Problem Solving > Getting the NBA to join MLB and NFL to a place of parity

[sturt]

We've been talking about this. Other teams' fans have been talking about this. But at some point, it would seem rational for all the fans talking about this to come out of their fox holes and start working together toward some consensus on a solution since the NBA and players union thus far seem unable to figure it out--in spite of the fact that, there's a very real sense in which they are all leaving money on the table by virtue of so many fans perceiving the road to a championship as having a "Bridge Out Ahead - 6 months" sign at the very beginning of the race.  So, a premise is that the NBA limits its own popularity in comparison to the other major professional sports when entire eras are consumed by one or two elite-talents on one or two teams, inhibiting the other 90% of teams and their fans from having much rational hope to win the big prize, all things being equal.

Thus... here's a starting point...

NBA has a handicap in terms of achieving a more tolerable place of parity because the very design of the game has about 1/2 as many players on the field of play as the other two major sports... so naturally, even just one player being especially superior to others raises the likelihood that that team can dominate since he constitutes 20% of the line-up, as opposed to something closer to half of that, 10%, in the other two--and more realistically something closer to even half of that, 5%, when one acknowledges that (a) NFL players only impact that half of the game when their unit is on the field and (b) while MLB players are two-way players (offense and defense) for the most part, most innings go by without a player having even an opportunity to affect the game because they don't come to bat or, on defense, the ball is not hit to them. (Going a bit further, this is why having that dominant starting pitcher is so central to winning, because no player in that game has greater opportunity to affect as much of the game as he does.)

So/but... since we see a much greater likelihood in any given season that a given team will have a legit chance to compete for that season's big prize in the other two leagues, what can be learned from them that can help the NBA situation?

First, let's agree that simplicity matters. Some complex system with several levers is less desirable both in terms of effectiveness and, just as pragmatically, in terms of league politics. Any solution has to score high on the simplicity measure.

Second, let's recognize that, for all the talk about salary caps, the fact that the NFL has a hard cap and MLB has none at all suggests that that's not necessarily as pivotal as conventionally advertised. At least, it leads us to think that a satisfactory level of parity in the NBA is possible without focusing on salary cap issues.

Here's at least one path I think might be worth mapping out... in short, re-distribute the 48 minute game into 8-minute periods (so, 3 per half), and establish that each player is limited to being on the court for 4 of those.... a grand total of 32 minutes max per game.

- So, it's at least as simple in concept as establishing a shot clock.

- It requires no tinkering with salary cap issues.

- It nudges the individual basketball player's overall effect on a game more toward what any individual football or baseball player's effect is.

- Players and their union embrace it because they're commonly voicing concerns about having too much expected of them.... effectively, this helps in two ways--both at the top end, since 60-ish players currently average more than 32 minutes a game, and at the other end, it raises the likelihood that coaches have to use their entire roster for games, thus, spreading out those court minutes so that all players benefit.

In sum, the best players enjoy slightly less wear-and-tear, and the lower-end players gain the promise of getting their chance to shine earlier in their careers.

Who will protest?

CLE and GSW fans. Some of them, anyway. "How dare you enact this at the zenith of our elite players' careers!!!" Others will see the greater good, I believe, because both of those franchises' older fans know all too well that the system as-is makes it difficult for franchises to get above water for decades at a time, even while practically every NFL and MLB team enjoys competitive years within any given decade.

Does it find the sweet spot between increasing the opportunities for other teams to legitimately compete and, at the same time, not compromising the league's best talent too much?

That's up for discussion, but I think so. Maybe not "the" sweet spot as-if we can locate precisely where that is... but it definitely, imo, would move us within an acceptable range.

 

 

[HawkItus]

Parity is a lie.   You are tilting at windmills.  What you want is less certainty.   The only way to achieve that in the NBA is a smaller sample size in the playoffs and shorter season.  

[sturt]

Think I just wrote some things that strongly suggest otherwise.

[HawkItus]

Unique teams to play in the finals over the last decade:

 

NBA 13/30    NFL 10/32

[Lurker]

It's often the same teams in the NFL, but even with it being the same teams in the NFL, as I said in another post (that likely caused this spinoff thread) getting red hot can often work in the NFL, getting red hot in the NBA doesn't work. The 2007 and 2011 Giants teams were nothing special, they got red hot.

