Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, October 24, 2019

OT - NBA Thread, Start of the 2019-2020 Season

I estimate only 10-12 Primates care about the NBA, and we’re the only people that matter.

Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 24, 2019 at 02:42 PM | 1619 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: basketball, china, nba, off-topic

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 11 of 17 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 >  Last ›
   1001. Athletic Supporter is USDA certified lean Posted: November 23, 2019 at 10:35 AM (#5903394)
flip
   1002. yo la tengo Posted: November 23, 2019 at 11:23 AM (#5903401)
Of course, the more interesting aspect of the hypothetical redraft of 2017 is to try and figure out all of the implications of what would happen to the league if Fultz was not drafted first. Lots of dominoes fall there...
   1003. Ken Griffey's Grotesquely Swollen Jaw Posted: November 23, 2019 at 11:28 AM (#5903405)
   1004. AndrewJ Posted: November 23, 2019 at 11:33 AM (#5903406)
Woj and Zach on a whole bunch of proposed schedule changes, including reseeding conference finalists, postseason play-in

Me like. Adopt this format plus the Elam Ending, and I just might start watching the NBA again.
   1005. Ken Griffey's Grotesquely Swollen Jaw Posted: November 23, 2019 at 11:49 AM (#5903414)
after chewing on it for a bit, I think I like the reseeding and postseason play-in*. The in-season tournament idea seems unnecessary.

*the format is 7-seed hosts 8, and winner gets 7 seed. Then 9 plays 10, and winner plays loser of 7-8 game for the 8 seed.
   1006. calming him down with his 57i66135 Posted: November 23, 2019 at 12:29 PM (#5903421)
Interesting hypo (to me): who goes 1, 2, 3 in a hypothetical redraft of the 2017 draft?

You could make a case for quite a few guys.

i still take ball #1. his playmaking and defense is elite, and i trust that his 3P shot will get worked out. ymmv.

past that, fox, isaac, john collins of mars, mitchell, tatum...

Of course, the more interesting aspect of the hypothetical redraft of 2017 is to try and figure out all of the implications of what would happen to the league if Fultz was not drafted first. Lots of dominoes fall there...

1 BOS - tatum
2 LAL - fultz
3 SAC - fox
4 PHX - ball
5 PHI - jackson
...
10 PHI - monk
...
   1007. Crosseyed and Painless Posted: November 23, 2019 at 01:15 PM (#5903430)
Having 7-10 fight to get in the playoffs just to become sacrificial lambs, who cares?

Lowering the season to 78 games, what difference does it make? Issue with regular season is that any time with any sort of hope of getting to a title is going to coast in to a top six seed. I loved hearing the idea of making it like baseball, where top 3 get in, and 4-5 play a 1-game playoff for last spot. That would make the regular season meaningful. Imagine it would never happen. (Flattening lottery odds would also be great, but will never happen.)

In season tournament, who cares? But at least with this one I can see it being "who cares, for now?" and maybe after it's around a while it takes on some sort of meaning.

Then again, all these gripes, the issue is that right now the regular season is at a baseline of "who cares?" so even if this changes it a bit for the better, I guess that's good.

EDIT - And re-seeding the conference finals seems like a no-lose situation to me, so good for that.

EDIT - Further edit, that 10-seeds' team will have a large contingent of its fanbase hoping it just loses in this "playoff play-in" to maintain lottery balls/draft position.
   1008. PJ Martinez Posted: November 23, 2019 at 03:10 PM (#5903463)
I haven't watched them play much so I can't comment too much but it's not clear to me that those three [Tatum, Brown, and Smart] have improved from a statistical perspective. They are scoring more points but worse percentages for the most part.
The improvements are more incremental than dramatic — and it's only fifteen games, of course, so we'll see whether they can be sustained — but there are some upticks in the stats that track with what I've seen.

Smart's biggest offensive step forward came last year: he shot a tick above 36% from three after being at 30% and below the previous three seasons. This year he's maintained that, more or less (he's a hair below 35% at the moment) while shooting 7 threes a game instead of 4. He can plausibly space the floor now, which is a big improvement. He's also cut his turnovers way down so far. And my sense is that Stevens has given him even more defensive responsibility — he's guarded big men with some frequency in the early going (though I don't know what the numbers say about this).

Brown's most significant jump is in his assist rate — he's never been much of a creator, but he's shown some flashes this year, driving and dishing a bit more. He's also grabbing more rebounds, possibly because Stevens has him guarding a lot of fours, so he ends up down around the basket more often. His free-throw percentage is also up to a semi-respectable 72% after three seasons in the mid-sixties (though perhaps he'll regress). I assume that these are the reasons some of his advanced stats (PER, WS/48) are notably up.

The big things with Tatum are usage (up to 27, from 22 last year) and three-point attempts (6.5/gm instead of 4/gm, at the same percentage, 37). His two-point FG% is down, though I suspect it will creep up toward his usual rate as the season progresses (we'll see, obviously). He's still a one step forward, three quarters of a step back kind of player, in my view, a guy who sometimes looks like the next Paul George and sometimes looks like a talented player who will never put it all together. But the fact that he's been able to assume a greater role in the offense and maintain a passable efficiency is, while not a huge leap, at least forward movement.
   1009. tshipman Posted: November 23, 2019 at 03:11 PM (#5903464)
Fox/Mitchell/Tatum in some order, right? Can't see a case for anyone else.


Well, Bam and Collins and Jarett Allen have been better than Fox and Tatum by some or all of the advanced stats.

In theory, you maybe take Mitchell and Tatum higher because they are wings, but Tatum is best as a 4 and Mitchell is actually too small to defend wings.

If you're big on potential, maybe you slot Isaac in there, who has flashed some serious potential. I think it's an interesting conversation.
   1010. TFTIO is building his own mealworm farm Posted: November 23, 2019 at 07:03 PM (#5903488)
That's like seven possessions in a row where Towns didn't touch the ball. Sorry, what?
   1011. TFTIO is building his own mealworm farm Posted: November 23, 2019 at 07:12 PM (#5903490)
Also, how good would this iteration of the Wolves look with Rubio instead of Teague? I mean, it wouldn't be world beating, but his strengths really complement Towns and the New Wiggins.
   1012. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: November 23, 2019 at 09:36 PM (#5903501)
Lavine. Wow. Just wow.
   1013. tshipman Posted: November 23, 2019 at 10:31 PM (#5903505)
Ja Morant is so, so good. Putting up these kinds of numbers as a rookie pg? When you're obviously 20 pounds underweight?

I wonder if taking Zion over Morant could ever be seen as a blunder the same way Oden got blamed for his injury problems.
   1014. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: November 23, 2019 at 10:56 PM (#5903509)
Lakers: James said a couple of weeks ago that he was not going to do "load management." Whether that burns him and the team later...we will see. The next two are at SAS and at NOP. I expect that the Lakers will lose one. They have won three games by 3 or less over the last 10 days.
Lavine/Tatum/Brown/and Ingram: I have always liked Lavine's talent; not that big on the others. But it may be that I am underestimating how much guys can improve in their 3rd/4th years. I may try to get some info on that on vacation.

