PDA

View Full Version : Hack-a- (insert player here): Real strategy or unnecessary gamble?



Mateen Cleaves
10-04-2006, 06:21 AM
Japs Cuan made 4 of 12 freethrows in Game 3 of the UAAP Finals.

That's four crucial points in an overtime game that was decided by 2 points. On the other hand, 33% shooting from the line is way below average. Good odds if you're Ateneo, right? Another thing was how early in the game Ateneo started fouling Cuan.

But this isn't just about the UAAP results. What do you think of hack-a-player as a strategy? From a fan perspective, does it take the fun out of the game by making it a FT shooting contest?

joelex
10-04-2006, 07:15 AM
from a fan's standpoint, definitely boring. but if a team would want to really really win and needs to win, cant blame the strategy.

LION
10-04-2006, 07:49 AM
Not a good tactic.* Note that Sam Ekwe and Japs Cuan, notorious for their terrible free throw shooting, won the series for their respective teams with clutch free throws.* Irony of ironies.

Hack-a-Sam, Hack-a-Japs and even Hack-a-Shaq didn't work.

MonL
10-04-2006, 08:38 AM
Kung blowout ang laro and* teams employ that tactic, then probably you can call that an unnecessary and boring play.

But it is usually employed in close games. When the game situation has come into a critical point that both the leading or trailing team needs to use this tactic to stall for time / give them one last stab for the win, as we have already seen, a new dimension is added to the game's uncertainties.* Anybody on court is fair game for this play, and sometimes even better than average FT shooters cave in.* For a hacking team, targeting a notoriously poor FT shooter is a calculated move more than a gamble compared to fouling a good shooter, and they should therefore make the play.

It just so happens that UST beat the odds last monday. The question is why did it reach that point that you lay the fortunes of your team on the other side rather than imposing your own will?
*

AnthonyServinio
10-04-2006, 10:42 AM
I remember a Metropolitan Basketball Association (MBA) game in Cebu between the host Cebuana Lhuillier Gems and the visiting Andok's San Juan Knights at the New Cebu City Coliseum.

Frustrated with the officiating, the Knights went on a fouling spree by automatically fouling the first Gem that got to touch the ball. The game lasted for more than three hours to finish prompting Studio 23 to pull the game off the air midway in the fourth and final period.

Fittingly, the Knights led by head coach Philip Cezar and team manager Jinggoy Estrada were assessed a huge fine for making a mockery of the game.

Mel
10-04-2006, 11:46 AM
Hack-a-Shaq should be mentioned here because it is for whom the phrase
was coined. It never worked for Portland and the Sacramento Kings.

It is a legit strategy and within the rules of the game at least
in the Philippines and FIBA. The NBA protected Shaq
by outlawing the strategy in the game's last two minutes.

It does not necessarily make the game boring but shows the desperation to win of the team
employing the strategy.

Mateen Cleaves
10-04-2006, 05:37 PM
But it is usually employed in close games. When the game situation has come into a critical point that both the leading or trailing team needs to use this tactic to stall for time / give them one last stab for the win, as we have already seen, a new dimension is added to the game's uncertainties. Anybody on court is fair game for this play, and sometimes even better than average FT shooters cave in. For a hacking team, targeting a notoriously poor FT shooter is a calculated move more than a gamble compared to fouling a good shooter, and they should therefore make the play.


What if it's still early in the game? Towards the end of the 2nd or 3rd quarter, for example. IIRC, it wasn't crunch time yet when Escueta came in to give up a foul on Japs. Similarly, in the last NBA playoffs, teams started hacking Shaq, Ben Wallace and other bricklayers early in games.

MonL
10-04-2006, 06:18 PM
But it is usually employed in close games. When the game situation has come into a critical point that both the leading or trailing team needs to use this tactic to stall for time / give them one last stab for the win, as we have already seen, a new dimension is added to the game's uncertainties.* Anybody on court is fair game for this play, and sometimes even better than average FT shooters cave in.* For a hacking team, targeting a notoriously poor FT shooter is a calculated move more than a gamble compared to fouling a good shooter, and they should therefore make the play.


What if it's still early in the game? Towards the end of the 2nd or 3rd quarter, for example.* IIRC, it wasn't crunch time yet when Escueta came in to give up a foul on Japs. Similarly, in the last NBA playoffs, teams started hacking Shaq, Ben Wallace and other bricklayers early in games.


