Hard pill thread

[RedDawg#8]

16 hours ago, macdaddy said:

I know the trend of the day is to hate on take fouls but it's a smart play.   I honestly don't see how they are going to eliminate it.   Bogi, Gallo, and Lou use them because they are smart and know our transition defense absolutely sucks and they have fouls to spare.   And it's not just those guys who suck at transition D.   Pretty much the entire team sucks at it.  

I know y'all were just making jokes but I'm really interested how the NBA tries to eliminate this.   How can they give a bigger penalty for fouling someone with the ball in some situations but not others?

It would be hard because it would boil down to snap judgment, but I think there is a way.

1. Rely on common sense. If the ball is in transition or about to be, and a player clearly tries to intentionally foul they could let the play continue if the contact is minimal (soft touch foul) and just let the fouling player intentionally take themself out of the play. The punishment being embarrassment and an easy basket.

2. If the fouling contact is deemed to be excessive where they have to blow the whistle to stop play, they award 2 free throws regardless of penalty situation. They could also slow the game down even more and require replay to make this call, similar to a clear path foul assessment. Difference being that you don't gain possession after the free throws on the take foul. This would be to help separate it from a clear path foul which also stops a fast break, but is a bit more egregious.

3. Another option instead of 2 free throws and no possession, is they could award 1 technical free throw and possession. This would help avoid any hack-a scenarios. 
Again, it's mostly judgement, and the first thing players and coaches will adapt to do is to de-emphasize the "intentional" act and try to sell the refs on a soft attempt at defense before eventually still fouling before a reasonable shot attempt can be made.

4. So another thing they could use to prevent this is to use geography of the court and say any foul made outside of the 3 point line during transition is deemed intentional, but once the ball makes it inside the arc it's a common foul again.(Meaning, the defense actually ran back and got back in to the play)   Transition is ceased once the ball crosses halfcourt and forward progress of the ball via dribble ends. So, a pass behind to a trailing teammate is still transition, but the ballhandler stopping his forward movement with the ball is discontinuing the fast break.

 

Edited February 11, 2022 by RedDawg#8

[AHF]

10 hours ago, Diesel said:

I said in his old age, Kidd did not contribute much to that team...  Meaning that if the standard is HOF talent, then you expect HOF production.  Right.  I even followed by saying that when we win, we can talk about Lou Williams being our HOF talent or one of the Euros. 

The big point...in hindsight, it's easy to apply that "standard".  In real time though, most teams don't fit the "standard" when they are trying for their first championship. 

In 2030, it could just as easily be Trae and OO were the two HOF players that led the Hawks to a title in 2022.   In real time.. the "Standard" don't fit. 

Usually they multiple award winning players.  As we've walked through, teams have gotten there with young All-Stars, All-Star vets, etc. playing supporting roles behind the MVP level talent at the top.  Our non-Trae guys have development needed to get to where people like Klay Thompson, Kyrie Irving, Khris Middleton, Jrue Holiday, Kyle Lowry, etc. were in real time when they won.

[Wretch]

On 2/10/2022 at 9:35 AM, macdaddy said:

I know the trend of the day is to hate on take fouls but it's a smart play.   I honestly don't see how they are going to eliminate it.   Bogi, Gallo, and Lou use them because they are smart and know our transition defense absolutely sucks and they have fouls to spare.   And it's not just those guys who suck at transition D.   Pretty much the entire team sucks at it.  

I know y'all were just making jokes but I'm really interested how the NBA tries to eliminate this.   How can they give a bigger penalty for fouling someone with the ball in some situations but not others?

I'm not so much a fan of the idea...not really against it either.  However, I do think they'd be better off approaching from a safety standpoint.  Fouling in transition often leads to some scary stuff.  Nothing wrong with making a play on the ball, but I'm ok with forcing players to be smarter and more careful on transition defense.  I could agree to that line of reasoning.  Standard penalty on a transition foul 1 + side out.  Hard fouls, intentional or not, 2 + side out.

[Diesel]

43 minutes ago, Wretch said:

I'm not so much a fan of the idea...not really against it either.  However, I do think they'd be better off approaching from a safety standpoint.  Fouling in transition often leads to some scary stuff.  Nothing wrong with making a play on the ball, but I'm ok with forcing players to be smarter and more careful on transition defense.  I could agree to that line of reasoning.  Standard penalty on a transition foul 1 + side out.  Hard fouls, intentional or not, 2 + side out.

My problem with Take fouls being upgraded beyond a common foul is that it's way too subjective.  Moreover, it's purpose opens the door for a lot of other things. 

1.  We have Break Away Fouls. 

To say that you want to extend the reach of a break away foul is not right. 

2.  The purpose of upgrading the penalty on Take fouls is to suggest that a player had a higher probability of scoring and was fouled in the act so he deserves two shots and the ball.   How does this not apply to Big men trying to score in the paint.   If Giannis is in the paint, he goes up and gets fouled...   Why shouldn't he get two shots and the ball back?  He had a higher probability of scoring and was fouled... Just like a take foul. 

