The Hack a Shaq Rule - what do you think?

[Evgeni]

If people hurt each other intentionally in basketball, it means the rules need to change. That's just not what basketball is about. Penalizing intentional fouling may not completely stop it, but it will definitely decrease it.

Moreover (and admittedly that's somewhat radical) I think free throws need to be eliminated altogether. They interfere with the flow and enjoyment of the game. They are boring. Just give 1.5 points to the other team, and resume the game.

 

[shoes22]

If we take statistics into account - obviously we will find difference in FT% among players.. What % would you consider to be an OK FT%? Lets say all 5 players on court shoot at 75% at least. wouldn't you as a coach still direct your players to not foul the 95% but the 75% instead? (not HACK a SHAQ, just a preferable foul just in case one must be made).

Leave it as is.

Guys like Drummond and DeAndre Jordan should be able to hit 55%, which would nullify teams hacking them. I really believe if they the underhanded shot it would help.

Well if we want to be technical about strategy, a free-throw shooter needs to be >67% to make an intentional foul a gamble that the player won’t hit both shots. Below that percentage, the player is likely to miss at least one.

The player needs to shoot above 50% to not make intentionally fouling the preferred strategy every single time down the floor.

I was thinking...could a compromise for both sides be making intentional off-ball fouls in the 4th quarter worth 3 shots instead of 2? Then a player only needs to be a >50% FT shooter to be statistically likely to get at least 2 points on a trip to the foul line, making the strategy not worth the risk. But making it 3 shots still gives the player an incentive to improve his FT% to at least 50%.

 

[2Fluffy4U]

They are boring

Having your guy come to the FT line and have 2 shots to tie or win the game 2.1 sec to regulation is a rush of suspense, despite being static and "Flow-less" IMO

 

[Jscc]

Moreover (and admittedly that's somewhat radical) I think free throws need to be eliminated altogether. They interfere with the flow and enjoyment of the game. They are boring. Just give 1.5 points to the other team, and resume the game.

Let's eliminate defense and half-court offense too. They just drive my ADHD insane.

 

[bigfoot5415]

It's embarrassing that they are even considering getting rid of it.

What's next? Let's get rid of dribbling because big men can't hade the pressure of putting the ball on the floor?

F THAT

 

[David.]

Well if we want to be technical about strategy, a free-throw shooter needs to be >67% to make an intentional foul a gamble that the player won’t hit both shots. Below that percentage, the player is likely to miss at least one.

The player needs to shoot above 50% to not make intentionally fouling the preferred strategy every single time down the floor.

I was thinking...could a compromise for both sides be making intentional off-ball fouls in the 4th quarter worth 3 shots instead of 2? Then a player only needs to be a >50% FT shooter to be statistically likely to get at least 2 points on a trip to the foul line, making the strategy not worth the risk. But making it 3 shots still gives the player an incentive to improve his FT% to at least 50%.

I don't think this is true

Player has a 67 percent chance to hit each shot, it's not a conditional probability in a single possession scenario..

Also if it was, the player would be expected to miss one of the two shots if they were .70% shooters..

.7%x .7% = .490

 

[2Fluffy4U]

I don't think this is true

Player has a 67 percent chance to hit each shot, it's not a conditional probability in a single possession scenario..

Also if it was, the player would be expected to miss one of the two shots if they were .70% shooters..

.7%x .7% = .490

The outcome of a FT is dichotomous: Hit/Miss. The % is calculated for the player's entire season / career (N>1). Statistics is a science that depends on more than one trial (samples and extrapolation). For one trial - the odds for hit/miss are as outcome possibilities- 50%. once a player gets more trials - then the statistics comes to action.
A player with .70% FT means that out of 10 shots - you would expect him to hit 7, yet - if the "sample" is just one trial (N=1) (which also makes it "Mu" - population) - then its 50%. To sum things up - the % is dependent of the sample size.

 

[shoes22]

I don't think this is true

Player has a 67 percent chance to hit each shot, it's not a conditional probability in a single possession scenario..

Also if it was, the player would be expected to miss one of the two shots if they were .70% shooters..

.7%x .7% = .490

It ends up being a conditional probability though. Using your 70% FT shooter example...

.7 * .3 = 0.21 (x2 to account for missing and making, as well as a make and then miss) = 0.42

.3 * .3 = .09.

That adds up to 100%. From the outset before the foul, the shooter is more likely to make both free throws than making and missing one or missing both. That’s what you have to look at when assessing the risk. You can’t add the bottom two scenarios in this instance because a player can’t miss both FTs AND miss just one...it’s just one or the other.

 

[MoFlo]

It's not exploiting the rules in the least bit and it shouldn't be changed.

It's similar to a bad defender or a bad 3 point shooter - we don't have specific rules to help them out and teams take advantage of those guys (as well they should). Make your damn free throws. If you have a guy who is a liability, take him out. Simple as that.

 

[David.]

It ends up being a conditional probability though. Using your 70% FT shooter example...

.7 * .3 = 0.21 (x2 to account for missing and making, as well as a make and then miss) = 0.42

.3 * .3 = .09.