   1015. CFBF's Overflowing Pathos Posted: November 23, 2019 at 11:22 PM (#5903518)
I'm not entirely sure what the point of some of those proposed changes is. Like, why are you playing an in-season "tournament?" The Woj and Lowe story cites the example of in-season tournaments among European soccer leagues, but those tournaments involve teams in different leagues. In this case, you're going to have NBA teams fighting for an NBA Championship, and then at some point the exact same teams will play a tournament for...what, the Adam Silver Cup?

I mean, I assume the reason for anything is "because we think it'll make money," but still.
   1016. puck Posted: November 24, 2019 at 12:23 AM (#5903525)
Like, why are you playing an in-season "tournament?" The Woj and Lowe story cites the example of in-season tournaments among European soccer leagues, but those tournaments involve teams in different leagues.



Soccer teams (including the US leagues) also play domestic knockout cup tournaments running during the regular club season. Teams in England's top 4 soccer divisions play in two domestic tournaments alongside their league schedule: the FA Cup (for all English soccer clubs, under the English Football Association, and the EFL Cup, run by the Football League (the top 4 levels of English soccer).

A top English Premier League team will be in 4 competitions: club league, FA Cup, EFL Cup, and the Champion League (the pan European club competition that you're thinking of).

The top European basketball clubs also do this--a top team will be in 3 competitions: their league, a domestic knockout competition among pro teams, and either Euroleague or a lesser pan-Euro competition.

It makes more sense in Europe where the pro leagues aren't monopolies and there's promotion/relegation. You can at least include teams from a second division. But even then, teams pretty obviously de-emphasize the EFL Cup. Most prioritize league over the domestic cups.

And the big soccer clubs are built for these multiple competitions, as they basically have two sets of starters.

Sometimes they try to provide a carrot for winning the domestic cups by giving the winner a berth in one of the pan-continental competitions. But in English soccer, the entry is to the lesser league (Europa League instead of the lucrative Champions League). In the US, the winner of the US Open Cup gets a berth in the CONCACAF Champions League, which no one cares about (and which a Mexican club always wins - 14 years in a row now).

In MLS though, few care about the US Open Cup, even relative to the level of caring about MLS in general. A team that draws 15,000 to a club game and televises the game on local TV will draw 5,000 to the Open Cup game, and the game will be streamed at best.

   1017. puck Posted: November 24, 2019 at 12:26 AM (#5903527)
Anyway, as for the NBA, I guess it's like the Christmas Hawaii and NIT tournaments or something...and excuse to try to get a mini competition in there and match up the good teams.
   1018. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: November 24, 2019 at 01:43 AM (#5903533)
NBA Formats: No matter what they do, two things will always be true about the NBA:

1. Getting high lottery picks will be very desirable.
2. No more than a handful of teams will have a real chance to win the title. This year is more open than it usually is, it seems. I could see eight teams winning it, and even though some teams, like mine, have fancy records, I do not see a superteam.

The play-in, re-seeding the conference finals, and the "in-season tournament" change none of that. As noted above, you could make the regular season meaningful by putting five teams in in each conference, with the 4-5 teams doing a best-of-3 over five days to get in. Do that with a 66-game schedule spread over the same time frame, and you end "load management" and 36-46 8th seeds, so you have a meaningful regular season. It will never happen for obvious reasons.

One thing I have thought about was awarding lottery picks for finishing 7th and 8th, and taking them away from teams who finish 9th and 10th. There would be issues with it, but it would change the dynamic for teams like Orlando (42-40) and Detroit (41-41) last year who both made postseason over 39-43 Charlotte and 38-44 Miami, and who both got worked in Rd 1.

I am also not a big fan of reseeding the conference Finals, I think. Some years, sure, it would make sense but in general, maybe not. Had they done it last year, the semis would have been TOR/GS and MIL/POR. Not seeing that as a big upgrade. Years like 2018 are what people are thinking of when they talk about that--those years when the "real Finals" are the ECF or WCF. 2018 would been CLE/HOU and GS/BOS, with, presumably, a GS/HOU Finals. But those years are not every year, and I still like the East/West geography. YMMV.


   1019. Athletic Supporter is USDA certified lean Posted: November 24, 2019 at 01:59 AM (#5903534)
What is the structure of the problem that these ideas are trying to solve? I think it's:

1) The regular season is too long, but
2) We can't reduce the number of games because that reduces revenue

For my money the big bummer of the NBA is actually the first round of the playoffs -- I think lengthening them to 7 games was dumb and I'd like to see that reversed. Because the best teams' series often end early, and games are more spread out in the playoffs (no B2B, etc), the first round takes forever and generally has very little drama, and no matchups of top teams. As a fan I find this much worse than the regular season, where at least there are lots of games every night and there's always something interesting to watch (whether a matchup of top teams, an intriguing rookie, someone on a hot streak, or whatever).

Here's what I'd do: take a week in the middle of the season to run two seeded single elimination tournaments. The East plays Mon/Wed/Fri/Sun, the West plays Sun/Tue/Thu/Sat, with better record having home-court. Best first-half record gets a first-round bye.

The winner of each tournament gets the #1 seed in the real playoffs; runner-up gets #2. #3 through #8 are determined by records in the second half of the season, not counting the teams that have already qualified.

This would (a) make second-half regular season games matter (a lot) more for most teams, (b) have a meaningful midseason tournament, and (c) produce better first-round playoff matchups (since #1 or #2 could be Cinderellas, which might not roll over #7 and #8 seeds, while the best team in the league would often be seeded 3rd and face a 6th seed that could be as good as the fourth-best team in its conference).

You could massage this in any number of ways, but I think some sort of split-season schedule would be the best way to increase the relevance of the regular season without creating some mythical other cup that nobody cares about. There are some minor league baseball leagues that do this IIRC, and the 1981 MLB strike is another example, so it has some precedent.
   1020. tshipman Posted: November 24, 2019 at 02:51 AM (#5903536)
What is the structure of the problem that these ideas are trying to solve? I think it's:

1) The regular season is too long, but
2) We can't reduce the number of games because that reduces revenue



I actually disagree that this is the problem.

To me, the problem is that currently there can only be one champion of the league, and that's all anyone cares about. That means that only one team's fans end the season feeling good, and many fans disengage with the league early on. How do you give fans something to stay engaged for without tanking the competitiveness of the playoffs? Tournaments are one answer.
   1021. calming him down with his 57i66135 Posted: November 24, 2019 at 04:35 AM (#5903537)
any midseason/in-season tournament should be 3 on 3, and also possibly 23 and under.
   1022. . . . . . . Posted: November 24, 2019 at 08:36 AM (#5903539)
My tourney idea has been as follows:

“The Alumni Invitational”

Everyone suits up for their alma mater
Straight to NBA (HS/intl) excluded
Non NBA players eligible as necessary to fill out teams
64 college teams, selected by NBA in their discretion
Games hosted on college sites
College rules.