[AHF]

Eliminate max salaries for stars and keep the cap so you can't have a ton of stars on a single team.  Let Durant turn down $50M to go earn $25M if he wants to ride on someone else's bandwagon.  The stars are happy to give up a few $$s in salary to collect an easy ring but let's start talking real money.

[sturt]

@HawkItus...

Not sure why we're getting stuck on the premise... does anyone think the NFL has a parity rut in comparison to the NBA?

And why is that? (.... I didn't look it up, but let's take that stat cited as valid.)

Seems to me, this captures it...

Virtually no one is as sure that the Patriots will be back in the Super Bowl next season as they are that the Cavs and Warriors will be in the 2018 Finals.

The Broncos, similarly, may have won the previous Super Bowl, but were no mortal lock to make it the next season.

Again... again... read what I wrote... there may be many reasons for that, but there's one that is especially simple and compelling.

[sturt]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

Eliminate max salaries for stars and keep the cap so you can't have a ton of stars on a single team.  Let Durant turn down $50M to go earn $25M if he wants to ride on someone else's bandwagon.  The stars are happy to give up a few $$s in salary to collect an easy ring but let's start talking real money.

I can buy a lot of that, and have said as much before when you brought it up...

Just think we have an easier solution that demands no more salary cap tinkering.

[AHF]

I think the bigger issue is stacking stars on one team.  Remove the max salary cap and that becomes much less of an issue.

I think the proposal may have some unintended consequences in terms of pacing and impact of players as well.  Not sure if you are envisioning a system where guys can only enter the game during 4 of the 8 minute sections of the game but if so that could get very complex dealing with foul trouble, etc.  It also fundamentally changes the flow of how basketball has been played since its inception.  Some guys have more value because they can play longer minutes and other guys are already utilized with reduced minutes (<32 per game) so you change the balance of value among players.  I am not saying that this isn't workable but it is a much more fundamental change to the game than I think is needed.

For those reasons, I think it is much simpler to remove the mechanism that is allowing teams to stack a bunch of stars on the same roster:  max salaries that permit teams to pay the best players way below their true market value.

[sturt]

4 minutes ago, AHF said:

Not sure if you are envisioning a system where guys can only enter the game during 4 of the 8 minute sections of the game

 

45 minutes ago, sturt said:

8-minute periods (so, 3 per half), and establish that each player is limited to being on the court for 4 of those.... a grand total of 32 minutes max per game.

Straightforward, no?

Ex: Sap plays maybe periods 1, 3, 4 and 6.

[sturt]

6 minutes ago, AHF said:

Some guys have more value because they can play longer minutes and other guys are already utilized with reduced minutes (<32 per game) so you change the balance of value among players.

Right. That's the trade-off, though we may differ in how we explain it.

You're institutionally forcing coaches to leverage minutes which naturally will have effect on the top end, and trickles down from there.

In trade, you're getting a more competitive balance without necessarily preempting great teams from being great after all.... which is more like what the NFL and MLB can boast.

[AHF]

36 minutes ago, sturt said:

Right. That's the trade-off, though we may differ in how we explain it.

You're institutionally forcing coaches to leverage minutes which naturally will have effect on the top end, and trickles down from there.

In trade, you're getting a more competitive balance without necessarily preempting great teams from being great after all.... which is more like what the NFL and MLB can boast.

I actually don't think this gets you competitive balance.  The stars still win.

Golden State runs:

Period 1 - Curry, Thompson, Green

Period 2 - Thompson, Durant, Green

Period 3 - Curry, Durant

Period 4 - Thompson, Durant, Green

Period 5 - Curry, Thompson

Period 6 - Curry, Durant, Green

 

That is plenty of star power to fill in with role players around them and crush teams that can't even play their best players more than 32 minutes.  Heck, if a team like OKC is playing them and Westbrook has to sit for a couple minutes during one of his "on" periods due to foul trouble or minor injury then he may not even play 32 minutes.

 

The real problem is stacking stars which gives a talent edge and limits the number of teams with an MVP level player on them.  

[HawkItus]

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/18510617/how-nba-standings-never-change-jan-20

[HawkItus]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

@HawkItus...

Not sure why we're getting stuck on the premise... does anyone think the NFL has a parity rut in comparison to the NBA?

And why is that? (.... I didn't look it up, but let's take that stat cited as valid.)

Seems to me, this captures it...

