Matthew Yglesias (June 14, 2007)

Yeah, only if you include the second half the Michael Jordan dynasty, whose individual greatness obscured the fact the East was already well into its collapse.

The other two winners (Miami and Detroit especially) were pretty big upsets.

I can't remember where I saw it but over the last ten years the West has won just over 57% of East-West matchups.

You could easily make an argument that every team in the West would be a legit playoff contender in the East, and that only 2, MAYBE 3 teams from the East could make the playoffs in the West.

The East might get some upsets every 3 or 4 years, but barring the second coming of MJ (and obviously, LeBron is not yet that) and considering Oden and Durant are both heading West, the imbalance is going to get more pronounced.

Posted by Matthew c | June 14, 2007 4:24 PM

The problem isn't necessarily that the West wins the Finals every year, it's that too many prime matchups are happening too early, so nobody cares about the Finals. San Antonio vs. Phoenix in the second round? While over in the East the Cavs are playing the Nets? That doesn't make much sense to me.

I think the threshold for a shakeup isn't as high as some people seem to be putting it. There doesn't have to be some horrible crisis in the sport to justify a change in playoff format. They added a round to the playoffs in the '90s, added games to the first round in the '00s, changed the division structure and seeding system shortly after that--it's not like the current playoff format is somehow sacrosanct.

Posted by Jake H. | June 14, 2007 4:26 PM

It really killed the NFL when the NFC won all those superbowls in a row back in the day. Nobody watches the superbowl or the NFL any more ...

Posted by ChrisB | June 14, 2007 4:27 PM

Just looking at who won the Finals can be misleading. In both 2004 and 2006, the Eastern team beat a Western team that ran out of gas after a grueling run to get to the Finals.

(That's why the Mavs were so obsessed with resting their players in the final week or two of the regular season.)

Posted by Swopa | June 14, 2007 4:31 PM

No reseeding. I can't believe anyone is taking this idea seriously. I blame gay marriage.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 14, 2007 4:31 PM

I actually think a pure 1 - 16 seeding scheme makes sense, with re-seeding at the end of every round.

It would guarantee good matchups not only in the Finals, but also in previous rounds. Shouldn't Suns/Spurs have been the Finals?

With private team planes, what's the hangup?

-----

The Simmons column is actually most interesting as an expression of the bored contempt everyone has for the Spurs.

Has there ever been a champ that everyone has not only hated, but hated while simultaneously been bored by?

Folks hated the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, but they weren't bored. Same with the Phase II dominant Bulls.

Bruce Bowen is the current day Rodman, but unlike Rodman, he's got no entertainment value.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 4:35 PM

"I actually think a pure 1 - 16 seeding scheme makes sense, with re-seeding at the end of every round."

And if you want to reward teams for winning "divisions", then you give them a favorable seed in the first round, but re-seeding removes the problem in subsequent rounds.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 4:38 PM

That's not the point. It doesn't matter whether the East and West each win 50% of the time. What matters is whether the 2 conferences are competetive in each individual year. We don't want to see lame-ass Finals matchups like this year. The Suns vs. Spurs should have been the Finals, and a damn fine Finals it would have been.

I really haven't heard a good argument against a 1-16 seeding thing. If you want to keep the conferences and divisions, do what Simmons suggests, and made the winner of each conference the #1 and #2 seeds, and guarantee all 6 division winners a playoff spot.

Posted by too many steves | June 14, 2007 4:40 PM

"It really killed the NFL when the NFC won all those superbowls in a row back in the day. Nobody watches the superbowl or the NFL any more ..."

Ok, but nobody IS watching the NBA Finals anymore--this isn't a hypothetical situation, it's a fact. The NFL doesn't have a problem--good for the NFL. Football is the American pastime. The NBA has never had that sort of automatic claim to ratings and interest (and more specifically, the Finals has never been the sort of circus event that the Super Bowl is), so if things aren't working they should think about solutions.

Posted by Jake H. | June 14, 2007 4:41 PM

"the system doesn't seem especially broken."

