Shane's Ideas for Improving the NBA

[Billy Dat]

Forget NBA Commissioner, #31 says he wants to be a one man think tank:

http://www.nba.com/rockets/news/the_think_tank_shane_battier_2010_04_13.html

[theAlaskanBear]

Forget NBA Commissioner, #31 says he wants to be a one man think tank:

http://www.nba.com/rockets/news/the_think_tank_shane_battier_2010_04_13.html

Some of his ideas are nice, but others are not so much.

I DO think best-of-7 should become best of five, in the initial rounds of the playoffs. Keep the finals at 7 games. Also, good ideas on the making all non-playoff teams with the same lottery odds, to keep teams from packing it in for the #1 pick.

[Big Pappa]

Forget NBA Commissioner, #31 says he wants to be a one man think tank:

http://www.nba.com/rockets/news/the_think_tank_shane_battier_2010_04_13.html

Great article. Shane is such a class act and a truly intelligent guy.

[sagegrouse]

I think the King's Cup idea is a really good one. The top eight teams would have a single elimination tournament at the current All-Star break at a mega arena, with prestige and bucks on the line. Sure beats the All-Star game, which is basically unwatchable.

sagegrouse

[CDu]

Some of his ideas are nice, but others are not so much.

I DO think best-of-7 should become best of five, in the initial rounds of the playoffs. Keep the finals at 7 games. Also, good ideas on the making all non-playoff teams with the same lottery odds, to keep teams from packing it in for the #1 pick.

This is how the league used to do the lottery. Everybody had the same chance. But then the complaints rolled in that the worst teams kept getting hosed in the lottery (which kept them really bad) while decent teams (those just missing the playoffs) could occasionally really catch a break and get a #1 pick.

There is no perfect solution to the lottery. If you take away the unbalanced odds, you make it that much harder for really bad teams to recover from being really bad. If you keep the system as it currently is, you run the risk of teams tanking at the end of the season for better lottery odds. You're darned if you do, and darned if you don't. It just depends on which you think is more important.

[dukejim1]

Shane's ideas are interesting and I would probably watch the Stern Cup as opposed to the all-star game as long as it didn't interfere with a Blue Devil game. My number 1 change request is to increase the shot clock to 30 seconds. I believe you would see better shots taken due to the defense having to work harder and scoring would actually go up. 24 seconds is plenty for the current star system where you clearout for your star and let him operate but a few more seconds would bring into play more of a team offense.

[theAlaskanBear]

This is how the league used to do the lottery. Everybody had the same chance. But then the complaints rolled in that the worst teams kept getting hosed in the lottery (which kept them really bad) while decent teams (those just missing the playoffs) could occasionally really catch a break and get a #1 pick.

There is no perfect solution to the lottery. If you take away the unbalanced odds, you make it that much harder for really bad teams to recover from being really bad. If you keep the system as it currently is, you run the risk of teams tanking at the end of the season for better lottery odds. You're darned if you do, and darned if you don't. It just depends on which you think is more important.

You don't need a #1 pick to build a playoff basketball team. So what if #1 pick goes to a team that just barely missed the playoffs...thats actually great for competition because it makes the teams dynamic, because a good team can get a GREAT piece and challenge the big dogs.

[CDu]

Shane's ideas are interesting and I would probably watch the Stern Cup as opposed to the all-star game as long as it didn't interfere with a Blue Devil game. My number 1 change request is to increase the shot clock to 30 seconds. I believe you would see better shots taken due to the defense having to work harder and scoring would actually go up. 24 seconds is plenty for the current star system where you clearout for your star and let him operate but a few more seconds would bring into play more of a team offense.

I'd get rid of the 10-second count altogether. There's basically no benefit in it. You have a shot-clock for a reason. Why do you also need a 10-second clock?

On a similar note, I'd get rid of both the 10-second count AND the 5-second closely guarded rule in college. Again, there's a shot-clock for a reason. If you want to stand in the backcourt or stand 30 feet from the basket closely guarded, that's fine with me.

