Jump to content

Sydney_Fife

Game 57: Cavs @ Pistons

Recommended Posts

I tend to doubt a team shoots only 25% in bounding with 6 seconds left in the quarter or shot clock.

I guess I'd be curious to know if anyone is aware of any studies about this specific point.

That's my guess too. We see times when teams aren't close to getting a shot with six seconds left on the shot clock and I'm still not that worried about the team probably getting at least a reasonable shot. You can do so much in six seconds to get a good shot, I just don't see the value at making such foul that early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I would say that if we are talking about .2 points or more, I concede the foul to give strategy has real value and accept it / shut up about it in general.

But if it is worth an average of 0.05 points or less, then I personally think it is a waste of time. I think it is somewhat analogous to using a relief pitcher to face just one batter. I understand managers are allowed to, but I think the strategic benefit is worth less than the loss of entertainment as a fan due to the break in the flow of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to doubt a team shoots only 25% in bounding with 6 seconds left in the quarter or shot clock.

I guess I'd be curious to know if anyone is aware of any studies about this specific point.

Yep, I pulled that number out of nowhere. It's enough time to get a shot off (if you succeed in inbounding the ball), but I don't think it's likely that you get a good shot off.

The point is, is has to make it more difficult to some degree. You've got to inbound it, you offense isn't in its normal flow, time is limited so you have to take the first decent chance and not necessarily the one you want.

And it costs nothing more than one of your scrubs getting an extra foul.

I think it's far more common to see a rushed and disjointed offensive attempt in these situations than it is to see a team get a good shot off. And that's enough for me to justify the strategy.

On a related note, I think you should have to commit the foul on the guy with the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some might argue the 3 pt line is the best thing the league adopted in the last 35 years, and I might be inclined to agree.

I think it has the net benefit of spreading the floor and gives a little extra value to the outside shooter at the expense of the guy posting up.

It makes the mid-range jumper inefficient, but teams still shoot a lot of those over the course of the season.

I think it would be interesting to see what a game would look like where 3s were only credited in the 4th quarter. I'm personally not that impressed by the three's 'spreading' of the floor. The space in theory means more ball movement, but since the line is static IMO it has also led to more 'sameness' in every team's offensive approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Curious to see how many of those situations end up in second fouls that put a person on the line.

My guess would be that it's not very often, but who knows.

I did see a study that listed points per possession based on when the shot was taken in the shot clock. It was mostly used to illustrate that fast break, turnovers, and offensive rebounds were highly valuable.

But it was interesting that there wasn't much difference in the 10-15 second range compared to the 15-20 second range.

Shots taken with 21-24 seconds left, however, resulted in a much lower points per possession. I don't think this is anything shocking. But I do think it illustrates that when time is limited, you are inherently going to be forced into taking a shot you might not want to take.

The other side of the coin is that if you try to spend too much time finding the perfect shot, you are creating more chances for turnovers or putting yourself too close to the shot clock expiring.

The other thing worth noting is that some teams are much better than others in drawing up an out of bounds play to get yourself a good look. It probably doesn't make sense to give them that chance. But some teams are better at defending after a time out, too. They might be more inclined to force you to inbound with a short clock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a related note, I think you should have to commit the foul on the guy with the ball.

I agree.

It pretty much is fouling the guy away from the ball with no attempt to make a basketball play (like stealing the ball) solely to gain an advantage I do not care for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone in this thread was false, except biggs. He was true.

How, after all these years, can the argument be "just make your free throws?" There is plenty of data, throughout NBA history, that illustrates poor FT shooting from big men. Why then would the conclusion be to ignore what we know? Big men struggle to make free throws, this is the premise in which to decide the rules on, because only in the rare situation does a big mans FT shooting ability appreciably improve.

Biggs eluded to it earlier. Why don't the refs just make every call correctly? They have tons of training, they know the rules, why are calls wrong at all? This game is entertainment, big men shooting high FT percentages isn't imperative to the success of the game. But having a big man parade to the FT line only to build a brick house does have a negative effect on the product. It lessens it.

