Gripes with Sports Fans: Wishing for Injuries

     *Gripes with Sports Fans is a new weekly series where I discuss some of my biggest problems and pet peeves with sports fans, and attempt to explain why these issues are unreasonable or unacceptable.

     In game 4 of the NBA's Western Conference Finals on May 25, Warriors point guard and newly-chosen MVP Stephen Curry landed hard and awkwardly on his neck after attempting to block a shot from Trevor Ariza and flipping when Ariza pump faked when Curry wasn't expecting him to.  Curry lay head down on the court for several minutes after the freak accident, and later described the whole event as the scariest moment he'd ever experienced on the basketball court.  In a situation that could have resulted in severe injuries to Curry's neck, head, shoulder, elbow, or arm, the Baby-faced Assassin was lucky to escape with only a head contusion, and miraculously returned to the game after missing only a quarter of action, despite initial reports that he could have been out for the remainder of the series or longer.

     Curry's situation could easily have been much worse, and millions were relieved to see the sharpshooter returning to his old self almost immediately.  However, not all people who watched the game enjoyed seeing the return of Curry.

     In an appalling display which showed a severe lack of sportsmanship, many took to social media sites like Twitter to share their hopes that Curry's injury would prove too serious for him to continue playing, some even hoping for him to be out for the rest of the playoffs or longer.

     While Curry was down, the fans in the Toyota Center were very respectful of Curry and the situation, as were the majority of basketball fans.  Unfortunately, not everyone felt this way, and that is something that really bothers me.

     I would like to give some people the benefit of the doubt, that maybe their comments were premature and that they actually had not seen the play when they posted, or that somehow it was a joke in poor taste.  However, this cannot be true for everyone, as this kind of incident has happened many times before.

     One famous occurrence was on October 13, 2013, when Houston Texans fans cheered after the injury of their own starting quarterback Matt Schaub, then cheering even louder at the arrival of backup T.J. Yates.  This came during a notorious run of pick-sixes thrown by Schaub in the preceding weeks.  Sure, it was a rough patch for the veteran starter, but the fans seemed to forget that Schaub performed consistently well during his years starting for the team, even making two Pro-Bowls, including one the year prior.  But they were so pleased when Schaub had to be pulled and replaced by Yates, a third-year man who was less than stellar in his five career starts, all of which came two years before.  Yates proceeded to throw a pick-six, adding to Houston’s misery.  But that is not the point.

     Recently, there have been many players whose injuries have been cheered on.  They include but are not limited to the Calais Campbell, Matt Cassel, Johnny Manziel, LeBron James, Paul Pierce, Joakim Noah, and Sidney Crosby, all of which have heard cheers after their injury in the past couple years.  Philadelphia Eagles fans even cheered when Michael Irvin suffered a career-ending injury back in 1999.

     Sometimes fans are not the only ones happy when a player goes down.  In the New Orleans Saints’ infamous Bountygate scandal, bounties were placed on several players on opposing teams (most notably Brett Favre), and bonuses were offered for any Saint who could successfully knock that player out of the game.  The situation ended with numerous penalties, including year-long suspensions of both head coach Sean Payton and defensive coordinator Gregg Williams.