And I wouldn't be opposed to the shotclock being extended. You might see fewer possessions, but maybe more efficient possessions. Seeing well-executed basketball is, in my opinion, more fun than seeing a lot of not-so-well-executed possessions.

[theAlaskanBear]

I'd get rid of the 10-second count altogether. There's basically no benefit in it. You have a shot-clock for a reason. Why do you also need a 10-second clock.

On a similar note, I'd get rid of both the 10-second count AND the 5-second closely guarded rule. Again, there's a shot-clock for a reason. If you want to stand in the backcourt or stand 30 feet from the basket closely guarded, that's fine with me.

And I wouldn't be opposed to the shotclock being extended. You might see fewer possessions, but maybe more efficient possessions. Seeing well-executed basketball is, in my opinion, more fun than seeing a lot of not-so-well-executed possessions.

I like these ideas!

[CDu]

You don't need a #1 pick to build a playoff basketball team.

You don't need to have a #1 pick to rebuild a team. But it's a lot easier to do so with the #1 pick than the #12 pick.


So what if #1 pick goes to a team that just barely missed the playoffs...thats actually great for competition because it makes the teams dynamic, because a good team can get a GREAT piece and challenge the big dogs.

It would make the "rich" (and almost as rich) richer. It is only great for competition at the top, but it has the potential to even further separate the haves from the have nots.

Basically, it comes down to whether you think parity is important. If you want to try to level the playing field, the current system is better. As I said, it's all about which you prefer. There are down sides to both options. There is no perfect option.

[KyDevilinIL]

I like Shane a lot, and I'm glad he's thinking, because the NBA is as close to garbage as a major professional sports league gets.

That said, I'm not buying much of this, and David Stern wouldn't, either.

The NBA/Stern Cup is a nice idea, but I don't think you'd get eight teams each year to go all-out for a midseason tournament. It'd just take one organization to say, "We're injured, we need the break and we don't want to play" before the NBA made participation mandatory for the qualifying teams. And forcing NBA guys to do anything is a recipe for disaster.

Shortening the season is a good idea. I think every major pro league should shorten its season. But if a shortened season was in the financial interest of the owners, it would've been done by now.

I'd like to see Shane in a position of sporting power one day, because I think he's smart enough to straighten stuff out. But the NBA is a mess. It's totally off the radar of the population as a whole, even though it's got some of the most marketable players as it's had in a while. But in essence, the NBA is nothing more than world-class athletes playing a horrible version of a great game.

[theAlaskanBear]

You don't need to have a #1 pick to rebuild a team. But it's a lot easier to do so with the #1 pick than the #12 pick.



It would make the "rich" (and almost as rich) richer. It is only great for competition at the top, but it has the potential to even further separate the haves from the have nots.

Basically, it comes down to whether you think parity is important. If you want to try to level the playing field, the current system is better. As I said, it's all about which you prefer. There are down sides to both options. There is no perfect option.

I disagree. You have SO many teams in the NBA make the playoffs (16) that there is big separation between the top 4-5 and errrrrbody else (the othe 12-11 teams that make it).

If you miss the playoffs you are bad, not "almost as rich". Those teams MADE the playoffs as the 4 5 6 teams.

The way the system is right now, you are incentivizing teams NOT to be competitive. Think about it. You are a middle of the road team, with some issues. Now, you can blow-it-up, trade your good players and quit competing to try to get a top pick. Or you can try to built your team through trades, smart signing, and SMART drafting.

How do these "rich" teams keep winning despite not having the number one picks? They have organizations that can build winning teams without it. Think about it. The NBA is salary-capped. A team can't outbid you because they have deeper pockets.

[Dukeknights]

I'd get rid of the 10-second count altogether. There's basically no benefit in it. You have a shot-clock for a reason. Why do you also need a 10-second clock?

On a similar note, I'd get rid of both the 10-second count AND the 5-second closely guarded rule in college. Again, there's a shot-clock for a reason. If you want to stand in the backcourt or stand 30 feet from the basket closely guarded, that's fine with me.

