NBA ‘20-‘21 Offseason

[WrigleyField 22]

Being really horsefeathering good at shooting is, personally, something that'll never bug me about pro basketball. I don't think it compares to something like defensive shifting in baseball at all.

 

I think its more comparable to the launch angle, high k/low contact changes. People love dongs, people love 3 pointers, but there seems to be an ongoing frustration with the fact that its shifted so much that the focus of the game is selling out for HRs or 3 pointers.

 

I honestly don't have a strong opinion on this but I can understand the argument to some degree as the new emphasis on jacking up 3s does make the game slightly less appealing to me. I've lost interest in the NBA the last few years but I think its more the Bulls sucking than because players run up and down the court shooting 3 pointers every possession.

 

I'm sure the logic is basically the same for HRs vs. sacrifice bunts, but it's pretty much the John Calipari (I think it was him) school of offense. Why shoot 18 footers and get 2 points for making them, when you can shoot 2 3/4 feet further, at a slightly higher degree of difficulty, and get an extra point for it?

And that's fine to an extent, but players have gotten so good at the 3 point shot that trade off has gotten so wide as to eliminate a huge chunk of the floor from consideration. Now it's like, why even take the 12 footer.

 

At the very least if they widened the court they could get rid of the extreme bonus that is the corner 3 and open up the baseline game a little bit more.

[Sammy Sofa]

Could you also be persuaded to raise the height of the rim?

[WrigleyField 22]

Could you also be persuaded to raise the height of the rim?

I've never heard of an argument for that. I suppose I could be persuaded, but I can't imagine what that argument could be.

[soccer10k]

Addressing some of the incentives around three point shooting(and we've discussed them before) would be helpful, but I'm curious if they've worked out the competitive balance issues that have plagued the league since LeBron's prime and the rise of Golden State. This is compounded by the fact that player power is at an all time high(not a bad thing), which makes it particularly futile as a fan of an individual team if you aren't a chosen spot and/or get particularly lucky with a couple lottery picks.

 

Is there really that much they can do about competitive balance? The best players are worth so much more in basketball than in other sports so that if there’s a dominant team/player, that team is always going to be good.

 

The Spurs and Lakers won the West all but one year from 1999-2010 and won 9 of the 12 titles. It was Jordan before them. And the Lakers/Celtics before that.

 

I agree that there are desirable markets that players are always going to want to go to (i.e. LA). GS looks good now but they were largely a joke of the league for 40 years. Cleveland made two ECF in 36 years and no finals before 06-07. SA has always been good (39 playoff appearances in 45 seasons) but nobody would call them a destination. And even being a place people might want to play (New York) means nothing if your franchise is a disaster.

 

I’m just not sure what can be done in basketball other than restricting player movement to get players to not bolt all the time.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Addressing some of the incentives around three point shooting(and we've discussed them before) would be helpful, but I'm curious if they've worked out the competitive balance issues that have plagued the league since LeBron's prime and the rise of Golden State. This is compounded by the fact that player power is at an all time high(not a bad thing), which makes it particularly futile as a fan of an individual team if you aren't a chosen spot and/or get particularly lucky with a couple lottery picks.

 

Is there really that much they can do about competitive balance? The best players are worth so much more in basketball than in other sports so that if there’s a dominant team/player, that team is always going to be good.

 

The Spurs and Lakers won the West all but one year from 1999-2010 and won 9 of the 12 titles. It was Jordan before them. And the Lakers/Celtics before that.

 

I agree that there are desirable markets that players are always going to want to go to (i.e. LA). GS looks good now but they were largely a joke of the league for 40 years. Cleveland made two ECF in 36 years and no finals before 06-07. SA has always been good (39 playoff appearances in 45 seasons) but nobody would call them a destination. And even being a place people might want to play (New York) means nothing if your franchise is a disaster.

 

I’m just not sure what can be done in basketball other than restricting player movement to get players to not bolt all the time.