The problem with the current system is that you often get the best series well before the Finals. Dynamic re-seeding would make such a problem far less frequent.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 4:41 PM

People hate the Spurs for something they can't do anything about: they're not the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, or Knicks. Put this same Spurs team in one of those cities, and all talk of them being dull would cease.

The NBA is a little more prone to dynasties and mini-dynasties than other sports, which can exaggerate how dominant a conference seems to be. There wasn't "eastern dominance" in the '90s; there was the dominance of one team.

Posted by ChuckE | June 14, 2007 4:41 PM

Matt's also overlooking the fact that during the Lakers run, all of the top 4 or 5 teams were in the West (same as this year, but back then it was an annual occurence). The Webber-era Kings would have made 3 or 4 straight Finals if they were in the East, and they'd be seen as an almost-dynasty.

Posted by too many steves | June 14, 2007 4:47 PM

Contra Petey, the only reward I think a team deserves for winning a division is a guaranteed spot in the playoffs. That's it. If you win your division, but have the 10th best record in the conference, then you should still get in, but be seeded 8th.

And, also, has everyone forgotten that Suns/Spurs still would not have happened in the NBA finals, even with league-wide dynamic re-seeding? They finished 2/3 in the NBA standings (after Dallas), and unless you afford Detroit the all-time 2 seed for winning the East, thus bumping them to 3/4 and giving the Spurs to chance to knock of Dallas to appear in the finals, then they still would have met in the semi-final round.

Posted by David S | June 14, 2007 4:48 PM

"Contra Petey, the only reward I think a team deserves for winning a division is a guaranteed spot in the playoffs. That's it. If you win your division, but have the 10th best record in the conference, then you should still get in, but be seeded 8th."

I've got no problem with that.

But considering that the main argument against a true seeding scheme is devaluing division titles, I'm willing to make an exception for first round matchups, as long as dynamic re-seeding removes the division advantage from further rounds.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 4:53 PM

"And, also, has everyone forgotten that Suns/Spurs still would not have happened in the NBA finals, even with league-wide dynamic re-seeding? "

But Dallas lost in the first round, so with dynamic re-seeding, Suns/Spurs would have become the 1 and 2 seeds, guaranteeing that they would save their dramatic series for the Finals.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 4:55 PM

As long as we're talking about divisions, I friggin' hate divisions. I think one of the worst decisions in recent NBA history was the move from 2 to 3 divisions in each conference. It was a blatant handout to crappy teams and we've seen the results.

Divisions are great when they lead to rivalries, as in the NFL, but I see zero rivalry value in the NBA divisions. In the NBA, rivalries are forged in the playoffs. Whether you keep the East-West playoff structure or not, I say scrap the divisions entirely or at least go back to 2 per conference.

Posted by Jake H. | June 14, 2007 4:56 PM

People forget that in the 1980's the West was terrible for the most part and the Lakers just cruised through, except when they choked, which they did against Houston once, maybe twice. As opposed to the East, which was strong like the West is now, with Philly, Boston, the Bucks, then Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland and Atlanta all being very tough teams who beat each other up every year before facing the Lakers in the finals.

I agree with the poster above that the problem is people think the Spurs are BORING! And that the cities in the finals are Cleveland and San Antonio and so no one cares.

I do think that Cleveland is just about the worst team to ever make it to the finals, but I disagree with this seeding thing, which IMO is just people trying to find a way for a not-built-for-the-playoffs Phoenix team to get more TV time.

I never hear about this in baseball, where right now the American League is so much better than the National League it isn't even funny. Last year, the AL had the five best teams out of the ten in the playoffs, yet St. Louis wins it anyway, a team that wouldn't even have sniffed the post-season in the AL.

What does it all mean? Not much in the long run - things will even out eventually. No need to panic everytime a small market team makes the finals.

Posted by The CarpetMuncher | June 14, 2007 4:58 PM

And even if you don't want to mingle the conferences, because the unbalanced regular season schedule means that you can't compare records between teams in different conferences, if you dynamically re-seed within conferences, then once Dallas got booted, the Suns/Spurs would have moved up to the 1 and 2 seeds within the West, making sure they would face each other in the conference finals, at least.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 4:58 PM

"I disagree with this seeding thing, which IMO is just people trying to find a way for a not-built-for-the-playoffs Phoenix team to get more TV time."

