NBA Fixing the NBA

[tearsofmorningdew]

The discourse about cutting from 82 games, which I hope never happens, is emblematic of the brainrotted short attention span epidemic afflicting the youth.

Muh fast pace, more 3 pters, more closeouts my ass

 

[scott]

The discourse about cutting from 82 games, which I hope never happens, is emblematic of the brainrotted short attention span epidemic afflicting the youth.

Muh fast pace, more 3 pters, more closeouts my ass

Yeah, I don’t like the idea of less games or shorter games. That just emphasizes star power and de-emphasizes depth and strategy. I don’t want the NBA to be more of an Arcade Game. I might even talk myself out of eliminating back-to-backs, as those are part of the grind of an NBA season. Just make sure every team has to play the same number of them.

 

[DAF86]

Yeah, I don’t like the idea of less games or shorter games. That just emphasizes star power and de-emphasizes depth and strategy. I don’t want the NBA to be more of an Arcade Game. I might even talk myself out of eliminating back-to-backs, as those are part of the grind of an NBA season. Just make sure every team has to play the same number of them.

This reasoning would make sense if the NBA had a Soccer type championship system where the winner is the one that gets the most pts at the end of the regular season. But what's the point of emphasizing "depth and strategy" during the regular season if what's gonna determine the champion is the star power during the playoffs?

The shortening of the regular season works to decrease number of injuries (I'm sure we are all against those) and to make the games more meaningful. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that wants to see Vic play 33 minutes of every game, instead of tuning in and seeing Bismack Biyombo out there.

 

[O_V]

Have a draft lottery with the same odds for every single team. The only team that doesn't have a chance at the number one two or three pick is the team that won the championship. Teams have incentive to play all the way to the end, and the team who loses in the finals has a consolation prize.

 

[O_V]

And I don't give a shit if changing the lottery hurts the teams. Don't give a shit about the teams. Not being able to cheat by losing or sitting players keeps the teams from screwing the paying fans.

Listening to sports talk radio here in Dallas where all these fucking losertown talking heads are excited about the Mavericks intentionally sitting players and intentionally losing games -again- just for the chance to have a shot at a better player AFTER THEY WON THE FUCKING LOTTERY turns my stomach.

 

[scott]

This reasoning would make sense if the NBA had a Soccer type championship system where the winner is the one that gets the most pts at the end of the regular season. But what's the point of emphasizing "depth and strategy" during the regular season if what's gonna determine the champion is the star power during the playoffs?

The shortening of the regular season works to decrease number of injuries (I'm sure we are all against those) and to make the games more meaningful. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that wants to see Vic play 33 minutes of every game, instead of tuning in and seeing Bismack Biyombo out there.

Well, I disagree. Getting through the regular season plays a pretty important impact on the playoffs. Seeding, form, health, etc. You may disagree (and in fact the entire population of earth may disagree for all I know), but that's part of what I like about basketball and what I don't like about (American) football. The NFL (and CFB) are a much more high variance sport because the number of instances is significantly less than other sports. Basketball (and hockey and especially baseball - though I don't really like those sports) are different because of high number of iterations. I like that and I personally don't want that to change... not because it is "better" or "worse", it's just what it is... and I personally enjoy it.

What I especially don't like about what you proposed in your first post is:

1) You are shortening the season, which puts a much greater emphasis on star power at the front end of your lineup and de-emphasizes depth and roster quality
2) You are also flattening the lottery odds, which means where the highest end talent ends up is more and more just a matter of pure luck and teams have less of an ability to take matters into their own hands

Those two things combined means that success becomes more and more just a matter of luck and variance (which I don't personally enjoy). By the same token, I do not like slot machines or baccarat, games that involve no strategy and are mostly just pure games of chance. Some people love these games, but I don't... I like games like poker, blackjack and craps... still games of chance but that are heavily influenced by strategy and player interaction.

But, that's just my opinion.

Also, Bismack Biyombo has played a grand total of 78 minutes this year... I know each and every minute he is on the court seems like an eternity... but I don't think he's really the guy ruining anyone's enjoyment of the game

 

[spurraider21]

This reasoning would make sense if the NBA had a Soccer type championship system where the winner is the one that gets the most pts at the end of the regular season. But what's the point of emphasizing "depth and strategy" during the regular season if what's gonna determine the champion is the star power during the playoffs?