 

You don’t have to go to MLB style rules of player control to get to make an impact, it’s ultimately about incentives. For example, let’s say every team has one uncapped roster spot, you now can give Anthony Davis(and Durant before him, etc) before him) a real decision to make. In the current setup there’s precious little difference in options aside from markets and teammates which becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.

[Cubswin11]

Addressing some of the incentives around three point shooting(and we've discussed them before) would be helpful, but I'm curious if they've worked out the competitive balance issues that have plagued the league since LeBron's prime and the rise of Golden State. This is compounded by the fact that player power is at an all time high(not a bad thing), which makes it particularly futile as a fan of an individual team if you aren't a chosen spot and/or get particularly lucky with a couple lottery picks.

 

Is there really that much they can do about competitive balance? The best players are worth so much more in basketball than in other sports so that if there’s a dominant team/player, that team is always going to be good.

 

The Spurs and Lakers won the West all but one year from 1999-2010 and won 9 of the 12 titles. It was Jordan before them. And the Lakers/Celtics before that.

 

I agree that there are desirable markets that players are always going to want to go to (i.e. LA). GS looks good now but they were largely a joke of the league for 40 years. Cleveland made two ECF in 36 years and no finals before 06-07. SA has always been good (39 playoff appearances in 45 seasons) but nobody would call them a destination. And even being a place people might want to play (New York) means nothing if your franchise is a disaster.

 

I’m just not sure what can be done in basketball other than restricting player movement to get players to not bolt all the time.

Yeah it’s a stars league. You need a top 2-7 or so player to win titles, that’s kinda always been the way outside of some fluke years. Idk if there really even is a competitive problem, like is it really better to not have these super teams that are the total package and drive intrigue with players switching teams and teaming up vs every team basically all having 1 top ~25 guy and flaws? I guess contraction could work? Condensing the talent would help and cutting out ~6 teams, but no way the players or league would agree to that.

[soccer10k]

Addressing some of the incentives around three point shooting(and we've discussed them before) would be helpful, but I'm curious if they've worked out the competitive balance issues that have plagued the league since LeBron's prime and the rise of Golden State. This is compounded by the fact that player power is at an all time high(not a bad thing), which makes it particularly futile as a fan of an individual team if you aren't a chosen spot and/or get particularly lucky with a couple lottery picks.

 

Is there really that much they can do about competitive balance? The best players are worth so much more in basketball than in other sports so that if there’s a dominant team/player, that team is always going to be good.

 

The Spurs and Lakers won the West all but one year from 1999-2010 and won 9 of the 12 titles. It was Jordan before them. And the Lakers/Celtics before that.

 

I agree that there are desirable markets that players are always going to want to go to (i.e. LA). GS looks good now but they were largely a joke of the league for 40 years. Cleveland made two ECF in 36 years and no finals before 06-07. SA has always been good (39 playoff appearances in 45 seasons) but nobody would call them a destination. And even being a place people might want to play (New York) means nothing if your franchise is a disaster.

 

I’m just not sure what can be done in basketball other than restricting player movement to get players to not bolt all the time.

 

You don’t have to go to MLB style rules of player control to get to make an impact, it’s ultimately about incentives. For example, let’s say every team has one uncapped roster spot, you now can give Anthony Davis(and Durant before him, etc) before him) a real decision to make. In the current setup there’s precious little difference in options aside from markets and teammates which becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.

 

But part of the problem is how much these guys are making now. A few years ago it might have been the difference between 20 and 30 million. Now it’s the difference between 40 and 50 million. Durant’s last year with the Thunder he made $20M. This year he’ll make $39M. Harden made $15.7M in 15-16 and will get $40M this year. Eventually, that extra money doesn’t matter as much and they’re just going to play where they want to play. I suppose if it was, say, double, some guys would stay. But others would rather win, live where they want to and make $30M than not win, live in a place they don’t like as much and make $60M.

[WrigleyField 22]

 

Is there really that much they can do about competitive balance? The best players are worth so much more in basketball than in other sports so that if there’s a dominant team/player, that team is always going to be good.

