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

[sturt]

2 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

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

Okay.

Well, it may evolve over time to be tweaked, but I'd start with this concept that I'd already posted:

So, top 5 right now might be = Schröder, Hardaway, Sefolosha, Milsap and Howard

Middle 5 = Delaney, Bazemore, Prince, Ilyasova, and Muscala

Bottom 5 = TBD (Chalmers? Bynum? Cotton?), Bembry, Dunleavy, Kelly and Humphries.

Once you start to see some better combinations, it seems wise to keep an open mind to moving some of those around. But under this structure, you've always got it set-up to have 10 players at your disposal in any period.

[AHF]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

Okay.

Well, it may evolve over time to be tweaked, but I'd start with this concept that I'd already posted:

So, top 5 right now might be = Schröder, Hardaway, Sefolosha, Milsap and Howard

Middle 5 = Delaney, Bazemore, Prince, Ilyasova, and Muscala

Bottom 5 = TBD (Chalmers? Bynum? Cotton?), Bembry, Dunleavy, Kelly and Humphries.

Once you start to see some better combinations, it seems wise to keep an open mind to moving some of those around. But under this structure, you've always got it set-up to have 10 players at your disposal in any period.

Don't know what could make my point about bad basketball better than the idea of 16 minutes of watching this lineup every game:

 

Delaney, Bazemore, Prince, Ilyasova, and Muscala

[sturt]

By that measure, there should rarely ever be a college basketball game worth watching.

You get that, right?

We don't just watch basketball to see the top players, we watch basketball to watch the competition.

To wit... put those 5 against the Cavs starting line-up, depressing, sure. Put those 5 against many other teams' second string, and it's at minimum competitive, and absolutely potentially even more entertaining than watching our first string against some other teams' first string.

So, save me please the moans and groans about watching the second tier and third tier players. They're NBA players. They're still some of the best basketball players in the world. Still.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Okay.

Well, it may evolve over time to be tweaked, but I'd start with this concept that I'd already posted:

So, top 5 right now might be = Schröder, Hardaway, Sefolosha, Milsap and Howard

Middle 5 = Delaney, Bazemore, Prince, Ilyasova, and Muscala

Bottom 5 = TBD (Chalmers? Bynum? Cotton?), Bembry, Dunleavy, Kelly and Humphries.

Once you start to see some better combinations, it seems wise to keep an open mind to moving some of those around. But under this structure, you've always got it set-up to have 10 players at your disposal in any period.

Here's the issue

 

A team that is loaded with talent, say, Cleveland, can easily run out these lineups

 

Starters:  Kyrie - Shump - Lebron - Frye - Thompson

Middle:  Deron - JR  - Liggins  - Love - Bogut

Bottom: Felder - Jefferson - Kyle - McRae - Derrick Williams 

 

So Period 1 starts, and you have the starting 5 out there.

 

** Kyrie - Shump - Lebron - Frye - Thompson

- With 2 minutes left in Period 1, you make 2 subs . . . Jefferson and Kyle, for Shump and Frye.  You now have this lineup out there:

** Kyrie - Kyle - Jefferson - Lebron - Thompson **

- They finish out the period

 

 

Period 2 starts, and Kyrie, Lebron, and Thompson have to come out. You sub in 3 off of your middle lineup.

 

** Deron - Kyle - Jefferson - Love - Bogut **

- This group could literally play the entire period, but let's say that JR comes in for Jefferson at the 4 minute mark

** Deron - JR - Kyle- Love - Bogut **

 

 

Period 3 starts, and at least Kyle have to come out.  Lue opts to bring in Kyrie and Lebron.  Bogut is playing well, so leave him out there.  Deron goes to the bench.

 

** Kyrie - JR - Lebron - Love - Bogut **

- 4 minutes to go in the period, he takes out Bogut brings back Thompson to finish out the half

** Kyrie - JR - Lebron - Love - Thompson

 

 

Total Minutes:  11 players have played.   

 

Lebron ( 16 ) - Kyrie ( 16 ) - Love ( 16 ) - JR ( 12 ) - Bogut ( 12 )

Thompson ( 12 ) - Kyle ( 10 ) - Deron ( 8 ) - Frye ( 6 ) - Shumpert ( 6 )

Jefferson ( 6 )

 

Total = 120 minutes

 

You can always stagger the lineups in which you have a key bench player, or one of your strongest players, on the floor at all times.  For a team like the Hawks, that probably means that you can't start Millsap, Dwight, Hardaway Jr, and Dennis together.  Two of them will have to go to at least one of those middle and bottom groups, just to protect the lineup at all times.

