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

[sturt]

Further thought...

I'm imagining the strategy involved in how coaches would begin to manage games under the change to 6 periods instead of 4....

When to have all the starters on the floor together to maximize them... how you want certain combinations to be available at certain points.... how you mitigate the potential lack of production for your lower-rung players... how you counteract the opposing coach's decisions of who to play when...

For the chess players (figuratively speaking), this would just be that much better to watch, not to mention those of us who just philosophically embrace the idea that you'd like to see players who are good enough to make an NBA roster get their chance to perform, and not collect DNP-CDs for most of a year.

So... some "bonus positives" to it, beyond the main intent.

[sturt]

5 minutes ago, AHF said:

@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).

I continue to beg you to recognize that one doesn't have to be against your salary-focused lever in order to be for this rule-adjustment lever. You seem to take that approach, but maybe I'm reading too much into your posts.

And I counter, I don't think anything is easy in the NBA, but this much is pretty clear about most of life... everyone starts with the economic assessment of any proposal at almost any time.. "how am I possibly losing something here, or how do I stand to gain." This rule-adjustment lever is no different, but clearly, a salary-focused lever is in its nature economic.... thus, if anything, it's far more controversial to get done, vis-a-vis more vulnerable to getting shot down.

"Radical" is a emotive word that people throw out, but it is very much an eye-of-the-beholder thing, and as such, especially prone to being invoked just out of a desire to preempt discussion. In this case, if this is "radical," so was the 24 second shot clock. And, it's true... in a sense, it altogether was "radical" because it imposed a new time element into the game, wrought with some ripple effects. But I wouldn't call it radical, myself, when in fact you already had a clock.... all that actually happened was that the period was re-divided in a way to encourage an overall more entertaining outcome.

That's not far at all from what this is.

Now, it's always good to try to dig out something one can agree with, in my judgment, and it's not usually difficult to do that in responding to something you write. In this case, you do make a valid point that this would quite possibly lend itself to pressure to expand rosters.

If there is to be legit kickback.... and there's always going to be some legit kickback... I think you've identified it.... probably would need to consider a little roster expansion (mind you, bottom of the roster, of course, so you're still going to see minimum salary contracts there).

 

[AHF]

I don't love the idea of artificially capping people's minutes.  I agree it introduces a lot of strategic decisions beyond what we have today but it is complexity I don't think the game needs.

[sturt]

11 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don't love the idea of artificially capping people's minutes.  I agree it introduces a lot of strategic decisions beyond what we have today but it is complexity I don't think the game needs.

If it doesn't accomplish what it's intended to accomplish (.... and introducing a lot of new strategic decisions isn't what it's intended to accomplish but merely was mentioned as a bonus that I'm sure some of us would find new fun) ... then I don't love it either.

If it does accomplish what it's intended to accomplish (.... and I'm finding thus far no counterpoints that would suggest otherwise, but maybe I'm reading over top of something here)... I do. (Love it, I mean.) I think it's simple. I think it's something players and their union already whine about (ie, wear and tear), and so I think it's also readily politically do-able. And it probably goes without saying that I don't think most owners would balk at the price of paying maybe a couple more minimum salary players in exchange for their teams having a, perceived or real, enhanced opportunity to compete for the big prize.

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, sturt said:

If it doesn't accomplish what it's intended to accomplish (.... and introducing a lot of new strategic decisions isn't what it's intended to accomplish but merely was mentioned as a bonus that I'm sure some of us would find new fun) ... then I don't love it either.

If it does accomplish what it's intended to accomplish (.... and I'm finding thus far no counterpoints that would suggest otherwise, but maybe I'm reading over top of something here)... I do. (Love it, I mean.) I think it's simple. I think it's something players and their union already whine about (ie, wear and tear), and so I think it's also readily politically do-able.

I think the teams with superstars will still crush the non-superstar teams even if  you cap Curry and Durant's minutes at 32 per game.  Last year, the team closest to challenging GS/CLE was OKC and this proposal would have murdered them.  They were a two star team and if you cut back on Durant and Westbrook's minutes they still would run a lot of teams off the floor but now they have no chance versus a GS.  CLE would likely be hurt as well since they don't have quite as many stars stacked but they would still have run the East without too much difficulty given their depth with Irving, Love, Smith, Thomson, etc. (probably featuring some periods where Kevin Love is the offensive fulcrum).  So I don't see it accomplishing the goal of introducing parity.  MVP-level talent would remain the biggest predictor of titles (in my speculation / opinion).