 

The Spurs and Lakers won the West all but one year from 1999-2010 and won 9 of the 12 titles. It was Jordan before them. And the Lakers/Celtics before that.

 

I agree that there are desirable markets that players are always going to want to go to (i.e. LA). GS looks good now but they were largely a joke of the league for 40 years. Cleveland made two ECF in 36 years and no finals before 06-07. SA has always been good (39 playoff appearances in 45 seasons) but nobody would call them a destination. And even being a place people might want to play (New York) means nothing if your franchise is a disaster.

 

I’m just not sure what can be done in basketball other than restricting player movement to get players to not bolt all the time.

 

You don’t have to go to MLB style rules of player control to get to make an impact, it’s ultimately about incentives. For example, let’s say every team has one uncapped roster spot, you now can give Anthony Davis(and Durant before him, etc) before him) a real decision to make. In the current setup there’s precious little difference in options aside from markets and teammates which becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.

 

But part of the problem is how much these guys are making now. A few years ago it might have been the difference between 20 and 30 million. Now it’s the difference between 40 and 50 million. Durant’s last year with the Thunder he made $20M. This year he’ll make $39M. Harden made $15.7M in 15-16 and will get $40M this year. Eventually, that extra money doesn’t matter as much and they’re just going to play where they want to play. I suppose if it was, say, double, some guys would stay. But others would rather win, live where they want to and make $30M than not win, live in a place they don’t like as much and make $60M.

I don't think the absolute value matters as much as the relative value. Those max salaries have exploded with an exploding cap, but it's still only 25-35% of the cap space (a soft cap, so even less as a % of actual spending). If the top 10 players were paid what they're worth they'd probably make 50-70% of the cap, double what they make now.

 

Freedom of player movement has created more parity for teams, it's just that the parity moves with the players now. Shorter contracts play a big role here. Guys used to lock into like 8 year deals with regularity. Now most max mength contracts are capped at 4 years, and for the rare 5 year contract those players pretty much always get an option after 4 as a standard term. So no more Scottie Pippen getting locked into severely underpaid contracts for a half decade anymore. Thats good for parity.

 

The really only other area I think they could improve is to try and fiddle more with the tannking incentives. If more teams simply tried it would create a more competitive environment for player acquisition.

[Sammy Sofa]

Could you also be persuaded to raise the height of the rim?

I've never heard of an argument for that. I suppose I could be persuaded, but I can't imagine what that argument could be.

 

That's my point; making something harder simply because too many of the players are good at it seems pretty flimsy. Hell, I'll bet there WERE people arguing to raise the damn rim when everyone started dunking.

[WrigleyField 22]

Could you also be persuaded to raise the height of the rim?

I've never heard of an argument for that. I suppose I could be persuaded, but I can't imagine what that argument could be.

 

That's my point; making something harder simply because too many of the players are good at it seems pretty flimsy. Hell, I'll bet there WERE people arguing to raise the damn rim when everyone started dunking.

Oh. Well I would assume that any advances in jumping at the rim had also greatly benefited defenses so as to mostly offset. Plays at the time rim are objectively way more exciting that a spot up 3. Although defensive rim protecting is a rule people have considered changing to be like FIBA.

 

Changing the 3pt stripe is probably be more like baseball fiddling with the mound height.

[Tim]

 

You don’t have to go to MLB style rules of player control to get to make an impact, it’s ultimately about incentives. For example, let’s say every team has one uncapped roster spot, you now can give Anthony Davis(and Durant before him, etc) before him) a real decision to make. In the current setup there’s precious little difference in options aside from markets and teammates which becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.

 

But part of the problem is how much these guys are making now. A few years ago it might have been the difference between 20 and 30 million. Now it’s the difference between 40 and 50 million. Durant’s last year with the Thunder he made $20M. This year he’ll make $39M. Harden made $15.7M in 15-16 and will get $40M this year. Eventually, that extra money doesn’t matter as much and they’re just going to play where they want to play. I suppose if it was, say, double, some guys would stay. But others would rather win, live where they want to and make $30M than not win, live in a place they don’t like as much and make $60M.