First two games played the weekend before opening night
Rest of tournament played in a week mid season

Colleges and NBA split profits in negotiated manner
Players receive increasing per-game compensation for each round
Material championship prize for each winning player
   1023. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: November 24, 2019 at 10:05 AM (#5903545)
As 1020 and 1021 suggest, the "problems" really are:

1. The NBA has a long, grueling schedule and much of the interest in the league revolves around the top 25 or so players, and a few young players, and saying Top 25 is pushing it. In some ways, casual fan interest revolves around about ten guys. The league needs those guys to be on the floor as much as possible.
2. After the long, grueling schedule, more than half the teams in the league make post-season.
3. 10-12 of those teams have no realistic chance to win the title and the NBA is not a league of Cinderellas and upsets, in part by design (see below) so playoff seeds below 4 or 5 are not seen as having much value.

Few people except Lakers fans over 45 remember this, but RD 1 used to be best-of-3, with six teams in, and the top 2 getting byes--an idea I actually mentioned going back to, in part. In 1981, the Lakers, who had won the 1980 title, saw Magic Johnson get hurt and miss some time, and finished 3rd--no bye. They lost to a 40-42 Houston team (coached by Del Harris) 2-1 in RD 1. Houston was better than that--they made it to the Finals, losing to the first Bird-Era Boston champs in 6. The NBA changed it to best-of-5 a couple of years later, then to best-of-7 after an 8th seeded Denver team, lead by Dikembe Mutombo, took out one of the Payton/Kemp teams in Seattle. There has been one famous 8-1 upset since 2000--Golden State taking out a 67-15 Dallas team, which hurt Nowitzki's rep until he ended that narrative in 2011. But I remember last year when a 48-34 8th-seeded Clippers team pulled off the 31-point comeback against GS in Game 2, no one here really thought the Clippers could win the series. In a three or five-game series, though...

So, the NBA schedule does not match the nature of the sport. It is not a sport of upsets, and even if it were, the league, in a way, needs to avoid upsets so most of the big stars are playing when the playoffs are down to eight teams, and they need to keep those stars on the floor. But Silver and Co also crave the whole "anything can happen!" vibe, and they ofc crave revenues from more games and more playoff games, so we get ideas like in-season tournaments, and play-ins.

I don't agree that people only care about the title. The Hawks fan here was just talking about his good memories of Hawks fandom, and one example I always use is the Conley/Gasol Grizzlies teams, which never won but had serious fans in that city. But yes, the title is the thing, ultimately, and not that many teams have a shot at it in any given 3-5 year window. The sport itself has to be sellable, as a contest, and in many ways it is.
   1024. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 11:29 AM (#5903553)
#1023 - A couple of pedantic corrections on your last post, rr. ;-)

The 8th seeded Nuggets upset the Sonics in 1994, and the NBA didn't change the first round to a best of 7 until 2003, so I'm not sure that had any direct impact on that decision.

Also, there's been three 8-1 upsets since 2000. You mentioned Warriors/Mavs in 2007 but there was also the Grizz over the Spurs in 2011 and Sixers over Bulls in 2012 when Rose and Noah got hurt.
   1025. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 11:37 AM (#5903554)
Not a fan of any gimmicky play in tournaments. I think any initial interest would wear off quick. I do love the idea of reseeding conference finalists though, and I wish they would go even further and do away with conferences altogether in the postseason, and just seed all the playoff teams 1-16. I don't agree with the idea that fans only care about the title; I think that's only true with serious title contenders. For teams that haven't had playoff success in a while, even winning one playoff series can be super exciting, as it was for Jazz fans in 2017 and again in 2018 after losing Gertrude Hippogriff. I didn't care that they got stomped in the 2nd round; beating a favored 1st round opponent was awesome. That's why I'm so in favor of reseeding for the playoffs; it's ridiculous to me that fans of one half of the country get so many more opportunities to cheer for their teams playoff success just because of geography rather than their teams talent.
   1026. tshipman Posted: November 24, 2019 at 12:25 PM (#5903557)
My tourney idea has been as follows:

“The Alumni Invitational”

Everyone suits up for their alma mater
Straight to NBA (HS/intl) excluded


Your tourney idea excludes the most popular players in the NBA. It is a terrible idea.
   1027. Athletic Supporter is USDA certified lean Posted: November 24, 2019 at 02:11 PM (#5903563)
do away with conferences altogether in the postseason, and just seed all the playoff teams 1-16


I'm assuming this point has been made in one of the previous discussions, maybe even by me, but (1) this would create a lot more travel (probably not ideal for quality of play), and (2) the time zones for an East Coast team versus a West Coast team would be pretty dicey. Are you going to have a local tipoff at 5 pm or 9 pm? Both of those seem decidedly suboptimal. Obviously this is unavoidable in the Finals, but that's hardly ideal for fans.
   1028. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 02:23 PM (#5903564)
#1027 - Travel distance doesn't seem to matter as much in the playoffs when they already give plenty of rest days between games and drag the series out forever. Besides, even some of the cities within the same conference aren't always exactly kiddie corner with each other. The West playoffs already see teams from California travel to play teams in Texas, Minnesota, and OKC. In 2018 we had the PORNO series with Portland and New Orleans, which Google tells me is over 2500 miles apart. The East isn't quite as bad, but still has teams from Toronto/NY/Boston/Milwaukee potentially play teams in Florida. I just don't see additional travel miles as being that big a deal.
   1029. Scott Lange Posted: November 24, 2019 at 03:03 PM (#5903568)
it's ridiculous to me that fans of one half of the country get so many more opportunities to cheer for their teams playoff success just because of geography rather than their teams talent.

In fairness, it's really that fans of one half of the country get the same number of opportunities to cheer for their teams playoff success just because of geography despite their teams talent. That may or may not be a good thing (I tend to think it's not.)
   1030. It's regretful that PASTE was able to get out Posted: November 24, 2019 at 03:13 PM (#5903569)
#1027 - Travel distance doesn't seem to matter as much in the playoffs when they already give plenty of rest days between games and drag the series out forever. Besides, even some of the cities within the same conference aren't always exactly kiddie corner with each other. The West playoffs already see teams from California travel to play teams in Texas, Minnesota, and OKC. In 2018 we had the PORNO series with Portland and New Orleans, which Google tells me is over 2500 miles apart. The East isn't quite as bad, but still has teams from Toronto/NY/Boston/Milwaukee potentially play teams in Florida. I just don't see additional travel miles as being that big a deal.


The players, however, probably do, and they're the ones who have something to say about it (to wit: "Pay us a bazillion dollars or we will block this") at the CBA table.
   1031. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: November 24, 2019 at 03:22 PM (#5903571)
Also, there's been three 8-1 upsets since 2000


Yes, that is why I said one "famous" one. Memphis was a pretty tough 8 seed--46-36--and it was known before that series that they matched up with SA. That series actually fits within the life of the thread, as does the other one. Dallas was as noted 67-15 heading in, and favored to win the title. The series was seen as a meltdown and proof that Nowitzki was "soft" etc.