The goal is to defer the best matchups to later in the playoffs.

If Suns/Spurs is the best series this year, why should it occur in the second round, rather than the third or fourth round?

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 5:03 PM

This is a particularly bad series coming at the end of a particularly bad set of Conference Finals series. This is not the time to make decisions. Last year's Finals turned out to be a pretty good one. Admittedly that's was because of the awful, awful, awful refereeing, but that is apparently something that the NBA chooses to see as a feature not a bug.

We're in the midst of a new Golden Age of the NBA. Have a little patience and you will see the full glory of it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 14, 2007 5:03 PM

While both Miami and Detroit were good teams, Miami won because Dwayne Wade got treated with kid gloves by the refs. Detroit won because the Lakers dynasty was in full on freefall and that simply nailed the coffin shut.

The East is bad. Real bad. Even the West isn't particularly great - I agree with those who say there is a real dilution of talent in the NBA right now. But the East is just miserable. It's literally unwatchable. I just couldn't get into the NBA the past few years and that is in large part to the obvious inferiority of my teams. Based on the ratings I am evidently not alone.

I think it's time for a change at the top. Really. David Stern is one of the most important people in sports history but time has passed him by. The new ball fiasco, the ruining of the Suns-Spurs series, the reffing that continues to get worse and worse, the broken lottery, the dress code policy, the focus on elite corporate dollars instead of high quality play (as the NFL proved, focus on the latter leads to the former), the expansion into markets like Charlotte... he isn't getting it done anymore.

Posted by f | June 14, 2007 5:04 PM

"This is a particularly bad series coming at the end of a particularly bad set of Conference Finals series."

If you didn't enjoy Detroit/Cleveland, you don't enjoy pro hoops.

The problem was in the West, where Golden State's upset of Dallas moved the best series from the conference finals to the conference semi-finals. Dynamic re-seeding within conferences would remove that particular problem.

However, I think mingling the conferences and dynamically re-seeding the whole shebang would more reliably produce good matchups in the third and fourth rounds.

And that's the problem here. You don't want to have uncompetitive series in the third and fourth rounds.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 5:10 PM

So since the Jordan era, the West is 6 for 8?

God I hate it when people deliberately choose the most idiotic comparison class.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | June 14, 2007 5:13 PM

"I just couldn't get into the NBA the past few years and that is in large part to the obvious inferiority of my teams. Based on the ratings I am evidently not alone."

IMHO, the ratings problem closely follow the introduction of zone defense after the '01 season. This reduces the effectiveness of dominant single players who can capture fan attention and increases the importance of gummy defenses like San Antonio's.

Best I can tell, the zone defense was introduced by David Stern specifically as a measure to stop a run of Finals appearances by Allen Iverson, who Stern was concerned would be mainstream box office poison.

And while the measure succeeded in its limited goal, I'm not sure that replacing Iverson with Bruce Bowen as the face of the league has been for the good of ratings.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 5:15 PM

In general I think you need to be carefull to not over-react to a really lame conference finals and finals, but man the east does seriously suck. Does anyone not think at least 6 (hell maybe all 8!) teams in the West would beat the Cavs?

I do think Simmons play in tourney for the last 4 playoff spots is kind of interesting. It would be kind of like conference tournaments in the NCAA. If your gonna have half the teams make the playoffs anyway why not give all the bottom feeders a chance to get hot and take those last spots, would it really have been tragic to see a hot team like Portland instead of the Wizards lose in the first round?

The top 12 teams get rewarded with playoff spots and extra rest, I don't think a team that played 80 games and finished with the 14th best record can really bitch too much about having to win a couple games to have the priviledge of losing in the first round:-)

Posted by Eric | June 14, 2007 5:17 PM

If you didn't enjoy Detroit/Cleveland, you don't enjoy pro hoops.

Close games are not necessarily good games, Petey. Recall, for example, the game we just endured. Detroit fell apart against the Cavs.