     Being happy when players are injured is a huge issue, and one that many people, including some of my friends, just do not seem to understand.  The reason why it is so difficult is simple.  If one’s team is playing, and the star player on the opposing team is hurt, the person’s team now has a much higher chance of winning the game, which is a great thing.  However, for this to happen, another human being has to be seriously hurt, which causes a moral dilemma.  Do we as fans view our athletes as the actual people they are, or as people living inside our televisions whose objective is to bring us pleasure?  The answer should be the first option, although the line is blurred for many.
     I remember clearly the game that took place between the Dallas Cowboys and the New York Giants on October 25, 2010.  The Giants went into Jerry World and won the game 41-35 on Monday Night Football.  However, during the game, the Giants' Michael Boley hit Tony Romo and suffered a broken clavicle, ending his season.  I was ecstatic.  This win gave the Giants a 5-2 record, a lead in the NFC East, and essentially took the Cowboys out of the division race.  It meant the Giants would have an easier time making the playoffs, and the Cowboys were sure to crumble.  Plus, I hated Tony Romo.  He was a Cowboy, and that was the only reason I needed to celebrate when I knew he was done.  As an 11 year-old, I couldn't see the bigger picture.  I was not old enough to understand that injuries transcend sports.
     When a little kid falls off his bike, or someone gets a pie to the face, we laugh.  It's called schadenfreude.  It's funny to see the misfortune of others, but only when it's something minor.  When someone actually is seriously hurt, it's another story.
     Most people just don't understand how hard it is to be an athlete.  Sure, it isn't on the level of physical labor like some blue-collar jobs, or involved as much thinking and analyzing and decision-making as many white-collar jobs, but it's very difficult nonetheless.  In a world where everyone is a commodity, athlete's "goods" take the form of their bodies.  That's what they have to provide.  If an athlete gets injured, they can no longer perform their job.  And athletes work for their jobs.  If they didn't, they wouldn't be in the positions they are in.  All the time practicing, conditioning, working out, analyzing game film or sports-analytics, and eating right is essential to being able to give 100% peak performance every time they play.  If they slack off, they don't make it.  Injuries have destroyed many-a promising career.  For some athletes, that's all they really have.  For all athletes, that's their dream.  Millions and millions of kids grow up wanting to play sports professionally, and be just like their idols on TV.  Only a select few with a combination of natural ability and effort make it, and even then sometimes freak accidents can take it all away.  To be pleased when an athletes gets injured is not simply wrong, it's plain inhuman, and extremely selfish.
     What if the person that was injured was on your team?  You feel horrible.  Yet still it's probably for the wrong reasons.  "What a blow to the team", you think.  What we all should be thinking is "what a blow to the person".  It's perfectly okay to be upset because someone's injury negatively impacts your team.  Just remember that there's an actual person in pain.
     I have heard that we should not feel bad for athletes because getting injured is an occupational hazard.  This is one of the poorest arguments I've ever heard.  Every job has some sort of risk involved.  If a police officer gets shot and killed, or a firefighter dies in a burning building, what will you say then?  "Should've been smarter and not become an officer/firefighter?"  Anyone who thinks that has serious problems.  These people risk their lives day in and day out trying to help people.  While an athlete typically doesn't face death, although it has happened, the scenario isn't totally different.  They are doing their jobs just like everyone else, and are trying to live their dreams and bring enjoyment to those watching at home.
     I have heard that we should not feel bad for athletes getting injured because of how much money they make.  First off, it's a myth that every athlete makes tons of money.  Only the very best in the world, in just a few select leagues make millions.  But even assuming we're talking about leagues such as the NFL and NBA, the money doesn't matter.  It isn't like a player gets injured but they don't feel any pain because the pain is blocked by the sugar-coating of all the money they're making.  The world doesn't work like that.  Anytime anyone gets seriously hurt, doing anything, we should feel bad, just because that's the human thing to do.
     If you aren't convinced yet, I'll give one more go at persuading you.  What if you tear an ACL in a freak accident, and faced surgery an at least nine months of rehab and recovery?  What if all your friends don't seem to care at all, and just tell you, "well, I guess you shouldn't get hurt next time"?  Wouldn't you be pretty angry?  Remember the Golden Rule.  Treat others how you would want to be treated.  Have some respect for those who are hurt, because that could easily be you.
     If you still aren't convinced, I have nothing more to say to you.  And if your team can only win if the opposing team is without their best players, maybe you don't deserve to win the game.

     

NBA Coaches Are Going to Get Paid

      On April 30, 2015, the Oklahoma City Thunder hired former Florida head coach Billy Donovan to replace Scott Brooks, who was surprisingly fired after what was by any measure an impressive seven-year stint with the team, including a .620 winning percentage, five playoffs appearances and an unsuccessful trip to the NBA Finals in the 2011-12 season.  Upon his firing, Brooks was three years into a four year, $16 million dollar contract extension he received following the NBA Finals appearance.  When Donovan was announced as the new coach, it became Donovan’s first ever job in the NBA, having spent the past 27 years in the NCAA, beginning as an assistant for Kentucky, then spending two years as head coach at Marshall, and ending up with a 19-year tenure at Florida, where he won two NCAA Championships.  Donovan’s contract with the Thunder was for five years, $30 million, a salary of two million dollars more per season than his predecessor, who had already proven himself to be a valuable coach.

     A similar situation happened with the Boston Celtics, when they hired former Butler coach Brad Stevens in the summer of 2013.  Stevens also had no former coaching experience in the NBA, but an incredible college resume, leading a mid-major Butler team to two incredible runs to the NCAA Championship game.  The contract offer he accepted with the Celtics was for six years and $22 million, nearly four million dollars per season.  Since then, Stevens has taken the Celtics from a projected bottom-feeder to a .500 playoff team with loads of future potential.