And I wouldn't be opposed to the shotclock being extended. You might see fewer possessions, but maybe more efficient possessions. Seeing well-executed basketball is, in my opinion, more fun than seeing a lot of not-so-well-executed possessions.

I like the 10-second back-court rule and the 5-second guarded closely rule. These two rules reward great defense.

[hq2]

Don't think Shane's gonna have much luck with that 58 game season idea; I think the owners wouldn't be too thrilled with losing 24 games of ticket revenue. If they cut it back about 10-15 games, however, the game would definitely benefit. It would make the games mean more, get rid of a lot of the
throwaway games, and get the playoffs done earlier at a time when people are still thinking about basketball. Under the present arrangement, by the time the finals start (June!) everybody's thinking about summer vacation, and not B-ball. Late playoff TV ratings suffer accordingly, IMHO.

[tommy]

I like Shane a lot, and I'm glad he's thinking, because the NBA is as close to garbage as a major professional sports league gets.

The NBA/Stern Cup is a nice idea, but I don't think you'd get eight teams each year to go all-out for a midseason tournament. It'd just take one organization to say, "We're injured, we need the break and we don't want to play" before the NBA made participation mandatory for the qualifying teams. And forcing NBA guys to do anything is a recipe for disaster.



I agree. It would be very difficult to get these guys to play hard. Why would they care about winning the Stern Cup?

One idea I've been thinking about for awhile vis-a-vis the All-Star game and I guess it could apply to the Stern Cup is trying to maybe kinda, sorta motivate these guys to play hard by making it a charity event. Something like each team selects a particular charity going into the tournament, and if they win it, their charity gets the big bucks. For instance, Derek Fisher's little girl has a rare form of cancer of the eye. Maybe the Lakers vote to have their charity be something relating to research of that rare cancer. Maybe having a lot of money go to that charity, which is so important to their friend and teammate, could motivate them and in the meantime provide some inspiring storylines and photo ops for the network and the NBA to boot.

[CDu]

The way the system is right now, you are incentivizing teams NOT to be competitive. Think about it. You are a middle of the road team, with some issues. Now, you can blow-it-up, trade your good players and quit competing to try to get a top pick. Or you can try to built your team through trades, smart signing, and SMART drafting.

Yeah, I know. I completely agree that the current system creates an incentive for bad teams to lose. I never said the current system was flawless. My point was that BOTH approaches are flawed. It just depends on whether you value trying to make life a little bit easier for the worst teams to get better or whether you want to take away an incentive for bad teams to lose games and instead play hard (but still probably lose, because they're bad).

So here are the choices:
Same-chance lottery: eliminates incentive to lose, but increases the chance of screwing over a team that tries hard but just stinks.
Weighted lottery: gives everyone in the lottery a chance to strike it rich, but still weights things toward parity, with the worst teams having the best chance of getting a big boost.

So as I said, there are pluses and minuses to both. Neither system is perfect.

On a separate note but related to your comment, another problem with the league is that the trade structure eliminates the ability to trade talent for prospects. Teams have to match salaries, which makes improving via trade very difficult. Nowadays, you almost never see a "prospect for star" trade. It's almost always an expensive player for expiring contracts. So building through trades isn't realistic unless you get lucky with the right salary dump for salary dump. This structure eliminates a very economically sound way to rebuild via trade.

[sagegrouse]

I'd get rid of the 10-second count altogether. There's basically no benefit in it. You have a shot-clock for a reason. Why do you also need a 10-second clock?



The NBA rule for bringing it into the front court is now eight seconds, not ten.

sagegrouse

[CDu]

I like the 10-second back-court rule and the 5-second guarded closely rule. These two rules reward great defense.

In my opinion, not giving up points should be reward enough for great defense. The 10-second (or 8-second in the NBA) and 5-second closely-guarded rules create artificial incentives for only particular aspects of defense.