Who knew that beer-goggles for basketball even existed?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 14, 2007 5:22 PM

Petey,

Detroit-Cleveland was only entertaining because of LeBron. And a symptom of how bad the East is.

Like I said above any of the top 6 from the West cruises through the pathetic teams in the East.

Posted by Eric | June 14, 2007 5:24 PM

the zone defense was introduced by David Stern specifically as a measure to stop a run of Finals appearances by Allen Iverson, who Stern was concerned would be mainstream box office poison.

You have got to be kidding. The zone was so that other cities would field teams against Shaq.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 14, 2007 5:26 PM

Basketball is an indoor sport that, for obscure reasons, holds its finals in June, i.e. during beach season.

Given that fact, basketball is going to have to work much harder than most sports (except hockey, which has the same problem) to hold its audience deep into the playoffs.

Or basketball could just move its entire schedule up by a month - start in September, and have the finals in early May.

Posted by low-tech cyclist (formerly RT) | June 14, 2007 5:26 PM

"Close games are not necessarily good games, Petey."

Close games are usually good games. I've not nothing against defensive matchups. I'm always baffled by the folks who want 136 - 134 games, to tell you the truth.

I thought the Detroit/Cleveland series was chock full of drama.

"Recall, for example, the game we just endured."

The problem with game 3 of the Finals was that is was clear relatively early in the first quarter that San Antonio was toying with Cleveland and had the ability to put them away whenever they wanted. A close game loses some drama when the outcome seems pre-ordained.

Last year, when Detroit put together their fantastic regular season, you could tune into any mid-season game with the Piston on the road against some mediocre team. The game would be close mid-way through the fourth quarter, but you'd still know the Pistons were a lock to win the game.

That was the vibe of game 3 of the Finals. The only question was how San Antonio was going to win, not whether or not they were going to win. The Detroit/Cleveland series was different than that.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 5:30 PM

I do think Simmons play in tourney for the last 4 playoff spots is kind of interesting. It would be kind of like conference tournaments in the NCAA.

I'm not a Simmons-hater but this was about the stupidest fucking idea I've ever heard. (For those who missed it, the top 6 teams in each conference get in the playoffs, and EVERYBODY ELSE plays a two-week long tournament for the final two spots.)

He thinks this would be awesome, watching all the mediocre-to-bad teams laying bricks for two weeks while the star-studded teams people actually care about sit around and rest up. You know the stupid play-in game in the NCAA tournament, where teams #64 and #65 play on Tuesday night for the chance to meet the overall #1 seed, and when you fill out your bracket the space is blank because no one really cares who wins the play-in game anyway?

Now try to imagine someone who thinks not only that the play-in game is an awesome moment in college basketball, but that we should expand it and invite 4 or 8 or 16 bubble teams and put everything else on hold to see who gets to be #64 and get blown out in the first round. Gee, awesome idea.

Posted by Steve | June 14, 2007 5:30 PM

"You have got to be kidding. The zone was so that other cities would field teams against Shaq."

I'm not kidding in the least. The zone rule hurts a dominant perimeter player, not a dominant post player.

If you double against Shaq or Timmy in the post, they can pass out of the double and create tremendous imbalances for the other 4 offensive players.

If you double against a perimeter player, you can take them out of the game without creating such an imbalance. What San Antonio is doing to LeBron and what Golden State did to Dirk wouldn't have been possible prior to the zone rule.

But since the zone rule was introduced, Shaq or Timmy has won the title 6 out of 7 years.

The zone rule hurts dominant perimeter players, not post players. The Jordan Bulls would have trouble under current rules.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 5:37 PM

I had the idea a couple of years ago that the team with the best record should get to choose their opponent in the first round. Then the second-place team would choose among the remaining teams, and so forth. In the second round, the top remaining seed could choose from among the three and then the other two teams play.

I like the idea of giving teams with the best record a benefit. Dallas could have played the Lakers this year and let someone else deal with a red-hot Golden State team.