On the other, fair enough, but when the decision was made, I recall reading about that series in articles, and I believe that making sure the best teams got through was part of it, along with, of course the main consideration: money.

That's why I'm so in favor of reseeding for the playoffs; it's ridiculous to me that fans of one half of the country get so many more opportunities to cheer for their teams playoff success just because of geography rather than their teams talent
.

The West has been stronger for awhile, and with the emergence of Doncic and Towns, and James and Leonard heading West, that may continue. But I don't see this as that big of a deal. Also, doing it on record has issues, because of the imbalanced schedule, so I assume you would want the entire schedule changed. Last year would have been:

MIL/DET
ORL/TOR (as it was)

BKN/GS (a good example of the travel thing)


You then have three 48-34 teams (LAC, SA, IND) and two 49-33 teams (BOS, OKC) that would need to be sorted out with an interconference tiebreaker system, and then several teams (UTA, PHI, POR, HOU and DEN) between 50-54 wins, so not sure reseeding them would be high-impact. Like anything else, it would help sometimes, and not others.

   1032. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 03:42 PM (#5903573)
Edit: double
   1033. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 03:51 PM (#5903574)
#1029 - Well, what I meant was, fans of Eastern teams get to root for their teams all the way to the conference finals and sometimes even the NBA finals every time they have a halfway decent team, whereas comparable Western teams are losing in the first or second round. Like I said, sometimes even winning a single playoff series is a really big deal for fans (see that 2007 Warriors team we mentioned). Teams should be able to give their fans a chance to do that based on talent rather than geography.

#1031 - No, I wouldn't be in favor of changing the entire schedule. Yes, it would be unbalanced so teams in a weaker conference would still have a slight advantage WRT regular season wins, but the schedule would only account for what, 2-3 wins per year? That's nothing compared to teams regularly getting 2 rounds further in the playoffs than their opposite conference counterparts, or for teams like the 46-36 2018 Nuggets missing the postseason while 3 worse teams in the East got in.
   1034. tshipman Posted: November 24, 2019 at 03:55 PM (#5903575)
I think the idea of putting the bottom 4 seeds from each conference in a tourney before the playoffs is super appealing. East teams get to make the playoffs, West teams get to advance if they truly are better.
   1035. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 03:57 PM (#5903576)
To add on to my 1033, the conference imbalance was even more extreme in 2008 and 2014 when the 37-45 and 38-44 Hawks made the postseason in the East while the 48-34 Warriors and Suns didn't in the West. I think that's really unfair to those fans.
   1036. SteveF Posted: November 24, 2019 at 03:59 PM (#5903577)
Teams should be able to give their fans a chance to do that based on talent rather than geography.

Geography partly determines a team's talent level, as you know only too well as a fan of the Jazz.
   1037. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 04:13 PM (#5903579)
#1036 - Sadly yes, but there's not much that can be done about that without being horribly unfair to the players. There is something that can be done about conference imbalances.
   1038. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: November 24, 2019 at 04:19 PM (#5903580)
I think that's really unfair to those fans.


Perhaps, but any system will have those kinds of things, and this is just sports. I suppose the counter is this would reduce the "unfairness" and in some cases, it would. but shipman's tournament would not have helped the 2018 Nuggets, unless you did that by record. You can also argue that a 45-win team getting a lottery pick gets a boost that is better than losing 4-2 in RD 1.
   1039. SteveF Posted: November 24, 2019 at 04:22 PM (#5903581)
There is something that can be done about conference imbalances.

I just object to the argument that it be done on the basis of "fairness" given the degree of "unfairness" already inherent in the distribution of talent.
   1040. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 04:39 PM (#5903582)
#1039 - Fair enough. To that I'd just say that the least possible amount of unfairness is best. No system will be perfect, but I think doing away with conferences in the postseason would be better than what we have now.
   1041. SteveF Posted: November 24, 2019 at 04:51 PM (#5903584)
To that I'd just say that the least possible amount of unfairness is best.

Your system would alleviate "unfairness" in some cases and exacerbate it in others, same as the current system. You'd just have different winners and losers.
   1042. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 05:10 PM (#5903586)
#1041 - Such as? None of the examples of potential problems people gave (like travel times) sound like a "fairness" issue to me.
   1043. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 24, 2019 at 05:16 PM (#5903587)

One thing I have thought about was awarding lottery picks for finishing 7th and 8th, and taking them away from teams who finish 9th and 10th.


Idea: Right now in the NBA draft there are 1000 combinations, with the top teams getting 140 of those (so 14% chance of top pick, etc.)

So what if you got combinations for playoff wins against a higher seed prior to the finals? Every win would get 10 combinations. So going 4-2 against a top seed would give you 20 combinations, equal to the #11 team, and upward from there.
   1044. SteveF Posted: November 24, 2019 at 05:27 PM (#5903588)
#1041 - Such as? None of the examples of potential problems people gave (like travel times) sound like a "fairness" issue to me.

The aforementioned geographic distribution of talent that disproportionately favors (edit: some, of course) Western Conference teams, as evidenced by this past offseason.

Edit: To be clear, the proposed changes aren't less "fair". I certainly wouldn't object to the change. There's no reason to privilege the status quo. I just don't see the change as justified on-balance by "fairness" considerations.
   1045. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 06:03 PM (#5903591)
#1044 - It favors some Eastern teams too (see Nets, Heat). And again, there's nothing we can do about that inequality. That's not a reason to ignore the problems we CAN solve, IMO.
   1046. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 24, 2019 at 06:10 PM (#5903592)
Another amazing game for Luka, 41-10-6, and was just awesome in the 4th as they beat the Rockets. In the Mavs' 16 games so far, he's posted the highest PER in league history. He's 20!

Also, the Complex is reporting that "Kings Reportedly Passed on Luka Doncic Because Vlade Divac Didn't Like His Dad"
   1047. . . . . . . Posted: November 24, 2019 at 07:14 PM (#5903597)
This is your biweekly reminder of how goddamned wrong I was about Luka. Like, so so wrong.
   1048. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 24, 2019 at 07:20 PM (#5903599)
Don't be so hard on yourself. After all, he IS white.
   1049. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 07:25 PM (#5903600)
Also, ....., I'm sure the Suns, Kings, and Hawks feel worse about it than you do.
   1050. tshipman Posted: November 24, 2019 at 07:37 PM (#5903601)
This is your biweekly reminder of how goddamned wrong I was about Luka. Like, so so wrong.


Don't worry, you also said at the time that we were all wrong because we were racists, so that's not embarrassing at all.
   1051. Scott Lange Posted: November 24, 2019 at 07:37 PM (#5903602)
I guess I'm basically just quibbling, Booey, but if you're talking about fairness to fans, I actually think "subsidizing" the crappy Eastern Conference teams is more fair. It's not the Eastern fans' fault their teams are bad. The Western fans' did nothing to cause more talent to appear on their teams. You could argue that it's unfair to front offices and GMs, but who cares about their feelings?

