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

[HawkItus]

3 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

NBA Playoffs under the 1 and done NCAA Tournament rules.  

 

Winner of ACTUAL Game 1 of that series, advances to next round.  Deviation in team winning Game 1, but losing the series, is shown in RED by the team who actually won Game 1

When deviation occurs, and the next round game is not the actual playoff series . . .  (1) SEASON series record between the two teams will determine who advances to the next round. (2) Overall record will be next tiebreaker

 

2016

 

East playoff teams:  ATL - BOS - CLE - DET - MIA - CHA - TOR - IND

1st rd East winners:  ATL - CLE - MIA - IND . . . ( TOR out as #2 seed )

2nd rd East winners:  CLE - MIA   ( season series tied 2 - 2 with IND . . . but better overall record )

East winner:  MIA ( won season series over CLE 2 - 1 ) . . . MIA was #3 seed

 

West playoff teams:  GS - HOU - OKC - DAL - POR - LAC - SA - MEM

1st rd West winners: GS - OKC - LAC - SA

2nd rd West winners:  GS - SA

West winner:  GS ( won season series 3 - 1 over SA )

 

NBA CHAMPION:  GS  ( won season series over MIA 2 - 0 )

 

2015

 

East playoff teams:  ATL - BK - CHI - MIL - CLE - BOS - WAS - TOR

1st rd East winners:  ATL - WAS - CLE - CHI

2nd rd East winners:  WAS - CHI

East winner:  CHI ( season series with WAS tied 2 - 2 . . CHI had better overall record ) . . CHI was #3 seed

 

West playoff teams:  GS - NO - HOU - DAL - LAC - SA - MEM - POR

1st rd West winners:   GS - MEM - LAC - HOU

2nd rd West winners:  GS - LAC

West winner:  GS  ( won season series over LAC 3 - 1 )

 

NBA CHAMPION:  GS ( season series tied 1 - 1 with CHI . . GS has better overall record )

 

2014

 

East playoff teams:  BK - TOR - IND - ATL - MIA - CHA - WAS - CHI

1st rd East winners:  BK - MIA - ATL - WAS . . . ( ATL win would be an 8th seed over a 1st seed ) 

2nd rd East winners:  MIA - WAS ( won season series 3 - 1 over ATL )

East winner:  MIA ( season series with WAS tied 2 - 2 . . . CLE better overall record )

 

West playoff teams:  LAC - GS - OKC - MEM - POR - HOU - SA - DAL

1st rd West winners:   GS - OKC - POR - SA

2nd rd West winners:  OKC ( won season series 2 - 1 over GS ) - SA

West winner:  SA

 

NBA CHAMPION:  SA

 

2013

 

East playoff teams:  MIA - MIL - BK - CHI - NY - BOS - IND - ATL

1st rd East winners:  MIA - BK - NY - IND

2nd rd East winners:  MIA ( won season series 3 - 0 over BK ) - IND

East winner:  MIA

 

West playoff teams:  OKC - HOU - LAC - MEM - SA - LAL - DEN - GS

1st rd West winners:  OKC - LAC - SA - DEN

2nd rd West winners:  OKC ( won season series 3 - 0 over LAC ) - SA ( season series tied 2 - 2 . . SA better overall record )

West winner:  OKC ( season series tied 2 - 2 . . . OKC better overall record )

 

NBA CHAMPION:  MIA ( won season series 2 - 0 over OKC ) . . . ( but no iconic Ray Allen 3 point moment vs SA )

 

 

Definitely not a scientific look at things.  But if you truly wanted an uproar in the path of a champion, the 1 and done scenario may provide you what you're looking for . . . especially in the EAST.

NOTE:  Interesting how it would be the legacy of Dwyane Wade that would be impacted in a positive note, while Lebron's would be significantly diminished, in this scenario.

Better yet round Robin playoffs.  2 series lost to eliminate.  Example in the East. 1 and done.  3  wins get you to the finals, but 2 eliminates you.  Everybody plays everybody until 2 are left.  

1 vs. 8 = 1 wins vs. 5

2 vs. 7 = 2  wins v. 6

3 vs. 6 = 3 wins v. 7

4 vs. 5 = 4 wins v. 8

etc.