I also like the psychology of it. Then you have the Lakers saying, "Oh, really? You think we are the worst team over here." And you have the Warriors saying, "Mavs are afraid of us."

It is probably whimsical, but it is fun.

Posted by Curtis | June 14, 2007 5:38 PM

I don't agree that the Top 6 teams in the West would have cruised through the East. The Top 3, yes - San Antoinio, Dallas & Phoenix. But Utah better than Detroit? Houston better than Cleveland? Denver better than Miami?

While the West's Top 3 are strong, I'm not convinced about the rest, which are all rather flawed teams. Golden State caught lightning in a bottle, but like Phoenix, that team is not built for the playoffs, which was clear vs. Utah.

And the zone defense IMO was more about Shaq than AI - in fact, alogn with letting teams use the Zone the NBA also limited the ability of perimiter defenders to even touch an offensive player, which actually opens up the game for an AI, and allows a team like Phoenix to play the way they do. Under the old rules, you could just body Steve Nash and he wouldn't be nearly as effective.

I do agree it's time for David Stern to go. Ever since the brawl at the Palace, he's just lost it.

Posted by The CarpetMuncher | June 14, 2007 5:41 PM

I'm not kidding in the least. The zone rule hurts a dominant perimeter player, not a dominant post player.

It's used to hurt both, and dominant post players are scarier. It's just that nobody much used zone until, basically, last year. And if your guards can (a) still get into the paint because they're very quick, or (b) hit the three, it's not of much use against the post player. Hence Duncan.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 14, 2007 5:43 PM

I hope you were being sarcastic, Petey, that was a TERRIBLE Conference Finals. Bad coaching, bad playcalling, bad offense, and mediocre defense. LeBron in Game 5 was AMUSING (and Boobie in Game 6), but it was NOT good basketball.

I don't think the problem is the playoff format. You can reseed all you want, but it still isn't gauranteed to give you the best matchups unless you have someone making subjective decisions. In the NBA, a teams chances to win the title seem only loosely affiliated with their regular season record.

The NBA just seems to have incredibly slow shifts in power because of the small size of the roster, the dependence on star players, and the cap. Its going to be a long time before it evens out.

Posted by matthew c | June 14, 2007 5:44 PM

Amen, Steve. I had the same thought-is he seriously saying that anyone gives a crap about the NCAA play-in game?

Why let the good teams get rusty waiting for the scrubs to finish up? Most of the time, the 1 v. 8 and 2 v. 7 series are time wasters themselves anyway.

The enemy of the NBA is all the expansion of the 90's which led to a massive dilution of talent that allows 1 man teams like Iverson's 76's or this years Cavs to skulk into the Finals. Contraction ain't ever going to happen, but it's the solution.

Posted by Chris | June 14, 2007 5:49 PM

"It's just that nobody much used zone until, basically, last year."

The defensive advantage the zone rules provides against a dominant perimeter player has nothing to do with actually playing a zone.

It has to do with with soft doubles and walling off a dominant perimeter player.

San Antonio is not actually playing a zone against Cleveland. But their defensive scheme against LeBron would have been illegal prior to 2002. Similarly, the way San Antonio played Iverson in round 1 would have been illegal prior to 2002.

No one plays much full-on zone because it kills your defensive rebounding. But the soft doubles you can run against a LeBron, an Iverson, or a Dirk are the killers of the current rules.

The rules change has shifted the balance from perimeter players to post players. I think this is a major strategic error on Stern's part in terms of ratings.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 5:51 PM

God, I hope you're not arguing that offense was better during the illegal-defense rule era. By the end it was nearly unwatchable. Every team ran the same variations on iso plays and primitive pick-and-rolls, and at least three, often four players were totally uninvolved most of the time. It sucked, it was boring, and illegal-defense calls were always stupid borderline decisions for the refs. Whatever the motivation, I'm glad the rule is gone--and the league combined the change, remember, with the introduction of the hand-check rule, which made it a lot harder to guard perimeter players one-on-one.

Utah, Denver, or Houston would have beaten the crap out of either Detroit or Cleveland.