     Lastly, former NBA sharpshooter, analyst, and general manager of the Phoenix Suns Steve Kerr had no prior coaching experience when he accepted the Golden State Warriors position before this season, replacing Mark Jackson, who lost his job despite leading the Warriors to back-to-back playoff appearances for the first time since the 1990-91 and 91-92 seasons.  Kerr was given expectations to make the team a title contender and was given a five year, $25 million deal.  In turn, Kerr finished runner-up in Coach of the Year voting in his first year, and led the Warriors to a NBA-best 67-15 record.

     I believe that what at first may seem like just a couple unrelated stories are the key to understanding a major shift in the NBA in the next few years which will see the average salary for head coaches raise significantly.  But before I can explain what the future holds, let's look at the present.  The average salary of an NBA head coach for the 25 teams who currently have head coaches and for which numbers are known is just under $4.4 million.  However, that number may be deceiving because if the three coaches who make the most money (Gregg Popovich, Doc Rivers, and Flip Saunders [yes, the coach of the league's WORST team, that Flip Saunders]) who all make at least nine million per season currently, the number drops almost a million dollars down to 3.63 million per year.  The funny thing about that number is that it is lower than the salaries for Donovan, Stevens, and Kerr.

     These three men, especially Donovan, have showed a changing viewpoint of head coaches over recent years.  Teams are beginning to look outside the NBA to find coaches, and are willing to pay to get the guy they want.  Teams are taking chances.

     Some teams are not even looking in the U.S. for their coaches, such as David Blatt, who joined the Cavaliers after many successful stints in Europe, including 2014 Euroleague and Euroleague Coach of the Year titles with Maccabi Tel Aviv.

     The majority of NBA coaches have still gotten their positions the old-fashioned way, working their way up after years as assistants in the league.  One of the best examples of someone who "started from the bottom" was the Heat's Erik Spoelstra, who was an employee of the Heat for 12 years before earning the head job, even starting as a video coordinator back in 1997.  However, even after seven years as head coach, and two NBA titles, Spoelstra makes a below-average $3 million per season.  Nearly 20 years of work has earned him less money than all four previously mentioned first-year coaches.

     This trend towards going to great lengths to hire coaches with little prior experience who have the potential to be great coaches and giving them offers they can not refuse is going to shake up the league.  Although college coaches and relatively inexperienced coaches have not been very successful historically, the recent influx of these coaches, along with their successes early has gotten people talking, and readying their wallets.

     Current Kentucky coach John Calipari has come up a lot in discussions regarding potential NBA head coaching positions over the past few years, most recently just a few days ago with the New Orleans Pelicans.  Think about what it would take to bring Calipari to the NBA.  Every year, Calipari successfully recruits future stars, (add stat about recruiting class rankings) coaches the stars he has, builds a successful team that in many cases is top ranked in the nation and a National Championship contender, and is basically the most popular guy in Kentucky.  Additionally, he leads all NCAA D-I basketball coaches with a salary over $6 million.

     For Calipari to leave the biggest program in the country to coach in the NBA, where job security is basically nonexistent (but more on that later), he would have to be paid an outrageous amount of money, becoming one of the top five highest paid coaches in the league. Even if that happened, there is still no guarantee he would leave Lexington.

     For the sake of argument, I'll say that Kentucky gets to keep their beloved Calipari.  It's more likely than not that he stays with the program for a while.  This still leaves many other coaches who have done great things at their programs, but may be looking to snag a job in the NBA.  Additionally, after seeing the contracts given to Donovan and Stevens, these coaches are now becoming more aware of their worth.  The average salary of a coach whose team made March Madness this past season was about $1.5 million, but similarly to the NBA, that average drops closer to $1 million if just a few coaches are removed.  The best of these coaches will be sought after by NBA teams who are now much more open to try different tactics and personnel in order to win.  With all the coaches that are unsuccessful in the league, a team that thinks they may have found a great coach will not be afraid to make moves to lock them up for the future.

     As for the current NBA head coaches, they must be feeling a few things.  First, they can not be pleased that coaches are just jumping into the league and making more then them.  But on the other, it makes sense that if the average coach's salary increases, they will be soon to follow.  Teams will need to spend more because if they do not, other teams willing to pay larger amounts will steal the best available coaches.  That means the coaches will have more power.  However, the pool of potential coaches is growing, meaning the job is more competitive, and coaches need to keep pushing their teams forward or face being replaced.