[sturt]

 

http://nba.nbcsports.com/2017/05/26/2017-nba-playoffs-have-been-historically-uncompetitive/

[sturt]

On 2/27/2017 at 10:38 AM, sturt said:

But why do I have to go to a GSW or a CLE when they have little money and SAS, TOR, OKC, BOS et al have more money? THAT'S the crack in that logic... and simultaneously, a support to what I've put forward. There would be more PERCEPTION OF POTENTIAL TO COMPETE, and so the more natural inclination to be attracted to those other options. Indeed, Durant may not even end up in GSW under this scenario--because he can see a way for OKC to actually have a shot that he can't see under the status quo.

Your idea attempts to reach a conclusion that (a) assumes the premise of a new climate under the 4-of-6 cap as proposed, but (b) rooted in the psychology/self-interest of the current climate.

Can't do that and reach a reasoned conclusion.

 

So, here we are. Where we thought we'd be.

And it's where we think we'll be next year, too.

Welcome to the GDA... the Groundhog Day Association.

Not satisfied here, and continue to advocate that a re-format would lead to a greater emphasis on deeper rosters, and though you're never going to get to a place of "perfect parity," nor am I persuaded that that's the real goal, over time (within 2-3 years, imo), this predicts us getting to a place of 4-6 legitimate contenders year-in-year-out, as opposed to the current state of play.

32 minutes per game for any given player is no small number, but by implementing a format that compels a head coach to define which 4 of the 6 periods a given player will play--and, just as salient, which 2 of the 6 he won't--it provides some moderation and encourages GMs to think beyond just those first 3 players in developing their rosters, since those kinds of players eat up so much of the salary cap so as to force sacrifice at the middle and lower parts of the roster, which in turn makes it more plausible that the system now rewards you for having 4-5 high quality players over having one elite plus 2 high quality players.

Star players will always matter. But when you force teams to choose how they'll strategically deploy those star players in assigning them to periods, you automatically mitigate their likelihood of having such a dominating effect like we have in the current structure. As emphasized in the OP, because only 5 players are on the floor at any given time, that dictates a mathematical concentrated effect in basketball in comparison to baseball or football when you have a "big 3" on the floor for much of the game, with few occasions of having 2 of those 3 on the floor, and rare occasions of having 1 of those 3.

A tipping point premise here is that salaries are roughly equivalent to the capacity that players have to contribute to wins, and that in having a governor (salary cap) on salaries, it forces teams to make decisions about the distribution of talent up and down their rosters. Currently, you can focus with practically full abandon on that top, and fill-in with more minimum salary types.

By confining in-game participation to four 8-minute blocks, it certainly doesn't eliminate the natural desire to have the best 1-3 you can have, but it does make you think more seriously about what sacrifices you're willing to make with 1-3, recognizing the newly-enhanced value of roster slots 4-6 (or so).

I know this is tough sledding making this case, and I wouldn't have it any other way--this forum is a great sounding board for identifying potential weaknesses in a concept/argument. I think that's been well done, but I also contend that there have been substantive counterpoints raised to those counterpoints.

Just to rehearse... the point is not to re-format in a way that supposedly brings the #4 and/or #5 teams in a conference into more legit contention, but one that has potential to bring the #2 and #3 teams into more legit contention. And to the protest that this would produce ugly unwatchable basketball, the popularity of NCAA basketball stands as testimony that more diluted talent, ie with fewer elite-talent players, does not on its own constitute ugly, unwatchable basketball.

To the contrary, I envision a more interesting strategic angle inserted into games--ie, which players coaches choose to play in the various periods--making games just that much more interesting as a result... and most importantly, a decidedly-more interesting post-season year-in-year-out.

 

 

[ATLSmith]

I haven't read this whole thread but I think if the NBA held the free agent period before the draft it would help a ton. Let teams set their rosters before picking players who, in most cases, won't contribute for at least a year.

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

 

[AHF]

Just throwing it out there that GS has no player averaging even 35 minutes per game.  A 32 minute cap would arguably make them even more dominant.  While their best players would lose 90 seconds or so of playing time (ala Durant's 33.4 minute average), their opponents would have seen much larger cuts to the minutes of their stars like Damian Lillard losing almost 6 minutes of floor time per game and Gordon Hayward losing almost 7 minutes per game.  

[TheNorthCydeRises]

On 2/27/2017 at 1:59 PM, TheNorthCydeRises said:

NBA Playoffs under the 1 and done NCAA Tournament rules.  