I guess this could be an example of a momentum-breaking ploy (a.k.a. uglyball) which any good situational-thinking team should do. In the Japs example above, I would probably rather allow the opposition's best point (but its worst FT shooter) to score one point at the line than to let him set up plays which may score two or three points on me. There's no guarantee that he will convert both, anyway. I guess I would employ it when I am protecting a lead (in the 2nd q) or making a run myself (in the 3rd), as the case may be. It may not look good to a fan, though, but it might just work.* But that's just a narrow peanut gallery view.

LION
10-04-2006, 07:38 PM
But it is usually employed in close games. When the game situation has come into a critical point that both the leading or trailing team needs to use this tactic to stall for time / give them one last stab for the win, as we have already seen, a new dimension is added to the game's uncertainties.* Anybody on court is fair game for this play, and sometimes even better than average FT shooters cave in.* For a hacking team, targeting a notoriously poor FT shooter is a calculated move more than a gamble compared to fouling a good shooter, and they should therefore make the play.


What if it's still early in the game? Towards the end of the 2nd or 3rd quarter, for example.* IIRC, it wasn't crunch time yet when Escueta came in to give up a foul on Japs. Similarly, in the last NBA playoffs, teams started hacking Shaq, Ben Wallace and other bricklayers early in games.


I guess this could be an example of a momentum-breaking ploy (a.k.a. uglyball) which any good situational-thinking team should do. In the Japs example above, I would probably rather allow the opposition's best point (but its worst FT shooter) to score one point at the line than to let him set up plays which may score two or three points on me. There's no guarantee that he will convert both, anyway. I guess I would employ it when I am protecting a lead (in the 2nd q) or making a run myself (in the 3rd), as the case may be. It may not look good to a fan, though, but it might just work.* But that's just a narrow peanut gallery view.


----------------------------------------------------

So far, I have not seen a team win a championship game by using the hack-a-shaq strategy. Not in the NBA. Not in the NCAA and not in the UAAP. Sometimes, this strategy works (because even the good free throw shooters do miss occasionally) but somehow the ploy invariably backfires against the team using it.

For me, this strategy should be used only when absolutely necessary, like when a team is desperately rallying and time is running out. Mel is correct. To use it early in the game is an act of desperation. For me it is also ugly. And whilst it may not necessarily make the game boring, the spectators will definitely be deprived of the beauty of a basketball game.

shyboy
10-05-2006, 07:09 AM
IMO, these hack-a-whoever strategy destroys the beauty of the game. Yes, it is within the rules and can be employed by those desperate to win the ballgame. Essentially, however, it makes a mockery of the game instead of relying and having faith on the team's offensive and defensive patterns. Also, HINDI YAN HARDCORE!

Teams should play to win instead of playing not to lose.

MonL
10-05-2006, 07:29 AM
IMO, these hack-a-whoever strategy destroys the beauty of the game.* Yes, it is within the rules and can be employed by those desperate to win the ballgame.* Essentially, however, it makes a mockery of the game instead of relying and having faith on the team's offensive and defensive patterns.* Also, HINDI YAN HARDCORE!

Teams should play to win instead of playing not to lose.


Just like ballfreeze or stalling decades ago, it is a strategy within existing rules but it can always be outlawed. Remember, before the advent of the shotclock, stalling was legal, but it was also keeping scores low (in the tens or twenties for each team) and in fact killing basketball as a spectator sport as the game became dull. When the time limit on possessions was introduced, team scoring averages took off, and so did the sport.

Uglyball as introduced by Pat Riley was another strategy used by marginal but overachieving teams but it also was nipped in the bud by rule changes/ownership mandate to make the sport more "spectator/fan-friendly."

Jaco D
10-05-2006, 08:00 AM
If only players could make a decent percentage of their freethrows, di bale na kung pangit ang porma tulad ni Rick Barry, then the problem would solve itself.

MonL
10-05-2006, 08:13 AM
If only players could make a decent percentage of their freethrows, di bale na kung pangit ang porma tulad ni Rick Barry, then the problem would solve itself.


