Skip to main content

"Hack-a-player" is only entertaining to Mark Cuban

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has recently spoken out on the "hack-a-player" strategy, saying he's changed his mind on the matter, and after the season, it's quite possible we could see a rule change regarding the matter.

He elaborated, saying, "At the end of the day, we are an entertainment property, and it's clear when you're in the arena that fans are looking at me shrugging their shoulders with that look saying, "Aren't you going to do something about this?'"

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban appears to disagree with Silver, as he recently uttered the following:

- "Will they leave him in or leave him out? How do both teams feel about it? How will they foul? Is it a new creative way, or is it just chasing? ... Does he make the free throws? If he makes one or two, will they do so again? Did the strategy work?"

- "We have to realize that the number of basketball purists that aren't in the media is probably under 1,000 people globally. There is no special basketball beauty in walking the ball up the court and dribbling around the perimeter. Will we change that too?"

- "[Parents could spend time] watching the shots and telling your kids why practice matters and how amazing it is that they can do something that an NBA player can't.

Will a 7-foot man try to run and escape a foul so he doesn't have to do what so many 12-year-olds do in games every day?"

Cuban insinuated that the "hack-a-player" strategy is both fascinating and entertaining. I don't know what the Dallas owner is watching, but I'm definitely on Commissioner Silver's side here. It's one thing for a team to intentionally foul a poor foul shooter toward the end of a game. It's quite another for this to be a team's "strategy" for 48 minutes, and there's absolutely nothing fascinating nor entertaining about a team intentionally fouling a poor free throw shooter for the entire duration of a game. That's not basketball. That doesn't even qualify as "strategy" as far as I'm concerned, for what kind of intellect does it take for a well-paid coach to tell his guys, "Okay, for 48 minutes, we're going to be alternating guys when we're on defense to foul their poorest free throw shooter. Why? Because they always seem to beat us and I've given up trying to outsmart their coach. Yes, this is why they're paying me the big money"?

Personally, I like Pardon The Interruption co-host Tony Kornheiser's idea regarding the matter. He recently suggested that the "hack-a-player" strategy should result in a team being rewarded free throws and the ball back during the first 45 minutes of a game, but for it to be legal in the final 3 minutes. This would likely result in a significant drop in intentional fouls for a large majority of the game, yet wouldn't completely do away with it either. Mark Cuban can believe whatever he'd like, but I and many other fans are going to change the channel if we're subjected to "hack-a-player" games, ticketholders will feel ripped off, and the league will lose fans and money unless a change is made. If the Mavericks owner doesn't believe me, perhaps he should go around asking die-hard NBA fans this question: "To you, what's more entertaining, watching Shaquille O'Neal shoot 40 free throws in a game, or writing the words 'paint dry' with the slowest drying paint ever created and actually watching it do so?"

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/14725623/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks-owner-says-nba-leaving-hacking-strategy-place

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2614428-mark-cuban-comments-on-potential-hack-a-shaq-rule-changes

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"