Hack a Dre - In a 7 game playoff series...

[bstein14]

What are your thoughts on how devastating (or meaningless) Hack a Dre will be in a playoff series. If we make the playoffs, its a safe bet it would be against either the Cavs or Raptors. A playoff series is when you start to really get strategic and try to play to your strengths and your opponents weaknesses and we perhaps have no greater weakness than Dre's poor poor FT%... I think it could be a rude awakening for him if he's forced out of much of a playoff series whenever games are close.

[Arp590]

I think teams will definitely go to it a lot if Dre is playing well. Some people on this board like to say that "It doesn't work" which isn't true.. yeah the other team might not always be able to capitalize on it but that doesn't mean that it's not effective.
Also it's usually pretty effective in getting Andre taken out of the game.

It really comes down to points per possession:
Piston's Average Points Per Poss: 1.06
Andre FTs Points Per Poss: .72 (2FT's X 36.1%)

If he can hit slightly over half of them then it begins to not be a great strategy because it also allows us time to set up on defense.

[MotownMadness]

Baynes!!!

[zeebneeb]

I hate that this is even a discussion for multiple reasons but I honestly feel we will only have to have it this year as it seems very likely that this changes for next year.

All I know is that the Pistons have possibly the best backup center in the league now so coaches that employ this strategy can kiss my ass.

Andre's play as of late has been just spectacular and I can't wait to see how he performs in the playoffs with more minutes and longer stretches. We could see the highest RPG average in the playoffs since the 1960's.

4 more wins people and we get to see this team in the playoffs with Andre playing about 36-44mpg.

Man I am excited.

[Todd3]

We're 13-8 when he gets 10+ FTs, so it's not exactly working in the opponents favor. It works sometimes, but in my opinion over a 7 game series, fouling excessively isn't going to stop the better team from winning. If we're better than the Cavs, we'll win regardless. If not, it's not going to matter anyways. Which we're not, so it's not really an issue to worry about to me. And by next year it could be banned.

That said, I'd rather it not happen just for the enjoyment factor. Its a lot more fun to watch real playoff basketball than a FT contest. Fortunately the Cavs are one of the teams it hasn't worked for, especially in the first meeting when they did it up 2-4 at the end of the game, and Dre made all of them and gave us lead and CLE never scored again lol. So they at least have reason to be cautious about it.

[The Penguin]

If we play the Cavs, Lebron will have to explain to the refs they are fouling Dre on purpose to get the whistle........

[Billl]

"We're 13-8 when he gets 10+ FTs, so it's not exactly working in the opponents favor."

This kinda misses the point. Teams almost always use the strategy to get back into games. We had big leads in most of those hack-a-dre games, so most of those should have been pretty easy wins. The fact that we lost 8 of them means the strategy has been pretty successful against us.

And Yes, the cavs would do it if we got ahead. In the 2 games against them, dre has shot 14 and 9 Ft's.

[Todd3]

"We're 13-8 when he gets 10+ FTs, so it's not exactly working in the opponents favor."

This kinda misses the point. Teams almost always use the strategy to get back into games. We had big leads in most of those hack-a-dre games, so most of those should have been pretty easy wins. The fact that we lost 8 of them means the strategy has been pretty successful against us.

And Yes, the cavs would do it if we got ahead. In the 2 games against them, dre has shot 14 and 9 Ft's.

13 > 8

Doesn't matter if they use it to get back in games if they don't win. That is a 62% win % and you only need to win 57% of your games to win a best of 7 series.

We've played CLE 3x. Drummond had 14 and 9 FTs in the 2 wins, and the 1 loss was when he got fouled the least (8 FTs).

It has worked for some teams like ATL and LAC, but it hasn't worked for CLE.

[Arp590]

"We're 13-8 when he gets 10+ FTs, so it's not exactly working in the opponents favor."

This kinda misses the point. Teams almost always use the strategy to get back into games. We had big leads in most of those hack-a-dre games, so most of those should have been pretty easy wins. The fact that we lost 8 of them means the strategy has been pretty successful against us.

