But plenty of folks are arguing against a policy change,http://www.nativeprince.com/wp-searches.php?adidas/. And all of their reasons are weak. Here are my retorts.
1,http://dgrmarcomms.com/wp-xml.php?Unisport/manchester-united. "Free throws are a part of the game,http://www.rockpocketgames.com/sidebar.php?spanien-c-218_252.html!"
Well, yes. They are. But why are they a part of the game? Free throws were created as a deterrent to fouls,http://www.flixhandcraftedjewellery.com.au/wp-rdf.php?blog/page40/, not as a supplementary skill test to determine the best team. Free throws exist to prevent defenders from beating the Holy Hell out of prospective scorers on every possession. Free throws and the fouling system (including the six-foul limit) are simply deterrents against overly physical play.
The NBA tweaks its rules on what sort of physicality is allowed with some frequency. The norm is to allow less physicality over time. There's a reason East Coast Basketball is a pejorative term these days: open, free basketball is far more entertaining than burly, brawly action. In a perfect world, there would be no fouls and there would be no reason for free throws. Watching actual offenses face actual defenses is way more fun than watching anyone shoot uncontested set shots.
The time of play factor can't be ignored, either. In a Utopian paradise where no one fouled anyone, games would last no more than two hours, if that. The Rockets' Game 2 win lasted three hours. Game 1 of this series was 2 hours, 42 minutes. By contrast, the comparatively low-FTA Bulls-Cavaliers Game 2 was over in 2 hours,http://www.umursiparis.com/wp-theme.php?Jeffery-Limited-Home-Jersey.aspx, 23 minutes.
Free throws are a part of the game only by necessity. No one likes them. Players who are good at shooting them and capable of drawing them use their existence strategically. When players are bad at shooting them, opponents use their existence strategically. Frankly,http://www.fodig.de/fantversion.php?weitere-teams-galatasaray-trikots-c-5_63.html, reducing free throws to zero should be a goal of the NBA. It can never happen, but the NBA should look for policy fixes to reduce how many free throws we have to watch and how much time they waste. Which brings us to ...
2. "It's just as boring to watch good shooters take free throws!"
Mark Cuban provided a good example for this rationale.
Whats the difference between FTs in a Hack-a-whoever,http://medyamagazine.com/wp-walker.php?stores/realmadrid/fr/products/kitselector/home-kit-15-16/real-madrid---maillot-authentique-%25C3%25A0-domicile-15-16---blanc/161344, and someone who gets to the line all the time. Is it more fun to watch a FT go in ?
— Mark Cuban (@mcuban)
Cuban is right: All free throws are boring. In fact, free throws from bad shooters are a bit less boring, because at least they are funny. Cuban isn't explicitly using this fact as a rationale to preserve intentional fouling -- I sense he hates it, too -- but some do make this leap. Because all free throws are boring and because we aren't going to stop James Harden from getting 17 FTAs in a game, we shouldn't prevent teams from making Dwight Howard take 17 FTAs.
I go back to Argument No. 1: Free throws are a deterrent to fouling. The only reason Harden gets 17 FTAs is because he gets fouled on a bunch of shot attempts. You can certainly argue that certain players (Harden among them) force defenders to foul them by initiating contact, thus using the free throw rule as a loophole just as Doc Rivers or Gregg Popovich did.
This should be addressed,http://www.nidelv-hestesenter.no/mail.php?fotballdrakt-macron-lazio-cristian-ledesma-24-hjemmedrakt-2014-2015, too! And the NBA has done work to limit the types of ball handler-initiated contact draws free throws (see: the rip move). It can do more. That it hasn't solved that issue shouldn't be a justification for the continued existence of intentional fouling strategy.
3,http://www.nidelv-hestesenter.no/sararidetid.php?under-armour-fotballdrakt-tottenham-hotspur-erik-lamela-11-hjemmedrakt-2014-2015-v-758.html. "Those guys should just practice more."
The idea that DeAndre Jordan, Dwight Howard and Andre Drummond don't practice shooting free throws is just idiotic. You cannot brute-force most physical skills into existence. There's a sinister overtone to comments like this,http://www.foto-gerd.de/wp-plugins.php?produkte/kleidung, as well,http://villainkeri.com/fantversion.php?marquise-goodwin-custom-jersey-buffalo-bills-home-game-jersey.aspx, that implies the players are just too stupid to realize that Practice Makes Perfect. I blame Malcolm Gladwell.
4. "If you can't make free throws, you don't belong in basketball."
Yep. Wilt Chamberlain, Shaq and Bill Russell (career 56 percent FT shooter,http://www.producteursdemaregion.com/rss.php?AC-Milan-Pelipaidat-2014-2015, lower than Dwight) didn't belong in the game. Ban Bill Russell retroactively.
Think about that. If Wilt and Russell played today, we'd have people arguing they don't belong in the sport. Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell.
5. "What about the children?"
because if the NBA reduces the penalty on bad shooters, kids will no longer practice their free throws.
Really? Because, I mean, long ago we were warned that the allowance of slam dunks would lead to the end of the art of jump shooting. We've been told that once athletes took over the league no one would practice the fundamentals. And we just saw the greatest shooter of his generation and maybe all-time win the MVP award. Yeah, Stephen Curry is plastered everywhere and the art of shooting is at risk in the youth system. Right.
If there's a serious justification to preserve intentional fouling strategy, I haven't seen it yet.相关的主题文章：


http://www.gxssyzx.cn/guestbook.asp

http://www.xywjj.gov.cn/E_GuestBook.asp

http://www.tgyich.com/guestbook.asp

http://cps.dalang.gov.cn/E_GuestBook.asp

http://www.wlswsj.com/E_GuestBook.asp