NBA Playoffs: Exploring the merits of “Hack-a-Shaq”
With a number of players emerging as targets of the “Hack-a-Shaq” strategy, namely DeAndre Jordan and Dwight Howard, in the thick of the playoffs, we take a look at its positives and negatives.
Late in Game 7 of the Clippers-Spurs first round series, Los Angeles Clippers head coach Doc Rivers faced a difficult decision. He had his center DeAndre Jordan in the game, there to collect key rebounds and protect the rim. He also had his center DeAndre Jordan in the game, to shoot .397 from the free throw line. He could either keep Jordan in the game and risk the possibility of intentional fouls (and losses of possession), or take him out, play small ball and lose the edge in rebounding and shot blocking.
More from Houston Rockets
- 3 potential James Harden suitors not named the Clippers
- Cam Whitmore already starting revenge tour after draft-night fall
- NBA Rumors: Heat lowball Blazers, Lakers spoil Summer League, Brooks gets crazy
- NBA free agency: The 3 biggest losers in this offseason so far
- The new NBA flopping rules explained
Rivers decided to take Jordan out of the game, and as most who have been following the NBA know, the gamble paid off in a 111-109 Clippers victory. But he was so worried about Jordan’s foul shooting that he was willing to risk giving up his best hope for rebounding.
DeAndre Jordan was a constant victim of “Hack-a-DeAndre”, a.k.a. “Hack-a-Jordan”, “Hack-a-DJ”, “Hack-a-DAJ”, “hakadaj” or whatever people chose to call it that day. More commonly, Jordan was the victim of “Hack-a-Shaq”.
Very briefly, Hack-a-Shaq is when a team tries to impede the scoring of an opponent by repeatedly fouling their worst free throw shooter. Eventually, when the poor shooter’s team enters the bonus and is
forced into the hardship
granted the opportunity to shoot two free throws, the poor shooter inevitably misses and the team that committed the foul gets the ball back.
Hack-a-Shaq has a long history. It was used on Wilt Chamberlain in his heyday, and got its name from Shaquille O’Neal, who saw it used on him for the sake of laughter as well as basketball.
The tradition lives on in today’s NBA, where in the playoffs two prominent players are the victims. Jordan, along with Houston Rockets center Dwight Howard, are constantly on the receiving end of fouls clearly designed to get them to the line as fast as possible. In Sunday’s 128-95 Clippers victory over the Rockets, Jordan shot 34 free throws. He made 14.
However, a debate has emerged about the merits of having such a policy in place. Does Hack-a-Shaq reward practice and discipline, or does it obstruct the game?
A few reasons why “Hack-a-Shaq” is a good thing
The argument in favor of Hack-a-Shaq primarily boils down to one point: PLAYERS NEED TO MAKE THEIR DANG FREE THROWS. These players are paid millions of dollars to be the peak of their profession. There is no excuse to be bad at something that not only is an integral part of the sport, but would prevent you from hurting your team in key situations.
Many players have practiced for long hours to try to perfect their free throw shooting, and can do it well in practice without ever performing well in games. Dwight Howard was a 92% free throw shooter over the course of 900 free throws at Lakers practice.
However, the fact that he gets nervous in games is not the fault of the concept of free throw shooting. It’s his own deficiency.
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver recently brought up the fact that he has been bombarded with emails from youth coaches.
Adam Silver told us he has received e-mails from youth coaches begging him not to take away Hack-a-Shaq. They want kids 2 learn 2 shoot FTs.
— Ethan J. Skolnick, 5 Reasons Sports (@EthanJSkolnick) May 3, 2015
Devaluing Hack-a-Shaq devalues the free throw, and that will trickle down to the youth levels. Hack-a-Shaq can embarrass the youth players into being more diligent and disciplined in practice. Embarrassing children for its own sake is already commendable but if Hack-a-Shaq also makes them better basketball players, then it needs to be preserved.
There is also a sneaky benefit to keeping Hack-a-Shaq: it creates its own type of suspense. A previously routine operation becomes an experimental procedure performed by a med school student. Each free throw that this player takes becomes its own little mini-drama.