Posted by Antid Oto | June 14, 2007 5:54 PM

RE
"Ok, but nobody IS watching the NBA Finals anymore--this isn't a hypothetical situation, it's a fact"

If it didn't hurt NFL, don't know why it would NBA. Nobody got memos saying it would be sweep. The casual fans not tuning in are the least likely to know how much better the Spurs were going into the series. The NBA got their big new star in the finals and I can't imagine that bad for ratings.

A more likely scenario is that the playoffs are too long and people are sick of watching basketball.

Posted by ChrisB | June 14, 2007 5:56 PM

Playoff tournaments aren't really about picking the best team, but about staging a dramatic spectacle that will put butts in seats and in front of the TV.

After 82 games, we already know who the best teams are. Of course it's hard to say with certainty that a team that has won 60 games is better than a team that has won 58, which is why you perhaps need some kind of playoff. But there's simply no reason a playoff that was designed to objectively select the best team would need to include more than 4 teams. This year, based on the regular season, the only teams that could plausibly claim to be the best in the league were the Spurs, Suns, Mavericks, and Pistons.

Also, you don't really need the conferences/divisions. Teams don't travel by train or bus anymore. Everyone should play everyone equally, or as close as possible. Then you'd know for sure at the end of the regular season who the best teams were, and you wouldn't have to factor strength of schedule.

Posted by kth | June 14, 2007 5:57 PM

I guess I'd like to see someone look at the problem from a different angle. Why is the East so bad and is it actually destined to stay that way, or could it improve with better management?

Reseeding schemes might improve the overall profile of the playoffs, but as someone noted earlier, the weakness in the East is really affecting overall fan interest.

Posted by Meh | June 14, 2007 5:57 PM

The NBA is a little more prone to dynasties and mini-dynasties than other sports, which can exaggerate how dominant a conference seems to be. There wasn't "eastern dominance" in the '90s; there was the dominance of one team.

I agree with your larger point, that one team's dominance can skew the appearance of a conference, but I really think the NBA is more than a little prone to dynasties. A grand total of seven franchises -- Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs and Heat -- have won every single championship for the last quarter century or so. You have to go all the way back to the Dr J/Moses Malone era Sixers to find a champ not on that list. I'd wager some people reading this weren't even born then. For that matter, how old's the proprietor of this blog?

By comparison, baseball has had seven different champs the last seven years -- Yankees, D-Backs, Angels, Marlins, Red Sox, White Sox and Cardinals.

I'd also add that the Heat don't really even belong in the same category since they're the only team to have only won one title. If Shaq had remained with the Lakers I'd be citing six teams right now.

Posted by gorillagogo | June 14, 2007 5:58 PM

"alogn with letting teams use the Zone the NBA also limited the ability of perimiter defenders to even touch an offensive player, which actually opens up the game for an AI"

I'm aware of the compensations in the rules that were made to try to balance the damage the zone did to dominant perimeter players.

(And you should add the "no charge semi-circle" rule to the "no hand-check" rule.)

But that's giving back a quarter after you've stolen a dollar. The current rules make it possible to load up against a dominant perimeter player in a way that just wasn't possible prior to 2002. This is especially true in the playoffs, when you have the time and attention to design a scheme to take a dominant perimeter player out of the game.

To repeat myself, the Jordan Bulls would have been far more vulnerable under current rules.

----

Interestingly, the current rules inhibit a distributor like Nash far less than they would a dominant scoring perimeter player. While the current rules would fuck with the Jordan Bulls, they wouldn't cause as much problems for the Magic/Kareem Lakers, since Magic didn't need to score to be effective.

But the current Kobe Lakers face a much dimmer future under current rules than they would have in the pre-2002 regime.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 6:03 PM

The NHL has an overlong post-season, but it does guarantee a spot to the division winners, and re-seeds after each round. I think that allowed for better matchups.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 14, 2007 6:06 PM

The East has a chance of winning in the finals because: a strong east team breezes through while the West team has to beat up the other 3 stronger teams in the league on its way to the final.

Detroit beat LA, but a lot of it had to do with LA being banged up and emotionally drained from beating the spurs.