I have mixed feelings, but to the extent I'm pro-reseeding, its not about fairness. Rather, its about competitiveness. As a neutral, I'd rather see superior teams make the playoffs. As a fan, I'd rather see MY team make the playoffs.
   1052. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 07:43 PM (#5903604)
#1051 - It's both for me; competitiveness and fairness. Letting the Rockets play the Dubs for the title in 2018 instead of the Cavs would have been both more fair (they won 65 games and the Cavs won 50), and more competitive (Rockets and Dubs were evenly matched, as expected, while the Cavs series was a mismatch, as expected).
   1053. tshipman Posted: November 24, 2019 at 07:51 PM (#5903607)
#1051 - It's both for me; competitiveness and fairness. Letting the Rockets play the Dubs for the title in 2018 instead of the Cavs would have been both more fair (they won 65 games and the Cavs won 50), and more competitive (Rockets and Dubs were evenly matched, as expected, while the Cavs series was a mismatch, as expected).


Well, they basically did, right? The WCF were the finals, and there was a glorified exhibition series after.

I guess the only reason why uneven seeding annoys me would be the arguments about how LeBron took his team to the Finals for 8 straight years (in the East) or that Chris Paul had never made it out of the second round (in the West).
   1054. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 08:04 PM (#5903608)
TShip- Exactly. Do we want what should be the most exciting series to (sometimes) be just a glorified exhibition because the 2nd best team already lost due to an imbalanced schedule?

And yeah, I focus on the fans cuz that's what we are, but the "fairness" argument applies to the players as well. I do feel a little bad for Paul (or would if he weren't a d!ck).
   1055. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 24, 2019 at 08:19 PM (#5903613)

#1051 - It's both for me; competitiveness and fairness. Letting the Rockets play the Dubs for the title in 2018 instead of the Cavs would have been both more fair (they won 65 games and the Cavs won 50), and more competitive (Rockets and Dubs were evenly matched, as expected, while the Cavs series was a mismatch, as expected).


But the conferences encourage rivalries -- some of the most memorable series have been when you have two good teams in the same conference. You need high stakes to create a good rivalry.

Fairness is great, but many of the best narratives are generated by unfair situations.
   1056. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 08:29 PM (#5903615)
To each their own, but to me "rivalries" is just a way of making "the same teams meeting over and over" sound exciting rather than routine. I'd personally rather see new matchups. Warriors/Cavs 4 years in a row wasn't a great rivalry. It was just repetitive and boring. Ditto with Knicks/Heat back in the 90's. YMMV, of course.
   1057. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: November 24, 2019 at 08:57 PM (#5903617)
#1041 - Such as?


You would have situations in which two 48-34 teams were re-seeded and one of them was moved into a much worse matchup, or situations in which a 9th place 45-37 team was pissed that they missed out on some tournament plan. Also, re. 1055, you would have situations involving potentially cool geographic matchups being re-seeded. Your team has never really had a conference rival, but 76ers/Celtics was a thing in the 1960s and 1980s, and in the 90s Bulls/Pistons, Bulls/Knicks, and Knicks/Pacers were all intense. Lakers/Kings in the early 00s was a big thing as well. We could also end up with a situation in which traditional conference finals matchups with geographic angles like 76ers/Celtics and Lakers/Clippers got re-seeded, which I think most people would oppose.
   1058. TFTIO is building his own mealworm farm Posted: November 24, 2019 at 09:00 PM (#5903618)
For me, other than season length, I just don't see a strong reason to make any of these changes. Maybe letting the playoff teams pick their opponents? Even that, I'm not certain solves a problem that needs solving?
   1059. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 09:17 PM (#5903621)
I don't know how fans from the rest of the country saw it, but I thought the Stockton/Malone Jazz and the Olajuwon Rockets had a pretty good rivalry in the 90's, with the teams meeting in the postseason 4 times in 5 years from 1994-1998, with each team winning twice, including once in the WCF. The Payton/Kemp Sonics felt like a good rivalry with the 90's Jazz too (met 4 times from 1992-2000, also with each team winning twice).

That said, I'm pretty sure the Stockton shot to end the 1997 WCF would have felt just as good if it had come against someone other than the Rockets, too. But yeah, I realize that's just me and other people probably do find additional meaning to beating specific rivals.
   1060. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: November 24, 2019 at 09:39 PM (#5903625)
I don't know how fans from the rest of the country saw it, but I thought the Stockton/Malone Jazz and the Olajuwon Rockets had a pretty good rivalry in the 90's, with the teams meeting in the postseason 4 times in 5 years from 1994-1998, with each team winning twice, including once in the WCF.


It depends on whether the teams and fanbases actively disliked each other. That, repeated meetings for high stakes, and in many cases geography are what creates a rivalry. Since you seem to pretty much hate bling market teams in general rather than specific opponents, rivalries would not be a thing for you personally. But that being the case, I suspect that beating the Bulls in 1998 would have meant more to most Utah fans, including you, than beating Indiana would have, although a banner is a banner.

Playing the Clippers and Boston in the last two series this year, if the team gets that far, would be a diff exp for the Lakers fanbase than playing Utah and Milwaukee would be.
   1061. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 10:03 PM (#5903631)
RR - I don't root against teams cuz they play in "bling markets", I root against teams that buy championship contenders rather than build them (but yes, of course there is a very strong correlation between the two). If the Lakers were a title contender because some combination of Randle/Russell/Ingram/Ball had developed into superstars, then more power to them. I wouldn't have hated them at all. It's the whole using the rest of the league as your personal farm system that makes me dislike teams like the Lakers, Nets, Clippers, Heat, etc. Beating the Bulls in 1998 would have meant more because they were 5 time champs - including the previous year vs the Jazz - and the greatest modern team of all time, not because they played in Chicago rather than Indianapolis. And even that's a maybe; it would have been the Jazz's first title regardless. I don't think I would've cared who they beat, honestly.

But we've had this conversation many times. My opinions on conference imbalance had nothing to do with any of that.
   1062. tshipman Posted: November 24, 2019 at 10:11 PM (#5903633)
RR - I don't root against teams cuz they play in "bling markets", I root against teams that buy championship contenders rather than build them (but yes, of course there is a very strong correlation between the two). If the Lakers were a title contender because some combination of Randle/Russell/Ingram/Ball had developed into superstars, then more power to them. I wouldn't have hated them at all. It's the whole using the rest of the league as your personal farm system that makes me dislike teams like the Lakers, Nets, Clippers, Heat, etc. Beating the Bulls in 1998 would have meant more because they were 5 time champs and the greatest modern team of all time, not because they played in Chicago rather than Indianapolis.


Pretty sure you're not fully examining your emotions here. You were pretty anti-Lakers in the 2008-2010 era, and that was as home-grown a team as there is in the NBA. Only one piece came in trade.
   1063. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 10:27 PM (#5903636)
TShip - I didn't like the 2008-2010 Lakers cuz I thought (think) the Gasol trade was a travashamockery. I'm 100% positive I wouldn't have felt the same way if the Kobe/Odom/Bynum Lakers had won the West 3 straight years instead.