 

Winner of ACTUAL Game 1 of that series, advances to next round.  Deviation in team winning Game 1, but losing the series, is shown in RED by the team who actually won Game 1

When deviation occurs, and the next round game is not the actual playoff series . . .  (1) SEASON series record between the two teams will determine who advances to the next round. (2) Overall record will be next tiebreaker

 

2016

 

East playoff teams:  ATL - BOS - CLE - DET - MIA - CHA - TOR - IND

1st rd East winners:  ATL - CLE - MIA - IND . . . ( TOR out as #2 seed )

2nd rd East winners:  CLE - MIA   ( season series tied 2 - 2 with IND . . . but better overall record )

East winner:  MIA ( won season series over CLE 2 - 1 ) . . . MIA was #3 seed

 

West playoff teams:  GS - HOU - OKC - DAL - POR - LAC - SA - MEM

1st rd West winners: GS - OKC - LAC - SA

2nd rd West winners:  GS - SA

West winner:  GS ( won season series 3 - 1 over SA )

 

NBA CHAMPION:  GS  ( won season series over MIA 2 - 0 )

 

2015

 

East playoff teams:  ATL - BK - CHI - MIL - CLE - BOS - WAS - TOR

1st rd East winners:  ATL - WAS - CLE - CHI

2nd rd East winners:  WAS - CHI

East winner:  CHI ( season series with WAS tied 2 - 2 . . CHI had better overall record ) . . CHI was #3 seed

 

West playoff teams:  GS - NO - HOU - DAL - LAC - SA - MEM - POR

1st rd West winners:   GS - MEM - LAC - HOU

2nd rd West winners:  GS - LAC

West winner:  GS  ( won season series over LAC 3 - 1 )

 

NBA CHAMPION:  GS ( season series tied 1 - 1 with CHI . . GS has better overall record )

 

2014

 

East playoff teams:  BK - TOR - IND - ATL - MIA - CHA - WAS - CHI

1st rd East winners:  BK - MIA - ATL - WAS . . . ( ATL win would be an 8th seed over a 1st seed ) 

2nd rd East winners:  MIA - WAS ( won season series 3 - 1 over ATL )

East winner:  MIA ( season series with WAS tied 2 - 2 . . . CLE better overall record )

 

West playoff teams:  LAC - GS - OKC - MEM - POR - HOU - SA - DAL

1st rd West winners:   GS - OKC - POR - SA

2nd rd West winners:  OKC ( won season series 2 - 1 over GS ) - SA

West winner:  SA

 

NBA CHAMPION:  SA

 

2013

 

East playoff teams:  MIA - MIL - BK - CHI - NY - BOS - IND - ATL

1st rd East winners:  MIA - BK - NY - IND

2nd rd East winners:  MIA ( won season series 3 - 0 over BK ) - IND

East winner:  MIA

 

West playoff teams:  OKC - HOU - LAC - MEM - SA - LAL - DEN - GS

1st rd West winners:  OKC - LAC - SA - DEN

2nd rd West winners:  OKC ( won season series 3 - 0 over LAC ) - SA ( season series tied 2 - 2 . . SA better overall record )

West winner:  OKC ( season series tied 2 - 2 . . . OKC better overall record )

 

NBA CHAMPION:  MIA ( won season series 2 - 0 over OKC ) . . . ( but no iconic Ray Allen 3 point moment vs SA )

 

 

Definitely not a scientific look at things.  But if you truly wanted an uproar in the path of a champion, the 1 and done scenario may provide you what you're looking for . . . especially in the EAST.

NOTE:  Interesting how it would be the legacy of Dwyane Wade that would be impacted in a positive note, while Lebron's would be significantly diminished, in this scenario.

2017 ( One and done  . . . winner of Game 1 advances OR winner of season series advances, if not actual playoff matchup )

 

East playoff teams:  BOS - CHI . . WAS - ATL . . CLE - IND . . TOR - MIL

1st rd East winners:  CHI - WAS . . CLE - MIL

2nd rd East winners:  WAS ( won season series over CHI 3 - 1 ) - CLE ( won season series over MIL 3 - 1 )

East winner:  CLE ( won season series over WAS 3 - 1 )

 

West playoff teams:  GS - POR . . . UTA - LAC . . SA - MEM . . HOU - OKC

1st rd West winners:  GS - UTA . . . SA - HOU

2nd rd West winners:  GS - HOU

West winner:  GS ( won season series over HOU 3 - 1 )

 

Still Cleveland vs Golden State, but you'd have 4 different matchups for the Semis and Finals of each conference.  And here are your storylines:

 

* Celtics eliminated by a red hot Bobby Portis / Jimmy Butler, advances to Round 2.