I don't think the absolute value matters as much as the relative value. Those max salaries have exploded with an exploding cap, but it's still only 25-35% of the cap space (a soft cap, so even less as a % of actual spending). If the top 10 players were paid what they're worth they'd probably make 50-70% of the cap, double what they make now.

 

Freedom of player movement has created more parity for teams, it's just that the parity moves with the players now. Shorter contracts play a big role here. Guys used to lock into like 8 year deals with regularity. Now most max mength contracts are capped at 4 years, and for the rare 5 year contract those players pretty much always get an option after 4 as a standard term. So no more Scottie Pippen getting locked into severely underpaid contracts for a half decade anymore. Thats good for parity.

 

The really only other area I think they could improve is to try and fiddle more with the tannking incentives. If more teams simply tried it would create a more competitive environment for player acquisition.

Just remove the individual salary cap. Then the biggest stars would make enough that secondary stars couldn't get paid on the same team.

[raw]

 

But part of the problem is how much these guys are making now. A few years ago it might have been the difference between 20 and 30 million. Now it’s the difference between 40 and 50 million. Durant’s last year with the Thunder he made $20M. This year he’ll make $39M. Harden made $15.7M in 15-16 and will get $40M this year. Eventually, that extra money doesn’t matter as much and they’re just going to play where they want to play. I suppose if it was, say, double, some guys would stay. But others would rather win, live where they want to and make $30M than not win, live in a place they don’t like as much and make $60M.

I don't think the absolute value matters as much as the relative value. Those max salaries have exploded with an exploding cap, but it's still only 25-35% of the cap space (a soft cap, so even less as a % of actual spending). If the top 10 players were paid what they're worth they'd probably make 50-70% of the cap, double what they make now.

 

Freedom of player movement has created more parity for teams, it's just that the parity moves with the players now. Shorter contracts play a big role here. Guys used to lock into like 8 year deals with regularity. Now most max mength contracts are capped at 4 years, and for the rare 5 year contract those players pretty much always get an option after 4 as a standard term. So no more Scottie Pippen getting locked into severely underpaid contracts for a half decade anymore. Thats good for parity.

 

The really only other area I think they could improve is to try and fiddle more with the tannking incentives. If more teams simply tried it would create a more competitive environment for player acquisition.

Just remove the individual salary cap. Then the biggest stars would make enough that secondary stars couldn't get paid on the same team.

 

The issue is that those big stars could accept less if they can get secondary stars, which is kind of what happens now just not to the extent being suggested. Like Giannis could sign for 2 years 200Mil, not win and then agree to get another superstar there and extend for 3 years, 60Mil, because he's already got more money than he'll ever need and no ring.

[Sammy Sofa]

Plays at the time rim are objectively way more exciting that a spot up 3.

 

Well...no.

 

Changing the 3pt stripe is probably be more like baseball fiddling with the mound height.

 

Strong disagree. Changes like that in baseball are typically due to the hitting having been suffering. You're adjusting the mound so there's less horsefeathers like weak grounders and strikeouts. I'm just never going to wrap my brain around the idea that being able to sink a 3 is somehow akin to shitty, weak bat baseball. Hell, it's not even like a disproportionately dong-heavy baseball situation, where dudes are selling out for the long ball and making something like the shift so much more prevalent, or striking out so much more. The basketball equivalent would be if all of this 3 point shooting was also resulting in a huge surge of airballs and ugly bricks.

 

Basically I think trying to curtail the 3 is a far more subjective and arbitrary change to try and force the game away from something that isn't inherently unfair or unbalanced or, IMO, detrimental to the game. You might as well, IMO, argue for shrinking the size of the hoop to encourage more offense in the paint.

[squally1313]

I don't think the absolute value matters as much as the relative value. Those max salaries have exploded with an exploding cap, but it's still only 25-35% of the cap space (a soft cap, so even less as a % of actual spending). If the top 10 players were paid what they're worth they'd probably make 50-70% of the cap, double what they make now.