But to potentially have to rely on a guy like Delaney for 16 minutes, would be a catastrophe, without one of the big men in the game.  This is why this scenario might be even worse for the Hawks.

 

Honestly, to protect the team, you might have to start a group like this:

 

Starting group:   Dennis - Baze - Sefolosha - Millsap - Humphries 

Middle group:  Delaney - Hardaway Jr - Prince - Ilyasova - Howard

Bottom group:  ( signed PG ) - Bembry - Dunleavy - Kelly - Muscala

 

Without the luxury of playing Millsap or Dennis with that middle and bottom group, the Hawks would continue to lose games if any of those middle guys play sub par.

 

[sturt]

I appreciate all that thought about how it could play out for ATL vs. CLE. And maybe that's all 100% correct about how it really would.

That said...  you don't think this is some scheme to help ATL out specifically, right?

I mean, you keep raising objections, and hopefully you're finding that I try to, for the most part, respectfully address the next objection, and then the next objection, and then the next objection.

So, with this newest one, I have to admit I don't actually consider this team to be that next tier as it stands tonight... but I *do* continue to think that regardless of who raises to challenge CLE, INHERENTLY this format would put those teams in a much more competitive position... CLE would not be a shoe-in as they're currently regarded for 2017... and most certainly would not be considered a lock ALREADY for Eastern Conference champs in 20-by-God-18.

And here's the thing, longer term... teams would have to seriously consider under this premise more of their roster than the very top of it.

That's  the point.

Footnote: Then, too, I repeat... it does that without compromising the max salary lever for next CBA go-round.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

14 minutes ago, sturt said:

I appreciate all that thought about how it could play out for ATL vs. CLE. And maybe that's all 100% correct about how it really would.

That said...  you don't think this is some scheme to help ATL out specifically, right?

I mean, you keep raising objections, and hopefully you're finding that I try to, for the most part, respectfully address the next objection, and then the next objection, and then the next objection.

So, with this newest one, I have to admit I don't actually consider this team to be that next tier as it stands tonight... but I *do* continue to think that regardless of who raises to challenge CLE, INHERENTLY this format would put those teams in a much more competitive position... CLE would not be a shoe-in as they're currently regarded for 2017... and most certainly would not be considered a lock ALREADY for Eastern Conference champs in 20-by-God-18.

And here's the thing, longer term... teams would have to seriously consider under this premise more of their roster than the very top of it.

That's  the point.

Footnote: Then, too, I repeat... it does that without compromising the max salary lever for next CBA go-round.

How do the teams with just one star, compete?

Like OKC.  How can they survive, if Westbrook is only playing at the max, 32 minutes a game in a playoff series?  

Or what chance does Toronto have against Cleveland, if they have to go 16 minutes without both Lowry and Derozan on the court during a playoff series?

Washington without Wall and Beal for 16 minutes together?

The Celtics without IT for 16 minutes?

 

You're only looking at one side of this, trying to somewhat weaken the power teams, when the weaker teams will be affected probably even more.  The weaker teams are much more heavily reliant on the lead guy, because most of them don't have a high quality 2nd guy to pick up the scoring.  Cleveland has 2, possibly 3, when you add Love.

 

[sturt]

8 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

How do the teams with just one star, compete?

Short answer: When the framework of the game is modified to spread the reliance for winning over a greater portion of the roster rather than allowing what we currently have--which has brought us to this place where there is arguably a humongous slice of would-be NBA fans who simply don't even bother paying attention--which is to focus on a limited number of stars. 

 

A more thorough answer was posted previously...

On 2/24/2017 at 5:09 PM, sturt said:

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

All due respect, I think differently.

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

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

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

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

 

 

[AHF]

8 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

How do the teams with just one star, compete?

Like OKC.  How can they survive, if Westbrook is only playing at the max, 32 minutes a game in a playoff series?  

Or what chance does Toronto have against Cleveland, if they have to go 16 minutes without both Lowry and Derozan on the court during a playoff series?

Washington without Wall and Beal for 16 minutes together?

The Celtics without IT for 16 minutes?

 

You're only looking at one side of this, trying to somewhat weaken the power teams, when the weaker teams will be affected probably even more.  The weaker teams are much more heavily reliant on the lead guy, because most of them don't have a high quality 2nd guy to pick up the scoring.  Cleveland has 2, possibly 3, when you add Love.

 

Tried to make the points you did in your last two posts earlier using examples of how GS would sequence their stars.  I do not see this changing the fact that the star teams will still drive the championships and see it leading to worse basketball to watch and some absurd lineups when there are injury and/or foul problems.  I respect sturt's thought and effort here but fundamentally do not think it would accomplish anything positive.