Same with Miami: when Dallas had to get its second wind to wrap it up, they realized they had left it in Phoenix and Dallas.

Posted by cedichou | June 14, 2007 6:07 PM

Reseeding the playoffs is just a stupid, stupid idea. How in the world can it possibly be a good idea for the entire league to tilt the playing field in favor of the better teams?

Secondly, the reason why no one wants to watch the Finals is mostly because of the Stern-era emphasis on individual stars instead of team competition. Stern marketed the games as opportunities to watch incredible individuals perform, which works well when you've got Magic, Larry and especially Michael. When your stars aren't that bright, or don't advance in the playoffs, fans tune out. Conversely, the NFL always makes the idea of team vs. team for the championship the most important thing.

The zone defense was also introduced, not because of any individual player, but because many teams were devolving their offenses into nothing but one-on-one isolation plays with 3 or 4 players just running away from the ball to the other side of the court.

Finally, the problem with the quality of NBA play is two-fold.

1. Expansion. Too many teams with not enough great talent to go around. Even the entrance of foreign players hasn't been able to overcome that. Expansion has also hurt the development of regular season rivalries. It's an 82 game season and if you play every other team twice, that's 58 games. Play everyone in your conference just one more time and that's just 10 games left. Teams don't play their division "rivals" enough for real rivalries to develop, unless you're also meeting those guys in the playoffs.

2. The mindset of the entire league has changes to emphasize defense over all. There used to be a gentleman's agreement that offense was most important and that producing more entertaining games. Now, we get defensive strugles (combined with less talented teams) that may be great as sport but suck as spectacle.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 14, 2007 6:07 PM

"God, I hope you're not arguing that offense was better during the illegal-defense rule era."

There is definitely more ball movement under the current rules. If that's what you enjoy, then you can certainly make the case that offense is "better" under the current rules.

What I'm arguing is that current rules decrease the importance of dominant perimeter players. And that since dominant perimeter players provide the association with heroes to focus fan attention, allowing zones has hurt ratings.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 6:08 PM

"What I'm arguing is that current rules decrease the importance of dominant perimeter players. And that since dominant perimeter players provide the association with heroes to focus fan attention, allowing zones has hurt ratings."

Or to put it another way, in the pre-2002 era, you could conceivably put together a team focussed around Gilbert Arenas that would contend for the title.

In the zone era, such a feat is essentially impossible. I'm arguing that the current state of affairs is bad for ratings.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 6:11 PM

Petey, are you hinting that more/better ball movement is not what you enjoy? You preferred those late-90s slugfests where Vince Carter would score 35 on 37 shots?

Well, as an AI fan, I suppose you did. The rest of us were repelled.

Posted by too many steves | June 14, 2007 6:28 PM

It sucked, it was boring, and illegal-defense calls were always stupid borderline decisions for the refs.

My theory is the league got tired of complaints about the illegal-defense calls. People would say the refs would call it once a game no matter what, and the league had no answer because the rule was such gibberish, how could anyone tell if the calls were right?

By comparison, baseball has had seven different champs the last seven years -- Yankees, D-Backs, Angels, Marlins, Red Sox, White Sox and Cardinals.

That's not a record, BTW. 1978-87 had ten in ten: Yankees, Pirates, Phillies, Dodgers, Cardinals, Orioles, Tigers, Royals, Mets, and Twins.

Posted by Thlayli | June 14, 2007 6:34 PM

"You preferred those late-90s slugfests where Vince Carter would score 35 on 37 shots?"

As opposed to what? As opposed to the Cleveland/NJ series this year?

My point, for the third time, is not about whether or not the current rules produce "better" basketball or not. I think both rules systems have their advantages and disadvantages.

My point is that the current rules, by decreasing the importance of dominant perimeter players, decrease the ability of the NBA to create drama around relatable individual heroes, and thus decrease ratings.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 6:37 PM

the zone defense was introduced by David Stern specifically as a measure to stop a run of Finals appearances by Allen Iverson, who Stern was concerned would be mainstream box office poison.