[sturt]

So, in your calculus, taking whoever replaces Kyrie and LeBron for those 5-6 minutes they currently play.... if you put those two guys on a court with three other random players, and you have them face-off with the 2nd string PG and SF plus three random players for Team X.... that what we'll find is that the delta between Kyrie and LeBron  over Team X's starting PG and SF is essentially the same as the delta we'd find with the back-ups.... what you're saying is, CLE is just that superior up and down their roster to other teams.

All due respect, I think differently.

I think the talent inventory, league-wide, is about like this:

... and that as you move down from the elite few, the tendency is that there are more and more players more and more equivalent in talent level with one another...

Thus, if one thinks that is reasonable, then the logical conclusion is the less minutes that the elite few are getting, the more likely it is that others of more equivalent talent are on the floor opposing each other.

Moreover, consider that the whole "big 3" philosophy has always been that you can win with scrubs as long as you've got those elites... and to the degree that that's been followed, then, one would have reason to think there would be more lesser talent players on such a roster.

 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

In this case, you do make a valid point that this would quite possibly lend itself to pressure to expand rosters.

Given a little more time to tinker--what I like about you @AHF is that you do make me think--I want to amend this.

From "quite possibly" to just "possibly."

Trying to think like a coach might lay it out, I think in any period if you've got 10 players routinely available to you to play, you're good. Or, even with an injury or a foul out, let's say 8 or 9 players, in that event I think you're still good. Add to that that these are 8 minute instead of 12 minute periods, and all the more so.

And here's what I think might be conventional wisdom as to how a coach would go into a given game thinking about player usage:

(Mind you, the secondary players many times won't even enter the game in a given period... your primaries may all, and likely mostly will, play all 8 minutes--maximizing those minutes they're able to play..... which means many will remain available even in the last period as a consequence, and often if not typically allowing the coach a full roster of players to use in that final 8 minutes.)

[Guest]

I've been  trying but in the end...

...above my Squawk grade.

[sturt]

I must be making this more complicated than it is, Sister @JayBirdHawk. I have a real talent for that, unfortunately. Where am I failing you on this?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, sturt said:

I must be making this more complicated than it is, Sister @JayBirdHawk. I have a real talent for that, unfortunately. Where am I failing you on this?

too many words. lol

[sturt]

Cliffs notes version, then, @JayBirdHawk:

- 48 min game = 8 min x 6 periods (3 per half)

- All players on rosters subject to limit of appearing in 4 periods (32 min total)

- Small-picture Effect = Minutes naturally become more leveraged up and down the roster, degrading the capacity of the elites to affect the outcome of a given game

- Big-picture Effect = More reward for teams who are superior 1-10 rather than merely 1-3, ie, greater opportunity to win big prize

=======================

FYI, here's the basketball-reference list of average minutes per game currently...

And so, would be the players who would naturally see some reduction in minutes, or at least, seconds.

 

 

[AHF]

48 minutes ago, sturt said:

From "quite possibly" to just "possibly."

Currently, you have 13 players on a roster.  That means you can max out at eligiblity per period like this:

 

1 - 8

2 - 9

3 - 8

4 - 9

5 - 8

6 - 9

 

During the periods with only 8 players eligible, anyone who can't play multiple positions is a huge risk for you.  You roster 2 point guards like we have today and if one gets hurt then you are jamming guys out of position into playing.  Even if they don't get hurt during the periods where only one is eligible, you will be required to either run them the full 8 minutes or stick people in out of position.  You absolutely will have injuries (both short term and longer term) and will need to give breathers or adjust for fouls, etc. within the period and having only 8 players even theoretically eligible ties your hands.  As most coaches would never be comfortable with only a roster of 8 people, I think it would force roster expansion or a change in how you define who is eligible on game day.