And Yes, the cavs would do it if we got ahead. In the 2 games against them, dre has shot 14 and 9 Ft's.

13 > 8

Doesn't matter if they use it to get back in games if they don't win. That is a 62% win % and you only need to win 57% of your games to win a best of 7 series.

You can't really ignore the fact that teams usually employ it when they're already losing or when things aren't working for them.

The end result of the game is completely irrelevant, you can't solely attribute the end result of the game to Hack-a-Dre. There are a ton of other factors, the other team either hits their shots or they don't.

The only thing you need to look at is that we score less points per possession when Dre is shooting free throws than we do when we are running our normal offense:
Piston's Average Points Per Poss: 1.06
Andre FTs Points Per Poss: .72 (2FT's X 36.1%)
Now if Andre hits around 50% FT, than the strategy isn't that effective because it's nearly on par with our points per possession.

That's a pretty significant difference and there really isn't an argument against those numbers. You can't make the conclusion that hack-a-dre doesn't work based on the end result of some games because there are many other factors that determined the winner.

[Pugz]

im more concerned with how it changes the pace of the game for both teams. makes am exciting game really boring and completely changes the pace.

of course it can make or break us, for wins or loses. it really makes the game less fun to watch. thats what will suck.

[bstein14]

It also allows the opposition to not have to expend energy on defense for a period of time, which in theory should help them offensively.

[Todd3]

"We're 13-8 when he gets 10+ FTs, so it's not exactly working in the opponents favor."

This kinda misses the point. Teams almost always use the strategy to get back into games. We had big leads in most of those hack-a-dre games, so most of those should have been pretty easy wins. The fact that we lost 8 of them means the strategy has been pretty successful against us.

And Yes, the cavs would do it if we got ahead. In the 2 games against them, dre has shot 14 and 9 Ft's.

13 > 8

Doesn't matter if they use it to get back in games if they don't win. That is a 62% win % and you only need to win 57% of your games to win a best of 7 series.

You can't really ignore the fact that teams usually employ it when they're already losing or when things aren't working for them.

The end result of the game is completely irrelevant, you can't solely attribute the end result of the game to Hack-a-Dre. There are a ton of other factors, the other team either hits their shots or they don't.

The only thing you need to look at is that we score less points per possession when Dre is shooting free throws than we do when we are running our normal offense:
Piston's Average Points Per Poss: 1.06
Andre FTs Points Per Poss: .72 (2FT's X 36.1%)
Now if Andre hits around 50% FT, than the strategy isn't that effective because it's nearly on par with our points per possession.

That's a pretty significant difference and there really isn't an argument against those numbers. You can't make the conclusion that hack-a-dre doesn't work based on the end result of some games because there are many other factors that determined the winner.

I'm not sure I understand your point. The goal is to win. If we're up 15+ on teams and they start doing it and we win anyways, who cares? I'll take a 15 pt lead + hack a dre every game.

[Arp590]

13 > 8

Doesn't matter if they use it to get back in games if they don't win. That is a 62% win % and you only need to win 57% of your games to win a best of 7 series.

You can't really ignore the fact that teams usually employ it when they're already losing or when things aren't working for them.

The end result of the game is completely irrelevant, you can't solely attribute the end result of the game to Hack-a-Dre. There are a ton of other factors, the other team either hits their shots or they don't.

The only thing you need to look at is that we score less points per possession when Dre is shooting free throws than we do when we are running our normal offense:
Piston's Average Points Per Poss: 1.06
Andre FTs Points Per Poss: .72 (2FT's X 36.1%)
Now if Andre hits around 50% FT, than the strategy isn't that effective because it's nearly on par with our points per possession.

That's a pretty significant difference and there really isn't an argument against those numbers. You can't make the conclusion that hack-a-dre doesn't work based on the end result of some games because there are many other factors that determined the winner.

I'm not sure I understand your point. The goal is to win. If we're up 15+ on teams and they start doing it and we win anyways, who cares? I'll take a 15 pt lead + hack a dre every game.