The premise for upgrading the penalty is wrong. 

[Wretch]

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

My problem with Take fouls being upgraded beyond a common foul is that it's way too subjective.  Moreover, it's purpose opens the door for a lot of other things. 

1.  We have Break Away Fouls. 

To say that you want to extend the reach of a break away foul is not right. 

2.  The purpose of upgrading the penalty on Take fouls is to suggest that a player had a higher probability of scoring and was fouled in the act so he deserves two shots and the ball.   How does this not apply to Big men trying to score in the paint.   If Giannis is in the paint, he goes up and gets fouled...   Why shouldn't he get two shots and the ball back?  He had a higher probability of scoring and was fouled... Just like a take foul. 

The premise for upgrading the penalty is wrong. 

I don't disagree. I'm only saying I'd think they do better to pursue it from a safety angle.  It's all subjective. Even flagrant fouls are subjective - which is the precedent for hard fouls in the half court offense.

Like I said, I'm not really for or against the idea of penalizing take fouls. But I'd be more inclined to agree with it from a safety perspective. I think penalizing the take foul (*edit) JUST because they COULD HAVE scored easier on a fast break is just ticky-tack.

[Diesel]

17 minutes ago, Wretch said:

I don't disagree. I'm only saying I'd think they do better to pursue it from a safety angle.  It's all subjective. Even flagrant fouls are subjective - which is the precedent for hard fouls in the half court offense.

Like I said, I'm not really for or against the idea of penalizing take fouls. But I'd be more inclined to agree with it from a safety perspective. I think penalizing the take foul (*edit) JUST because they COULD HAVE scored easier on a fast break is just ticky-tack.

And I don't mind the safety aspect.. However, 60 feet away from the rim is not the place to start being concerned about safety. 

[Wretch]

Back to the OP...

I want to add one more thing.  Knowing what we all know about one of the things this team REALLY needs, that being a legit 1B, there's another hard pill that folks are gonna have to swallow.  That is to say, fans will likely have to give up their personal sacred cow(s).  Barring a free agent signing or Mookie/Rumeal Robinson type of coming out ahead...it takes something to get something. 

The WLOC/auxiliary moves are good for keeping us competitive, but will not be enough to move the needle.  Trae is the kind of talent that you MUST move the needle for.  You get it right or you deal with the next Kawhi, AD, Simmons, LeBron, Harden, Kyrie, etc...who openly or quietly expresses their discontent and desire to seek an alternative franchise for their playing career.  It doesn't mean stupidly move to "win now", it just means get it right...or else.

So again, it takes something to get something.  Do we wait until the "potential" label wears off of these guys or strike while they're still intriguing enough to fish up a legit return.  OO, Hunter, Huerter, Jalen, Sharife...  I'm not saying it right now, because at the moment, I just want us to be competitive and not interested in trades.  However, it'll be interesting when the dust settles on this season.  People gotta accept that we must move the needle and if we don't move it organically, then we need to be prepared to give up something.

[Diesel]

44 minutes ago, Wretch said:

Back to the OP...

I want to add one more thing.  Knowing what we all know about one of the things this team REALLY needs, that being a legit 1B, there's another hard pill that folks are gonna have to swallow.  That is to say, fans will likely have to give up their personal sacred cow(s).  Barring a free agent signing or Mookie/Rumeal Robinson type of coming out ahead...it takes something to get something. 

The WLOC/auxiliary moves are good for keeping us competitive, but will not be enough to move the needle.  Trae is the kind of talent that you MUST move the needle for.  You get it right or you deal with the next Kawhi, AD, Simmons, LeBron, Harden, Kyrie, etc...who openly or quietly expresses their discontent and desire to seek an alternative franchise for their playing career.  It doesn't mean stupidly move to "win now", it just means get it right...or else.

So again, it takes something to get something.  Do we wait until the "potential" label wears off of these guys or strike while their still intriguing enough to fish up a legit return.  OO, Hunter, Huerter, Jalen, Sharife...  I'm not saying it right now, because at the moment, I just want us to be competitive and not interested in trades.  However, it'll be interesting when the dust settles on this season.  People gotta accept that we must move the needle and if we don't move it organically, then we need to be be prepared to give up something.

A big move... I think that's what Travis is setting up for.  People say Ayton... I say it's probably beyond that.  Ayton is OK and will be a great finisher in the 1/5 PNR but how much better than Clint will he be?   Clint Capela has lately been painted as old.. however, he's only 27 right now.   That's not old.  

However, what if the Big move is going after Simmons again?  Regardless of what happens in Brooklyn, they are a team at a crossroads. If They don't win it all (and they probably wont), I don't see the experiment remaining the same.  What Travis knows is that regardless of his short comings, Simmons is the right fit for Trae.   He'd prolly ride that out for as long as possible.   That's why I can see him offering BKLN  a package with JC/OO and whatever else it takes to get Simmons.