patriots did that may have violated league rules. But, is that what the league is most interested in? Probably not. While the league is probably concerned that teams aren't gaining unfair advantages, I seriously doubt they want to open the Pandora's box of the Patriots (or other teams) actively cheating and using illegally obtained information to win playoff games. If the Patriots did tape the walk-through and analysis of the game determined that the Patriots probably won the game because of the information, then what?
Think back to geometry for a second. If an angle is right (90 degrees), it's not acute (less than 90 degrees). However, if it's not acute, it could be right or it could be obtuse (greater than 90 degrees). So, back to "spygate", if Walsh had tapes of the walk-through, then someone taped said walk-through. Apparently, Walsh doesn't. But, all you can conclude from that is that Walsh doesn't have it. You should not jump to the conclusion that there is no possible way that such a tape exists. Logically, you can't jump to that conclusion.
If someone throws a perfect game in baseball, you know that he also threw a shutout. However, if you are told that a pitcher through a shutout, you'd be a fool (and wrong almost all the time) to assume that the pitcher threw a perfect game - although, with the lack of complete games these days, you might jump to the conclusion that the guy threw a no-hitter.
Matt Walsh already said he wasn't the source that said the Patriots taped the Rams' walk-through. It's possible that someone made that up. However, shouldn't the league try to investigate that potential lead before closing the "spygate" case? Well, they should if the end goal is to determine everything the Patriots did that may have violated league rules. But, is that what the league is most interested in? Probably not. While the league is probably concerned that teams aren't gaining unfair advantages, I seriously doubt they want to open the Pandora's box of the Patriots (or other teams) actively cheating and using illegally obtained information to win playoff games. If the Patriots did tape the walk-through and analysis of the game determined that the Patriots probably won the game because of the information, then what?
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Orlando v. Detroit - Game 2
At the end of the 3rd quarter in game 2 between the Magic and Pistons, there was a clock malfunction. Chauncey Billups ended up hitting a 3-pointer. The problem was, it took more than the 5.1 seconds the Pistons had for Billups to get the shot off. So, if the play had gone as it did and the clock had been running, the shot wouldn't have been allowed. The result would have been three fewer points for the Pistons.
I'm not going to say that the Magic would have won if the shot had been waived off. But, I'm not going to dismiss the possibility either. The game was close late, with the Pistons pulling away (they won 100-93) with FT's late. Anyone who knows anything about basketball knows that the Magic wouldn't have been fouling to put the Pistons on the line if Orlando was ahead late.
I find the entire situation to be distasteful for a couple of reasons. First, the officials reviewed the play and couldn't get it right. The official statement today was that it took approximately 5.7 seconds before Billups got the shot up. I don't know how hard it is to get a stop watch and let the footage go and see that it took more than 5.1 seconds. So, the officials (i) don't have the resources/authority to get the call right, (ii) aren't competent, or (iii) didn't want to upset the home fans. None of those possibilities is really all that promising.
Second, I don't see why it's a shot/no shot situation. Why wasn't the entire play done over? The shot definitely shouldn't have counted, but how were the Pistons supposed to know when they needed to get the shot up if the clock wasn't working? It seems like the play should have stopped when the clock malfunctioned, which was right after the ball was in-bounded ... so why not do the whole thing over? Then, it's as fair as it's going to get (considering the clock stoppage) for both teams.
I'm not going to say that the Magic would have won if the shot had been waived off. But, I'm not going to dismiss the possibility either. The game was close late, with the Pistons pulling away (they won 100-93) with FT's late. Anyone who knows anything about basketball knows that the Magic wouldn't have been fouling to put the Pistons on the line if Orlando was ahead late.
I find the entire situation to be distasteful for a couple of reasons. First, the officials reviewed the play and couldn't get it right. The official statement today was that it took approximately 5.7 seconds before Billups got the shot up. I don't know how hard it is to get a stop watch and let the footage go and see that it took more than 5.1 seconds. So, the officials (i) don't have the resources/authority to get the call right, (ii) aren't competent, or (iii) didn't want to upset the home fans. None of those possibilities is really all that promising.
Second, I don't see why it's a shot/no shot situation. Why wasn't the entire play done over? The shot definitely shouldn't have counted, but how were the Pistons supposed to know when they needed to get the shot up if the clock wasn't working? It seems like the play should have stopped when the clock malfunctioned, which was right after the ball was in-bounded ... so why not do the whole thing over? Then, it's as fair as it's going to get (considering the clock stoppage) for both teams.
Monday, May 05, 2008
What's wrong with blocking shots?
Rajon Rondo is 6'1" tall. Marvin Williams is 6'9". Why did Williams decide to hug Rondo instead of trying to block his shot?
It seems to be part of an epidemic that is sweeping the NBA. While Tyson Chandler, Josh Smith, Dwight Howard and assorted other players are still inclined to try to block shots, many of their peers are resigned to just taking fouls rather than challenging shots in an attempt to block them.
Maybe Williams (who claims to be friends with Rondo) knows Rondo struggles at the charity stripe (61.1% this season). Maybe Williams decided that the expected value of Rondo taking him to the rack is more than the expected value of Rondo taking two FT's. Unfortunately, if this was his rationale, I doubt he factored in getting called for a flagrant foul and being ejected.
I haven't talked to Williams (or heard his take on the incident - which looked worse than I think it actually was), but I think he probably thought the safer play was to grab Rondo and try to hold him up than to potentially collide with Rondo in the air. I wouldn't argue with him. But, what would have happened if Williams had challenged the shot?
If Williams had been careful not to foul, Rondo probably would have scored, but Williams might have been able to make the block. If he had gone for the block, there is a reasonable chance he would have made the block and been whistled for the foul. But, with that size advantage, it's not unreasonable to think that he should have been able to prevent Rondo from making the shot.
It seems to be part of an epidemic that is sweeping the NBA. While Tyson Chandler, Josh Smith, Dwight Howard and assorted other players are still inclined to try to block shots, many of their peers are resigned to just taking fouls rather than challenging shots in an attempt to block them.
Maybe Williams (who claims to be friends with Rondo) knows Rondo struggles at the charity stripe (61.1% this season). Maybe Williams decided that the expected value of Rondo taking him to the rack is more than the expected value of Rondo taking two FT's. Unfortunately, if this was his rationale, I doubt he factored in getting called for a flagrant foul and being ejected.
I haven't talked to Williams (or heard his take on the incident - which looked worse than I think it actually was), but I think he probably thought the safer play was to grab Rondo and try to hold him up than to potentially collide with Rondo in the air. I wouldn't argue with him. But, what would have happened if Williams had challenged the shot?
If Williams had been careful not to foul, Rondo probably would have scored, but Williams might have been able to make the block. If he had gone for the block, there is a reasonable chance he would have made the block and been whistled for the foul. But, with that size advantage, it's not unreasonable to think that he should have been able to prevent Rondo from making the shot.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
