The 0.4 seconds of ugliness is precisely why the NBA must change.

Leonard hit a mid-range jumper over two Pacers defenders, putting the Clippers ahead 114-113 with 0.4 seconds left. Was the game over? No, it was just beginning. I couldn’t even imagine that so much drama could unfold in just 0.4 seconds.

After the timeout, the Pacers inbounded from the sideline, and Nembhard directly “shot” the ball into the basket—yes, he shot it in. His inbounding motion looked like he was launching an ultra-long three-pointer, and the force of the throw wasn’t even aimed at anyone under the basket; it went straight in off the backboard. We’ve seen sideline inbound passes go directly into the hoop before, but this one was genuinely aimed at the basket.

Possession switched, the Clippers inbounded, Mathurin was fouled after receiving the ball, and after review, the game clock remained completely unchanged—still 0.4 seconds left. That means this foul didn’t even consume 0.1 second,堪称 a lightning-fast foul.

Up to this point, everything was still normal. If Mathurin made both free throws, the game would end. Even if he missed the first and intentionally missed the second, time would run out. Mathurin missed the first free throw, intentionally missed the second, Siakam grabbed the rebound in mid-air and immediately called a timeout. After review, this entire sequence took only 0.3 seconds.

The on-site clock was definitely inaccurate; from Siakam grabbing the rebound to landing, the clock didn’t move at all. Consequently, the referees had to grant that remaining 0.1 second—they couldn’t just end the game outright, which is kind of an unwritten rule.

Sometimes I really wonder if the NBA world perceives time the same way we do. Back then, Fisher’s 0.4-second catch-and-shoot buzzer-beater sparked controversy for ages. Now, Siakam grabbing a rebound mid-air and calling a timeout took only 0.3 seconds.

Even with that 0.1 second left, there was still drama. The Pacers inbounded again from the sideline, again it was Nembhard, again with a standard shooting motion, again aimed directly at the basket. If Lopez hadn’t interfered, the ball would definitely have hit the rim. However, after Lopez touched the ball, he fouled Huff first.

Tyronn Lue’s classic meme expression reappeared—this game could still be played like this? But the interesting part of this game is that when you think you’re about to win, the plot twists; when you think you’re about to lose, the opponent refuses to let it happen.

As a big-man shooter with a 83% free-throw percentage, Huff proceeded to miss both of his subsequent free throws. Before today, he hadn’t missed a free throw in five consecutive games, but the two free throws that decided today’s game were missed decisively.

After this game, both sides were satisfied and dissatisfied. The Clippers won the game, but everyone believed it should have ended after Mathurin missed his free throw. The Pacers, as a tanking team, showed competitiveness in this game and indeed lost as intended, but the referees’ last-minute theatrics nearly handed them a win.

The Pacers currently “cannot afford to win.” With only 16 wins so far this season, they rank second-to-last, but the Nets and Wizards, also second-to-last, have only 17 wins. One win would put all three teams on equal footing, and the Kings with 19 wins “behind” them could potentially drop into the top three.

Under the current lottery rules, the bottom three teams have equal odds of getting the No. 1 pick. Even so, this hasn’t stopped the trend of intentional tanking; instead, it’s getting worse, with tanking teams deliberately losing and competing in performance.

Recently, the Nets have reached the final moments with opponents several times, each time inbounding from the backcourt and launching ultra-long shots without even advancing to the frontcourt for a tying attempt,生怕 they might actually score. The Pacers missing two free throws today follows the same logic—if they can lose in regulation, they absolutely avoid overtime.

Compared to other tanking teams, the Pacers have even less room to retreat. In the earlier Zubac trade, they traded this year’s first-round pick to the Clippers, protected for picks 1-4 and 10-30. That means if the Pacers land picks 5-9, they must give it to the Clippers. Hence, the Pacers have been疯狂输球 this season, especially after the trade deadline.

I actually find it hard to understand why, after Haliburton’s season-ending injury and Turner’s departure, the Pacers completely entered tanking mode this season. They previously claimed they would never tank, but this season they suddenly threw that “no tanking” creed into the trash.

But the good news is that this kind of utterly丑陋 tanking will be the last this season. Starting next season, the NBA will reform the lottery draft. The three newly exposed proposals are:

Option 1: 18 teams participate in the draft lottery (7th-15th seeds from both conferences). The bottom 10 teams each have an 8% chance of getting the No. 1 pick, with the remaining 20% probability distributed in descending order to seeds 11-18. All 18 draft positions are determined by lottery.

Option 2: 22 teams participate in the draft lottery, using performance from the past two seasons (7th-15th seeds from both conferences, plus the four teams eliminated in the first round of the playoffs). Participating teams must achieve a minimum win threshold each season, e.g., 25 wins. If a team fails to meet the minimum, its ranking will be adjusted to reach that threshold. The top four draft positions are still determined by lottery, same as currently.

Option 3: 18 teams participate in the lottery. The bottom 5 teams have equal probability of getting the No. 1 pick, with lottery determining positions 1 through 5. The lowest possible position for the bottom 5 teams is No. 10; teams falling out of the top 5 will be determined by a separate lottery.

The final proposal will certainly require further refinement, but the general framework will likely be one of these three. Overall, it boils down to involving more teams in the lottery, reducing the benefits gained from tanking, and at least preventing situations where故意输球违背竞技体育精神再次出现.

When a team stands on the court not to win, what’s the point of continuing the game?