     The NBA is at a point in time where it is more popular than ever, and each year is seeing an increase in revenue.  Because large new markets, especially overseas, are being exposed to the game, every team is battling for new fans.  Naturally, this happens by being good.  The teams that are not good are doing everything in their power to shortcut the rebuilding process, rejecting old methods of building an organization from the ground up, and instead opting towards revamping continually changing coaching staffs, luring all-stars during free agency, and even tanking, the one NBA commonplace I despise above all.
     This article, http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/5/7/5690420/nba-head-coach-turnover-mark-jackson-fired-warriors, does a great job at showing just how remarkable the NBA head coach firing rate is.  Popovich is the only coach who joined his team before 2008, and now there are only two other coaches remaining (Spoelstra and the Mavericks' Rick Carlisle) who were hired before 2010.  Going into this season, the average NBA coach tenure without including Popovich (his 18 years is longer than the sum of the tenures of coaches from every individual division), was under two seasons.  The Pacific division's five coaches began the year with just three years combined tenure at their current positions.  The four coaches currently in the Conference Finals began the year with just four total years with their teams under their belts, and three of those came from the Rockets' Kevin McHale.
     These numbers only confirm that teams are not afraid to switch things up.  Since the standards in the league are so high, coaches that have shown their ability to succeed, whether in the NBA or elsewhere, are going to be more and more highly valued, and will be able to profit off the desperation of struggling franchises.  This could lead to a system where the biggest names on the market experience a kind of free agency, where they are accept the offer of the highest bidder.
     But enough about all the specifics of the state of head coaches in the league.  From a strictly numerical standpoint, do they deserve to be making more money?  The NBA has the highest average player salary of any sports league in the world at $4.58 million for the current season.  This means that if we include the league's elite coaches, the average player makes slightly more than the average coach.  First off, that should not be the case.  Sure, at the end of the day, the players are the ones who perform every game, but the coach is responsible for all the training and chemistry and tactics, which can make or break a team.  Regardless, how does this ratio stack up versus other leagues?
     Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to that question.  While most NBA salaries are easily found, the same can not be said for other leagues.  From the salaries of half the NFL's coaches, I could make a decent guess that the average salary is around $5 million, or over double the $2.11 million average salary for players.  For the MLB and NHL, almost no information is available.
     Whether the increase in salary is justified or not does not really matter at the end of the day.  NBA head coaches, especially the better ones, are going to get paid, so be ready for it.

Madden 16 Cover Finalist Reactions

     Today EA Sports revealed the four finalists to become the Madden 16 Cover Athlete.  They are the Patriots' Rob Gronkowski, Steelers' Antonio Brown, Giants' Odell Beckham Jr., and Cardinals' Patrick Peterson.  So how do I feel about the choices made, and who do I believe will win the vote?

     My first reaction was a bit of shock that three out of the four finalists are receivers (two wideouts and a tight end), and that there was no quarterback option.  Personally I would like to see no more than one player from any position if there's only going to be four slots.

     Then, I realized that the two best players in the game were snubbed.  The MVP of the league, Aaron Rodgers, is not in the running, and neither is defensive MVP J.J. Watt.  I believe either one of these players would win the fan vote given the opportunity.  Their exclusion is even more baffling to me because neither player has previously been on the cover.  In fact, no player from the Texans has ever been on the cover, and the only Packer was Dorsey Levens who appeared on alternate versions of Madden 2000.

      Now as for the players that did make it to the fan vote, I have mixed opinions concerning whether or not their performance has earned them a spot in the running.  

     First I'll start with Rob Gronkowski.  The Patriots tight end is coming off one of his better seasons in the league, catching 82 balls for 1124 yards and 12 touchdowns.  Gronk is a fan favorite guy and has for the last few years has easily been considering one of the best two tight ends in the NFL along with Jimmy Graham, (I consider Gronk to be the best tight end myself, but maybe that's because he was on my fantasy team).  Considering the Patriots won the Super Bowl last season, it seems fitting one of their players grace the cover, and the only main options on the team are Tom Brady and Gronkowski.  Because Brady is older, and more people seem to dislike him, I feel the fun-loving party animal is the correct choice.  Even during the offseason Gronk has been entertaining and has frequently made the news.  I have no problem with Rob Gronkowski being in contention to become the cover athlete, and I believe he has a decent chance of doing so.

