Knicks · Game Thread - Clippers @ Knicks - Will Fisher use Hack a Jordan strategy to win? (page 2)

Andrew wrote:Games where teams intentionally foul are not fun to watch for me....how about giving the team the option to shoot foul shots if the player is fouled without the ball? If they decline...shot clock resets (to 14).

Yup, and the offensive team still has to inbound the ball, which could create a turnover or make them burn a timeout.

crzymdups wrote:I hate the Hack a bad free throw shooter strategy. But the Cavs did it to the Clips last night and it totally killed them and took them out of the game mentally. It's not a bad tactic if we find ourselves down 10 in the third quarter or something.

That said, I hope they change the rule. After tonight's game

He better uses that strategy or we will lose

ActionJackson wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:Blake Griffin out. If we limit Paul/Crawford we have a real shot. However, with our guards Chris Paul will shred them.

Paul is on my fantasy team so I need a big game from him but i hope we hold everyone else in check

aint nobody giving 2 shits about your fantasy team...i like cp3 as a player as well, but i am hoping he does not have a good night

Knickoftime wrote:

markvmc wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

markvmc wrote:Don't see a problem here myself. A player has a weakness, you use up a team/personal foul to exploit that weakness. Why change the rules to make up for a flaw in a player's game?

Because it makes for games that are awful to watch.

If fans stop watching, then the NBA might have to have a look at it (sort of like the introduction of the no backpass rule in soccer after the 1990 world cup). But short of that, I don't see this as a compelling reason for a rule change.

Compare: fans likes dunks....why not make the baskets shorter so we can have more of those, as it would make for a better game to watch.

Not sure why it requires an emergency situation to address it?

The rule isn't a fundamental aspect of the game. Basketball isn't meant to be a free-throw shooting contest. I don't there is anything core to the game of basketball that says if you get the attention of the ref and grab the jersey and sort of pretend to foul someone, they HAVE to shoot free throws.

It's in fact a bastardization of a rule meant to protect players and the integrity of possessions. The only real argument for it is inertia (its what you're used to), which is always a really bad argument.

But unlike you, I don't think there's anything to address here, so I don't think anything needs to be addressed prior to a hypothetical emergency situation (i.e., lost revenue, or the prospect thereof, for the NBA).

I'm not sure how you establish which bits of the game are fundamental and which aren't, or what the game of basketball is meant to be. I would think that an ability to make a shot from the free throw line with no defense impeding your attempt is a fairly fundamental basketball skill. And insofar as I have any idea of what basketball is meant to be, I'd say it's meant to be what its rules define it as, which evolves over time. Rules, of course, always have unintended consequences (e.g., in banning fouling the shooter, no-one had the Reggie Miller leg-kick-out in mind), if you want to call some of those consequences bastardizations, that's fine by me, but it isn't much of an argument.

And given the reality of unintended consequences, I don't think inertia is always a bad argument. Care is needed in introducing new rules so that in attempting to fix a perceived problem, you don't create new, perhaps worse, problems.

markvmc wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

markvmc wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

markvmc wrote:Don't see a problem here myself. A player has a weakness, you use up a team/personal foul to exploit that weakness. Why change the rules to make up for a flaw in a player's game?

Because it makes for games that are awful to watch.

If fans stop watching, then the NBA might have to have a look at it (sort of like the introduction of the no backpass rule in soccer after the 1990 world cup). But short of that, I don't see this as a compelling reason for a rule change.

Compare: fans likes dunks....why not make the baskets shorter so we can have more of those, as it would make for a better game to watch.

Not sure why it requires an emergency situation to address it?

The rule isn't a fundamental aspect of the game. Basketball isn't meant to be a free-throw shooting contest. I don't there is anything core to the game of basketball that says if you get the attention of the ref and grab the jersey and sort of pretend to foul someone, they HAVE to shoot free throws.

It's in fact a bastardization of a rule meant to protect players and the integrity of possessions. The only real argument for it is inertia (its what you're used to), which is always a really bad argument.

But unlike you, I don't think there's anything to address here, so I don't think anything needs to be addressed prior to a hypothetical emergency situation (i.e., lost revenue, or the prospect thereof, for the NBA).