* Cleveland narrowly escapes elimination in Round 1, with a CJ Miles miss at the buzzer being the difference.

* Joe Johnson buzzer beater beats LAC ( same story )

* Giannis shines in Bucks rout of the Raptors, to advance to the EC Semis.

* Balanced attack by Houston leads to rout of Spurs in San Antonio, sending them to the WC Finals

* Washington beats Chicago to advance to their first EC Finals in almost 40 years

* Cleveland and Golden State advance to the NBA Finals, to complete the trilogy.

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

6 hours ago, sturt said:

 

So, here we are. Where we thought we'd be.

And it's where we think we'll be next year, too.

Welcome to the GDA... the Groundhog Day Association.

Not satisfied here, and continue to advocate that a re-format would lead to a greater emphasis on deeper rosters, and though you're never going to get to a place of "perfect parity," nor am I persuaded that that's the real goal, over time (within 2-3 years, imo), this predicts us getting to a place of 4-6 legitimate contenders year-in-year-out, as opposed to the current state of play.

32 minutes per game for any given player is no small number, but by implementing a format that compels a head coach to define which 4 of the 6 periods a given player will play--and, just as salient, which 2 of the 6 he won't--it provides some moderation and encourages GMs to think beyond just those first 3 players in developing their rosters, since those kinds of players eat up so much of the salary cap so as to force sacrifice at the middle and lower parts of the roster, which in turn makes it more plausible that the system now rewards you for having 4-5 high quality players over having one elite plus 2 high quality players.

Star players will always matter. But when you force teams to choose how they'll strategically deploy those star players in assigning them to periods, you automatically mitigate their likelihood of having such a dominating effect like we have in the current structure. As emphasized in the OP, because only 5 players are on the floor at any given time, that dictates a mathematical concentrated effect in basketball in comparison to baseball or football when you have a "big 3" on the floor for much of the game, with few occasions of having 2 of those 3 on the floor, and rare occasions of having 1 of those 3.

A tipping point premise here is that salaries are roughly equivalent to the capacity that players have to contribute to wins, and that in having a governor (salary cap) on salaries, it forces teams to make decisions about the distribution of talent up and down their rosters. Currently, you can focus with practically full abandon on that top, and fill-in with more minimum salary types.

By confining in-game participation to four 8-minute blocks, it certainly doesn't eliminate the natural desire to have the best 1-3 you can have, but it does make you think more seriously about what sacrifices you're willing to make with 1-3, recognizing the newly-enhanced value of roster slots 4-6 (or so).

I know this is tough sledding making this case, and I wouldn't have it any other way--this forum is a great sounding board for identifying potential weaknesses in a concept/argument. I think that's been well done, but I also contend that there have been substantive counterpoints raised to those counterpoints.

Just to rehearse... the point is not to re-format in a way that supposedly brings the #4 and/or #5 teams in a conference into more legit contention, but one that has potential to bring the #2 and #3 teams into more legit contention. And to the protest that this would produce ugly unwatchable basketball, the popularity of NCAA basketball stands as testimony that more diluted talent, ie with fewer elite-talent players, does not on its own constitute ugly, unwatchable basketball.

To the contrary, I envision a more interesting strategic angle inserted into games--ie, which players coaches choose to play in the various periods--making games just that much more interesting as a result... and most importantly, a decidedly-more interesting post-season year-in-year-out.

 

 

 

http://www.foxsports.com/nhl/stats?season=2016&category=GOALTENDING&group=1&time=2

http://www.foxsports.com/nhl/stats?season=2016&category=ICE+TIME&group=1&time=2

 

You basically want a hockey structure, to the NBA game.

The fact that your best offensive players don't even play 1/2 of the game has enabled 16 seed Nashville to get to the Stanley Cup Finals behind great goaltending, great defense, and timely scoring.  