Yeah but saying we won because Hack-a-Dre wasn't effective is inaccurate. My point is you can't make the correlation between winning and hack-a-dre.
If we're up 15+ on teams there's a high chance we are going to win regardless.

We score significantly less points per possession while teams are using hack-a-dre... which means that's it's effective.

[Warspite]

I cant imagine the Cavs or Raps being outplayed so badly that they have to use it. Its pretty much an admission of defeat or a last line of defense.

If you are an opponent of Hacking like this then you had better hope that it happens in the playoffs on national TV and it makes the game unwatchable. Then and only then will the rules be changed.

[Todd3]

You can't really ignore the fact that teams usually employ it when they're already losing or when things aren't working for them.

The end result of the game is completely irrelevant, you can't solely attribute the end result of the game to Hack-a-Dre. There are a ton of other factors, the other team either hits their shots or they don't.

The only thing you need to look at is that we score less points per possession when Dre is shooting free throws than we do when we are running our normal offense:
Piston's Average Points Per Poss: 1.06
Andre FTs Points Per Poss: .72 (2FT's X 36.1%)
Now if Andre hits around 50% FT, than the strategy isn't that effective because it's nearly on par with our points per possession.

That's a pretty significant difference and there really isn't an argument against those numbers. You can't make the conclusion that hack-a-dre doesn't work based on the end result of some games because there are many other factors that determined the winner.

I'm not sure I understand your point. The goal is to win. If we're up 15+ on teams and they start doing it and we win anyways, who cares? I'll take a 15 pt lead + hack a dre every game.

Yeah but saying we won because Hack-a-Dre wasn't effective is inaccurate. My point is you can't make the correlation between winning and hack-a-dre.
If we're up 15+ on teams there's a high chance we are going to win regardless.

We score significantly less points per possession while teams are using hack-a-dre... which means that's it's effective.

I didn't say we won because of it. I meant we won in spite of it, so it didn't work. If you define 'effective' as difference in ppp, that is your opinion, but to me if it doesn't help you win then it wasn't effective. That's all I care about.

[Arp590]

I'm not sure I understand your point. The goal is to win. If we're up 15+ on teams and they start doing it and we win anyways, who cares? I'll take a 15 pt lead + hack a dre every game.

Yeah but saying we won because Hack-a-Dre wasn't effective is inaccurate. My point is you can't make the correlation between winning and hack-a-dre.
If we're up 15+ on teams there's a high chance we are going to win regardless.

We score significantly less points per possession while teams are using hack-a-dre... which means that's it's effective.

I didn't say we won because of it. I meant we won in spite of it, so it didn't work. If you define 'effective' as difference in ppp, that is your opinion, but to me if it doesn't help you win then it wasn't effective. That's all I care about.

It gave them a better chance of winning, that's all that matters. Honestly there isn't even an argument to counter that it's effective. It's simple math. The end result might not be a win, because there might have been other factors that were too great to overcome, BUT that doesn't mean it wasn't effective in limiting the amount of points we scored.

It's effective in significantly lowering the points we score per every possession, which is the goal... just because they don't capitalize on that doesn't mean it wasn't effective.. it just means we played great defense to make up for it or the lead was already out of hand.

if it doesn't help you win then it wasn't effective.

I'll say it again just to be clear. It does HELP them win by significantly lowering the points we score per possession, BUT That is only half the game.. they still have to come back and score on us.

Goal of Hack-A-Dre = Limit the amount of points we score per possession, Does it do this? Yes = Therefore it's effective.

[Billl]

I'm not sure I understand your point. The goal is to win. If we're up 15+ on teams and they start doing it and we win anyways, who cares? I'll take a 15 pt lead + hack a dre every game.

Yeah but saying we won because Hack-a-Dre wasn't effective is inaccurate. My point is you can't make the correlation between winning and hack-a-dre.
If we're up 15+ on teams there's a high chance we are going to win regardless.

We score significantly less points per possession while teams are using hack-a-dre... which means that's it's effective.