Just make it simple: If you intentionally foul off the ball, at any time during the game, while your team is in the penalty than anyone from the other team can shoot the FT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone in this thread was false, except biggs. He was true.

How, after all these years, can the argument be "just make your free throws?" There is plenty of data, throughout NBA history, that illustrates poor FT shooting from big men. Why then would the conclusion be to ignore what we know? Big men struggle to make free throws, this is the premise in which to decide the rules on, because only in the rare situation does a big mans FT shooting ability appreciably improve.

Biggs eluded to it earlier. Why don't the refs just make every call correctly? They have tons of training, they know the rules, why are calls wrong at all? This game is entertainment, big men shooting high FT percentages isn't imperative to the success of the game. But having a big man parade to the FT line only to build a brick house does have a negative effect on the product. It lessens it.

Just make it simple: If you intentionally foul off the ball, at any time during the game, while your team is in the penalty than anyone from the other team can shoot the FT.

Tough to disagree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone in this thread was false, except biggs. He was true.

How, after all these years, can the argument be "just make your free throws?" There is plenty of data, throughout NBA history, that illustrates poor FT shooting from big men. Why then would the conclusion be to ignore what we know? Big men struggle to make free throws, this is the premise in which to decide the rules on, because only in the rare situation does a big mans FT shooting ability appreciably improve.

Biggs eluded to it earlier. Why don't the refs just make every call correctly? They have tons of training, they know the rules, why are calls wrong at all? This game is entertainment, big men shooting high FT percentages isn't imperative to the success of the game. But having a big man parade to the FT line only to build a brick house does have a negative effect on the product. It lessens it.

Just make it simple: If you intentionally foul off the ball, at any time during the game, while your team is in the penalty than anyone from the other team can shoot the FT.

It is really hard to disagree with that line, but I still hate changing rules in games that have been around this long. I know it happens all the time (rules changes), but for some reason every time they change a rule I think it is only going to benefit a small % of the game...just like this one. And it just gives a few people a reason to be lazy about a certain aspect of the game...in this case free throws.

Do these big guys practice free throws? When I was a kid we played a game called 100. There would be 3 of us and we would each have a BBall and we would shoot threes anywhere behind a line and go grab rebounds and run back and keep shooting. We called out each make as '1' until someone got to a 100. We did this a LOT in the summer. It was a great way to play BBall with only a few people and keep it exciting instead of just shooting around.

As a result I became a really good 3 point shooter. I used to walk around the neighborhood dribbling a basketball and as a result became a good ball handler.

These guys practice other things more fervently for sure, but why not 200-300 FT's at the end of practice? There is NOWAY (at least IMO) someone could practice free throws that much and be as bad as some of them are. I do not give a crap how big their hands are.

Intentionally fouling guys off the ball when in the bonus is a crappy thing to do regardless of all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These guys practice other things more fervently for sure, but why not 200-300 FT's at the end of practice? There is NOWAY (at least IMO) someone could practice free throws that much and be as bad as some of them are. I do not give a crap how big their hands are.

I have seen guys, DII players, shoot hundreds of FTs a day and not improve.

It is difficult to eliminate the mentality of practice makes perfect, because for most things in life, improvement follows repetition. Rule changes are meant to sanitize areas of a game that, due to natural evolution, no longer have a justifiable place in the game. The NHL finally cleansed themselves of the sham that was the 2 line pass, because there simply was no point and it made the game less entertaining. That is what intentionally fouling does.

When a coach employs the hack a shaq before the 4th quarter he is a gutless weasel. This insidious trend most be rooted out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have seen guys, DII players, shoot hundreds of FTs a day and not improve.

It is difficult to eliminate the mentality of practice makes perfect, because for most things in life, improvement follows repetition. Rule changes are meant to sanitize areas of a game that, due to natural evolution, no longer have a justifiable place in the game. The NHL finally cleansed themselves of the sham that was the 2 line pass, because there simply was no point and it made the game less entertaining. That is what intentionally fouling does.

When a coach employs the hack a shaq before the 4th quarter he is a gutless weasel. This insidious trend most be rooted out.