     Antonio Brown came off an incredible 2013 campaign and did even better in 2014, leading the league in both catches and receiving yards, solidifying his position as one of the best receivers in the league.  If you had this guy on your fantasy team, chances are you ended up a winner.  Despite the numbers Brown has put up, I don't feel he necessarily gets all the attention he deserves, and is not one of the most popular players in the league.  Certainly being the face of Madden would chance that in an instant, so I think he deserves a chance to grace the cover of Madden 16, although I think the chances he wins are quite slim.

     Odell Beckham Jr.  Oh boy, where do I start with this guy?  Everyone knows how much I love Odell, being a diehard Giants fan, and I have stated on numerous occasions that I feel he has the potential to be a Hall-of-Famer and one of the greatest receivers to ever live.  However, I feel like giving OBJ this honor would be a year or two premature.  I know he absolutely took over the league after missing time at the beginning of last season, but the fact of the matter is that he was just a rookie.  This offseason, every team that plays the Giants will be looking extensively at how to stop OBJ, because he is that one-of-a-kind player that can instantly change the game.  There is a good chance that Beckham will disappoint next season simply because everyone will expect him to be shattering records, which also may happen (and I hope it does).  This isn't a knock on Odell at all, but I kind of find it unfair for a rookie hotshot to just swoop in and become the cover athlete after just one season where there may be others who deserve it more.  Odell's time will come, I just don't think it has to be immediate.  Now, despite me saying this, I'm fairly confident he will be the cover athlete because he absolutely took the league by storm, breaking tons of records in just 12 games.  But it was just 12 games.  Regardless, his face will sell copies, and that's what it's all about (slight sarcasm).

     Now am I just saying this because I don't want the future of my team to be destroyed by the "Madden Curse?"  I don't think so, because despite the alarming regularity to which players who are on the cover of Madden regress in the following season, I believe it can easily be attributed to the nature of the award.  If a player on the cover was one of the best players in the league the previous season, they have unrealistically high goals set for them by the general public which are usually unattainable.  But subconsciously I guess maybe the "Madden Curse" might have something to do with my thinking.  Who knows.

     Lastly, Patrick Peterson is the real surprise choice of the bunch, because while it's only fair to include a defensive player, why they chose Peterson is kind of puzzling.  He isn't coming off a career season (3 interceptions) and from a pure stats standpoint it could actually be argued to be the worst of Peterson's four seasons.  There are at least a handful of corners that were more consistent and effective last season, but even in terms of defense as a whole, the nomination clearly (in my mind) should have gone to J.J. Watt, the most impactful, well-rounded defensive player who excels in all facets of the game (even tight end).  Other acceptable defensive choices could have been Luke Kuechly and Justin Houston, although Kuechly is really the only other well known star that would have had a reasonable chance.  Overall, I don't get this decision, and I don't think that in a million years Peterson could win this contest, which kind of makes him a waste of a selection.

     If I had to name my ideal cover nominees, and I was restricted to only four choices, I would choose these four:  Aaron Rodgers, DeMarco Murray, Rob Gronkowski, J.J. Watt.  However, I would also like to see Andrew Luck, LeVeon Bell, Antonio Brown, and Luke Kuechly.  I believe those eight would make for an incredible vote.  As for why I chose Gronkowski over Brown, it simply comes down to the Super Bowl.  I feel a Super Bowl player should be in contention.

     Who do you think should be on the cover and do you agree with my selections for who I believe should have made the ballot? 

     Thanks for reading,

     Connor

Eliminate Hack-a-Shaq?

     Over the past few weeks the NBA has seen a surge in intentional fouls on poor free-throw shooters, particularly the Clippers’ DeAndre Jordan and Rocket’s Josh Smith and Joey Dorsey.  In the last couple of seasons, the league has also seen players such as Dwight Howard, Andre Drummond, Omer Asik, and Rajon Rondo be fouled due to their poor performance at the charity stripe.  This strategy is far from new, previously being used against Hall-of-Famers Wilt Chamberlain, Dennis Rodman, and Shaquille O’Neal, it’s frequent use against the latter giving the strategy its nickname, “Hack-a-Shaq.”  However, there has been a recent surge in support of instituting NBA rule changes to prevent the practice.  NBA Commissioner Adam Silver recently stated that there would be serious talks at upcoming league meetings about potentially eliminating the strategy from the game.  Despite what others might think, I have to disagree with those who believe the procedure should be banned.