Can he hit them to prove his opponents wrong and keep his team ahead? Or will he miss it and alienate his teammates while confirming all of the worries of his fan base? If anything it will make the game closer.
A few reasons why “Hack-a-Shaq” is a bad thing
The primary point in favor of removing Hack-a-Shaq is the idea that it isn’t something that organically grew from the game of basketball. Hack-a-Shaq is an example of coaches finding a loophole in the rules and exploiting them for all its worth, then crying foul when the league tries to close that loophole.
Hack-a-Shaq goes against the principle design of the bonus. The entire purpose of the bonus is to discourage the fouling team from continuing to foul, but when Hack-a-Shaq is employed, the fouling team is incentivized to operate outside of the bounds of basketball. The fouling team gets the likely benefit of possession later, and they get to control the clock. It is a basketball strategy to temporarily not play basketball.
Obviously, Hack-a-Shaq makes the game less entertaining. It slows down the pace of the game, and it does so in a much more frustrating way than regular fouls. Whereas accidental fouls are the result of poor play, the intentional foul is purposely making the game less enjoyable. The players have to go through the formality of taking shots, and the inevitability of misses and then more fouls.
It is harder to justify eliminating intentional fouls near the end of the game, as those fouls are an essential strategy for teams coming back, but the full-game Hack-a-Shaq strategy is simply taking advantage of a loophole in the NBA rules.
The rules of the league are not carved in stone. They were not decreed by the etherial spirit of James Naismith. The best way to interpret change in the basketball rulebook is liberally. The game of basketball is a fluid thing, something that has changed significantly over the years to morph into what it is today. Until the ABA formed, there was no three-point line. For the first few years of basketball, there was no dribbling.
Why did all of these rule changes take place? They were introduced to increase the game’s entertainment. There is no sacrilege in changing the rules unless it makes the sport more boring.
How does the NBA fix “Hack-a-Shaq”?
A few solutions have been offered up to eliminate the Hack-a-Shaq strategy, and here are two:
- The simplest and most elegant solution would be to give the victim team an option to decline an off-the-ball foul and inbound the basketball with at least 14 seconds on the shot clock. This replicates their reward for a non-shooting foul before they landed into the bonus, and makes the bonus an optional choice to take. Not only does it discourage the practice of intentionally fouling entirely, but it also finds a way to punish the poor free throw shooter. If the free throw shooter is good (above 80%), a team would prefer to have that player take two free throws rather than inbound the ball with 14 seconds. A poor shooter from the stripe forces the team to take the second option, and therefore leaves points on the board. Granted, the penalty isn’t as harsh as forcing the poor shooter to shoot. This option bonus rule would have to be removed from the last two or three minutes of the game to allow coaches to come back from behind.
- Another solution would be to treat the intentional away-from-the-ball foul like a technical foul, in that the victim team gets to chose who shoots the free throw. This can apply to two free throws that can have contested rebounding or 1 uncontested rebound and possession of the ball, although the second is too generous. The problem is that this completely protects the poor foul shooter. For the most part, a player can afford to be a 40% foul shooter, which gives them a fundamental hole in their game. This solution makes foul shooting a role, like three-point shooting or shot-blocking, rather than an essential piece to any NBA player, like jump shooting or basic passing.
Do we even need to remove “Hack-a-Shaq”?
Of course, there are only a handful of players to whom this rule applies during the regular season. There are only two players in the playoffs with heavy usage that Hack-a-Shaq applies to: Howard and Jordan. The Hack-a-Shaq strategy is beneficial only in outlying situations, when a player is such a bad foul shooter that he hurts his team simply by approaching the charity stripe.
With that being said, the NBA should find a way to eliminate Hack-a-Shaq. There are other issues in the NBA that are more pressing, like tanking, flopping or poor officiating, that permeate the league and need to be addressed sooner. But the practice of Hack-a-Shaq goes against the fundamental idea of the rules of basketball. The rules that equip intentional fouling were designed to punish the fouling team, not reward them. Upholding Hack-a-Shaq supports the letter of the law, but not the spirit.