Two-point free throws? It could happen.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/a-report-reveals-that-nba-basketball-officials-have-discussed-eliminating-extra-free-throws-to-save-time-194515593.html


A report reveals that NBA basketball officials have discussed eliminating extra free throws to save time

By Kelly Dwyer
October 1, 2014 3:45 PM
Ball Don't Lie


I wasn’t aware that the NBA was in danger of losing fans because the product wasn’t moving along quickly enough, but perhaps I’ve been watching games incorrectly. In comparison to the NFL’s mindless and brain-altering slugfests and Major League Baseball’s endless Great Day Out, the NBA seems rather wonderfully-paced. It may fall short of the NHL when it comes to nonstop end to end action, but then again this (fantastic, we love the NHL) sport features low scoring contests and 36 minutes’ worth of intermissions.

ESPN’s Kevin Arnovitz recently revealed that some within the NBA’s ranks have suggested eliminating the decades-old standard of awarding two free throws for either a shooting foul, or a personal foul committed by a team that is over the quarter’s penalty limit. The change would shorten game lengths, purportedly giving fans a faster product with shorter standing-around breaks while relieving the overall time of game of a few extra minutes.

From Arnovitz’s piece:

Around last season’s All-Star break, preliminary chatter began among the league’s basketball operations folks and rule geeks about the prospect of reducing all trips to the free-throw line to a single foul shot. D-League president Dan Reed and Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey were the closest thing to co-sponsors of a bill. Nobody was proposing anything to be fast-tracked, but an imperative to figure out ways to shorten pro basketball games gave the idea some life as something to consider implementing in the D-League.

The concept was this: A player fouled in the act of shooting or in a penalty situation would attempt only a single free throw. If that player was shooting a 2-point shot or in a penalty situation at the time of the foul, the free throw attempt would be worth two points. If that player was fouled in the act of launching a 3-point shot, he’d go to the line for a single shot worth three points.

By Kevin’s estimation, overall free throws would be relieved by nearly half, and the game time would be cut by five minutes. A radical, game-changing ploy created to merely cut five minutes off of the total package.

OK, “radical” may not be the best choice of words. By any sensible account, free throw percentages would stay nearly the same, as would points per contest and overall efficiency. Arnovitz went on to note that free throw shooters generally perform better on their second free throw attempt, so while free throw percentages would dip slightly, it wouldn’t cause a huge shift in the long run.

That “second free throw” anecdote is important, though. It’s true that effectively taking a practice free throw on the first attempt helps settle your stroke and help you find that muscle memory on your way toward better percentages, but the another strong benefit is the fact that time spent at the line also allows for a bit of rest after competing on both ends of the ball. There’s a reason NBA players try to grab the rebound after a made or missed first free throw and hold onto the ball, and there’s a reason NBA free throw shooters back off of the line after the initial shot and take part in needless fist bumps or low fives.

It’s to delay the game. And the reason they’re delaying the game is because the game is tiring, and they need some rest.

Arnovitz doesn’t shy away from this realization in his very good feature, but it boggles as to why the executives he mentioned and even quoted on record aren’t running away as fast as they can from changes like this, more than aware of the fact that they players they employ and/or oversee are expected to run as fast as they can while dragging Lanier and Walton up and down the court for 48 minutes a night.

If those worries were expressed, they weren’t quoted, but the mere consideration by these current and former basketball executives (two men with basketball minds we respect greatly) is enough to allow us to wonder about why they’d want to do away with the current free throw format. The NBA already dropped the ball in declining to extend the calendar length of a season, forcing more and more back-to-back nights in exchange for a proper All-Star “break,” and rest is always at a premium. Whether it’s on a plane, in a hotel mid-afternoon, or while catching your breath during an in-game whistle stop.

Free throw breaks in action also allow for coaches to call plays, teammates to confer on defensive assignments, and extended (and needed) calm communication between players and referees about a disputed call from a few possessions before. I promise that I’m not some crotchety old man (even though I am) ranting in attempts to defend the orthodoxy (even though I am). This stuff counts.

At times, the NBA game does drag, but there are ways around this.

The league has to stop putting pressure on its referees to treat each reviewed call as if the eventual decision can’t be sussed out in a manner of seconds. Refs don’t need to spend minutes looking at every conceivable angle in order to give the appearance of making a tough call, so as to avoid scorn from their supervisors after the game. This isn’t a Senate hearing, Senator Sam Ervin isn’t presiding as chair of the committee, and sometimes these calls are completely obvious within a matter of seconds. The league’s new centralized review location will help in this regard.

The league needs to not only award a free throw and the ball to teams that are fouled intentionally while on a fast break (as they already do), the NBA needs to also issue a delay of game penalty – this would result in two foul shots (the horror!) and the ball. This would hopefully, finally, dissuade coaches from instructing their players to foul in this instance, and finally convince players that their best chance at keeping the breakaway damage minimal is to actually run back and contest a shot – you know, a fun play in transition that is entertaining to watch.

Beyond that, the NBA has made a series of needed and intelligent rule changes over the last few years, messing with timeouts, timeout length, substitution rules, the delay of game penalty, and other end-of-game machinations in order to create a more entertaining watch. Just 15 years ago this league was full of Charles Barkley backdowns, illegal defense calls, hand-checking and endless delays. Today, the league is delivering a streamlined product that, despite some lingering flaws, remains fun to watch. You do remember last spring, don’t you?

And, honestly, who is complaining about the extra half-minute or more break in action that a second free throw demands? Get off that guy’s lawn, I’m guessing.

I’m not an NFL-styled NBA shill, I get plenty of angry emails from the league office, and I spent hours this season begging the league to make a much needed change in its approach to resting its players. Not because I’m worried about my good buddy LeBron James cramping, but because I’m worried that I may have to watch another close NBA Finals game that features a cramping LeBron James sitting on the bench. I’m a fan, and I want a good product.

Rest aides that product, and these people. Breaks in the action deliver rest in ways that don’t force a timeout that leads to me having to sit through commercials about car insurance. Leave the free throw setup as it is, NBA.

---


Intriguing idea to say the least. Now if they could get rid of that 3-point line...


KJ