     Before debating the merits of the technique and its effect on the game, I want to make one point abundantly clear: nobody likes Hack-a-Shaq, or Hack-a-Howard, or Hack-a-Whoever.  Even Greg Popovich, the San Antonio Spurs coach who utilizes the tactic more than any other coach in the league says he hates having to do so.  By intentionally fouling the same player repeatedly, the game just becomes a long, drawn out free-throw battle, and while the free-throw is essential to the sport, it is not exactly the most exciting thing to watch.  Anyone who has seen a team try to make a comeback in the last minute of a game and resort to intentional fouling whoever has the ball on the opposing team can tell you that.  Although, there is something strangely amusing about watching a super athlete make a pedestrian activity look like a herculean task.   

     However, that does not mean the NBA should take away a fundamental principle of the game.  The free-throw is the most basic shot in the game, and one where most players can shoot a very high percentage.  After all, they are called free-throws.  Players are supposed to make them.  However, when he numbers of struggling free-throw shooters are examined, it is not that hard to see why the strategy is used.

     The NBA average for points per possession (the average amount of points a team scores when they have possession of the ball) is 1.03.  That is the equivalent of a free-throw shooter making 51.5 percent of his attempts, since if he has a 51.5 percent chance on each attempt, .515+.515=1.03.  So using this logic, any player shooting under this percentage from the line should be intentionally fouled, because in the long run a team would allow fewer points in a game by simply fouling that player rather than playing defense (the average free-throw shooter, however, shot exactly 75 percent this season).  When it is considered that DeAndre Jordan shot an abysmal 39.7 percent on what should be freebies, and that the Clippers led the league in points per possession at 1.098, every time DeAndre Jordan shoots two free-throws, the team loses an average of .304 points over what they could have gained, which over an entire game would absolutely destroy the Clippers.  For other players the gap is not so severe, but it is still either profitable over the long run or close enough that when trailing late or when that player is struggling it can be implemented.

     This may be a somewhat flawed piece of reasoning, since as John Ezekowitz wrote about for FiveThirtyEight in this article: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/intentionally-fouling-deandre-jordan-is-futile/, I’m not accounting for things such as expected points from half-court possessions, offensive rebounds, and being set on the defensive end in the very general calculation I used above.  However, this article is from last season, and Jordan’s free-throw percentage dropped over three points from the 2013-14 season to the current one.  Also, if we do not rely on all the qualifications that have to be made for the strategy to be statistically ineffective, and just take at face value that Jordan will shoot two free-throws and the other team will get the ball (which happens a large majority of the time), far more often than not it would be profitable to foul Jordan.  Finally, Ezekowitz’s numbers fail to address one important concept: time.

     The most frequent scenario for the implementation of Hack-a-Shaq is late in the fourth quarter of games, when a team is trailing, but not by an insurmountable margin.  In these situations, the biggest factor working against a team’s comeback effort is the clock.  It becomes very difficult for teams to reduce deficits when their opponents are using at least 20 seconds on the shot clock, much longer than an average possession (usually around 14 or 15 seconds but that varies slightly depending on the team), in obvious efforts to milk the clock.  What the Hack-a-Shaq strategy provides is an efficient way to stop the clock, maximizing possessions for the rest of the game and therefore providing longer for a team to make a potential comeback.  It also eliminates the opposing team’s ability to make three-pointers, and by fouling a poor free-throw shooter, there isn’t a huge risk of them making the majority of their free-throws like there would be if another player was shooting.

# ft’s made out of 10	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
50% ft shooter	<.1%	.9%	4.3%	11.7%	20.5%	24.6%	20.5%	11.7%	4.3%	.9%	<.1%
80% ft shooter	<.1%	<.1%	<.1%	<.1%	.6%	2.6%	8.8%	20.1%	30.2%	26.8%	10.7%

     If a good free-throw shooter (I chose an 80 percent free-throw shooter for this example), who would most likely receive the ball to be fouled in a late game situation shot 10 free throws, he would make at least seven of those attempts over 87 percent of the time.  However, a very poor shooter who only makes half his attempts would make seven or more only 17 percent of the time.  In fact, this shooter makes five or fewer shots 62 percent of the time, while the same number is just over three percent for an 80 percent shooter.

     If you were an NBA coach, why would you not intentionally foul one of these shooters off-ball instead of having the ball inbounded to a strong shooter?  If the situation is that desperate – just seconds remaining in a game and down a few points, it makes perfect sense because the discrepancy between a 50 percent shooter and 80 or even higher percent shooter far outweighs the odds of getting a steal off an inbound play and allowing an opposing team to try to get the ball to one of their best shooters.