There's already a benefit for playing tight defense for 5 seconds - it costs the team with the ball 5 seconds on the shot clock. Similarly, there's already an incentive to hold the opposing offense in the backcourt for 10+ seconds - that's 10+ fewer seconds that the offense has to set up a play. There's no need, in my opinion, to generate further reward for these things.

While we're at it, I'd also eliminate the illegal defense rule. If you want to put five guys in the paint and give up jumpshots, feel free. If you want to guard the ball and quadruple team somebody else, you should feel free to do so. If you want to stand five guys on the sideline and not play defense at all, you should feel free to do so. There are strengths and weaknesses to any defensive strategy. Saying that a type of defense is illegal seems illogical to me. Let the game play it out and find the counter to the defensive strategy.

[CDu]

The NBA rule for bringing it into the front court is now eight seconds, not ten.

sagegrouse

Yeah, my bad - I knew that, but it slipped my mind in the discussion. The 8-second rule is obviously just as silly in my opinion.

[Mcluhan]

1. The Stern Cup idea is cool, but is (a) a tad ambitious, and (b) perhaps too good an idea, as it might be so exciting that it would overshadow what followed it.

A compromise might be what the NHL is doing, and having a US vs. World All-Star game. Suddenly bragging rights would matter, and though the US team would be stronger, the World would have a good chance of winning a single game.

If healthy, the world team might be:

PG: Nash, Parker, Calderon
SG: Ginobili, Ben Gordon, Rudy Fernandez
SF: Deng, Kirilenko, Peja, Pietrus, Hedo
PF: Dirk, Gasol
C: Yao, Biedrins, Okur, Marc Gasol

That's not bad at all.


2. Re: the lottery thing, I'm less swayed by the issue of teams tanking than I am by the development of the league's most talented young players. Often young talent gets stuck in impossible and unhealthy situations with teams that are devoid of good teammates, infrastructure, management, etc., and it ends up to some extent stunting their growth. With an equal lottery system, the league's worst teams would still get chances to nab big players, but sometimes merely mediocre teams-- take this year's Pacers, for example-- would get a top 3 pick and not only become much better overnight, but might provide a future superstar with a good veteran culture from which to learn the ropes. That's in the league's interests.

[basket1544]

If healthy, the world team might be:

PG: Nash, Parker, Calderon
SG: Ginobili, Ben Gordon, Rudy Fernandez
SF: Deng, Kirilenko, Peja, Pietrus, Hedo
PF: Dirk, Gasol
C: Yao, Biedrins, Okur, Marc Gasol


I'm taking the world vs the US if that's the world's team. Everyone of these players would play and I doubt that Kobe and LeBron and others will.

No one wants to risk injury halfway through the season and they won't play in the All Star game because of that. If it was a tournament, that's even more time they could spend resting instead of possibly injuring themselves. It's too bad that's what people think of first now. Dr. J, Dominique and the other "old school players" never seemed to be worried about injury. They wanted to compete every night.

[COYS]

I'm taking the world vs the US if that's the world's team. Everyone of these players would play and I doubt that Kobe and LeBron and others will.

No one wants to risk injury halfway through the season and they won't play in the All Star game because of that. If it was a tournament, that's even more time they could spend resting instead of possibly injuring themselves. It's too bad that's what people think of first now. Dr. J, Dominique and the other "old school players" never seemed to be worried about injury. They wanted to compete every night.

To be fair to Kobe, he seems to compete every chance he can get. He put off surgery on his finger to play in the Olympics, he's come to play in most of the All Star games he's been in (even this year, when he's endured a host of nagging injuries). I think the idea of a world vs. USA all star game would be huge. I'd absolutely love to see it.

[Mcluhan]

I'm taking the world vs the US if that's the world's team. Everyone of these players would play and I doubt that Kobe and LeBron and others will.

No one wants to risk injury halfway through the season and they won't play in the All Star game because of that. If it was a tournament, that's even more time they could spend resting instead of possibly injuring themselves. It's too bad that's what people think of first now. Dr. J, Dominique and the other "old school players" never seemed to be worried about injury. They wanted to compete every night.