In hockey, virtually no one plays 50% of the game, except the goalie.  Most top players only play 33% - 40% of the game.  So your star players ( especially on offense ), don't have as much impact on the game.  The goalie, however, is easily the most important piece of the hockey team.  If you have an all-star goalie, it can carry you to the SC Finals, much like star offensive NBA players can carry a team to the NBA Finals.

The reason why I blame GMs for the state of the current NBA, is because they're the ones taking chances and risks on "project" type players, instead of signing less upside, but more talented players.  People whine and cry about these "one and done" players not staying in school, and watering the NBA product down.  They want the NBA to institute a rule similar to college football, in which a kid in college can't leave until after his 3rd year.

If that's all it took to improve the overall NBA product, why do those same people dog and shy away from college seniors?  There isn't a single college senior projected to go in the lottery, or even the top 20 of this draft.

This guy, who was a SUPERSTAR at a major program, is projected to be a 2nd round pick, because he's too small

 

This guy, who was a SUPERSTAR at a major program, is projected to be a 2nd round pick, because he's not athletic enough.

 

 

These are 2 guys who may not have the "upside" to be stars in their NBA careers, but they could IMMEDIATELY help the reserve unit of any NBA squad.  But these scouts and GMs will overlook that, and have them buried deep in the draft.  Then once they get into camp, they'll bypass guys like these, in order to nurture and cultivate their "projects". 

This is how a real good college scorer like Isaiah Thomas becomes the last guy picked in the draft.   They overlook the one thing he did at an elite level ( score the basketball by getting his own shot ), and act like all of his so-called weaknesses will stunt him at the NBA level.  Then people are all shocked when he not only makes the Kings squad, but turns out to be one of their better guards from Day 1.  And as he gets better, even the Kings decide to let him go, 

 

 

These GMs and scouts are notorious for not being able to evaluate talent.  And they prove it with all of the non-lottery 1st round and 2nd round picks they take chances on, instead of taking guys that can help them from Day 1, even if they don't have "superstar upside".

[sturt]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Just throwing it out there that GS has no player averaging even 35 minutes per game.  A 32 minute cap would arguably make them even more dominant.  While their best players would lose 90 seconds or so of playing time (ala Durant's 33.4 minute average), their opponents would have seen much larger cuts to the minutes of their stars like Damian Lillard losing almost 6 minutes of floor time per game and Gordon Hayward losing almost 7 minutes per game.  

Couple of quick thoughts to your just thrown out there thought.

1. Plainly stated that the effect would not be an insto-chango-remedy, but after probably 2-3 off seasons of player movement, the remedy would take hold. Already spoken to how the new environment changes how GMs think about player acquisition and salary cap room.

2. Lillard doesn't play for a team that I'd consider a #2 or #3 contender. Same, Hayward. Was stated that this isn't a remedy that is thought to... or even intended to... bring middling to lesser playoff teams into legitimate contention.

 

[NBASupes]

1 hour ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

http://www.foxsports.com/nhl/stats?season=2016&category=GOALTENDING&group=1&time=2

http://www.foxsports.com/nhl/stats?season=2016&category=ICE+TIME&group=1&time=2

 

You basically want a hockey structure, to the NBA game.

The fact that your best offensive players don't even play 1/2 of the game has enabled 16 seed Nashville to get to the Stanley Cup Finals behind great goaltending, great defense, and timely scoring.  

In hockey, virtually no one plays 50% of the game, except the goalie.  Most top players only play 33% - 40% of the game.  So your star players ( especially on offense ), don't have as much impact on the game.  The goalie, however, is easily the most important piece of the hockey team.  If you have an all-star goalie, it can carry you to the SC Finals, much like star offensive NBA players can carry a team to the NBA Finals.

The reason why I blame GMs for the state of the current NBA, is because they're the ones taking chances and risks on "project" type players, instead of signing less upside, but more talented players.  People whine and cry about these "one and done" players not staying in school, and watering the NBA product down.  They want the NBA to institute a rule similar to college football, in which a kid in college can't leave until after his 3rd year.

If that's all it took to improve the overall NBA product, why do those same people dog and shy away from college seniors?  There isn't a single college senior projected to go in the lottery, or even the top 20 of this draft.

This guy, who was a SUPERSTAR at a major program, is projected to be a 2nd round pick, because he's too small

 

This guy, who was a SUPERSTAR at a major program, is projected to be a 2nd round pick, because he's not athletic enough.