Feel free to hold me to this if the Lakers ever build a home-grown champion. Showtime drafted Magic and Worthy, so they might've won some titles, but you can't shrug off the impact of Kareem. And the 80's were before I was old enough to follow the NBA anyway, so I had no opinion of those teams.
   1064. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: November 24, 2019 at 10:48 PM (#5903638)
TShip - I didn't like the 2008-2010 Lakers cuz I thought (think) the Gasol trade was a travashamockery


This has been covered, including by Maxwn, who was a great poster, and was a big Grizzlies fan.

I root against teams that buy championship contenders rather than build them (but yes, of course there is a very strong correlation between the two).


In a no-cap league, this might make more sense. What you don't like is that some/many of the big-time FA guys prefer bling markets, and your team doesn't play in one.

That said, the current Lakers are a team built to be disliked by people outside the fanbase, and will be widely disliked INSIDE the fanbase if things do not go well over the next 2-3 years.
   1065. Booey Posted: November 24, 2019 at 11:11 PM (#5903641)
What you don't like is that some/many of the big-time FA guys prefer bling markets, and your team doesn't play in one.


Exactly. And it doesn't bother you because your team is the beneficiary of it. I've never denied my fandom plays a big part in all my b-ball related opinions (as does everyone else's). As I've mentioned before, whenever anyone talks about what's best for the league, they're really talking about what's best for THEIR interest in the league. No changes will ever be good (or bad) for everyone.
   1066. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 24, 2019 at 11:22 PM (#5903643)
This has been covered, including by Maxwn, who was a great poster
He's no Der-K or Moses.
   1067. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: November 25, 2019 at 12:31 AM (#5903647)
Exactly. And it doesn't bother you because your team is the beneficiary of it. I've never denied my fandom plays a big part in all my b-ball related opinions (as does everyone else's). As I've mentioned before, whenever anyone talks about what's best for the league, they're really talking about what's best for THEIR interest in the league. No changes will ever be good (or bad) for everyone.


As I have said a few times, I spent the early years of my life in Kentucky before we transplanted to SoCal, and in baseball I am a Cincinnati Reds fan. I suppose I should be more bothered by the Dodgers' payroll and seven straight division titles, and to a lesser extent, the Cubs' but I'm really not. Mostly I wish the Reds were run better and had a couple of young home-grown stars.

And I think the people on this thread are capable of separating fandom from the league. As I said over the summer, it would have been awesome for the Lakers and for me personally, if Leonard had come here; but another three-headed LeBron James-lead superteam, another Lakers powerhouse, and another superteam in CA, after The Heatles and the Warriors, would not have been good for the NBA as a product IMO. The current situation seems like the proverbial breath of fresh air to most fans, even with the Lakers back in contention. I think Leonard staying in Toronto would have been better overall for conference balance, but his decision to join the Clippers has a lot of commercial and narrative value from a league POV.

Looking ahead, Antetokounmpo is the next great battle in the FA culture wars, in July of 2021, assuming Davis stays with the Lakers and GA hits FA. Towns is locked through 2024 in Minnesota.
   1068. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: November 25, 2019 at 12:42 AM (#5903649)
He's no Der-K or Moses


They post about teams in semi-bling markets (ATL and CHI), so they have structural advantages. As we see here, I still steal Maxwn's ideas and just use him as my own personal posting farm system.
   1069. spivey Posted: November 25, 2019 at 09:21 AM (#5903658)
Oh, we're having the market argument again?

In terms of the actual changes proposed by the NBA, I'd like to think about them more. The regular season tournament works well for Euro-soccer, but is an afterthought for a good number of teams until very late. I also think the inclusion of non-top flight teams helps with interest, and in the top soccer leagues (Euro basketball is probably like this too(?)) only a handful of teams will ever really win the league. This gives fans of the other teams an opportunity for a trophy/glory. US leagues are built in a way where any team can win eventually.

The conference reseeding and play-in are things I don't feel strongly about one way or the other. The former does increase the likelihood for a good NBA finals, which I can understand why they want. The latter keeps more teams/fans interested in the season.

Only partially related, but I think today's news cycle/society has gotten much more into the mindset that if you don't win it all, the effort was pointless. I don't think that's an NBA specific problem, but I hope it goes away.
   1070. JJ1986 Posted: November 25, 2019 at 09:24 AM (#5903659)
The idea for a 'Cup' played only among the 30 NBA teams is so ####### stupid.
   1071. jmurph Posted: November 25, 2019 at 09:55 AM (#5903666)
I hate it when you guys post so much on the weekends when I'm busy! Are you actually working hard at your jobs or something? Weird.

Despite all the well thought out posts and ideas, I remain unconvinced that there is a problem to be fixed by these many silly ideas floated by the league. I do think there is a conference imbalance, but I think reseeding is a bad way to solve that- they should just realign the conferences (or maybe force ownership changes in Chicago and New York, but that doesn't seem likely to happen!).
   1072. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: November 25, 2019 at 10:07 AM (#5903674)
I'm pretty much with 1071 - including the forced ownership changes.
   1073. jmurph Posted: November 25, 2019 at 10:16 AM (#5903677)
You might jump off the bandwagon when I explain to you that Chicago definitely has to go to the West if we're realigning...
   1074. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: November 25, 2019 at 10:21 AM (#5903679)
They absolutely can and will not. Get bent.

In all seriousness. why does it have to be East/West? Why not make it North/South? The Blackhawks are in the West, and that's extremely annoying.
   1075. jmurph Posted: November 25, 2019 at 10:27 AM (#5903682)
Yeah the main problem with my otherwise inscrutable plan to realign is... I don't know how to do it so that it makes sense. You send New Orleans and Memphis to the East and Chicago and Milwaukee to the West and nothing is really solved, I don't think.

North-South is presumably problematic because east coast to west coast is still a loooong flight.
   1076. Booey Posted: November 25, 2019 at 10:41 AM (#5903687)
#1071 - Well, I assume the underlying problem the league thinks needs fixing is low ratings. Whether or not these changes will actually accomplish that is another question, of course.

I don't really pay attention to ratings (honestly, as long as the ratings are good enough to keep the product going, why should fans care about that?) so I don't know how much worse they were than last year, but at this point in the season it could just be injuries. The Warriors and Pelicans are on national TV a ton due to preseason expectations, but who wants to see those teams in their current incarnations?
   1077. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: November 25, 2019 at 10:42 AM (#5903688)
True or False: Luka Doncic has already established that he is the next Magic Johnson/Larry Bird kind of guy, and may exceed both of them. Discuss.
   1078. It's regretful that PASTE was able to get out Posted: November 25, 2019 at 10:47 AM (#5903691)
OK, imagine an NBA where there are 20 teams:

Lakers
Clippers
Rockets
Celtics
76ers
Pacers
Wolves
Suns
Nets
Kings
Thunder
Hornets
Grizzlies
Magic
Wizards
Bulls
Cavaliers
Pistons
Hawks
Knicks

So only the top five teams on that list ever win the title, and mostly just the top two or three. And imagine there were no playoffs. Whoever finishes the season with the best record is the champion.