You are also right that this will force inferior players to play more minutes.  I don't think that necessarily is a good thing.  The league is watered down with marginal talent enough.  We just rostered Kelly and Patterson for goodness sake.  I never want to see those guys part of a regular rotation.  Forcing teams to go 15 deep or however it shakes out will result, IMO, in lower quality basketball.  I just don't like it from a fan perspective.  I do not want to see Kelly and Patterson go up against some other team's 14/15 players.  I don't want to see more minutes from Moose or Mike Scott this year.  Just not nearly as interesting as watching Sap.

On top of that I still think it would be a stars rule system.  You correctly point out that limiting star time means more play by guys at a level where there is little difference between them in talent.  That should wash out about the same over time.  These replacement level players wouldn't give either team a huge advantage.  Then the stars come on and make their usual big impact.  Now certain replacement level players might be hot or cold in a particular game but that should even out largely over a large enough period of time and the bigger driver for success will be the same as always:  elite stars.

 

[bird_dirt]

Uhggg....this thread requires way too much reading. Where's @kg01 when you need him?

[sturt]

- It would be nothing to make all 15 players eligible for games.... wasn't even that long ago it was that way.

- 1-6 minutes less of elite players and watching their back-ups is simply not too high a cost to pay to have a legit season where the outcome is significantly more in-doubt than what it is now.

1 hour ago, AHF said:

These replacement level players wouldn't give either team a huge advantage.

- Again, by definition, teams that have put most of their money toward the top of their roster... so-called big 3... have subscribed to the idea that they can fill-in with whoever... but therein is where there is obvious logical opportunity that another team could be superior

- So, to be clear, I'm asserting that where you currently have 2-3 teams in any given season that are considered legitimate threats to win the big prize, this shrinks things down and brings those 2-3 teams closer to the pack such that it's reasonable to think 4-6 teams would be legit threats.

 

1 hour ago, AHF said:

 I do not want to see Kelly and Patterson go up against some other team's 14/15 players.

 

 

And you think that's likely?

Not at all.

The 4 periods that the top 5 players would be playing, we can be almost certain they would be playing all 8 minutes of that time.

The 2 periods that the middle 5 players would be playing, they too would be getting most of those minutes, if not all of them. 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

On 2/24/2017 at 11:20 AM, sturt said:

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.

 

 

Hell, I would protest.  Honestly, ** bleep ** all of that.

If a team like the Hawks, or some of these other squads stuck in the middle, can't properly construct a TEAM that can take out a superstar, they don't deserve to win.  Why limit the playing time of a superstar player, just to balance things out?  That'll be like only allowing Tom Brady to play 75% of the game, forcing the Patriots to possibly play the backup QB 2 - 3 possessions a game.  Or Julio Jones.  Or Dennis Schröder.  Imagine having to roll with Delaney for 16 min a game.  ( Oh wait . . . ) 

The REAL PROBLEM in the NBA, is that these GMs stay failing in trying to construct a winner.  They constantly overlook players who can ball, for players who fit their system, or have great character, or look the part physically.  Or they go with whatever is the "flavor of the month" in the league, and try to copy that.

We just got our asses kicked by Miami, a team without a legit superstar.  Then we turn around and get our ass kicked by Orlando, a team without a legit star player.  If we don't right this ship quickly, we're going to get our asses kicked throughout the month of March, something that doesn't normally happen.

Fans pay hundreds of dollars to see this NBA product.  And sometimes, fans pay to see the greatness of a superstar player.  So if my team sucks, at least I get to see a guy who can really ball out.  No way would I want his time on the court limited, just to help the less talented teams.

This is like what NASCAR is trying to do, with their "stage racing".

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

On 2/24/2017 at 7:11 PM, sturt said:

- It would be nothing to make all 15 players eligible for games.... wasn't even that long ago it was that way.

- 1-6 minutes less of elite players and watching their back-ups is simply not too high a cost to pay to have a legit season where the outcome is significantly more in-doubt than what it is now.

- Again, by definition, teams that have put most of their money toward the top of their roster... so-called big 3... have subscribed to the idea that they can fill-in with whoever... but therein is where there is obvious logical opportunity that another team could be superior

- So, to be clear, I'm asserting that where you currently have 2-3 teams in any given season that are considered legitimate threats to win the big prize, this shrinks things down and brings those 2-3 teams closer to the pack such that it's reasonable to think 4-6 teams would be legit threats.

 

 

 

And you think that's likely?

Not at all.