Virtually no one is as sure that the Patriots will be back in the Super Bowl next season as they are that the Cavs and Warriors will be in the 2018 Finals.

The Broncos, similarly, may have won the previous Super Bowl, but were no mortal lock to make it the next season.

Again... again... read what I wrote... there may be many reasons for that, but there's one that is especially simple and compelling.

The reason you give is not the reason why the Patriots  aren't a sure thing(even though vegas gives them the highest odds, but that is another discussion)  The reason is because of the shorter schedule.  If you increased the football season by 16 games you would find the top teams winning at probably the same clip as NBA teams.   Also,  11 players are deciding the outcome of each play for each team.  Baseball really comes down to 1 man vs. the fielding team.   Basketball you have 5 on 5, but the nature of the game allows you to isolate your best player for maximum return on each possession.  Football really has less parity than any of the other sports.   The hard cap is a big reason why.  You are forced to turn over players, but if you make a mistake you are punished heavier by the cap.    

[sturt]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

I actually don't think this gets you competitive balance.  The stars still win.

Golden State runs:

Period 1 - Curry, Thompson, Green

Period 2 - Thompson, Durant, Green

Period 3 - Curry, Durant

Period 4 - Thompson, Durant, Green

Period 5 - Curry, Thompson

Period 6 - Curry, Durant, Green

 

That is plenty of star power to fill in with role players around them and crush teams that can't even play their best players more than 32 minutes.  Heck, if a team like OKC is playing them and Westbrook has to sit for a couple minutes during one of his "on" periods due to foul trouble or minor injury then he may not even play 32 minutes.

 

The real problem is stacking stars which gives a talent edge and limits the number of teams with an MVP level player on them.  

 

Don't misunderstand.... again, I've bought the rationale you've offered on max contracts. Same page.

But, first, it's now a can kicked waaaaaaaaay down the road now that the new CBA has been approved, second, it's a contentious political issue that if it ever occurs (and it could) will have to survive opposition to it from a variety of pockets, third, the NBA and MLB outcomes establish that we don't have to focus on that to get to something better, and fourth and finally, one doesn't have to UNembrace that to embrace this.

Another point... I'm not starting this out of a specific interest to prevent great teams from being great,

It's not about keeping Google rising up and becoming Google. We want to see teams/companies have ambition to be ever something better than they currently are, just as we want people to be that way.

But it is about having some antitrust provision that prevents one or two from monopolizing the industry.

This modifies things so that more of a team's roster has to be utilized... so that superiority at the very top does not, on is own, portend that your team can so easily assume it will be in the Finals.

And importantly, this is something that is simple and, as that it doesn't have the political trappings/complications that a salary lever would have, it conceivably could be done without even having to wait for a new CBA.

Who wants to wait (...aside from some GSW and CLE fans)?

[sturt]

1 hour ago, HawkItus said:

The reason you give is not the reason why the Patriots  aren't a sure thing(even though vegas gives them the highest odds, but that is another discussion)  The reason is because of the shorter schedule.  If you increased the football season by 16 games you would find the top teams winning at probably the same clip as NBA teams.   Also,  11 players are deciding the outcome of each play for each team.  Baseball really comes down to 1 man vs. the fielding team.   Basketball you have 5 on 5, but the nature of the game allows you to isolate your best player for maximum return on each possession.  Football really has less parity than any of the other sports.   The hard cap is a big reason why.  You are forced to turn over players, but if you make a mistake you are punished heavier by the cap.    

We can, and are, discussing why the NFL goes into every season with some reason to dispute who will be in the final championship, as compared to the NBA where it is commonly thought that we should expect CLE and GSW in even next year's championship.

That it is that way is not really anything anyone disputes, though it appeared that you wanted to take it that direction at first. 

And glad to see you join me in the discussion about how the number of players, in itself, is a fundamental factor here... if you missed it, that's a core principle of what I already said.

(Of course, I add to that, that it's also about, then, the amount of time within any contest that individual players are allotted by the rules to actually impact the game.)

Finally, you make the assertion that

 

1 hour ago, HawkItus said:

Football really has less parity than any of the other sports.

 

I suppose we can define "parity" a number of ways... number of times appearing in a championship game/series within some period of time is one.