This is how European soccer leagues are set up. It's easy to see how a during-the-season single-elimination tournament would be considered by coaches and players (as well as fans) as, if not as prestigious as the league title, prestigious enough to be worth competing hard for. (Actually, most European soccer leagues have TWO different in-season tournaments, one of which is prestigious and the other of which the big teams pay no attention to and just play their G-league teams in.)

There's also this: all the teams in a European soccer league are contained within a geographic area about the size of Texas. The United States' sprawling size makes scheduling Eurosoccer-style a real headache even in the 21st century.

But bottom line, I don't see any way to make any NBA player care about any kind of extra tourmanent, unless a BIG cash prize were attached to it (like $5 million per winning player). They're not going to care, at the end of a grueling season, about competing for the privilege of getting swept in the first round, and they're not going to care about their team getting a lottery pick, either, to help their employer bring in someone to compete for their job. Such a tournament would be played at a preseason level of intensity.
   1079. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: November 25, 2019 at 10:51 AM (#5903694)
Despite all the well thought out posts and ideas, I remain unconvinced that there is a problem to be fixed by these many silly ideas floated by the league


I am kind of here as well, but I need to own that I am a traditionalist (Any Lakers/Celtics game in LA should have Boston in green and the Lakers in gold. This is not up for discussion.) so there may be better ways to do things that I would instinctively reject.

I do like some type of idea like SdeB mentioned that incentivizes getting low playoff seeds in some way. I think of the East last year, when Detroit, Orlando, Charlotte and Miami were all around .500 and huffing and puffing to get in to series against Milwaukee and Toronto that they would have no chance in. I like the idea that Detroit would get in the lottery after slogging through to finish 8th, although I am sure that there are problems with it I have not considered.
   1080. jmurph Posted: November 25, 2019 at 10:52 AM (#5903696)
I don't really pay attention to ratings

I don't either, but I assume they've been steadily declining for years like all other forms of televised entertainment? I do know the Pelicans and Warriors things have been measurably a problem, which is obviously correctable, though the league appears to have taken no steps to fix it.

And I would also add that bad tv ratings are an issue that can be linked with the fact that teams in the 1st and 3rd largest media markets have been trash for years.

   1081. Booey Posted: November 25, 2019 at 11:01 AM (#5903700)
PASTE - I also don't see players caring about an additional tournament. We see how much they care about the All Star game.
   1082. Crosseyed and Painless Posted: November 25, 2019 at 11:20 AM (#5903706)
My favorite fix the NBA proposal is just reducing the incentive to lose. I hate it. I hate, hate, hate, hate following a middling team and thinking when I watch a game "It would be better for my team if they lost this game!"

Two lottery balls for each team that misses the playoffs. Teams that lose in first round of the playoffs get one lottery ball. So if you miss the playoffs, you have a 1/18 chance of pick #1, whether you win 10 games or you win 32 games. If you lose in first round, you get 1/36 shot.
   1083. JJ1986 Posted: November 25, 2019 at 11:28 AM (#5903710)
My personal lottery reform suggestion is just to draw all 14 places. It'll make being terrible less valuable, while still giving any individual team in the 11-14 range pretty much the same incentives that they currently have (they're not going to miss the playoffs for a 3% chance at the #5 pick). A team could get really unlucky and keep getting bad draws, but that's not really any worse than how Orlando or Sacramento were for 10 years or how Charlotte will be for the next 20.
   1084. Crosseyed and Painless Posted: November 25, 2019 at 11:40 AM (#5903714)
My personal lottery reform suggestion is just to draw all 14 places. It'll make being terrible less valuable, while still giving any individual team in the 11-14 range pretty much the same incentives that they currently have (they're not going to miss the playoffs for a 3% chance at the #5 pick). A team could get really unlucky and keep getting bad draws, but that's not really any worse than how Orlando or Sacramento were for 10 years or how Charlotte will be for the next 20.


That's fine with me, too! I figured throw a bone to the first round fodder, but I mostly agree that no one's missing the playoffs on purpose. I think you could also make the regular season much more interesting for good teams by dropping playoff teams from 16 to 12 or 8, but I know there's 0 chance of that happening. Really don't see why the lottery reform can't happen and at least take the "LOL LOSING IS AWESOME" part of the NBA off the table.
   1085. Dandy Little Glove Man Posted: November 25, 2019 at 11:49 AM (#5903719)
My favorite fix the NBA proposal is just reducing the incentive to lose. I hate it. I hate, hate, hate, hate following a middling team and thinking when I watch a game "It would be better for my team if they lost this game!"

Two lottery balls for each team that misses the playoffs. Teams that lose in first round of the playoffs get one lottery ball. So if you miss the playoffs, you have a 1/18 chance of pick #1, whether you win 10 games or you win 32 games. If you lose in first round, you get 1/36 shot.

I wrote about this a lot last year. Here's where I landed: rainbow lottery odds, with the best chances of a top pick belonging to the mediocre teams customarily in that 30-48 win range. This includes teams that narrowly make the playoffs as well as those that fall short. The league's worst teams would have lesser odds, though the rest of the draft (after the first 3-5 picks) still follows its existing order so they're not in a terrible spot. The lottery consists of everyone but the conference finalists. More details of the proposal are here.
   1086. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 25, 2019 at 12:08 PM (#5903724)
If you're going to those lengths, you might as well institute the wheel draft. A lot simpler.
   1087. Crosseyed and Painless Posted: November 25, 2019 at 01:10 PM (#5903747)
Rainbow draft lottery, great! Flat draft lottery, great! Wheel draft order, great! Practically anything other than "LOSING IS AWESOME" lottery is fine by me.
   1088. Athletic Supporter is USDA certified lean Posted: November 25, 2019 at 01:12 PM (#5903749)
For the record, I also agree that there is no real problem to be fixed here. Some second-order problems, but also Adam Silver and co. are in charge of figuring out what the second order problems are and fixing them before they become first order problems. I don't love the current NBA offerings, but I also trust them to do something reasonable and it is unlikely to meaningfully hurt my own personal enjoyment of the NBA, so whatever.
   1089. SteveF Posted: November 25, 2019 at 03:18 PM (#5903813)
And I would also add that bad tv ratings are an issue that can be linked with the fact that teams in the 1st and 3rd largest media markets have been trash for years.

Well, the ratings downturn is a recent phenomenon, so I'm not sure this explains it.

The first round of the NBA playoffs is an abomination, but it's been that way for much longer than the ratings have dipped. The average margin of victory/median margin of victory has only ticked up by a point over the past 10 years. If there's a newish tanking problem, I think it's largely based on perception/increased awareness (and that matters, or course).

What I think is actually going on is more people aren't watching the games and consuming the NBA content in a different way -- e.g. watching the 10 minute highlight package on Youtube/NBA.com.