     Now, if there are a few minutes left in the game, and you are looking to make a comeback, the strategy still makes sense.  The reasoning behind intentional fouling in these scenarios is that sending one of these atrocious foul shooters to the line is a rough equivalent of just playing defense.  Sure, they will have lucky streaks of shooting a high percentage and cold streaks shooting even worse than their normal percentage, but so do normal NBA teams.

     However, what people fail to realize is that the success of the Hack-a-Shaq strategy depends in part on how well the free-throw shooter performs, but more so on the offense of the team fouling.  If a team intentionally fouls and allows around one point per possession, they need to score far more than one point per possession in order to trim the deficit, especially with the time constraints associated with the strategy.  This is the reason why teams using Hack-a-Shaq do not end up winning games the majority of the time.  A struggling offense is not suddenly going to get stronger just by committing fouls on the other team.  It takes a very strong offensive effort to come back.  Hack-a-Shaq is far from a fool-proof idea, and that is yet another reason why it should not be taken out of the game.  There is a decent argument to be made that it is not an optimal strategy, at least on many occasions, and it is a big risk basically asking for the other team to score points rather than deciding to play defense.  Yet everyone still seems to feel it should not be implemented.

     One final reason that I would urge the NBA to keep the idea of Hack-a-Shaq in the game is because while yes it might be boring for some when it occurs, the technique is used far too infrequently.  Not many players are bad enough from the line to warrant the use of the strategy.  The players listed in the opening paragraph essentially make an exhaustive list of all players who are affected.  So already, not many games have the potential of seeing the strategy.  Even in the games containing these players, Hack-a-Shaq is not used the majority of the time.  Either the scenario does not call for it, the player in question is good enough from the line that there is not a huge advantage from sending them there, or that a team is against utilizing the technique.  There is not a huge need for the NBA to revamp the whole way it deals with intentional fouls just for a few isolated instances per season.  And by the way, if a team does not want to be affected by these intentional fouls, they do not have to be.

     There are a few methods to prevent the strategy from being used.  The first is obviously, to make more free-throws.  It is ridiculous to think that some professional basketball players, who make a living off playing the game, struggle so much with an unguarded, set shot from a distance of fifteen feet away, nearly 10 feet inside the three-point line.  If someone is as bad as Jordan, they deserve to suffer from their lack of skill.  If the “Hack-a-Shaq” strategy were outlawed, the NBA would just be giving bad shooters a cop-out for not having practicing an elemental part of the game.  It creates an unfair advantage towards these poor free-throw shooters by allowing them to play to their strengths on the court while not having to worry about their weaknesses.

     If they continue to struggle, teams always have the option of benching players if they become a liability.  No matter how great one might be at other aspects of the game, they can be a burden by simply being on the court.  DeAndre Jordan is one of the league’s best defensive players, yet he greatly contributed to his team’s overtime loss in the playoffs to the Spurs on April 22 by shooting just 6-of-17 from the stripe.  With just one more make, the Clippers could have won the game in regulation, and potentially have a commanding 3-1 series lead over the defending champs instead of being tied 2-2.  At one point during a recent Rockets-Spurs matchup, the Rockets actually intentionally fouled the Spurs just to reach a stoppage in play so they could sub out Josh Smith.  In the college game, Duke frequently pulled Jahlil Okafor, a 51 percent shooter from the line, in late game situations, despite him being the Wooden Award runner-up for best college basketball player last season.  It did not matter to Coach K that Okafor was an incredible defender and strong rebounder.  What was important was that the other team was going to foul Okafor, and a poor showing at the line could have cost Duke a few games.

     The fact of the matter is that teams with struggling foul shooters have every right and ample opportunities to remove these players from the game, which would render the strategy useless.  And let’s not forget that since the team with the best points per possession is the Clippers at 1.098 (the NBA average is 1.03 for the record), any shooter who can manage 55 percent from the line is basically immune from being intentionally fouled except for the aforementioned final seconds of a tight contest.  This is of course because his expected points value for a pair of free-throws (1.1) is higher than any team’s typical offensive output, and that doesn’t even account for the additional variables presented by Ezekowitz.  Anyone that fails to hit 55 percent of their foul shots has no one to blame but themselves for that deficiency, and have to be willing to either improve or face being hacked it their opponents see fit.