 

Freedom of player movement has created more parity for teams, it's just that the parity moves with the players now. Shorter contracts play a big role here. Guys used to lock into like 8 year deals with regularity. Now most max mength contracts are capped at 4 years, and for the rare 5 year contract those players pretty much always get an option after 4 as a standard term. So no more Scottie Pippen getting locked into severely underpaid contracts for a half decade anymore. Thats good for parity.

 

The really only other area I think they could improve is to try and fiddle more with the tannking incentives. If more teams simply tried it would create a more competitive environment for player acquisition.

Just remove the individual salary cap. Then the biggest stars would make enough that secondary stars couldn't get paid on the same team.

 

The issue is that those big stars could accept less if they can get secondary stars, which is kind of what happens now just not to the extent being suggested. Like Giannis could sign for 2 years 200Mil, not win and then agree to get another superstar there and extend for 3 years, 60Mil, because he's already got more money than he'll ever need and no ring.

 

That's certainly possible, but I don't know how you make a counter proposal that doesn't come off as extremely pro-owner. Basketball players (and people) are competitive and greedy. Players are going to want to be the highest paid player in the league. We don't see a whole lot of baseball stars taking $10m/year deals so that ownership has more money to spread around.

[WrigleyField 22]

Plays at the time rim are objectively way more exciting that a spot up 3.

 

Well...no.

 

Agree to disagree? Dunks and blocks are awesome. Those at the rim plays are frequently two athletic monsters going directly head to head. That's the best play in basketball.

If a play like that is not more exciting than watching some guy stand in the corner until he gets a pass for a 3 pointer, well then I don't know.

 

Spot up 3s are fun, I guess, the 30-40% of the time they go in? They obviously are great for winning if you do it well so that's fun, but from a pure entertainment value it's not exactly thrilling TV IMO.

Edited November 24, 2020 by WrigleyField 22

[WrigleyField 22]

Just remove the individual salary cap. Then the biggest stars would make enough that secondary stars couldn't get paid on the same team.

 

The issue is that those big stars could accept less if they can get secondary stars, which is kind of what happens now just not to the extent being suggested. Like Giannis could sign for 2 years 200Mil, not win and then agree to get another superstar there and extend for 3 years, 60Mil, because he's already got more money than he'll ever need and no ring.

 

That's certainly possible, but I don't know how you make a counter proposal that doesn't come off as extremely pro-owner. Basketball players (and people) are competitive and greedy. Players are going to want to be the highest paid player in the league. We don't see a whole lot of baseball stars taking $10m/year deals so that ownership has more money to spread around.

Its definitely tough to say, but obviously the revenue share verse no revenue share makes a big difference. That's the real "cap" in the league that keeps salaries down.

 

Absent the revenue share, you'd see salaries creep up, but there might be limiting returns since basketball is much more a "buddy" game where it's fun to team up and guys find value. There's nly so much value that Bryce Harper and Kris Bryant can get by teaming up, they don't play directly with each other on the field. On the hardwood your throwing up lobs to each other and fun horsefeathers.

[Sammy Sofa]

Plays at the time rim are objectively way more exciting that a spot up 3.

 

Well...no.

 

Agree to disagree? Dunks and blocks are awesome. Those at the rim plays are frequently two athletic monsters going directly head to head. That's the best play in basketball.

 

If a play like that is not more exciting than watching some guy stand in the corner until he gets a pass for a 3 pointer, well then I don't know.

 

Spot up 3s are fun, I guess, the 30-40% of the time they go in? They obviously are great for winning if you do it well so that's fun, but from a pure entertainment value it's not exactly thrilling TV IMO.

 

Why must I be deprived of a human avatar of a "HE'S ON FIRE" power up just draining merciless dagger after dagger because you might get bored from one too many assists dished out to a guy on the corner?

 

Plus I'm not even sure why you brought up dunks like a 3-heavy game is depriving us of those? The spray chart up the thread showed that the only thing we're really "deprived" of now are a bunch of mid-range 2's. It's still a damn dunk fest, which is also awesome. We've actually got the "why not both?" meme in play!

