Drummond misses record

Last night, in only 23 minutes of play, Andre Drummond was sent to the foul line for 36 free throw attempts. He made 13 0f them. Howard holds the modern record of 39, accomplished twice, but it took him 38 minutes in one game and 43 minutes in the other to rack up those attempts. Ugly game for sure but at least the home team ( Pistons ) won. The Rocket fans must be livid with their teams underachieving performances over the first half of the season.

swish

What's more interesting is Drummond SET the record tonight by MISSING 23 free throws in the game shooting 13 for 36:

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/caldwell-pope-scores-22-pistons-beat-rockets-123-040237872--nba.html

This also caught my eye:

Harden's big game made him the first player to have at least 33 points, 17 rebounds and 14 assists in a game since Chamberlain had 53 points, 32 rebounds and 14 assists for Philadelphia against the Lakers on March 18, 1968, according to statistics provided by the Rockets from the Elias Sports Bureau.

Things you probably won't see again anytime soon:

KJ McDaniels accumulated 5 fouls in 9 seconds of playing time.

Drummond missed 23 free throws in exactly 23 minutes.

Sounds like someone needs to hire a free throw coach! Didn't Steve Kerr used to do that?!

db

steve3344 wrote:Things you probably won't see again anytime soon:

KJ McDaniels accumulated 5 fouls in 9 seconds of playing time.

Drummond missed 23 free throws in exactly 23 minutes.

Weird game for sure. Lousy way to get your name in the record book.

swish

Although still legal in the NBA, this approach needs to be corrected.

Watching this big guy march to the free throw line so many times last night was like watching the pitcher bat in the National League or waiting to cheer for the manager to make the ever tantalizingly exciting 'double switch' (also in the National League). How do you correctly spell "booo-orrrrrrriiiiiinnnnnningggggggg"?

I've been an advocate for years of giving the fouled team the option, on all non shooting fouls, the option of shooting or keeping possession. It would probably be resisted by the coaching fraternity simply because it would place considerable pressure on a coach being forced to make a tough decision at key moments in a game.

swish

Perhaps it would be even better to follow the lead of football in regards to maintaining possession after a yardage penalty is enforced. On all one shot fouls simply take the shot and retain possession of the ball even when the shot is made. Even football gives the offended team the right of refusal.

swish

swish wrote:I've been an advocate for years of giving the fouled team the option, on all non shooting fouls, the option of shooting or keeping possession. It would probably be resisted by the coaching fraternity simply because it would place considerable pressure on a coach being forced to make a tough decision at key moments in a game.

swish

The big problem with this is that the game would virtually be over with less than 24 seconds left in the game.
When a team is down in a close game they need to foul to stop the clock and hope for missed free throws.
If the team in the lead can refuse the foul shots and just keep possession, the team that is down would have to hope for a 5 second violation on an in bounds pass or a steal on an inbounds pass. I could see it turning into a joke where the team in the lead keeps getting fouled and has to in bound the ball 5, 6 or more times in a row.

If they want to change the Hack-a-whoever rules, that's fine, but I don't want the NBA to make wholesale changes to the foul rules.

This is an intentional foul, not a normal foul during regular play. The way to end it is free throws AND possession. If the ball comes to the horrific free throw shooter during normal play, hack the crap out of him.

db

tjmakz wrote:

swish wrote:I've been an advocate for years of giving the fouled team the option, on all non shooting fouls, the option of shooting or keeping possession. It would probably be resisted by the coaching fraternity simply because it would place considerable pressure on a coach being forced to make a tough decision at key moments in a game.

swish

The big problem with this is that the game would virtually be over with less than 24 seconds left in the game.
When a team is down in a close game they need to foul to stop the clock and hope for missed free throws.
If the team in the lead can refuse the foul shots and just keep possession, the team that is down would have to hope for a 5 second violation on an in bounds pass or a steal on an inbounds pass. I could see it turning into a joke where the team in the lead keeps getting fouled and has to in bound the ball 5, 6 or more times in a row.

If they want to change the Hack-a-whoever rules, that's fine, but I don't want the NBA to make wholesale changes to the foul rules.

In a later post I suggested that that the penalty plus the ball might be a better solution.
Back in the 50's and 60's foul shots were taken even on the 1st non shooting foul. As a result it was a steady parade to the foul line and as a result there were on average about 72 free throw attempts per game. Now the average is about 43 per game. And for the good of the game, just like they did in 1954 when they added the 24 second clock, they made a wholesale rules change in 1972-73, and eliminated the free throw until the 5th foul was committed. A major reduction in free throw attempts resulted. The penalty plus the ball works in the NFL. Maybe it would work in the NBA.

swish

swish wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

swish wrote:I've been an advocate for years of giving the fouled team the option, on all non shooting fouls, the option of shooting or keeping possession. It would probably be resisted by the coaching fraternity simply because it would place considerable pressure on a coach being forced to make a tough decision at key moments in a game.

swish

The big problem with this is that the game would virtually be over with less than 24 seconds left in the game.
When a team is down in a close game they need to foul to stop the clock and hope for missed free throws.
If the team in the lead can refuse the foul shots and just keep possession, the team that is down would have to hope for a 5 second violation on an in bounds pass or a steal on an inbounds pass. I could see it turning into a joke where the team in the lead keeps getting fouled and has to in bound the ball 5, 6 or more times in a row.

