Game Day: Warriors (64-14) @ Suns (22-56), Wed 4/5/17

[Superbone]

I'm with In2 on this one. If you want to take away the chance that a team can come back and win a close game because you just want the game to be over with, then you aren't into the game.

I don't think anyone is saying that. What we want is teams to actually make basketball plays to come back. Statistics show that the fouling to extend the game strategy almost never works, yet teams keep doing it because they don't feel like there is another option. I think playing aggressive defense and forcing turnovers might actually be more effective.

We accept the late game fouling because it's always been apart of the game, but imagine for a second that it never was. That teams always had the opportunity to just take the ball out of bounds instead of shooting free throws. Then imagine the NBA changed the rule and said you had to shoot free throws. People would be up in arms about the rule and the late game fouling that would ensue.

The fact is, the offending team is the one who benefits from a play that is against the rules and that just seems backwards to me. If you can't get the lead in the first 47:45 you probably just don't deserve to win that night.

Playing aggressive defense and trying to force turnovers is ALREADY the strategy. It's just if it doesn't work, you foul.

[Superbone]

Aggressive defense, trying to force turnovers with a run & jump or trapping defense, take your pick, will cause just as many open layups and an unprotected basket if you are in the passing lanes. NBA players are too good and skilled for that tactic and strategy to work successfully. Sure, it could work in spurts or from time to time, but once teams are wise to what you are going to try to do at the end of games, they will exploit it. Ever wonder why NBA teams RARELY ever press? Because it's nearly impossible in the NBA against those guards. Sure, in college, high school, AAU or youth basketball it works often.

It's also nearly impossible to come back by fouling. I'd guess every team has someone who shoots free throws at a near 85% clip. So you're right, you're almost never going to trap Chris Paul, but he's also not going to miss his free throws. But could you trap J.J reddick?

The fact is that even the best shooters occasionally miss FTs. Especially with the game on the line. In the immortal words of Dumb and Dumber, "So, you're saying there's a chance?"

[Split T]

I'm with In2 on this one. If you want to take away the chance that a team can come back and win a close game because you just want the game to be over with, then you aren't into the game.

I don't think anyone is saying that. What we want is teams to actually make basketball plays to come back. Statistics show that the fouling to extend the game strategy almost never works, yet teams keep doing it because they don't feel like there is another option. I think playing aggressive defense and forcing turnovers might actually be more effective.

We accept the late game fouling because it's always been apart of the game, but imagine for a second that it never was. That teams always had the opportunity to just take the ball out of bounds instead of shooting free throws. Then imagine the NBA changed the rule and said you had to shoot free throws. People would be up in arms about the rule and the late game fouling that would ensue.

The fact is, the offending team is the one who benefits from a play that is against the rules and that just seems backwards to me. If you can't get the lead in the first 47:45 you probably just don't deserve to win that night.

Playing aggressive defense and trying to force turnovers is ALREADY the strategy. It's just if it doesn't work, you foul.

Some times it's the strategy, but teams abandon it too quickly. If they don't get a steal in the first few seconds, they foul. And often, if there's less than 20 seconds, they just immediately foul.

[Split T]

Aggressive defense, trying to force turnovers with a run & jump or trapping defense, take your pick, will cause just as many open layups and an unprotected basket if you are in the passing lanes. NBA players are too good and skilled for that tactic and strategy to work successfully. Sure, it could work in spurts or from time to time, but once teams are wise to what you are going to try to do at the end of games, they will exploit it. Ever wonder why NBA teams RARELY ever press? Because it's nearly impossible in the NBA against those guards. Sure, in college, high school, AAU or youth basketball it works often.

It's also nearly impossible to come back by fouling. I'd guess every team has someone who shoots free throws at a near 85% clip. So you're right, you're almost never going to trap Chris Paul, but he's also not going to miss his free throws. But could you trap J.J reddick?

The fact is that even the best shooters occasionally miss FTs. Especially with the game on the line. In the immortal words of Dumb and Dumber, "So, you're saying there's a chance?"

That's true, which is why I'm not totally against it, especially if you can foul a poor shooter. But teams also turn the ball over. I just wish teams would put more effort into forcing turnovers rather than just fouling.

[O_Gardino]

I'm with In2 on this one. If you want to take away the chance that a team can come back and win a close game because you just want the game to be over with, then you aren't into the game.