[Derwood]

Are they really daggers when there are like 40 of them per game?

[jersey cubs fan]

Are they really daggers when there are like 40 of them per game?

did a caesar write this?

[WrigleyField 22]

 

Well...no.

 

Agree to disagree? Dunks and blocks are awesome. Those at the rim plays are frequently two athletic monsters going directly head to head. That's the best play in basketball.

 

If a play like that is not more exciting than watching some guy stand in the corner until he gets a pass for a 3 pointer, well then I don't know.

 

Spot up 3s are fun, I guess, the 30-40% of the time they go in? They obviously are great for winning if you do it well so that's fun, but from a pure entertainment value it's not exactly thrilling TV IMO.

 

Why must I be deprived of a human avatar of a "HE'S ON FIRE" power up just draining merciless dagger after dagger because you might get bored from one too many assists dished out to a guy on the corner?

 

Plus I'm not even sure why you brought up dunks like a 3-heavy game is depriving us of those? The spray chart up the thread showed that the only thing we're really "deprived" of now are a bunch of mid-range 2's. It's still a damn dunk fest, which is also awesome. We've actually got the "why not both?" meme in play!

For sure we're not being deprived of dunks, but just to the "why not raise the rim" hypothetical, I do think they're that much more entertaining than any jump shot. Even the non contested ones can be pretty damn fun at times.

The 3s excitement over the midrange 2 is totally predicated on its 50% surplus value. So that's great to have, but it feels a little too easy at this point, and it's pretty one sided, the D can't do too much against it.

 

Its just a little less interesting to me seeing less variety of offensive sets. Maybe they just need a 4 point line. Or a smart court that randomly pops up with bonus shots at different spots of the court!

[imb]

basketball players are legit too good now, that's just the truth. the players got so good they broke the game. you have guys now that can reliably shoot from 35 feet out. what are you supposed to do about that? If you defend them that far out they just blow past you. It's hopeless. Every player that's any good now has a step back where they can cross their defender up and then in one step be 8 feet away shooting an open three. and if you happen to stick with them all they need is two inches of separation to get the shot off anyway.

 

it used to be ok because shooters were mostly unathletic and if you had one who could actually dribble you could just overplay them into your 7-2 300 pound white center. but now every center is like 6-8 210 so these damien lillard dudes are just unstoppable. i dont know the solution.

[Derwood]

basketball players are legit too good now, that's just the truth. the players got so good they broke the game. you have guys now that can reliably shoot from 35 feet out. what are you supposed to do about that? If you defend them that far out they just blow past you. It's hopeless. Every player that's any good now has a step back where they can cross their defender up and then in one step be 8 feet away shooting an open three. and if you happen to stick with them all they need is two inches of separation to get the shot off anyway.

 

it used to be ok because shooters were mostly unathletic and if you had one who could actually dribble you could just overplay them into your 7-2 300 pound white center. but now every center is like 6-8 210 so these damien lillard dudes are just unstoppable. i dont know the solution.

 

This is happening in every sport, but it’s definitely exaggerated in basketball. In football, a 50 yard field goal used to be a risky attempt, but now every back up kicker in the league can nail 55 yarders and give a 60 yarder a good try. Baseball has unlocked the math of launch angles (and defensive shifts) which have changed the game. But in the NBA, there isn’t much to do outside of fundamentally changing the game by altering the dimensions of the playing area.

[Sammy Sofa]

Bring on the freaks, you nerds.

[We Got The Whole 9]

MTV solved this problem 25 years ago

[WrigleyField 22]

Bring on the freaks, you nerds.

Athletic freaks are fun. a 23'9" inch shot just isn't that freakish though?

 

Wider court with a longer 3 line. Put back hand checks to give the D a little extra leeway since spacing is going to be spread out more. Shorten the shot clock by a couple seconds to ensure pace stays quick?

 

At the very least the NBA now has a great testing field in the G League to just experiment with stuff like this.