You sold me. Get rid of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is really hard to disagree with that line, but I still hate changing rules in games that have been around this long.

I'd guess basketball rules change more frequently than any of the 4 major sports, and I credit basketball for that.

I think they have tried to find ways to keep the product entertaining and exciting instead of being afraid to modify or add rules because we've always done it that way.

Edited by Mr. Bigglesworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where was it you wanted the check sent to again?

Just put it on the beer tab for the impending golf outing this summer. Remember I am closer now too.

Although right now I am again in the UP. Spring break and I am spending it in Sault Ste Marie at my office. I think I am going to build a joule thief this weekend, because frankly, I have nothing else to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone in this thread was false, except biggs. He was true.

False.

Make your throws. Simple. Elegant. Effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
False.

Make your throws. Simple. Elegant. Effective.

False.

Be good at something you're bad at, just do it. Simple. Elegant. Effective. Why aren't you a pro ball player? All you have to do is practice hard.

Everyone knows the facts, yet ignore them. Be objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the wrong argument. The question is not whether individual bad shooting big men should learn to shoot better, it's whether the rules should favor bad shooting big men surviving in the NBA. The rules have the effect of selecting the skill population you get. If you reduce the negative impact of bad shooting, you are going to get more bad shooters in the league that do other stuff well enough to be a net positive. If you make shooting count more, you get more shooters, possibly at the expense of play above the rim. It's an aesthetic choice that the league makes in it's formulation of the rules. The percentage of big men that can't shoot is only as constant as the rule balance that lets them play productively. If you change the rules to make a Laimbeer more valuable than a Drummond, you won't teach Drummond to shoot, you will simply replace him on the roster with a Laimbeer because of the value proposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its the wrong argument. The question is not whether individual bad shooting big men should learn to shoot better, it's whether the rules should favor bad shooting big men surviving in the NBA. ....

We disagree. The existence of big men in the nba represents the same consistency as Planck's constant. By default, big men will survive. That is where discussion should began. Since the NBA big men will survive, should we A. Change the rules to make it aesthetically pleasing and closer to the way basketball was meant to be played, or B. Not change anything and let basketball become a needless free throw contest between guys who have supreme athletic ability, but have trouble shooting free throws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you change the rules to make a Laimbeer more valuable than a Drummond, you won't teach Drummond to shoot, you will simply replace him on the roster with a Laimbeer because of the value proposition.

A Laimbeer vs Drummond debate of "who makes the Pistons a better basketball team today" sounds good to me :)

Laimbeer: Pros--Dependable boxing out/rebounding, stretch big with 3 pt range, pick and roll, nasty half-court picks, good enough baby hook and shot maker in the paint to be effective, excellent team defender, outstanding FT shooting big, superior outlet passer, plays within self, intense competitor. Cons--Usually the worst athlete on floor, middling shot blocker, Technical Foul magnent, generally a jerk.

Drummond: Pros--Elite athlete who sometimes is the best on the floor, very good shotblocker in spurts, pick and roll dunk, alley-oop dunk, tip-back dunk, can get out on the break and finish, Upside to best 5 in the league someday, good natured guy. Cons--poor post defender, poor free-throw shooter, poor outside shooter, intensity varies from game-to-game, has frame to put on another 25 lbs of muscle but has not (aversion to the weight room?).

I'm afraid they broke the mold when they made Laimbeer, even if he didn't have the best athletic talent in the world. Will we ever see another player like him with so much importance placed on superior athleticism, upside and what AAU team you played for? More importantly, would Laimbeers physical antics be at all tolerated in today's NBA? Would he just be suspended all the time?

The closest thing to Laimbeer's skill set in the NBA right now is probably Marc Gasol. Laimbeer wasn't quite as tall and didn't block quite as many shots, but he did have years over 1. 0 BLK including his first as a Piston where he averaged 1.4.

