Hack-a-Doke?

[pdub]

It's not like that.
I'm trying to think of a good equivalent for football.
This doesn't quite work but it's like pretending that you are hurt to stop the clock against a quarterback who kills it with the hurry up.

[CrimsonNBlue]

It's a fair strategy. More like intentionally walking a good hitter to face a pitcher or Alcides Escobar.

[pdub]

For whatever reason ( because of sports social norms ) its more frowned upon than that ( likely because walking good hitters is much more common ).

The NBA made a conscious effort to figure out how to deter hack-a-shaq because it started to become more common and the fans hated it.

[Deleted User 75]

I have no problem with it, but they damn sure better call intentional fouls if they're just wrapping him up and not trying to make a play on the ball. It's no different than pulling a jersey to stop a breakaway. The rules that should prevent it are already in place, they've just got to enforce it correctly.

[ousdahl]

agree that it's pretty bush league

agree that it's also not a bad strategy in the sense of simply exploiting another team's weaknesses

agree that fans hate it. I suppose cuz it diminishes gameplay. Watching a bad free throw shooter shoot free throws isn't exactly the most exciting ending.

I suppose calling it intentional more often would make for better gameplay. But more than anything I think a good basketball player should just figure out how to hit some goddamn free throws. It's an unguarded, unhurried shot from 15 feet away goddamnit.

[pdub]

ousdahl sinks his post unlike a Dok FT.

[DrPepper]

But fouling intentionally IS a basketball play. It is done to save clock and get possession when losing in EVERY close game.
Self’s staff (and probably the players too) all know who the oppositions best and worst free throwers are. Why? Because they wat to intentionally foul at some point.

[PhDhawk]

But fouling intentionally IS a basketball play. It is done to save clock and get possession when losing in EVERY close game.
Self’s staff (and probably the players too) all know who the oppositions best and worst free throwers are. Why? Because they wat to intentionally foul at some point.

Right, so you want those poor shooters to get the ball so you can foul them...more accurately, you try to prevent the best FT shooters from getting the ball. But in that scenario, you're fouling the guy with the ball, mostly because you don't want to be called (correctly) for an intentional foul.

Fouling Dok when he has the ball 2 ft from the hoop is often the right play, and that's true for 40 minutes. If it's late in the game and you're behind, he's the guy you'd want to foul.

The issue that I think people are complaining about are the intentional fouls away from the ball. Last year in Norman they were slapping him when he was in the corner of the court 45 feet away from the ball and just standing. The referees should have called an intentional foul and we should have maintained possession. And I don't think there's a good argument that it is not a chicken-shit strategy.

[DrPepper]

Agreed. Refs have to call it ‘intentional.’

[NDballer13]

But fouling intentionally IS a basketball play. It is done to save clock and get possession when losing in EVERY close game.
Self’s staff (and probably the players too) all know who the oppositions best and worst free throwers are. Why? Because they wat to intentionally foul at some point.

Right, so you want those poor shooters to get the ball so you can foul them...more accurately, you try to prevent the best FT shooters from getting the ball. But in that scenario, you're fouling the guy with the ball, mostly because you don't want to be called (correctly) for an intentional foul.

Fouling Dok when he has the ball 2 ft from the hoop is often the right play, and that's true for 40 minutes. If it's late in the game and you're behind, he's the guy you'd want to foul.

The issue that I think people are complaining about are the intentional fouls away from the ball. Last year in Norman they were slapping him when he was in the corner of the court 45 feet away from the ball and just standing. The referees should have called an intentional foul and we should have maintained possession. And I don't think there's a good argument that it is not a chicken-shit strategy.

If I'm remembering right, OU didn't just grab him while he was in a corner. They waited until he tried to post up, or go set a screen. That way the foul was committed on someone "in the play". That way, avoiding the intentional foul.

The only good thing about this Hack-a-whoever strategy is when Pop did it to Shaq 2 seconds into the game and they show him on the bench with a huge smile giving Shaq a thumbs up.

[PhDhawk]

No, by the third or fourth foul, Self had Dok stand at the 3 pt line in the corner and Kruger had put in a bench player, it may have been Read Streller, who just hugged him in the corner.

It wasn't until after that game, I think before the KSU game, that it was made clear that doing that would be called intentional, and that you had to foul him as an actual part of the game. Which vindicated team pdub back on the dotnet because it validated the opinion that it was bush league.

[pdub]

In the case Tuesday, Udoka had gotten the ball, and wasn't really that close to the basket, his back turned to it.
The exact moment he caught it, he was fouled.
Kruger still being a bitch fouling with 5 minutes left in the game but less so than last year where Self was having Dok stand out of bounds at points.

[bigB]

One less thing to worry about