Actually that "urinola" shot is a relaxing one. You ought to try it, if you hadn't already. :)

As to making a decent FT percentage, a fulltime shooting coach wouldn't hurt. But some players simply can't get it, no matter what kind of teaching they get.

Jaco D
10-05-2006, 11:18 AM
If only players could make a decent percentage of their freethrows, di bale na kung pangit ang porma tulad ni Rick Barry, then the problem would solve itself.


Actually that "urinola" shot is a relaxing one. You ought to try it, if you hadn't already.* :)

As to making a decent FT percentage, a fulltime shooting coach wouldn't hurt. But some players simply can't get it, no matter what kind of teaching they get.



Mon, 'xacto.* Kung tutuusin mo, the urinola shot seems to be the less risky stance for the simple reason that you are only dealing with one plane.* Kung "i-swak" mo sa net o i-banda, it's still on the same plane (kung kapos, ibang usapan na iyan).* Actually the urinola shot would benefit tall guys like Shaq who have a tendency to throw the ball almost parallel to the ground dahil sa tangkad nila.* Hirap lang, wala sa "ja-porms" ang stance na iyan.* Imagine a shoe company commercial or poster with someone shooting urinola-style?

Maybe they should just impose a fine for all players who have a less than 75% free-throw shooting percentage at the end of the season (Yeah, right).

MonL
10-05-2006, 01:44 PM
Mon, 'xacto.* Kung tutuusin mo, the urinola shot seems to be the less risky stance for the simple reason that you are only dealing with one plane.* Kung "i-swak" mo sa net o i-banda, it's still on the same plane (kung kapos, ibang usapan na iyan).* Actually the urinola shot would benefit tall guys like Shaq who have a tendency to throw the ball almost parallel to the ground dahil sa tangkad nila.* Hirap lang, wala sa "ja-porms" ang stance na iyan.* Imagine a shoe company commercial or poster with someone shooting urinola-style?

Maybe they should just impose a fine for all players who have a less than 75% free-throw shooting percentage at the end of the season (Yeah, right).


Baka magka-windfall tax ng malaki-laki ang liga kapag inimpose nila yang penalty na iyan.... :D Baka di nila maramdaman ang penalties, given what they earn. The penalties should hurt the player enough to make him want to* improve, although the score of missed free throws recorded and the disdain it gets a player playing at that level is already punishment enough.... :P

In Shaq's case, his hands are so big he can hold the ball with one hand and swing his arm pendulum style and just loft the ball into the hoop. The results would be no better. ;D

Medyo lumilihis na yata ako......

pio_valenz
10-05-2006, 04:25 PM
Ateneo also gambled on the Hack-a-Japs in the second round UST-Ateneo game, IIRC. ADMU was up by 3 and they fouled Cuan. He made the first, missed the second, but Evangelista grabbed the offensive board and was fouled. You guys know the rest.

It's hard to second-guess Black on this. there was a good chance Cuan would have missed both free throws, if we look at the exact probabilities of Cuan missing both. Since Cuan shoots around 30% from the line, his chances of missing both would be .7 x .7 or 49%. That is, if I remember my Stat 101 correctly.

But in this case, despite the favorable odds, I don't think it was justified because Ateneo was ahead and they really didn't need the ball. They just needed to defend against the three-point shot. And when you consider that UST had been outrebounding them that day, the gamble looked even riskier. Then again, like I said, it's hard to second-guess Black.

There is a proper time to employ this strategy, though. IMHO when your team is trailing in a close game.

thadzonline
02-11-2008, 04:19 PM
USJ-R used the tactic to take Junmar Fajardo off his game in the ceSAFI Partners Cup Finals Game 2..Everytime Junmar gets the ball down low, they hack him...One thing ive noticed about the kid, he makes his free throws early in the game but starts missing in the later stages probably due to fatigue and he has little rest anyway since UC really uses him almost 40 minutes every game

bluegirl
02-11-2008, 04:36 PM
it can be both for me.

real strategy if humahabol ang team mo, kasi it stops the clock for one thing, plus ung 2 or 3 pt shot eh may chance na mabawasan.

unnecessary gamble naman sya pag applied similarly to ateneo vs ust which was already mentioned earlier.

bottomline, kung ikaw ung naghahabol, strategy sya, if ikaw ung leading, gamble.