     The NBA would be foolish to eliminate Hack-a-Shaq, giving an unfair advantage to some players by not making them suffer from their weaknesses as a player.  The strategy is not always successful, and teams should have the strategic freedom to opt to give opponents chances at free points if they believe it will help them win basketball games.  However, only time will tell if the NBA agrees.

Concussions Down in NFL, but work Still to Do

     It seems the NFL may have finally begun to fix one of its biggest problems- the growing number of head injuries, especially concussions, occurring in the league. The NFL stated that the rate of concussions fell 25 percent during the 2014 season, and 36 percent over the last three seasons.

     Concussions are traumatic brain injuries triggered by strong blows to the head or shaking of the body. Annually, there are an estimated 1.6-3.8 million concussions in the United States, and the chances of getting one are largely increased in athletes. The NFL has been notorious for its high risk of receiving concussions due to all the hard hits in the game, and a culture of players failing to self-report these injuries, instead putting themselves at greater personal risk not to jeopardize the team as a whole.

     The statistics reflect a change in both the rules of the league and the mentality of its players. The NFL donates tens of millions of dollars every year towards medical research, hoping to find new information about how to reduce risk of concussions, identify concussed players, and understand the long term effects of these head injuries. Recent rule changes preventing helmet to helmet hits and hits on defenseless receivers have contributed to the lower concussion numbers, as the rate of concussion by helmet to helmet hits have fallen nearly 50 percent over the last two years.

     Additionally, players are seeing the effects concussions can have on the body and are changing the way they tackle to prevent the risk of injuries. Players have largely reduced tackling the upper body of opponents and are now shifting their mentalities to aiming for players’ legs.

     Players are also becoming increasingly aware that once someone is diagnosed with a concussion, their risk for future concussions is significantly magnified. Wes Welker, once one of the best wide receivers in the NFL, sustained three concussions over the past two seasons, and is now struggling to find work. It seems teams are becoming scared of signing players with concussions in fear of the risk of future injury which would hurt both the player and the team.

     In 2013, the NFL reached a 765-million dollar settlement, agreeing to compensate former players for brain related issues they were facing later in life, in addition to paying their medical bills and agreeing to fund more research. This agreement came after over 4,500 retired players sued the league over various problems including dementia, depression, and Alzheimer’s- all of which they believed were due to their experiences in the league.

     While the reduced concussions numbers show that a number of factors have increased player safety recently, at least in this area, there still remains work to be done. Last season saw 111 concussions, and many of these could still be prevented if the NFL made a simple change.

     Currently, NFL players do not have their helmets fitted, meaning that many of them may be wearing helmets too big for their heads in every single game. These helmets provide less protection and are easier to knock off, which could lead to a higher risk of injury. Also, helmets could provide more padding in an effort to further improve player safety. While football at the high school, college, and professional levels are trying to reduce injury risk and identify potential concussions by forcing players who lose their helmets on a play to sit out a play before returning to the game, that does nothing to address the issue of the helmets themselves.

     Outside of the NFL, studies consistently report that high school and college students experience higher concussion rates than that of NFL players. Additionally, high school concussions rates are on the rise, and not only in football, but all sports.

     There are a number of reasons for this. One clear cause is that medical staffs are far larger and more experienced at the professional level, and thus are better at diagnosing and treating concussions. The effects of this are seen in the large numbers of concussions believed to go unreported, with estimates ranging between 50 and 80 percent of all potential concussions. While these numbers are declining with more concussions being reported (which could very well contribute to these rising concussion numbers), still far too many athletes seem to believe they should continue playing even when they have clear symptoms such as dizziness and headaches. Medical personnel need to take concussion symptoms and risks more seriously, and try to identify concussions quickly, just as the NFL has done with their new “eye in the sky” medical staff, trained personnel viewing the games from above in attempts to identify injured players.

     As previously stated, education is vital towards progress in this area. All football players whether be youth or professional, and all athletes for that matter, need to be educated in the causes, symptoms, and long term effects of concussions. If that can be accomplished, the sports world as a whole will take a huge step towards lowering these seemingly mild but potentially very severe injuries.  After all, while football gets criticized most for its concussions, many sports including soccer, hockey, and lacrosse also feature high injury risks.

     While the job of minimizing concussions risks is far from over in the NFL, numbers over the past few years are encouraging and show work is being done in the sport, which can hopefully transfer to the rest of athletics in the years to come.