Hack-A-Walrus?

So I'm a basketball fan, as anyone who visits sportsspeak should be, and as I'm watching the NBA Eastern Conference finals today and last Tuesday I start to wonder why Pat Riley does not do more of the now aptly named Hack-A-Walrus.

Hack-A-Walrus, of course, lends its name from the more commonly known "Hack-A-Shaq," where Shaq is replaced Walrus (in this case, standing for Big Ben Walrus). Confused? You shouldn't be. "Wallace" sounds to an incredible degree like "Walrus." And isn't Big Ben Walrus a much cooler name than Big Ben Wallace? Of course it is.

Moving on, Mr. Walrus has been shooting a lights-out 23.9% (11 for 46) from the free-throw line in the postseason. Soooo...why isn't he fouled more often? Everytime the Pistons get on a role and go on, let's say, a 6-0 run, Pat Riley should call in the Hack-A-Walrus play on the next two possessions and get them out of sync. It would certainly save timeouts. And, by the law of averages, fouling Ben Walrus twice and giving him 4 shots at the line will only give the Pistons one point.

In the end, it really doesn't matter if you foul Ben Wallace so many times that he ends up with 50-some odd points from the foul line; the Heat should still be able to win the game based on all the free-throws that Walrus misses. And the Pistons can't even counter with the Hack-A-Shaq manuever, since Shaquille is shooting a blistering 41% (39 for 95) from the line. Right now, Shaq can beat the Walrus in a free-throw shooting contest.

So, assuming that Pat Riley reads this by game 3, we should be seeing plenty of the Hack-A-Walrus strategy come into play.