How to fix "Hack-a-Shaq".

[Domejandro]

Apologies for potentially throwing out a concept that has been discussed, but I thought I would throw the idea out there and see what people think.

I generally defend the right of teams to utilize the strategy, but there is a simple fix that would hopefully halt the controversy around "Hack-a-Shaq".

(When in bonus)

If the player does not have the ball and is fouled while standing in the back-court, he is awarded one free-throw and his team maintains possession of the basketball. This would give teams a strategic counter for the "Hack-a-Shaq", as they could leave their poor free-throw shooter in the game for defensive and rebounding purposes, but still be disadvantaged by having to play 4-on-5 offense. It would greatly diversify offensive sets, as well as limit teams from abusing the strategy an excessive amount.

EX: Los Angeles is in the bonus, and a player runs over to foul Deandre Jordan after an outlet pass has occurred. He would get one free-throw attempt, and the Los Angeles Clippers would keep the possession.

[mvpshaq32]

so what if it's not a hack and just a common off-ball foul? like fighting for rebounding position, post position, trying to stop someone coming off off-ball screen.

FT + possession seems too extreme and would greatly benefit good FT shooters. I would imagine a lot more flopping to take advantage of this rule

[miltk]

have those babies shoot the damn free throw from 8'

[Domejandro]

so what if it's not a hack and just a common off-ball foul? like fighting for rebounding position, post position, trying to stop someone coming off off-ball screen.

FT + possession seems too extreme and would greatly benefit good FT shooters. I would imagine a lot more flopping to take advantage of this rule

Perhaps add a wrinkle of "if ball is in the possession of the team...".

[MrBigShot]

Teams foul in the back court because they can, not because they have to in order to use the hack a shaq. No team is going to try and play 4v5, so essentially one of two things would happen:

1. Teams will intentionally foul when the player passes half court and the other team will leave their poor FT shooter in the game.
2. The poor FT shooter will get taken out of the game immediately if the other team uses the hack a shaq.

So essentially nothing changes from the way things are presently, aside from teams foul players ~40 feet from the basket instead of 90 feet. NBA defenses are too good for any team to consistently try and score 4v5.

[Domejandro]

Teams foul in the back court because they can, not because they have to in order to use the hack a shaq. No team is going to try and play 4v5, so essentially one of two things would happen:

1. Teams will intentionally foul when the player passes half court and the other team will leave their poor FT shooter in the game.
2. The poor FT shooter will get taken out of the game immediately if the other team uses the hack a shaq.

So essentially nothing changes from the way things are presently, aside from teams foul players ~40 feet from the basket instead of 90 feet. NBA defenses are too good for any team to consistently try and score 4v5.

With how it is structured, there is absolutely no way for a team to leave in their player without him being hacked. At the very least, this would provide the option for a team to play 4v5 if they feel the positives of their player defensively outweigh the negatives. I am sure there would be scenarios in which teams would prefer attempting to score 4v5 rather than have their sub-50% free-throw shooter fouled every possession. This is not so-much a rule that would eliminate Hack-a-Shaq (something I would be entirely against), as much as give the team flexibility when it occurs. If a team was up by a substantial amount, and wanted to beat a team in a defensive struggle, this would allow for this to be possible. If they are behind on the score-board, then they simply have to sub their player out of the game.

[ponder276]

Meh, these guys are professional athletes, their job is to be good at basketball. They can either learn to shoot FTs, or they can watch from the bench in the key moments of close games. They don't have to be that good to invalidate hack-a-shaq, even a 65% FT shooter isn't worth fouling, but guys like DeAndre Jordan (43% in the regular season this year, 33% in the playoffs), Dwight Howard (49% regular season, 35% playoffs) and Andre Dummond (36% regular season, 33% playoffs) are so unbelievably bad that it's an obvious strategy.

To put these numbers into perspective, in the regular season Jordan/Howard/Drummond were the only players to shoot below 57% from the line, and they all shot way below that mark (36% - 49%). Furthermore, only 10 players shot below 65%. So hack-a-shaq only works well on 3 guys, and somewhat OK on another 7 guys. Really, these guys need to figure out how to shoot, the NBA shouldn't be altering rules to accommodate a small handful of players who haven't taken the time to properly learn one of basketball's most fundamental skills.

[Snotbubbles]

How to stop Hack-a-Shaq:

Step 1. Make your free throws

[NuggetsWY]

I'm still waiting for the game where both teams employ the "hack-attack" back-and-forth, especially in the playoffs. Teams have 12 players with 6 fouls each - that's 72 fouls. Won't it be boring to watch two guys that can't shoot, take 40 free throws each. That would be when the league does something about it because it will cost them TV money.

Personally, I think if a team wants a player that can't shoot a FT on their team, that's their problem. Teach them to shoot underhanded - if they are man enough.

[Fairview4Life]

The player who has control of the ball shoots the free throws since it was their scoring chance that was taken away. Problem solved.

[Fairview4Life]

Meh, these guys are professional athletes, their job is to be good at basketball. They can either learn to shoot FTs, or they can watch from the bench in the key moments of close games. They don't have to be that good to invalidate hack-a-shaq, even a 65% FT shooter isn't worth fouling, but guys like DeAndre Jordan (43% in the regular season this year, 33% in the playoffs), Dwight Howard (49% regular season, 35% playoffs) and Andre Dummond (36% regular season, 33% playoffs) are so unbelievably bad that it's an obvious strategy.

To put these numbers into perspective, in the regular season Jordan/Howard/Drummond were the only players to shoot below 57% from the line, and they all shot way below that mark (36% - 49%). Furthermore, only 10 players shot below 65%. So hack-a-shaq only works well on 3 guys, and somewhat OK on another 7 guys. Really, these guys need to figure out how to shoot, the NBA shouldn't be altering rules to accommodate a small handful of players who haven't taken the time to properly learn one of basketball's most fundamental skills.

Why are free throws a part of being good at basketball, but playing defence without fouling isn't?

[AlciG]

Meh, these guys are professional athletes, their job is to be good at basketball. They can either learn to shoot FTs, or they can watch from the bench in the key moments of close games. They don't have to be that good to invalidate hack-a-shaq, even a 65% FT shooter isn't worth fouling, but guys like DeAndre Jordan (43% in the regular season this year, 33% in the playoffs), Dwight Howard (49% regular season, 35% playoffs) and Andre Dummond (36% regular season, 33% playoffs) are so unbelievably bad that it's an obvious strategy.

To put these numbers into perspective, in the regular season Jordan/Howard/Drummond were the only players to shoot below 57% from the line, and they all shot way below that mark (36% - 49%). Furthermore, only 10 players shot below 65%. So hack-a-shaq only works well on 3 guys, and somewhat OK on another 7 guys. Really, these guys need to figure out how to shoot, the NBA shouldn't be altering rules to accommodate a small handful of players who haven't taken the time to properly learn one of basketball's most fundamental skills.

Why are free throws a part of being good at basketball, but playing defence without fouling isn't?

Because it's an essential part of the game? Playing defense without fouling is important also but if you have an even better option because somebody else sucks badly at another part of the game you can opt to take that option.

It's like saying people shouldn't be able to attack bad defenders because if part of being good at basketball is being able to beat the best defender on the other team. And don't pass up a shot for a pass at somebody for a better shot or whatever...

Your logic isn't logical to me. Those handful of players who can't shoot free-throws only have themselves to blame.

By changing the rules you're basically telling young players that they should not even bother working at it if they aren't very good.

[tsherkin]

We really don't need this thread AGAIN.