The shortening of the regular season works to decrease number of injuries (I'm sure we are all against those) and to make the games more meaningful. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that wants to see Vic play 33 minutes of every game, instead of tuning in and seeing Bismack Biyombo out there.

i dont follow soccer closely enough to comment, but in most american sports, the playoffs always feel quite different from regular season. in football, you typically see the run game and defense matter more and the game slows down. in basketball, rotations shorten, so having great depth matters less and less. baseball more than anything else. i dont particularly like baseball but the game is basically a different sport altogether in the playoffs with pitching rotations going out the window, more regular usage of pinch hitters/batters all the time. depth ends up mattering more in many cases.

so i dont have a problem with emphasizing depth in the regular season even if it doesnt come into play when deciding who wins the title, i think its fine

but i still think the regular season should be shortened. eliminate back to backs altogether. its clear that players are getting hurt more than before and its at least in part because the game has chanced. more emphasis on 3pt shooting means defenses have to rotate and close out way more aggressively than ever before, a lot more stop/start and change of direction all over the floor all game long

 

[scott]

Credit @BatManu20 for the graphic, probably better fits this thread. I'll post my thoughts in a follow up post for you all to disagree with

 

[tearsofmorningdew]

Credit @BatManu20 for the graphic, probably better fits this thread. I'll post my thoughts in a follow up post for you all to disagree with

View attachment 937

Preventing top 4 picks in consecutive years is bullshit. Tons of teams do it and screw it up but because spurs did it now it’s bad? What about unprotected pick swaps?

 

[scott]

Thoughts on each of the ideas that are known to have been discussed:

1. Picks can only be protected Top-4 or 14+. I have less strong feelings about this, but I don't really like it because it reduces the ability to fine-tune value in trades. Also, teams voluntarily engage in these trades knowing the consequences... but, eh... it's not that huge a deal.
2. Lottery Odds freeze at trade deadline or a later date. Completely short-sighted proposal that will just result in tanking earlier as teams race to the bottom ahead of the deadline.
3. No longer allowing teams to pick in the Top 4 in Consecutive Years and/or after consecutive bottom 3 finishes. I think prohibiting Consecutive Top 4 picks would be pretty good (despite being a fan of a team with 3 consecutive Top 4 picks), though I have questions of how this would be handled with traded picks. Maybe instead of an outright ban, you just get your odds reduced if you had a top 4 pick the previous year. I do not like the idea of limiting teams from picking in the Top 4 after consecutive bottom 3 finishes. What if they are legitimately bad? Injuries strike? What if they finish with the 3rd worst record and get the 7th pick in a weak draft... now they are banned from a Top 4 pick the next year? I hate it.
4. No Top-4 pick after making the conference finals. The worst idea of them all. So a situation like the Cavs leaving just means that they are fucked?
5. Lottery odds allocated based on two-year records. I feel like this would have to be paired with some other kind of rule, otherwise you just run the risk of extending tanks to two-years.
6. Lottery extended to include play-in teams. I think this is a great idea. This would eliminate incentives to just throw your play-in match ups. Masai Ujiri had a refreshing moment of honest a few years ago when talking about the play-in when he responded "Play-in for what?" and went on to talk about how a lotto pick was much more valuable than the opportunity to get swept in the first round.
7. Flatten lottery odds. Have already shared why I think this is a terrible idea.

What's interesting is how incompatible some of the ideas are (having opposite follow-on effects), which to me signals that they are all very early in the ideation stage. Hopefully teams take this back to strategists at their organizations to think through the unintended consequences because I'm not sure the owners do.

 

[DAF86]

Just flatten the odds with a big monetary incentive for making the playoffs. It's the best, most simple solution.

 

[bozhemoi]

Some of those ideas are truly awful. I said in the other thread that these notions seem to spell out a league that has no interest in taking this seriously or to have good ideas.

The mainline issue is that you're not supposed to be thinking in terms of punishment. It's impossible to easily punish a bad team for tanking, because fines and so on are worth it in comparison to potentially years of winning (after getting a great player). And their ideas of punishment or 'leveling the playing field' in terms of flattened odds or whatever simply benefits teams that are momentarily bad (due to injury) or are already pretty good.

You've got to REWARD bad teams for doing the right thing, and none of these do that at all.

But, again, very seriously, tanking is NOT a problem. It's always been this way. Let the gambling companies whine and complain.

 

[PocketMonger]

Just flatten the odds with a big monetary incentive for making the playoffs. It's the best, most simple solution.

I was about to say this as well. Going back to the old odds repairs about 60% of the problem.

 

[bozhemoi]

If the issue is teams resting their players, then you have to account not for Wins/Losses but for whether they play their players. That's what you have to figure for, and that's not going to happen.

 

[bozhemoi]

I was about to say this as well. Going back to the old odds repairs about 60% of the problem.

The current draft odds are already flattened over what it was before. Used to be the worst team had a 25% odds of getting the best pick. So it's actually worse to tank now, and supposedly the issue is worse now?