The 4 periods that the top 5 players would be playing, we can be almost certain they would be playing all 8 minutes of that time.

The 2 periods that the middle 5 players would be playing, they too would be getting most of those minutes, if not all of them. 

I appreciate the in-depth thought you put into this.  I really do.  But put your theory to the test.

You're Coach Bud, and your new system is in place.   Construct your rotation as the Hawks head coach, and give a minute and period breakdown of when each player will play.   Take your time and do this.  Really think about how your rotations will look,.  And be mindful of who is playing with each other.

For any theory, you must put it through a hypothetical test.

[sturt]

46 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Hell, I would protest.  Honestly, ** bleep ** all of that.

If a team like the Hawks, or some of these other squads stuck in the middle, can't properly construct a TEAM that can take out a superstar, they don't deserve to win.  Why limit the playing time of a superstar player, just to balance things out?  That'll be like only allowing Tom Brady to play 75% of the game, forcing the Patriots to possibly play the backup QB 2 - 3 possessions a game.  Or Julio Jones.  Or Dennis Schröder.  Imagine having to roll with Delaney for 16 min a game.  ( Oh wait . . . ) 

The REAL PROBLEM in the NBA, is that these GMs stay failing in trying to construct a winner.  They constantly overlook players who can ball, for players who fit their system, or have great character, or look the part physically.  Or they go with whatever is the "flavor of the month" in the league, and try to copy that.

We just got our asses kicked by Miami, a team without a legit superstar.  Then we turn around and get our ass kicked by Orlando, a team without a legit star player.  If we don't right this ship quickly, we're going to get our asses kicked throughout the month of March, something that doesn't normally happen.

Fans pay hundreds of dollars to see this NBA product.  And sometimes, fans pay to see the greatness of a superstar player.  So if my team sucks, at least I get to see a guy who can really ball out.  No way would I want his time on the court limited, just to help the less talented teams.

This is like what NASCAR is trying to do, with their "stage racing".

 

So you would like to sell me on the idea that it's all about the GMs ineptitude?

Yeah, 28 inept GMs.

Wait, I thought it's all about the superstars? Well, which is it?

Now c'mon.

This is a problem of the NBA game being naturally predisposed to being particularly vulnerable to being dominated by 1, 2 or 3 elite players... I just spelled that out.

And no, you're not going to see an argument for the same with Tom Brady... AGAIN, I just spelled this out... because football doesn't have this same problem that the NBA has, and AGAIN, a good hunk of that is simply because Tom Brady can only affect about half of any given game by nature of the way it is played... and even when he's on the field, he has about TWICE as many other players on the field at the same time as he is, so it's further watered down from what similar elite players can do in the NBA.

 

[sturt]

16 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

I appreciate the in-depth thought you put into this.  I really do.  But put your theory to the test.

You're Coach Bud, and your new system is in place.   Construct your rotation as the Hawks head coach, and give a minute and period breakdown of when each player will play.   Take your time and do this.  Really think about how your rotations will look,.  And be mindful of who is playing with each other.

For any theory, you must put it through a hypothetical test.

1. Make no mistake... if we were to ever agree on this, I'd also be an advocate that you don't just run with it... you test it. You do what baseball does for this kind of thing, and you test it in you D-League. I agree, there are almost always curves in the road unforeseen.

2. We see some number of players on the court for 8 minutes at a time pretty much anytime, so I'm not sure if this is where you're going with a part of that, but I don't perceive there to be any great concern about players getting tired.

3. Again, make no mistake.... it's completely understood that there would be some adjustments for coaches in terms of strategy. But let's not make that out to be any terribly insurmountable obstacle. It's what coaches do.

[sturt]

North, I would add... if this works... IF this brings CLE and GSW closer to the pack so that the next tier of contenders are a greater threat--and that's really what I believe it would do, as you are right, I've given this some serious thought--THEN the league accomplishes a great thing in making its regular season of significantly greater interest... and keeping more fans more interested for more of the season is what maximizes league profits. Mind you, we're not creating a situation where it keeps great teams from being great so much as we're putting a governor in the system that makes the race about what more of the racing team contributes, as opposed to just being about a superior component in the engine.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I still want you to write it out, whenever you get the chance.  Just peep and see how your lineups would look.