And yet, regardless of what one wants to call it, "parity" or something else," I think we all realize what we're really trying to accomplish is just this... it's more what we don't want... we don't want this thing that we have where one or two teams that are quite so lock-certain to meet in that season's championship. And heaven help us, we sure don't want to be nearly as lock-certain as we already are about the next (!) season's championship.

We want the regular season, then, to matter more. We want there to be great teams, but enough of them that there's actually some drama that builds to the epic conclusion.

[HawkItus]

3 minutes ago, sturt said:

We can, and are, discussing why the NFL goes into every season with some reason to dispute who will be in the final championship, as compared to the NBA where it is commonly thought that we should expect CLE and GSW in even next year's championship.

That it is that way is not really anything anyone disputes, though it appeared that you wanted to take it that direction at first. 

And glad to see you join me in the discussion about how the number of players, in itself, is a fundamental factor here... if you missed it, that's a core principle of what I already said.

Finally, you make the assertion that

 

 

I suppose we can define "parity" a number of ways... number of times appearing in a championship game/series within some period of time is one.

And yet, regardless of what one wants to call it, "parity" or something else," I think we all realize what we're really trying to accomplish is just this... it's more what we don't want... we don't want this thing that we have where one or two teams that are quite so lock-certain to meet in that season's championship. And heaven help us, we sure don't want to be nearly as lock-certain as we already are about the next (!) season's championship.

We want the regular season, then, to matter more. We want there to be great teams, but enough of them that there's actually some drama that builds to the epic conclusion.

But, that is why I say it is impossible.   They tried tell Wilt he couldn't dunk.  Put the zone in to stop the inside beast like Shaq.  Changed the hand checking rule to make it easier for wings to score so that everybody didn't need a Kobe.   It doesn't matter.  If we take the collective Squawk team and put the best player who is not marginally, but transcendentally better on one of those teams he is going to win.   The only thing that can stop it is coaching.  Any changes like limiting minutes artificially will just make the issue worse.  Where as Westbrook or Harden play all game to keep the game competitive once they go out their teams would be hamstrung and get blown out.   The good teams aren't just 2 deep.   The 1st 5 of the best teams are so much better than the other guys it is laughable.    

[sturt]

I'm enjoying that you're engaged in the discussion.

But pardon my annoyance that you're dragging in irrelevant "un-successes" to try to support your argument that (in my best Borg voice)... RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

Brother Hawkitus, even the most elementary logic tells you that the less that an elite player can be on the court of play, the less he can affect the game.

I'm not interested in keeping elite players from being elite players.

I'm only interested in raising the impact of the other players, who aren't as likely to be elite (hence the term "elite") by reducing the amount of time that the elite players can influence the outcome.

 

 

[HawkItus]

25 minutes ago, sturt said:

I'm enjoying that you're engaged in the discussion.

But pardon my annoyance that you're dragging in irrelevant "un-successes" to try to support your argument that (in my best Borg voice)... RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

Brother Hawkitus, even the most elementary logic tells you that the less that an elite player can be on the court of play, the less he can affect the game.

I'm not interested in keeping elite players from being elite players.

I'm only interested in raising the impact of the other players, who aren't as likely to be elite (hence the term "elite") by reducing the amount of time that the elite players can influence the outcome.

 

 

Ok.  In the interest of offering a solution.  My simplest one is to eliminate the 3 pointer as we know it today.   get rid of the corner 3 and make every foul a 1+ shot.  In other words if I foul Lebron he gets 1 shot.  Make it and he gets his second shot.  Miss it and he loses his second attempt.   This helps to curtail the built in ref assist for stars and changing the 3 makes defending the great offensive players that control the ball easier.  No you make GSW a little more human.

[AHF]

@sturt  I think you underestimate how difficult it would be to get your proposal approved.  If you are going to sink what to me a simpler and more elegant solution because the CBA is in place (one that mind you can be modified at any time by consent) then I have to knock you for proposing an idea that would be even less likely to garner the necessary support it needs to go through.  The changes you are proposing are pretty radical and would require the owners to approve as a group.  From a practical standpoint, I think the idea of eliminating max salaries is much more likely to get passed than the idea of dividing the game into 6 segements in which players will be eligible to play in up to 4 of them (which would then require additional changes needing player consent like expanding roster size to account for the fact that your system allows for only 3 eligible subs in most periods regardless of injuries, fouls, etc. which I cannot imagine ever flying).