Don't buy it. And flattening the odds even further is worse. Again, you're just ensuring bad teams stay horrible.

 

[DAF86]

Some of those ideas are truly awful. I said in the other thread that these notions seem to spell out a league that has no interest in taking this seriously or to have good ideas.

The mainline issue is that you're not supposed to be thinking in terms of punishment. It's impossible to easily punish a bad team for tanking, because fines and so on are worth it in comparison to potentially years of winning (after getting a great player). And their ideas of punishment or 'leveling the playing field' in terms of flattened odds or whatever simply benefits teams that are momentarily bad (due to injury) or are already pretty good.

You've got to REWARD bad teams for doing the right thing, and none of these do that at all.

But, again, very seriously, tanking is NOT a problem. It's always been this way. Let the gambling companies whine and complain.

Why would bad teams need rewarding? If they get lucky, so be it. But I don't see why rewarding teams that suck should be a must, tbh.

 

[DAF86]

The current draft odds are already flattened over what it was before. Used to be the worst team had a 25% odds of getting the best pick. So it's actually worse to tank now, and supposedly the issue is worse now?

Don't buy it. And flattening the odds even further is worse. Again, you're just ensuring bad teams stay horrible.

How? Litterally the worst 14 teams would be getting the 14 best picks.

Besides, it's not like this current system prevents the Pelicans, Kings, Wizards and Bulls from sucking eternally, tbh.

 

[scott]

I was about to say this as well. Going back to the old odds repairs about 60% of the problem.

The old odds are less flat than they are today. I'm trying to understand... you want flat odds or more skewed odds?

 

[bozhemoi]

Why would bad teams need rewarding? If they get lucky, so be it. But I don't see why rewarding teams that suck should be a must, tbh.

Because we need to identify what the actual problem is.

If the problem is that bad teams are sitting players, then they need incentive not to.

Otherwise, you're rewarding better teams with any changes you're trying to make.

This isn't really confusing in any way. What the league wants to change is the behavior of teams that are terrible and trying to get better. Their tactics seem to be: 1) punish those teams for trying to be better, and/or 2) reward better lottery teams simply for being better.

That makes no sense. Your third option is, like I said, reward bad teams for 'doing the right thing' by playing their players, which is the behavior and activity you want.

 

[bozhemoi]

How? Litterally the worst 14 teams would be getting the 14 best picks.

Besides, it's not like this current system prevents the Pelicans, Kings, Wizards and Bulls from sucking eternally, tbh.

I'm really not getting why this isn't clear to you. There is no world where the Thunder this year or a team that just barely misses the playoffs one season should suddenly get the top player at the same odds as a team that is truly struggling.

 

[scott]

How? Litterally the worst 14 teams would be getting the 14 best picks.

Besides, it's not like this current system prevents the Pelicans, Kings, Wizards and Bulls from sucking eternally, tbh.

It's already been explained to you, man. You just choose to ignore it.

Lessening the chances for the worst teams to get the best talent isn't going to make them better.

 

[ambchang]

I’m generally against not getting consecutive picks or something of that nature. Sometimes it’s a weak draft followed by a strong draft (actually happens quite a bit) so some teams would get unfairly penalized for it.

 

[DAF86]

I'm really not getting why this isn't clear to you. There is no world where the Thunder this year or a team that just barely misses the playoffs one season should suddenly get the top player at the same odds as a team that is truly struggling.

Why not? What's the fundamental difference between the Bulls or the Nets getting the first pick in the draft? And if a GM is smart enough as to get a deal done where they get a top pick, while also being a top team, good for them. Why shouldn't smart GM's be rewarded for doing smart business?

 

[Exstatic]

It’s amazing that the NBA got it right out of the gate in 1985: equal odds for each lottery team. It lowers the worst, or in many cases the fake worst team’s odds from 14% to 7.14%, raises the #14 team from 0.5% to 7.14%, and eliminates any incentive to tank all season for those better odds, because there are none. In addition, it would kill the play in tournament, because no one would want to win the games. Completely flatten the odds, eliminate the play in, and you might be left with a couple of teams scuffling at the very end, which we had back before the play in, anyway.

 

[DAF86]

It's already been explained to you, man. You just choose to ignore it.

Lessening the chances for the worst teams to get the best talent isn't going to make them better.

I get what yall trying to say just fine, I just disagree with it. I have no problem with the 14th worst team in the league getting a higher pick than the team with the worst record in the league.

You still have to explain why yall think that, for example: this offseason, the Bulls getting the #1 pick over the Nets is such a bad or unfair thing.