Hard to know whether that's an offramp/onramp to losing/getting people's eyeballs for more than 10 minutes.
   1090. jmurph Posted: November 25, 2019 at 03:36 PM (#5903816)
Well, the ratings downturn is a recent phenomenon, so I'm not sure this explains it.

Sure, not suggesting that's it's the cause, or even a major one, but it's clearly an issue:
Huge drops in two of the NBA’s three biggest television markets contributed to an overall 4 percent decline in the league’s local ratings this season.

The New York Knicks (down 38 percent on MSG) and Chicago Bulls (down 24 percent on NBC Sports Chicago) had two of the four biggest local TV ratings decreases this season. The Bulls’ 1.36 rating is the team’s lowest in 13 years.

That's from April 2019.

From the same article:
The defending NBA champion Warriors had the league’s highest local rating, posting a 7.42 on NBC Sports Bay Area.

I think we can assume that's a bit lower this year, too.
   1091. aberg Posted: November 25, 2019 at 03:52 PM (#5903822)
I like the tournament idea, but I also like soccer. I wonder if perception of that idea tracks with soccer interest.
   1092. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 25, 2019 at 04:03 PM (#5903828)
I always hate the changes to the lottery. They are all variants of "Hey you know what bad teams need? To be punished for not having any talent. Screw them until they get talent! I know, let's make sure they NEVER get talent, that will show them!"

Losing always sucks. Being a fan of a bad team sucks. Arguments structured around the idea of making it suck even more are terrible and will absolutely crater fan interest in bad teams.

Giving the roughly half the league with not enough talent a lesser chance of gaining new talent is one sure way to making sure those teams never grow either their talent or fan base. Without Towns there would be no reason to care about the Wolves. So they would have even worse local TV ratings and much worse attendance.

Your plan to punish bad teams is a great structure to create a semi-permanent underclass of teams with no fans.
   1093. Booey Posted: November 25, 2019 at 04:45 PM (#5903846)
#1092 - I'd say it's more about punishing teams who aren't really as bad as they're pretending to be. Tanking is the managerial equivalent of flopping.

But yeah, legitimately bad teams who are trying and just don't have the talent to compete will get caught in the crossfire of any anti-tanking measures, for sure.
   1094. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: November 25, 2019 at 05:26 PM (#5903854)
Huge drops in two of the NBA’s three biggest television markets contributed to an overall 4 percent decline in the league’s local ratings this season.

The New York Knicks (down 38 percent on MSG) and Chicago Bulls (down 24 percent on NBC Sports Chicago) had two of the four biggest local TV ratings decreases this season. The Bulls’ 1.36 rating is the team’s lowest in 13 years.


What about the Lakers being good for the first time Steve Blake and Earl Clark were on the team? That should increase the ratings.
   1095. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: November 25, 2019 at 06:51 PM (#5903877)
What about the Lakers being good for the first time Steve Blake and Earl Clark were on the team? That should increase the ratings.


This is well-played. Not since "For the first time since Kobe Bryant became the NBA version of The Walking Dead" or "For the first time since Andrew Bynum had one functional knee" but since the Halcyon Steve Blake-Earl Clark Era.

Ratings: Dumb question time: I assume that the product is still being consumed as much as ever--just in different platforms. I thought this was true of baseball as well. Is that not true?

1092: I see the reaction, but I would say two things:

1. As suggested by Booey, even if a team is a 22-60 type team, IMO they should not be trying to lose.
2. I think the idea is to reward management that improves terrible teams--like, say, Brooklyn under Marks. It would not always work that way, but sometimes it would.
   1096. KronicFatigue Posted: November 25, 2019 at 07:07 PM (#5903883)
NBA shouldn't copy soccer b/c of this:

And the big soccer clubs are built for these multiple competitions, as they basically have two sets of starters.


Those domestic tournaments are fun b/c teams vary wildly in terms of how much they care about them. A big club who is competing in their domestic regular season and euroepean league will often use their young guys who don't get much playing time normally. A smaller club can go all out b/c it's their only chance of winning something. In the NBA, the tournament games will look exactly like the regular season games.

And yes, the regular season is too long, and no, the nba will never shorten it significantly.

I haven't thought this through, but if you want to copy soccer, have some form of relegation. 4 conferences instead of 2. West, East, West minor, and East minor. Have the crappy teams dumped into the minors every year. All 4 conferences play each other, but the schedule is imbalanced and there's some kind of penalty for being in the minor. Less playoff seeds, less home games in said playoffs. Etc etc.
   1097. TFTIO is building his own mealworm farm Posted: November 25, 2019 at 08:04 PM (#5903895)
Not a lot of defence in Atlanta tonight.
   1098. Tin Angel Posted: November 25, 2019 at 09:53 PM (#5903907)
Pretty cool of the Bulls to let Carmelo turn back the clock tonight.
   1099. Tin Angel Posted: November 25, 2019 at 10:10 PM (#5903913)
Fultz scored 16 more points than Embiid tonight.
   1100. Booey Posted: November 25, 2019 at 10:30 PM (#5903917)
Flip
Page 11 of 17 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogHe’s ‘Nat’ done yet: Virginia Beach’s Ryan Zimmerman reportedly signs one-year deal with Washington
(17 - 11:57pm, Jan 25)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogFormer Astros pitcher Dallas Keuchel apologizes for 2017 cheating scandal
(8 - 11:46pm, Jan 25)
Last: Booey

NewsblogRed Sox, Padres have reportedly discussed Mookie Betts trade that includes a surprising name
(48 - 11:17pm, Jan 25)
Last: Jose Is Absurdly Chatty

NewsblogRockies’ Trevor Story agrees to two-year, $27.5 million contract
(4 - 11:03pm, Jan 25)
Last: flournoy

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - January, 2020
(267 - 10:26pm, Jan 25)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread 2020
(665 - 10:18pm, Jan 25)
Last: calming him down with his 57i66135

NewsblogAstros manager rumors: Brad Ausmus joins Dusty Baker, Buck Showalter, John Gibbons as candidates for
(8 - 10:18pm, Jan 25)
Last: flournoy

NewsblogDoes this team have the best bullpen in NL?
(5 - 10:15pm, Jan 25)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogScott Boras Says Astros Players Shouldn't Apologize for Sign-Stealing Scandal
(15 - 10:13pm, Jan 25)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 1-24-2020
(16 - 7:51pm, Jan 25)
Last: "RMc", the superbatsman

NewsblogRoyals star Pérez becomes US Citizen at team’s fan event
(5 - 7:47pm, Jan 25)
Last: "RMc", the superbatsman

NewsblogFelipe Alou: Mets manager Luis Rojas won't cheat baseball
(5 - 3:42pm, Jan 25)
Last: Skloot Insurance

Hall of Merit2021 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(158 - 1:20pm, Jan 25)
Last: kcgard2

NewsblogRyan Thibs’ Hall of Fame Tracker
(1454 - 1:07pm, Jan 25)
Last: PreservedFish

Sox TherapyWho's In Charge?
(81 - 10:29am, Jan 25)
Last: Darren

Page rendered in 0.7989 seconds
46 querie(s) executed