That adds up to 100%. From the outset before the foul, the shooter is more likely to make both free throws than making and missing one or missing both. That’s what you have to look at when assessing the risk. You can’t add the bottom two scenarios in this instance because a player can’t miss both FTs AND miss just one...it’s just one or the other.

I'm not seeing the math

7 7 49

7 3. 21

7. 3. 21

3. 3. 9


Make both = 49%
Miss one, or miss both = 51%

 

[shoes22]

I'm not seeing the math

7 7 49

7 3. 21

7. 3. 21

3. 3. 9


Make both = 49%
Miss one, or miss both = 51%

Read my post again.

At the outset before the shots are taken, a 70% FT shooter is more likely to make both shots (49%) than making just one shot (42%) or missing both (9%).

You are adding miss one and miss both together...you cannot do that as both cannot happen at the same time.. There are 4 (3 distinct) separate outcomes in this one particular situation. The most likely outcome given the 3 distinct possibilities is the player making both shots, making fouling inadvisable.

Now if you repeat the situation enough times, you are correct that it will end up that the player will make either one shot or miss both 1% more often than the player making both.

But in any one individual trip to the foul line, a 70% free throw shooter is more likely to make both free throws than not make them.

 

[Surge]

It's not exploiting the rules in the least bit and it shouldn't be changed.

It's similar to a bad defender or a bad 3 point shooter - we don't have specific rules to help them out and teams take advantage of those guys. Make your damn free throws. If you have a guy who is a liability, take him out. Simple as that.

Exactly. If we're going to do this, then let's let Harden stand at half court and tag in someone to play the defensive end and he can tag back in when the ball comes down on offense.

 

[David.]

Read my post again.

At the outset before the shots are taken, a 70% FT shooter is more likely to make both shots (49%) than making just one shot (42%) or missing both (9%).

You are adding miss one and miss both together...you cannot do that as both cannot happen at the same time.. There are 4 (3 distinct) separate outcomes in this one particular situation. The most likely outcome given the 3 distinct possibilities is the player making both shots, making fouling inadvisable.

Now if you repeat the situation enough times, you are correct that it will end up that the player will make either one shot or miss both 1% more often than the player making both.

But in any one individual trip to the foul line, a 70% free throw shooter is more likely to make both free throws than not make them.

maybe im misunderstanding.. these are the situations written out

7 (made first shot)
----3 (made first, missed second (21)
---7 (made first, made second (49)

3 (missed first)
----7 missed first, made second) (21)
----3 missed first, missed second(9)



there is a cumulative 51 percent chance that we both agree on, that you miss the first and make the second, miss the first and the second, or make the first but miss the second... that cumulative 51 percent has a diversified set of outcomes but it is still more probable, collectively, that one of these three scenarios will happen instead of making both

i dont understand how youre saying the ultimately most likely scenario is one that doesnt beat the summation of alternative scenarios in probability of happening..

if I have 3 blue socks, 1 red, 1 black, 1 orange, 1 yellow, 1 maroon, 1 white, its likely im not pulling out a blue sock from a hamper if im blind folded..



"a 70% FT shooter is more likely to make both shots (49%) than making just one shot (42%) or missing both (9%)"


right, its not outcome 1 vs outcome 2 OR outcome three, its outcome 1 vs. outcome 2 AND outcome three

 

[FritzLn]

i think ppl tolerate it because it only affects the 2 most hated teams in the league

 

[shoes22]

maybe im misunderstanding.. these are the situations written out

7 (made first shot)
----3 (made first, missed second (21)
---7 (made first, made second (49)

3 (missed first)
----7 missed first, made second) (21)
----3 missed first, missed second(9)



there is a cumulative 51 percent chance that we both agree on, that you miss the first and make the second, miss the first and the second, or make the first but miss the second... that cumulative 51 percent has a diversified set of outcomes but it is still more probable, collectively, that one of these three scenarios will happen instead of making both

i dont understand how youre saying the ultimately most likely scenario is one that doesnt beat the summation of alternative scenarios in probability of happening..

if I have 3 blue socks, 1 red, 1 black, 1 orange, 1 yellow, 1 maroon, 1 white, its likely im not pulling out a blue sock from a hamper if im blind folded..



"a 70% FT shooter is more likely to make both shots (49%) than making just one shot (42%) or missing both (9%)"


right, its not outcome 1 vs outcome 2 OR outcome three, its outcome 1 vs. outcome 2 AND outcome three

I believe we are in agreeance and arguing the same thing from a mathematical standpoint, just thinking about the situation differently.

Let’s say you have a gumball machine with a lever on it. When you pull the lever, there is a 49% chance of getting 2 gumballs, a 42% chance of getting 1 gumball, and 9% chance of not getting any gumball at all. You can only pull the lever once. How many gumballs are you most likely gonna walk away with?

If we can pull the lever an infinite amount of times, you are right that it is 1% more likely we don’t get 2 gumballs than the alternative. But we are only looking at one isolated instance and seeing what the most likely occurrence is.