[sturt]

I respected the counterpoints made enough to offer reasoned counterpoints in return to all of that @AHF.... all of it.

But just briefly, b/c God knows, and @JayBirdHawk knows, I've written enough in this thread by now... hehe...

I hope to never hear of you watching the inferior talent in the NCAA or in the D-league ever again. Then, too, if one concurs with the pyramid theory of talent inventory, then it only follows that to the degree that (a) you place a governor on the effect of the tip top of the pyramid, and then that (b) you understand that teams that have emphasized spending at the top have more typically compromised obtaining more mid-level talent under the premise that one can make-do with lesser talent on the rest of the roster because of the superior talent at the top... that just basic logic demands the conclusion that you've more likely reduced the divide by some margin (IMPORTANT POINT: I certainly grant that it's unknowable what that margin might be, though, until we test it) between the top tier and the next tier teams... all resulting in the desired result, which is to make the NBA much more like the other two professional sports in regard to the number of teams able from year to year to legitimately be considered a championship threat.

(To be clear, the trend says we are not part of that second tier of teams. So a comparison between what one might see occur b/t ATL and CLE seems to be a hollow comparison from the git-go.)

[AHF]

11 minutes ago, sturt said:

I respected the counterpoints made enough to offer reasoned counterpoints in return to all of that @AHF.... all of it.

But just briefly, b/c God knows, and @JayBirdHawk knows, I've written enough in this thread by now... hehe...

I hope to never hear of you watching the inferior talent in the NCAA or in the D-league ever again. Then, too, if one concurs with the pyramid theory of talent inventory, then it only follows that to the degree that (a) you place a governor on the effect of the tip top of the pyramid, and then that (b) you understand that teams that have emphasized spending at the top have more typically compromised obtaining more mid-level talent under the premise that one can make-do with lesser talent on the rest of the roster because of the superior talent at the top... that just basic logic demands the conclusion that you've more likely reduced the divide by some margin (IMPORTANT POINT: I certainly grant that it's unknowable what that margin might be, though, until we test it) between the top tier and the next tier teams... all resulting in the desired result, which is to make the NBA much more like the other two professional sports in regard to the number of teams able from year to year to legitimately be considered a championship threat.

(To be clear, the trend says we are not part of that second tier of teams. So a comparison between what one might see occur b/t ATL and CLE seems to be a hollow comparison from the git-go.)

Hey, I enjoyed the thought exercise and appreciate the levelheaded responses back and forth.  I heard your counterpoints but don't agree with them.  I typed more here but then deleted because that is fundamentally where I'm out so I'll bow out of the thread to let discussion continue.  

[HawkItus]

Last thing from me.   You do realize what will happen is guys will just take more pay cuts to fill in the BCD parts of the championship rosters?  See D Will and A Bogut.   What your system will end up doing creating even less parody and worse teams.   If I'm a B player, but will "governed" on a bad team so I can't even stat chase, I am going to go to GS or Cle for less so that I can win a title.   I think your system is cumbersome and will profit very little if any change, while actually threatening to kill the league.   MHO 

[sturt]

43 minutes ago, AHF said:

Hey, I enjoyed the thought exercise and appreciate the levelheaded responses back and forth.  I heard your counterpoints but don't agree with them.  I typed more here but then deleted because that is fundamentally where I'm out so I'll bow out of the thread to let discussion continue.  

As hinted, I'm inclined to bow out, too... but a main takeaway from all of this I'll file for future reference... no more NCAA basketball for you that doesn't involve a lottery pick... right? And most certainly, none of that awful D-league or summer league crap... who wants to watch any of that.... hehe.

[sturt]

40 minutes ago, HawkItus said:

Last thing from me.   You do realize what will happen is guys will just take more pay cuts to fill in the BCD parts of the championship rosters?  See D Will and A Bogut.   What your system will end up doing creating even less parody and worse teams.   If I'm a B player, but will "governed" on a bad team so I can't even stat chase, I am going to go to GS or Cle for less so that I can win a title.   I think your system is cumbersome and will profit very little if any change, while actually threatening to kill the league.   MHO 

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.

[AHF]

11 minutes ago, sturt said:

As hinted, I'm inclined to bow out, too... but a main takeaway from all of this I'll file for future reference... no more NCAA basketball for you that doesn't involve a lottery pick... right? And most certainly, none of that awful D-league or summer league crap... who wants to watch any of that.... hehe.

D-League and summer league is trash for basketball quality.  It is fine to watch if you are a purist and we are generally starved for basketball by the time summer league roles around but I do everything I can to avoid the NBA resembling those products.