I didn't say we won because of it. I meant we won in spite of it, so it didn't work. If you define 'effective' as difference in ppp, that is your opinion, but to me if it doesn't help you win then it wasn't effective. That's all I care about.

If we are up 15 in the 4th, we should win that game. Not 13 out of 21 times. 21 out of 21 times. If we lose ANY of those games, it means we lost a game we shouldn't have due at least partly to this strategy.

[Todd3]

Yeah but saying we won because Hack-a-Dre wasn't effective is inaccurate. My point is you can't make the correlation between winning and hack-a-dre.
If we're up 15+ on teams there's a high chance we are going to win regardless.

We score significantly less points per possession while teams are using hack-a-dre... which means that's it's effective.

I didn't say we won because of it. I meant we won in spite of it, so it didn't work. If you define 'effective' as difference in ppp, that is your opinion, but to me if it doesn't help you win then it wasn't effective. That's all I care about.

It gave them a better chance of winning, that's all that matters. Honestly there isn't even an argument to counter that it's effective. It's simple math. The end result might not be a win, because there might have been other factors that were too great to overcome, BUT that doesn't mean it wasn't effective in limiting the amount of points we scored.

It's effective in significantly lowering the points we score per every possession, which is the goal... just because they don't capitalize on that doesn't mean it wasn't effective.. it just means we played great defense to make up for it or the lead was already out of hand.

if it doesn't help you win then it wasn't effective.

I'll say it again just to be clear. It does HELP them win by significantly lowering the points we score per possession, BUT That is only half the game.. they still have to come back and score on us.

Goal of Hack-A-Dre = Limit the amount of points we score per possession, Does it do this? Yes = Therefore it's effective.

Teams use it because they think it can help them win. If they don't win, they're not celebrating after because they gained a ppp advantage from 8:35 to 5:15 of the 3rd qtr.

Teams oppose it because they worry it will cost them games. If it doesn't, they aren't pouting after about getting outscored from 8:35 to 5:15 of the 3rd qtr.

In other words, yes it can be effective for what you are saying (I agree), but ultimately if the team using it doesn't win, then it was all for nothing. And no guarantee it will work the same next time.

Just like if you outrebound a team by 30 and still lose, your rebounding was effective, but if you didn't win then it means nothing.

[Todd3]

Yeah but saying we won because Hack-a-Dre wasn't effective is inaccurate. My point is you can't make the correlation between winning and hack-a-dre.
If we're up 15+ on teams there's a high chance we are going to win regardless.

We score significantly less points per possession while teams are using hack-a-dre... which means that's it's effective.

I didn't say we won because of it. I meant we won in spite of it, so it didn't work. If you define 'effective' as difference in ppp, that is your opinion, but to me if it doesn't help you win then it wasn't effective. That's all I care about.

If we are up 15 in the 4th, we should win that game. Not 13 out of 21 times. 21 out of 21 times. If we lose ANY of those games, it means we lost a game we shouldn't have due at least partly to this strategy.

I didn't say up 15 in the 4th. Nor do I think any of those 8 games occurred like that. Nor did I say it never worked. I said it's worked 8 of 21 times. If you think winning 8 of 21 games is a good ratio for the teams doing, I don't know what to tell you. I certainly wouldn't do it if I only won 38% of the games. 62% will win you 50 games every year, so if teams want to do it every game and we end up with 50 wins, I'll take that every year. Can't win 'em all.

[treefi]

I'm not sure I understand your point. The goal is to win. If we're up 15+ on teams and they start doing it and we win anyways, who cares? I'll take a 15 pt lead + hack a dre every game.

Yeah but saying we won because Hack-a-Dre wasn't effective is inaccurate. My point is you can't make the correlation between winning and hack-a-dre.
If we're up 15+ on teams there's a high chance we are going to win regardless.

We score significantly less points per possession while teams are using hack-a-dre... which means that's it's effective.

I didn't say we won because of it. I meant we won in spite of it, so it didn't work. If you define 'effective' as difference in ppp, that is your opinion, but to me if it doesn't help you win then it wasn't effective. That's all I care about.

Imagine we're not up 15+ points??