 

 

These are 2 guys who may not have the "upside" to be stars in their NBA careers, but they could IMMEDIATELY help the reserve unit of any NBA squad.  But these scouts and GMs will overlook that, and have them buried deep in the draft.  Then once they get into camp, they'll bypass guys like these, in order to nurture and cultivate their "projects". 

This is how a real good college scorer like Isaiah Thomas becomes the last guy picked in the draft.   They overlook the one thing he did at an elite level ( score the basketball by getting his own shot ), and act like all of his so-called weaknesses will stunt him at the NBA level.  Then people are all shocked when he not only makes the Kings squad, but turns out to be one of their better guards from Day 1.  And as he gets better, even the Kings decide to let him go, 

 

 

These GMs and scouts are notorious for not being able to evaluate talent.  And they prove it with all of the non-lottery 1st round and 2nd round picks they take chances on, instead of taking guys that can help them from Day 1, even if they don't have "superstar upside".

Thomas is athletic af. He is just extremely short. In the NBA, if you lack the athletic ability, you better have elite size and length. Otherwise, 99% of the time, those players don't do much in the NBA. For all of the Sap and Green talk, those guys are pretty damn amazing athletically, maybe not jump up and down but laterally and pace, they are as good as they get. In the NBA, athleticism of sorts is king. No one has been great without since the 70's. Even Larry Bird is pretty damn athletic. 

[KB21]

1 hour ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

http://www.foxsports.com/nhl/stats?season=2016&category=GOALTENDING&group=1&time=2

http://www.foxsports.com/nhl/stats?season=2016&category=ICE+TIME&group=1&time=2

 

You basically want a hockey structure, to the NBA game.

The fact that your best offensive players don't even play 1/2 of the game has enabled 16 seed Nashville to get to the Stanley Cup Finals behind great goaltending, great defense, and timely scoring.  

In hockey, virtually no one plays 50% of the game, except the goalie.  Most top players only play 33% - 40% of the game.  So your star players ( especially on offense ), don't have as much impact on the game.  The goalie, however, is easily the most important piece of the hockey team.  If you have an all-star goalie, it can carry you to the SC Finals, much like star offensive NBA players can carry a team to the NBA Finals.

The reason why I blame GMs for the state of the current NBA, is because they're the ones taking chances and risks on "project" type players, instead of signing less upside, but more talented players.  People whine and cry about these "one and done" players not staying in school, and watering the NBA product down.  They want the NBA to institute a rule similar to college football, in which a kid in college can't leave until after his 3rd year.

If that's all it took to improve the overall NBA product, why do those same people dog and shy away from college seniors?  There isn't a single college senior projected to go in the lottery, or even the top 20 of this draft.

This guy, who was a SUPERSTAR at a major program, is projected to be a 2nd round pick, because he's too small

 

This guy, who was a SUPERSTAR at a major program, is projected to be a 2nd round pick, because he's not athletic enough.

 

 

These are 2 guys who may not have the "upside" to be stars in their NBA careers, but they could IMMEDIATELY help the reserve unit of any NBA squad.  But these scouts and GMs will overlook that, and have them buried deep in the draft.  Then once they get into camp, they'll bypass guys like these, in order to nurture and cultivate their "projects". 

This is how a real good college scorer like Isaiah Thomas becomes the last guy picked in the draft.   They overlook the one thing he did at an elite level ( score the basketball by getting his own shot ), and act like all of his so-called weaknesses will stunt him at the NBA level.  Then people are all shocked when he not only makes the Kings squad, but turns out to be one of their better guards from Day 1.  And as he gets better, even the Kings decide to let him go, 

 

 

These GMs and scouts are notorious for not being able to evaluate talent.  And they prove it with all of the non-lottery 1st round and 2nd round picks they take chances on, instead of taking guys that can help them from Day 1, even if they don't have "superstar upside".

You and I have been on the opposite side of the fence on several issues, but I'm with you on this one.  

[sturt]

2 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

http://www.foxsports.com/nhl/stats?season=2016&category=GOALTENDING&group=1&time=2

http://www.foxsports.com/nhl/stats?season=2016&category=ICE+TIME&group=1&time=2

 

You basically want a hockey structure, to the NBA game.