College basketball is like all other college sports.  Some different rules in play than in the pros that make the game a bit different and seriously more diverse in play style (full court press teams, zone teams like Cuse and Baylor, etc.) and a school/conference rooting aspect that is not really a part of pro sports.  I'll continue to watch and enjoy college basketball but not because I think the NBA should aspire to that level of play.  

[sturt]

56 minutes ago, AHF said:

 I'll continue to watch and enjoy college basketball but not because I think the NBA should aspire to that level of play.

I feel you're dancing now.

Why so difficult to just acknowledge that it's not just a shallow matter of talent level, but also a healthy mix of how competitive team A is in comparison to team B that makes a game worthy of watching it?

To wit, many of us will watch March Madness games just because of how many of those games feature teams so equivalent in talent that it makes for some exceptional games even if we have no favorite we're cheering for. Maybe not you... :)... but many of the rest of us.

Btw... D-league has its moments of decent basketball actually once players get used to each other and develop some chemistry, but otoh, summer league actually ought to be one thoroughly enjoyed by those like you who assert that games aren't worth watching unless there's elite talent on the floor... and summer league always has a few of those, of course.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

I feel you're dancing now.

Why so difficult to just acknowledge that it's not just a shallow matter of talent level, but also a healthy mix of how competitive team A is in comparison to team B that makes a game worthy of watching it?

I think your system will force lineups that lead to non-competitive basketball on the floor more often than we see today as teams may mismatch when their best players are on the floor and as the best player can't be freely matched up.  It adds more strategy but I don't think in a way that enhances watchability or competitiveness.  

Many of the aspects about college basketball that make it so compelling to watch (variations in play style, historic rivalries, the one-and-done format that breeds more uncertainty, etc.) will not be present in the NBA under either the status quo or your proposal.

[sturt]

23 minutes ago, AHF said:

It adds more strategy but I don't think in a way that enhances watchability or competitiveness.  

You can have the last word... (not seeing much more to be said here that hasn't already been said... but nonetheless, here's mine... )

Fwiw, from where I sit, anytime a game becomes more about strategy, implicitly, it becomes more competitive... implicitly, because the fact is, the more opportunity for strategy to have an impact in a game naturally means some degree less that sheer talent, and particularly elite talent, dictates the game. The very fact that you've introduced that opportunity for strategy to matter a little more inherently means a greater opportunity for a different outcome than there otherwise would be. Implicitly, naturally, inherently.

That is what we're after. Not keeping Google from being an elite company, but just trying to slice off enough of the divide between them and the next tier so that they can't dominate the economy in unhealthy ways.

[ATLSmith]

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

 

I'm totally on board with a shorter season. I think you would see higher level play during the regular season if players were better rested between games. It would also allow players more time in the gym to work on their craft.

 

Heck, just reduce the interconference games by half and you've already cut down on a ton of travel time.

[AHF]

16 minutes ago, sturt said:

You can have the last word... (not seeing much more to be said here that hasn't already been said... but nonetheless, here's mine... )

Fwiw, from where I sit, anytime a game becomes more about strategy, implicitly, it becomes more competitive... implicitly, because the fact is, the more opportunity for strategy to have an impact in a game naturally means some degree less that sheer talent, and particularly elite talent, dictates the game. The very fact that you've introduced that opportunity for strategy to matter a little more inherently means a greater opportunity than there otherwise would be. That is what we're after. Not keeping Google from being an elite company, but just trying to slice off enough of the divide between them and the next tier so that they can't dominate the economy in unhealthy ways.

We are just apart on our premises here.  To me, more strategy can mean a league that is more competitive or less competitive depending on the opportunity.  

If the new strategy is that you can now choose to dunk from the free throw line on a FT for 1.5 points per attempt that introduces new strategic choice but if the only guy in the league who can do it is Michael Jordan then it widens the gap between the Bulls and the rest of the league.  If the new strategy is that you can choose to one player to get an extra 3 fouls during the game then that will disproportionately be used to protect the best players on your roster and help the teams with the best players get more out of them even in foul trouble situations.

I see teams like GS being even more powerful under your scenario because they can stack all periods with multiple stars while teams like OKC now have to sit their only star for 1/3 of the game and the Hawks are now (with your projected lineup) playing a bunch of backups against the GS star rotation system I posted above so they end up with a lineup with 2-3 of Durant, Curry, Thompson and Green in it going against Moose, Delaney and the other 2nd group starters from your lineups.  

I understand you think this will introduce more competitive basketball but just we don't see eye to eye there.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

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.