If they want to change the Hack-a-whoever rules, that's fine, but I don't want the NBA to make wholesale changes to the foul rules.

In a later post I suggested that that the penalty plus the ball might be a better solution.
    Back in the 50's and 60's foul shots were taken even on the 1st non shooting foul. As a result it was a steady parade to the foul line and as a result there were on average about 72 free throw attempts per game. Now the average is about 43 per game. And for the good of the game, just like they did in 1954 when they added the 24 second clock, they made a wholesale rules change in 1972-73, and eliminated the free throw until the 5th foul was committed. A major reduction in free throw attempts resulted. The penalty plus the ball works in the NFL.  Maybe it would work in the NBA.

swish

What would they do with less than 24 seconds left in the game?
It is not a fair comparison to the NFL. A team keeps the ball no matter what penalty is called on either team.

Other than some tweaks to the hack-a-whoever rules, why do we need to change anything about fouls?
To my knowledge, changes to the standard foul rules has not been a focus at all of the Competition Committee.

There are lots of possible solutions. Having any player on the floor, not just the fouled player, take the free throws for off-the-ball fouls is another. But the league has to do something. This is being taken to circus-like proportions.

I think this should be handled by applying the intentional foul rule where free throw are taken and the team gets the ball as well except in the last 2 minutes of the 2nd and 4th quarters.

If a guy cannot make free throws that is the team's problem.

dboss

tjmakz wrote:

swish wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

swish wrote:I've been an advocate for years of giving the fouled team the option, on all non shooting fouls, the option of shooting or keeping possession. It would probably be resisted by the coaching fraternity simply because it would place considerable pressure on a coach being forced to make a tough decision at key moments in a game.

swish

The big problem with this is that the game would virtually be over with less than 24 seconds left in the game.
When a team is down in a close game they need to foul to stop the clock and hope for missed free throws.
If the team in the lead can refuse the foul shots and just keep possession, the team that is down would have to hope for a 5 second violation on an in bounds pass or a steal on an inbounds pass. I could see it turning into a joke where the team in the lead keeps getting fouled and has to in bound the ball 5, 6 or more times in a row.

If they want to change the Hack-a-whoever rules, that's fine, but I don't want the NBA to make wholesale changes to the foul rules.

In a later post I suggested that that the penalty plus the ball might be a better solution.
    Back in the 50's and 60's foul shots were taken even on the 1st non shooting foul. As a result it was a steady parade to the foul line and as a result there were on average about 72 free throw attempts per game. Now the average is about 43 per game. And for the good of the game, just like they did in 1954 when they added the 24 second clock, they made a wholesale rules change in 1972-73, and eliminated the free throw until the 5th foul was committed. A major reduction in free throw attempts resulted. The penalty plus the ball works in the NFL.  Maybe it would work in the NBA.

swish

What would they do with less than 24 seconds left in the game?
It is not a fair comparison to the NFL. A team keeps the ball no matter what penalty is called on either team.

Other than some tweaks to the hack-a-whoever rules, why do we need to change anything about fouls?
To my knowledge, changes to the standard foul rules has not been a focus at all of the Competition Committee.

I think that its a very valid comparison. In the nfl, if time is running out, the only option for the defense is to play for a turnover. I'd be happy with that same scenario in the last 24 seconds of a basketball game. But I'm sure that others wouldn't.

swish

My solution would be only put players on the floor who can make free throws. Coaches are figuring that out.

worcester wrote:My solution would be only put players on the floor who can make free throws. Coaches are figuring that out.

Thankfully you weren't coaching back in the 60's. Watching Boston vs Philadelphia with both Russ and Wilt on the bench. Unthinkable. See below link for an indication of how Russ and wilt fared, free throw percentage wise, against other talented big men down through the years. Right at the bottom of the barrel. Lousy to say the least.

swish

As I've said on many occasions, it makes no sense to me for a professional basketball player to make less than 75 percent of his free throws. I've been in the camp with those who think the solution is for these guys to make their free throws instead of giving in to players who refuse to learn how to properly shoot a free throw.

I've changed my mind. It's become clear to me that this problem isn't going away and is in fact getting worse -- much worse. It's making this one factor totally disrupt the game, and for those games where it does become a factor, it changes the basic nature of how basketball is played.

Over the course of its history, basketball's rules have changed many, many times. The rules -- even the court itself -- was changed based on the abilities of George Mikan and Wilt Chamberlain. The three-point shot was added from the ABA. Flagrant fouls were introduced, the restricted area under the rim, zone defenses. The list goes on and on.