I'm not sure how you establish which bits of the game are fundamental and which aren't, or what the game of basketball is meant to be. I would think that an ability to make a shot from the free throw line with no defense impeding your attempt is a fairly fundamental basketball skill. And insofar as I have any idea of what basketball is meant to be, I'd say it's meant to be what its rules define it as, which evolves over time. Rules, of course, always have unintended consequences (e.g., in banning fouling the shooter, no-one had the Reggie Miller leg-kick-out in mind), if you want to call some of those consequences bastardizations, that's fine by me, but it isn't much of an argument.

And given the reality of unintended consequences, I don't think inertia is always a bad argument. Care is needed in introducing new rules so that in attempting to fix a perceived problem, you don't create new, perhaps worse, problems.

do you happen to know whether there are more sub-70% free throw shooters npw than in years past? has the free throw shooting been trending down?

markvmc wrote:But unlike you, I don't think there's anything to address here, so I don't think anything needs to be addressed prior to a hypothetical emergency situation (i.e., lost revenue, or the prospect thereof, for the NBA).

That's fair. There is no right or wrong here. If you enjoy watching Drummond and Jordan go to the line 36 times in a game - if that's what you want to buy a ticket to see or tune into watch, who am I to tell you that you should not?

But I think it's fair to hypothesize the speed, athleticism, the offense actively vs the defense, the team play is a significant part of the appeal of professional basketball overall, much more so than watching a guy at the line shoot a short set shot undefended.

I go to NBA games to see some of the world's greatest athletes do things regular people cant do, not things I CAN do. I can find better than 50% FT shooting at high school games and in my own backyard. But that's just my opinion.

Same way I don't think NFL would be as popular a product if there was 5 times the number of field goal attempts a game than there is now.

Are FT's part of the game? Sure. Always will be. So are timeouts and jumpballs but I'm not sure they're high-up on anyone's lists of why they enjoy the game. Time outs are necessary and strategic, not fun to sit watch.

The NBA and the NCAA slowly moved away from jumpballs through the evolution of the game, so no reason this rule cannot as well.

I'm not sure how you establish which bits of the game are fundamental and which aren't,

Fundamental does not equal illegitimate.

The fundamental elements of basketball are the same as soccer, football, hockey and many other sports. An offense actively attacks a goal which is defended by another team.

Penalty shots, and free kicks, and penalties and field goals are all, necessary, legitimate parts of the game, but they aren't fundamental. Frankly surprised to find an argument to this.

I would think that an ability to make a shot from the free throw line with no defense impeding your attempt is a fairly fundamental basketball skill.

A skill, no doubt. So's dribbling and passing, but several years ago the NBA and NBA decided to add a shot clock because no one wanted to watch teams hold textbook fundamental dribbling and passing clinics to protect a lead.

They changed the game or the better by adding a brand new element to make it more fun to watch, despite it being a legitimate strategy and exhibit of fundamental skills to successfully hold onto the ball without turning it over to the other team.

And given the reality of unintended consequences, I don't think inertia is always a bad argument. Care is needed in introducing new rules so that in attempting to fix a perceived problem, you don't create new, perhaps worse, problems.

Such as? They'll still be shooting fouls. They'll still be And-1s. They'll still technicals. They'll still be the same rules the last 2 minutes of the game. No incentive will be removed for players to be good free throw shooters.

Go Knicks.

Knickoftime wrote:It is not inconceivable the Knicks could fly to Charlotte a game out of the 5th seed.

Go Knicks.

dk7th wrote:wow without griffin you'd think kp is going to have a big night.

Only if Jose do not supply KP with handful of fouls off driving and dishing CP3...

teamsport72 wrote:

dk7th wrote:wow without griffin you'd think kp is going to have a big night.

Only if Jose do not supply KP with handful of fouls off driving and dishing CP3...

ha ha well i have little doubt chris paul is going to shred the knicks. kp just has to be smart and try to close off paul's passing lanes as well as altering shots like he usually does.

1Q - 10:11
NYK 2 LAC 8