I don't think anyone is saying that. What we want is teams to actually make basketball plays to come back.

...

Oh, I know that's not what you and Herman are saying. It's what non-fans are saying who complain about time outs and fouling. They just want the game to be over with.

As for you two, It sounds to me like you have more of an ideological issue than a basketball one. I don't mean that dismissively, I'm just trying to understand. Lots of us would say that intentional fouling is an actual basketball play.

[O_Gardino]

Aggressive defense, trying to force turnovers with a run & jump or trapping defense, take your pick, will cause just as many open layups and an unprotected basket if you are in the passing lanes. NBA players are too good and skilled for that tactic and strategy to work successfully. Sure, it could work in spurts or from time to time, but once teams are wise to what you are going to try to do at the end of games, they will exploit it. Ever wonder why NBA teams RARELY ever press? Because it's nearly impossible in the NBA against those guards. Sure, in college, high school, AAU or youth basketball it works often.

It's also nearly impossible to come back by fouling. I'd guess every team has someone who shoots free throws at a near 85% clip. So you're right, you're almost never going to trap Chris Paul, but he's also not going to miss his free throws. But could you trap J.J reddick?

Are you more concerned with stopping fouling or with giving teams a better chance at a comeback? Honest question.

[Split T]

Aggressive defense, trying to force turnovers with a run & jump or trapping defense, take your pick, will cause just as many open layups and an unprotected basket if you are in the passing lanes. NBA players are too good and skilled for that tactic and strategy to work successfully. Sure, it could work in spurts or from time to time, but once teams are wise to what you are going to try to do at the end of games, they will exploit it. Ever wonder why NBA teams RARELY ever press? Because it's nearly impossible in the NBA against those guards. Sure, in college, high school, AAU or youth basketball it works often.

It's also nearly impossible to come back by fouling. I'd guess every team has someone who shoots free throws at a near 85% clip. So you're right, you're almost never going to trap Chris Paul, but he's also not going to miss his free throws. But could you trap J.J reddick?

Are you more concerned with stopping fouling or with giving teams a better chance at a comeback? Honest question.

More concerned with giving teams a better chance. It's just a bonus that I think the result would be more entertaining as well.

[Mori Chu]

I can definitely say that the end-of-game incessant timeouts and fouling, while they do bring in ad money, they also clearly do turn off some fans. My wife for example, she's a casual but willing Warriors and Suns watcher. But she literally prefers to watch the first half over the second half and will walk away from the screen near the end of the game. She says it's boring when they just keep fouling and calling timeouts, and she doesn't care who wins; she just wants to watch them play. So she'll often sit in on the 1st quarter if I have the Warriors on so she can see Curry and Klay and Durant, then walk away and come back for the latter part of the 2nd quarter when the starters are coming back into the game. Then she is either out, or possibly she'll pop back in for the 3rd quarter. She hates the 4th quarter because of how long it takes.

She will often say things like, "Let's have dinner in 5 minutes!" and I'll tell her the game has 2 minutes left, and she'll groan and say, "Well that will take half an hour. Great." And she's right. It is just dumb that these games take this long and have so many breaks right at the end. Other sports like soccer have a much more predictable game length and flow, which makes it easier to plan watching and finishing a game.

[Cap]

The point for me is that fouling should not be a good outcome for the team that fouls. Fouls are actions that are against the rules and teams are punished for them. If they want to commit fouls then punishment needs to be greater.

i wonder how this philosophy applies to other sports. Just as a basketball team can gain an advantage by an intentional foul, a baseball team can gain an advantage by an intentional walk. Does that also offend your sense of sportsmanship? Should baseball tweak the rules to discourage it?

[Hermen]

The point for me is that fouling should not be a good outcome for the team that fouls. Fouls are actions that are against the rules and teams are punished for them. If they want to commit fouls then punishment needs to be greater.

i wonder how this philosophy applies to other sports. Just as a basketball team can gain an advantage by an intentional foul, a baseball team can gain an advantage by an intentional walk. Does that also offend your sense of sportsmanship? Should baseball tweak the rules to discourage it?

I'm not offended at all and I know next to nothing about baseball so I can't comment on that. I often feel that some rules could be improved of course finding a better solution is another thing...