The most similar situation I can think of is the shot clock. Before the 24-second clock, NBA play was slow and deliberate, and coaches would attempt to stall and run out the clock once they had a lead in the fourth quarter. The games weren't much fun to watch at that point, which is not good for a sport that requires paying fans. The introduction of the shot clock eliminated that problem and increased the overall pace of the game tremendously, games were far more entertaining to watch, and the speed and flow of the game was enhanced.

When I played in high school and college in the 1970's, there was no shot clock at those levels. I don't remember it being an issue in high school, but in college, it definitely was. We played one school that went into a four-corners stall any time they had a lead in the second half, and it totally changed the nature of the game. I remember asking the guy I was guarding, "Do you like playing like this?", and he just hung his head and didn't answer. It's a horrible way to play the game, but coaches had figured out a way to exploit the rules, so they did it.

Something had to be done, so the rules were changed. The first attempt was the five-second rule, where if a player with the ball was closely guarded for five seconds, it was a turnover. But that wasn't enough, and the stalling continued. The powers that be eventually gave in and introduced the shot clock, and despite their fears that teams wouldn't be able to get a good shot in the allotted time and that games would be full of shot-clock violations, teams adapted quickly, and the stalling problem was solved.

The hack-a-strategy is another instance where coaches have figured out how to exploit the rules. It would be great if these few guys could make their ~!@#$%^&* free throws, but that's not happening, and the nature of the game is being disrupted. Just like when coaches came up with stalling strategies, a rule change is in order. A new rule to stop this won't ruin the game, but letting this continue is definitely ruining some games and affecting the overall game.

I played ball back in the late 40's, long before the DH in baseball, and several years before 2 platoon football and shot clock basketball changes were made. as a fan I have never felt short changed because of those early league decisions. Football probably leads the way when it comes to dealing with the issues of the day and look at its popularity. Like I pointed out earlier, they have already made a major change in the free throw shooting rule and I think its high time for another.

swish

Guess I'm a bit of a hold out.

No reason to reward a clanker with a rule change to reward bad foul shooting. I would not care to watch it but really can't come up with a rule that doesn't solve the issue.....perhaps after the 7th foul each quarter make the value of a foul shot go to 2 points. At least then the nitwit going to the line has to only make 50%.

Listened to The Sr Rick Barry on a call in show on the way home last eve, he said these guys need to shoot underhanded so as to get the ball on the rim softer. It did work somewhat better for Wilt in his day. Not sure but Barry might have been the last one to shoot them that way.

Be interesting if some change is being considered and just what that might be.

beat

Hey Swish

At least you did have to get the ball out of the peach basket back then

beat

beat wrote:Hey Swish

At least you did have to get the ball out of the peach basket back then

beat

A Peach basket would have been a gift from heaven. Neither I or any of my friends ever owned a basketball or basket. We nailed a couple planks to a tree and then nailed any sturdy type hoop that we could find to the tree. A beach ball, size was never a factor, was our game ball.

I could never ever find the right words to describe just how primitive the game of basketball was back in those days. I live across the street from a school that has an outdoor court and when I watch those young 9 and 10 year olds doing things with a basketball that we never even dreamed about I cry with envy. One of these days I'll put down in detail what the game was really like in those early years.

swish

swish wrote:

beat wrote:Hey Swish

At least you did have to get the ball out of the peach basket back then

beat

A Peach basket would have been a gift from heaven.  Neither I or any of my friends ever owned a basketball or basket. We nailed a couple planks to a tree and then nailed any sturdy type hoop that we could find to the tree. A beach ball, size was never a factor, was our game ball.

I could never ever find the right words to describe just how primitive the game of basketball was back in those days. I live across the street from a school that has an outdoor court and when I watch those  young 9 and 10 year olds doing things with a basketball that we never even dreamed about I cry with envy. One of these days I'll put down in detail what the game was really like in those early years.

 swish

swish,

I look forward to reading that.


bob


.

Swish

Growing up on a dairy farm we had a hay mow/loft over the cows. Back in the day my dad put a basket up. I painted the foul lines and lanes on the floor. Hoop was only about 9'6" as I wanted to be able to touch the rim. You could shoot a normal arched 15 footer from almost any where and a little further than that straight out. Anything over 22 feet or so had to be a clothesline type shot or you would hit the rafters. And that could be the end of it cause there were nails sticking out of them. Had to be careful to close the hay chutes where we threw the hay down. Of course the entire mow was full of hay at the end of haying season so we had to wait a couple months into the winter to be able to begin to play up there. No heat but you learned to shoot with gloves on and it was a little on the dark side too with one 100 watt bulb attached to a rafter above the basket.

Had a lot of games up there with the neighborhood kids. Few cuts and bruises cause there were posts and other obstructions in the way. Broke a few pair of glasses up there but had some great memories.

beat

beat

And a good time was had by all. Improvisation was the name of the game back then. Make due with what you had to work with. When I look back an think about how happy I was then I realize it was because I had nothing better to compare it to. I'm not so sure that I would feel the same way if I were to go back in time but had to leave behind all my creature comforts.

swish