So, maybe the question is--would a Gasol for Drummond trade make SVG's Pistons a better team? Of course the answer is yes, but at 30 how many more really good years does Marc have left?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We disagree. The existence of big men in the nba represents the same consistency as Planck's constant. By default, big men will survive. That is where discussion should began. Since the NBA big men will survive, should we A. Change the rules to make it aesthetically pleasing and closer to the way basketball was meant to be played, or B. Not change anything and let basketball become a needless free throw contest between guys who have supreme athletic ability, but have trouble shooting free throws.

This is just not true. There are plenty of big men who can shoot but can't run/jump, there are plenty of big athletic men that can't shoot. There are a few guys who can do both. How you adjust rules will absolutely change which direction the big men who can't do both will distribute. The constancy you claim is the result of a relatively fixed set of rules, not vice versa.The league has a balance at this particular point. That can be changed by the rules. Don't get me wrong, I'm not really taking a position on which is better, only saying that it is true that the balance of skill will certainly follow the rules if they are changed in certain ways. Which is why I would hesitate before changing the rules very much to make it even easier for guys like Drummond to be more valuable. Going back to Biggs' contention that the game is entertainment, I don't find Drummond bricking shots entertaining at all. It's pretty much a wash with me whether his above the rim play makes up for it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Laimbeer vs Drummond debate of "who makes the Pistons a better basketball team today" sounds good to me :)

Laimbeer: Pros--Dependable boxing out/rebounding, stretch big with 3 pt range, pick and roll, nasty half-court picks, good enough baby hook and shot maker in the paint to be effective, excellent team defender, outstanding FT shooting big, superior outlet passer, plays within self, intense competitor. Cons--Usually the worst athlete on floor, middling shot blocker, Technical Foul magnent, generally a jerk.

Drummond: Pros--Elite athlete who sometimes is the best on the floor, very good shotblocker in spurts, pick and roll dunk, alley-oop dunk, tip-back dunk, can get out on the break and finish, Upside to best 5 in the league someday, good natured guy. Cons--poor post defender, poor free-throw shooter, poor outside shooter, intensity varies from game-to-game, has frame to put on another 25 lbs of muscle but has not (aversion to the weight room?).

I'm afraid they broke the mold when they made Laimbeer, even if he didn't have the best athletic talent in the world. Will we ever see another player like him with so much importance placed on superior athleticism, upside and what AAU team you played for? More importantly, would Laimbeers physical antics be at all tolerated in today's NBA? Would he just be suspended all the time?

The closest thing to Laimbeer's skill set in the NBA right now is probably Marc Gasol. Laimbeer wasn't quite as tall and didn't block quite as many shots, but he did have years over 1. 0 BLK including his first as a Piston where he averaged 1.4.

So, maybe the question is--would a Gasol for Drummond trade make SVG's Pistons a better team? Of course the answer is yes, but at 30 how many more really good years does Marc have left?

Nice synopsis, though I only picked the two of them because they do represent pretty much the absolute opposite ends of the big man spectrum. A little funny they play(ed) for the same team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... How you adjust rules will absolutely change which direction the big men who can't do both will distribute. The constancy you claim is the result of a relatively fixed set of rules, not vice versa.The league has a balance at this particular point. That can be changed by the rules...

How much further could the rules go against big men though? Teams can already foul as much as they want. And the opposing team reacts by making a substitution. I'm not sure you can take that any further (you could extend the rules to the last 2 minutes I suppose, but thats it), so there is only one way for the rule changes to go.

Big men have too much precedence of dominating the game of basketball without being able to shoot that, regardless of any rule changes, teams will draft and employ big men because they can win championships without shooting well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NBA should not change their rules to accommodate a few bad players. The few bad players should attempt to improve their game so it doesn't affect their team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How much further could the rules go against big men though? ..

I don't even care so much about about big vs little than quality of play in general and I don't think all the changes they've made over time have been bad. For instance I liked when they opened up zone D to do away with isolation basketball - Jordan was a great player but it was boring to watch even him play one on one possession after possession. Of course at this point the bigger risk to the quality of play in the league is probably "one and done" for college players and/or maybe the AAU issues guys like Kobe have been taking up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...