 

 

These GMs and scouts are notorious for not being able to evaluate talent.  And they prove it with all of the non-lottery 1st round and 2nd round picks they take chances on, instead of taking guys that can help them from Day 1, even if they don't have "superstar upside".

 

Second part first... that'd be a great analysis if you had some kind of baseline to which to compare it to, or, just as well, if you were finding over time that there really wasn't much difference between a top 5 pick and a top 10-20 pick, or a top 10-20 pick and a top 20-40 pick. I have to admit I haven't done the study, and to be authoritative here, I really would have to do the study... but since you appear to feel authoritative enough to esteem your assessments as more valid than those of people who teams actually pay to do it full-time, I guess I don't feel I'm stepping out even as far as you are to suggest that I feel pretty confident that if we look at 10 years of draft picks, there would be a distinct difference in the actual NBA production of those pools of players.

Put another way, pardon my cynicism about your own cynicism, but I think it's more complicated than how it's being portrayed, otherwise, the best scouts would be so often right and so well known to be so often right, they'd be making some of the biggest salaries in the structure... quintessential golden gooses.

As to the first part... not really seeing the hockey framework as clarifying anything nearly so much as simply stating the straight-up dilemma, and offering an idea for mitigating the cause of the dilemma.

Which is... I start from the premise that basketball unlike the other major sports is more vulnerable to this situation where elite talent is so constantly on the field/floor of play that that talent essentially renders the regular season merely an exercise in seeing whether any of the elite talent will be injured... and... that it's not healthy for a professional sports business, emphasis on business, to go into each season with the predominant favorites so unchallenged... and that there is a way to leverage this so that it becomes slightly more competitive.

That's all.

 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Couple of quick thoughts to your just thrown out there thought.

1. Plainly stated that the effect would not be an insto-chango-remedy, but after probably 2-3 off seasons of player movement, the remedy would take hold. Already spoken to how the new environment changes how GMs think about player acquisition and salary cap room.

2. Lillard doesn't play for a team that I'd consider a #2 or #3 contender. Same, Hayward. Was stated that this isn't a remedy that is thought to... or even intended to... bring middling to lesser playoff teams into legitimate contention.

 

And a third, as I finished the evening's bike ride in overcast SE Texas...

This is one of those where it's so easy to start to analyze in a vacuum what is not at all a vacuum-like condition.

That is, one can look at a player averaging 36 minutes and think about the 4 minutes he won't play... but it's not as-if no one takes the floor for those 4 minutes he doesn't play. Of course. Someone else gets those minutes, as might someone from the opposition who picks up minutes from a 36 minute player over there.... which illustrates the major concept here that if a GM can't have one of the two or three very best 32 minute players, he might still be able to compensate with a good 32 minute guy and a decidedly better guy picking up those other 4 minutes than the opposition--which invests in more minimum salaried players by definition--can do.

 

[cavsfan]

parity ?   means  a bunch of  watered down teams.   what people need to realize any team  current, and in past  goes to the nba finals   with  three or more players that are all nba caliber ..    i have a real problem with todays world of everyone gets a trophy..

every single team has opportunity to build their franchise  however they wish.    

what if a team drafts  3 guys who  become superstars rather quick.  do they have to get rid of one or more because  they became really good ???  

 

the bulls, the celtics, the cavs, the lakers, the warriors  just to name a few  made it to the nba finals with an all star cast...   

 

its what it takes!   

 

 

[AHF]

A huge change to the game designed to shift the balance of power among the handful of elite teams doesn't seem like much of a goal to me.  I've still yet to see any scenario here where capping minutes doesn't enhance GS even above where they already are.  It would hurt Cleveland sure but help GS.  Now GS stands out even more than before.  

Not worth changing the game for that.

[sturt]

7 minutes ago, cavsfan said:

parity ?   means  a bunch of  watered down teams.   what people need to realize any team  current, and in past  goes to the nba finals   with  three or more players that are all nba caliber ..    i have a real problem with todays world of everyone gets a trophy..

every single team has opportunity to build their franchise  however they wish.    

what if a team drafts  3 guys who  become superstars rather quick.  do they have to get rid of one or more because  they became really good ???  

 

the bulls, the celtics, the cavs, the lakers, the warriors  just to name a few  made it to the nba finals with an all star cast...   

 

its what it takes!   

