Is Shai Gilgeous-Alexander unstoppable because he shoots a ton of free throws, or does he shoot a ton of free throws because he’s unstoppable?
SGA is second in the NBA with a healthy 8.9 free-throw attempts per game and that has become the subject of a pretty misleading online discussion. Yes, he leans into contact, and yes, his scoring is buoyed by tons of free throws. But his 8.9 is not actually an outlier in the history of the NBA’s top scorers, as free-throw attempts pretty routinely get above 10 for the top guys (check out these James Harden numbers).
However, that’s also not the point. Because if you’re willing to come on this journey with me, I think we’ll find that guys like SGA — foul-hunting and all — are actually healthy for basketball.
First things first: the ability to get fouled makes someone unstoppable, not the other way around. Isn’t the ability to get to the free-throw line a big part of Joel Embiid’s greatness? And Giannis Antetokounmpo’s…and James Harden’s…and Michael Jordan’s and LeBron James’ and—oh wait, every awesome player in NBA history’s greatness?
Harden won an MVP award shooting way more free throws than Shai, and all this has me wondering if asking “is SGA a free-throw merchant?” is the wrong question. Hidden within it is the bigger, realer question: is hunting fouls actually bad for the NBA?
Let’s consider the implications of each answer: if foul-hunting is bad, then the NBA would have to make a massive change to their officiating rules. Trying to get fouled is absurdly effective, and there’s a reason all the best scorers are also the best at getting to the line. SGA is no exception, and the NBA’s scoring leader is almost always in the Top 3 in free throw attempts (Stephen Curry is the major exception, a function of how much of his scoring comes from three).
If the NBA were to make fouling less effective — by penalizing offensive players for initiating contact or by expanding the ways defenders can legally contest — superstars would have to radically change how they play. Most fans would invite these changes, wanting the game to be more “ethical” and see fewer stoppages.
But there already is an unofficial deterrent to the strategy, as foul hunting is arguably why guards like SGA and Harden have historically been less successful in the playoffs, when whistles get tighter. But if the league were to actually lean into this and try to formally “fix” this “issue,” it would take more than subjective officiating; radical changes would be necessary. And would all that actually be good?
Reducing the effectiveness of foul hunting would drastically reduce the value of driving to the basket, which would, of course, mean players would take more threes. It would turn a statistical game that is already stacked against the paint completely against it. Sure, the game would become “more physical” at first… until offenses give up on physicality entirely and just space, space, space for jump shots. And do we actually want more threes? The league certainly doesn’t seem to think so.
What about removing free throws? That’s still no good. Any penalty below “points” will cause the same three-point apocalypse, and some out-of-the-box ideas like 5-on-4 power plays or removing the bonus would make fouling an offensive player absurdly effective, the opposite of what we all want.
In short, I don’t see how the watchable NBA survives a world where drawing fouls isn’t a legitimate strategy. It tilts the court to be more balanced, and makes offenses actually use all 94 feet. Perhaps all SGA is really doing is exploiting rules that keep the game where it’s supposed to be. We need foul hunting in order for the league to look how we want it to. It’s not unethical, but rather totally natural. Because true basketball isn’t clean, which the best players have understood for decades. SGA is just the latest example.
