So is Doc saying no to having CJ play. It was an advantage to him, but it was weak. So, we owe them one. (or 4).
It's weird for me. I wanna win, but I wanna win right. Is this right in the spirit of basketball? I don't know but it reminds me of Jesse Ventura. "Win if you can, lose if you must but always cheat" It isn't really cheating but I still don't like it.
Teams intentionally foul all the time to stop players from scoring. Only way around that is to implement a system like football, where a defensive foul does not stop play and the offense can decline the penalty.
Not taking advantage of an opponent's weaknesses would be stupid. Hacking is allowed by the rules. Nobody is keeping Jordan from practicing enough to make the strategy useless. Bring on Kaman and use all 6 of his fouls.
I believe, ~90% of the time, when teams deploy the Hack-A-DJ strategy, it hurts that team. It takes away our rhythm sure... but it also takes away our opponents rhythm too, and now we have Cole Aldrich who can fill in EASILY and provide a lot of offense as well.
Where did you get that idea? Teams frequently tell the refs ahead of time that they're going to foul intentionally to stop the clock. It has consequences in terms of free throws, but it's not against the rules.
There is a strategy about Intentionally fouling. Most teams do it when they are behind and need to catch up a couple possessions but it is very tough in the long run to actually make it work because the other team is in fact resting and being able to set up their defense. Remember most of the time the Blazers go on runs is when they in fact play good defense and it leads to quick turnaround scoring and open threes. One strategy is to employ the Hack-a-DJ when the team is in the lead by 6-8 points. this has almost a reverse effect on the game. it in fact allows you to get the clock down to 2 mins or under while holding the lead and having control of their scoring. If he misses both then all the better. If he makes one the Clippers are only scoring one point per possession and you then can run another 24 seconds off the clock. If you score then they get further behind. I don't like the strategy at all but there are times it doers work if used in an effective manner.
Every team uses the Hack-a-badFTshooter method. Its super common and really effective, even if you don't like it at the end of the day all that anyone remembers is the W not the way it happened.
The biggest downside of intentionally hacking is getting into the penalty, but if you are already in the penalty, it's a good move average wise. Deandre hits 43%, and if you can hold a team to an eFG% of 43% you take that. It's like forcing someone to take a mid range jumper.
Maybe it's time to change your handle then. It's a valid tactic, and I think there are already enough rules in place to avoid abuse during the final 2 minutes anyway. If a player can't make his FTs, one of the most basic, fundamental aspects of the game by the way, there is no problem with attacking that weakness. It's no different than attacking any other weakness players have on the floor. Maybe the dumbass should learn to do more than jump and dunk. We shouldn't be expected to just allow him to play to his strengths and avoid his weaknesses. You wouldn't do that in any other situation. To me it's no different than if a player can't dribble or finish with his left hand, so you take away his right and force him to go left or pass. You aren't honor bound to defend him straight up and let him go to his right every time. That would be stupid.
Common fouls are an inherent part of the game of basketball. Intentional fouls away from the ball are treated no differently, except in the last two minutes of the game. Flopping is a technical foul because it's not an inherent part of the game. A player touching the ball from the bench, goal tending a free throw, flagrant fouls, taunting, fighting, etc. are all things that the NBA has determined are not an inherent part of the game and, as a result, penalizes the offending team with penalties that make it disadvantageous to the offending team in that they suffer, at a minimum, a penalty free throw and a loss of possession. The NBA can change the rules in the future to say that intentional fouls away from the ball are not an inherent part of the game and make it a technical foul in situations other than in the last two minutes. Until they do, teams are not subject to any other penalty than taking the chance that a poor free throw shooter will make his shots. Sure, it uglies up the game, but it's a reasonable strategy to take advantage of an opponent's weaknesses. I don't see it as egregious as Doc and the entire Clippers team whining on every foul and trying to influence the referees. By definition, it's not as egregious as the intentional flopping that they do and so often get away with.