[Indy]

The point for me is that fouling should not be a good outcome for the team that fouls. Fouls are actions that are against the rules and teams are punished for them. If they want to commit fouls then punishment needs to be greater.

i wonder how this philosophy applies to other sports. Just as a basketball team can gain an advantage by an intentional foul, a baseball team can gain an advantage by an intentional walk. Does that also offend your sense of sportsmanship? Should baseball tweak the rules to discourage it?

I don't think throwing a ball is an infraction of the rules.

[Cap]

The point for me is that fouling should not be a good outcome for the team that fouls. Fouls are actions that are against the rules and teams are punished for them. If they want to commit fouls then punishment needs to be greater.

i wonder how this philosophy applies to other sports. Just as a basketball team can gain an advantage by an intentional foul, a baseball team can gain an advantage by an intentional walk. Does that also offend your sense of sportsmanship? Should baseball tweak the rules to discourage it?

I don't think throwing a ball is an infraction of the rules.

An ordinary foul is no more an infraction of the rules than missing the strike zone without eliciting a swing. The rules have a penalty for it, so trying not to do it is in general part of the challenge of the game, but there are situations in which teams have found a way to turn the penalty to their advantage and incur it on purpose.

[Superbone]

The point for me is that fouling should not be a good outcome for the team that fouls. Fouls are actions that are against the rules and teams are punished for them. If they want to commit fouls then punishment needs to be greater.

i wonder how this philosophy applies to other sports. Just as a basketball team can gain an advantage by an intentional foul, a baseball team can gain an advantage by an intentional walk. Does that also offend your sense of sportsmanship? Should baseball tweak the rules to discourage it?

I don't think throwing a ball is an infraction of the rules.

An ordinary foul is no more an infraction of the rules than missing the strike zone without eliciting a swing. The rules have a penalty for it, so trying not to do it is in general part of the challenge of the game, but there are situations in which teams have found a way to turn the penalty to their advantage and incur it on purpose.

Yep, pretty good analogy across sports there.

[Indy]

The point for me is that fouling should not be a good outcome for the team that fouls. Fouls are actions that are against the rules and teams are punished for them. If they want to commit fouls then punishment needs to be greater.

i wonder how this philosophy applies to other sports. Just as a basketball team can gain an advantage by an intentional foul, a baseball team can gain an advantage by an intentional walk. Does that also offend your sense of sportsmanship? Should baseball tweak the rules to discourage it?

I don't think throwing a ball is an infraction of the rules.

An ordinary foul is no more an infraction of the rules than missing the strike zone without eliciting a swing. The rules have a penalty for it, so trying not to do it is in general part of the challenge of the game, but there are situations in which teams have found a way to turn the penalty to their advantage and incur it on purpose.

I disagree with your primary statement. The ref stops play because your broke a rule. Although I'm sure we have all read some of the rules of the NBA with respect to fouls, I have to admit I haven't done the same for MLB. But I have never heard it referred to as an infraction like I do with fouls/penalties.

[Aztec Sunsfan]

The point for me is that fouling should not be a good outcome for the team that fouls. Fouls are actions that are against the rules and teams are punished for them. If they want to commit fouls then punishment needs to be greater.

i wonder how this philosophy applies to other sports. Just as a basketball team can gain an advantage by an intentional foul, a baseball team can gain an advantage by an intentional walk. Does that also offend your sense of sportsmanship? Should baseball tweak the rules to discourage it?

I don't think throwing a ball is an infraction of the rules.

An ordinary foul is no more an infraction of the rules than missing the strike zone without eliciting a swing. The rules have a penalty for it, so trying not to do it is in general part of the challenge of the game, but there are situations in which teams have found a way to turn the penalty to their advantage and incur it on purpose.

A baseball strike would be to me, more like a missed pass. It's not an infraction but a bad play, there is no penalty for it, but keep doing it and you gets closer to lose.

I think that a better paralel would be to Walk the man at bat. Four Ball pitches and the player goes to 1st for free, if there was another player there, he goes to 2nd, so there is a penalty for doing it, you opponent can even score because of it. But baseball even has the Intentional Walk registered as a play, so there you have a penalty play, that a team can use to try to win the game, and they know the risks involved, like a home run by the next player.

Same with Touchback in the NFL.