 

 

Don't blame you for not taking the time to read the entire thread, or even a single page of it... and appreciate the honesty in terms of username choice... but the response here is relevant only to the title of the thread, not the actual deeper points made in the thread.

[sturt]

10 hours ago, AHF said:

A huge change to the game designed to shift the balance of power among the handful of elite teams doesn't seem like much of a goal to me.  I've still yet to see any scenario here where capping minutes doesn't enhance GS even above where they already are.  It would hurt Cleveland sure but help GS.  Now GS stands out even more than before.  

Not worth changing the game for that.

So, wait. I think I hear you saying... could be wrong, so correct me if so...

Teams that rely on 3 players to carry them to the finals would be disadvantaged in comparison to teams that don't.

If so, I'll take it. That's progress.

And I don't know how many different ways I can say this...

This changes the ecology of how GMs build rosters going forward. Little immediate impact because you have to have a few off-seasons of drafts and free agency to see some turnover and gain the full effect... not to mention, aging among current superstars doesn't hurt. So the real evaluation has to look down the road. This is not insto-chango stuff. We're where we're at, and that's not going to change, but God help us, we as the customers don't want to continue to be subjected to this, which in turn makes it bad for business.

Leveraging minutes through this approach accomplishes that. And it does so without having to get into messy salary cap issues, and even achieves something the players union has become particularly vocal about--reducing the wear-and-tear on players over the grind of the season.

[cam1218]

1 hour ago, cavsfan said:

parity ?   means  a bunch of  watered down teams.   what people need to realize any team  current, and in past  goes to the nba finals   with  three or more players that are all nba caliber ..    i have a real problem with todays world of everyone gets a trophy..

every single team has opportunity to build their franchise  however they wish.    

what if a team drafts  3 guys who  become superstars rather quick.  do they have to get rid of one or more because  they became really good ???  

 

the bulls, the celtics, the cavs, the lakers, the warriors  just to name a few  made it to the nba finals with an all star cast...   

 

its what it takes!   

 

 

In the case of the cavs, it helps a lot when one of, if not the best, player in NBA history happens to be born and raised in your state. Sometimes it just takes random luck.

[cam1218]

It's a HUGE problem in my opinion. When the entire world can predict the finals and be correct, you realize where the game is. The only way it wouldn't be Cavs/Warriors is if someone got hurt.

I will watch it, but I didn't care much about the playoffs other than watching the Hawks or tuning in to see it Horf gets a rebound. 

I watch a lot of baseball and football, my guess to who plays in each championship can easily be wrong. I love that that though. Fans care more when you think it could happen for their team. 

[bleachkit]

Get rid of the salary cap and max contracts. If LeBron is worth 100,000,000 a year then pony up the  cash.

[sturt]

(Aside: Would be great if some of those who quoted the post with all of the YouTube videos would edit and remove those from your replies... you know who you are @NBASupes and @KB21  ... dang it takes this page ages to load, at least over here.)

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

 

 

 

10 hours ago, cam1218 said:

In the case of the cavs, it helps a lot when one of, if not the best, player in NBA history happens to be born and raised in your state. Sometimes it just takes random luck.

I think LeBron James as a person is a great guy, as far as anyone can tell. I mean that.

I think LeBron James as a competitor is a cop out. And I believe when he chose to go to Miami and begin this deliberate manipulation of the system in pursuit of a ring that would, in turn, boost his endorsements and make the case for his place in NBA legend, it pushed the boundaries of competitive scruples beyond the pale... and we have that, then, to thank for what Durant felt license to do.

His move back to Cleveland, then, was diabolical genius if you go for that kind of thing... essentially, having left the team, put the franchise in a state of collecting assets for those years with high draft picks, which then resulted in them obtaining Irving, and giving them the capacity to obtain Love.

It's all just nauseating to many of us, and I dare say there are Cleveland fans who even can admit he has not come by his championships in the honest way that every other NBA team and their players have. (I'm lock-certain that there are Miami fans who... now... can.)

Having said all of that... if that's the way the scruples of the game are going to be, then the game has to respond to that, both from a perspective of retaining meaningfulness of its regular season and integrity of its championship and, related, from a marketing perspective, facilitating the demise of the foregone conclusion season... the GDA, ie Groundhog Day Association.

And this is proposed as one reasonable idea--and notably, readily acceptable where the players union should be concerned--as a response, without having to wait until the next CBA comes up years from now.