What are you basing this on? Kobe and LeBron have played in 11 and 6 all-star games, respectively. They've also each dedicated more than one off season to extracurricular play on behalf of their country, as have dozens of other top players.

Are you aware that there's an all-star game every year? And that Kobe and LeBron and, gee, everyone else who's selected shows up to play, no matter which country they come from?

What an odd post.

[basket1544]

Okay, Kobe and LeBron may have been a poor choice of players to choose from. I have been extremely proud of them representing our country in the past.
Truly I'm frustrated at the lack of players playing at the end of the NBA season as we all wait for the playoffs to start. I'm also frustrated that the slam dunk contest is not between the best dunkers in the league as of lately. I know that Kobe was injured during the All-Star game and there really is no reason for LeBron to play at the end of the season.
I have noticed that international players in general play in all the games they possibly can. They have a great work ethic. I meant by my post a congratulatory note on international players not a slam on US players. Sorry if it didn't come across that way.

[NSDukeFan]

I think the King's Cup idea is a really good one. The top eight teams would have a single elimination tournament at the current All-Star break at a mega arena, with prestige and bucks on the line. Sure beats the All-Star game, which is basically unwatchable.

sagegrouse
I also think a cup would be a great idea, if you could also shorten the regular season a bit and/or the playoffs. Another option might be to let everyone in the tournament and have a single elimination for most or all of it. The previous finalists of the cup, or NBA finals team could have a first round bye, while the other 28 teams could play each other, leading to a round of 16, etc. This could be another championship to go for each year and could be very entertaining. Almost like a mini-March Madness, or FA cup.

I disagree. You have SO many teams in the NBA make the playoffs (16) that there is big separation between the top 4-5 and errrrrbody else (the othe 12-11 teams that make it).

If you miss the playoffs you are bad, not "almost as rich". Those teams MADE the playoffs as the 4 5 6 teams.

The way the system is right now, you are incentivizing teams NOT to be competitive. Think about it. You are a middle of the road team, with some issues. Now, you can blow-it-up, trade your good players and quit competing to try to get a top pick. Or you can try to built your team through trades, smart signing, and SMART drafting.

How do these "rich" teams keep winning despite not having the number one picks? They have organizations that can build winning teams without it. Think about it. The NBA is salary-capped. A team can't outbid you because they have deeper pockets.

It depends on which conference you are in. There is a huge separation between the Cavs and Magic and even the #5 seed in the east IMO, but I don't know that there is much separation between any of the teams out West, though you could argue the Lakers are a notch above, but they are a whopping two games ahead of the Mavs, and 7 ahead of the eighth seed they will be playing in the playoffs.

[Mcluhan]

Okay, Kobe and LeBron may have been a poor choice of players to choose from. I have been extremely proud of them representing our country in the past.
Truly I'm frustrated at the lack of players playing at the end of the NBA season as we all wait for the playoffs to start. I'm also frustrated that the slam dunk contest is not between the best dunkers in the league as of lately. I know that Kobe was injured during the All-Star game and there really is no reason for LeBron to play at the end of the season.
I have noticed that international players in general play in all the games they possibly can. They have a great work ethic. I meant by my post a congratulatory note on international players not a slam on US players. Sorry if it didn't come across that way.

I challenge that international players have a better work ethic than US players.

I do find it nice that the US players tend to prioritize defense to a greater extent than many (most?) of the top international players in the NBA.

[gep]

I heard on the radio today a discussion of LeBron sitting out the last few games, since they were "throw-away" games. The fans are upset since they pay top dollar, but the coach has to look out for the franchise. If the season is shortened, there will be much less, or even none, of the "throw-away" games. I think that less games with more at stake in every game will actually increase fan attention, and money, etc. I know I might get back to watching the NBA more regularly.

Then, to make up for the lost games, revenue, whatever... the "cup" single elimination tournament sounds exciting. Maybe take a week off before and after the tournament... if necessary. But I think some kind of incentive has to be provided... I don't know if money will do it, or even a medal of some sort. :rolleyes: I think it's the single elimination format that's exciting...