This has to be one of the crazier conspiracy theories I have heard in quite some time. At the time the league reintroduced the zone defense, the AI-led Sixers teams hadn't even gotten past the second round of the playoffs. We're supposed to believe Stern brought about a major rule change "specifically" to cut off the incipient Sixers dynasty at the knees. Gawd, the paranoia.

There's no evidence for this, of course, but Petey often mistakes what he "feels" happened for what must have actually happened.

Posted by Steve | June 14, 2007 6:38 PM

I think Petey's trying to send me home to Elizabeth.

1. Jordan, for the last three championships, was primarily a jump shooter. A fade away jump shooter. Who got bailed out by the refs when he went inside. He would have been fine under the new rules.
2. Magic would be fine under the new rules because he was a great passer and, like Nash but unlike Kobe or LeBron, he had finishers to whom he could pass. Double teams are much less troublesome when you can pass to Kareem or Worthy or even Coop or Scott at the three point line. (NB: Tony Parker, not a pass first point guard, is also doing pretty well under the new regime. Why? Because he's quick as hell.)

3. You couldn't "build" a championship around Gilbert or Kobe for the same reason you couldn't "build" it around Jordan. You needed Pip and a serious rebounder. Not so long ago, everyone agreed you needed at least two stars. The two best multi-season teams of the last 15 years were the Jordan Bulls and the Shaq Lakers. Cripes, the Shaq Lakers got to the '04 Finals as they were tearing themselves apart. In both cases, the second stars were certifiable HOFers.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 14, 2007 6:40 PM

"At the time the league reintroduced the zone defense, the AI-led Sixers teams hadn't even gotten past the second round of the playoffs."

You've got your facts wrong.

The zone defense rule was introduced out of nowhere the summer after the Sixers had appeared in the Finals. There had been no discussion of such a rule prior to those Finals.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 6:45 PM

no discussion? I'm going to look for evidence when I get another few minutes to waste, but I don't think that's right. "Kill the illegal D rules" was a common suggestion throughout the 90s, especially as the 1-on-1 and 2-on-2 play became uglier and uglier.

Posted by too many steves | June 14, 2007 6:48 PM

" Jordan, for the last three championships, was primarily a jump shooter. A fade away jump shooter. Who got bailed out by the refs when he went inside. He would have been fine under the new rules."

Ever since the new rules were implemented, a weak-side offensive team has won the title every single year. A strong-side offensive team like the Jordan Bulls would have had some problems.

Dirk Nowitski is a fade away jump shooter, and check out what Don Nelson showed you could do to a player like that under the current rules. You couldn't do the types of things Golden State did to him under the old rules.

Jordan was a fantastic player and Phil Jackson was a fantastic coach, so they would have tried to find other ways to leverage Jordan's talents. But good teams in the playoffs would have found it much easier to take away the Jordan Bulls' strengths under current rules.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 6:52 PM

You said the rules were introduced in '01. Exactly who do you think won in 2002, Petey?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 14, 2007 7:06 PM

"You said the rules were introduced in '01. Exactly who do you think won in 2002, Petey?"

Is this a trick question? The answers are at the top of the page...

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 7:22 PM

Was that the Lakers team that never isolated Kobe?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 14, 2007 7:31 PM

The zone defense rule was introduced out of nowhere the summer after the Sixers had appeared in the Finals. There had been no discussion of such a rule prior to those Finals.

The 2001 NBA playoffs started on April 21, 2001.

The zone defense change, and several other rule changes, were adopted by the NBA Board of Governors on April 12, 2001.

As Marty Burns reported shortly before the vote, on April 2, 2001:

After years of discussion, the NBA finally appears to be willing to do away with the illegal-defense restrictions. The Board of Governors is looking at a proposal to allow zone defenses next season, and Suns chairman Jerry Colangelo says he believes it has a good chance of approval. However, not everybody is thrilled with the idea. Riley and Magic coach Doc Rivers have both objected vehemently to the new rules, and slashers such as Vince Carter and Kobe Bryant are expected to voice their displeasure. Can they rally enough support to quash it? Stay tuned.

Apparently there was, in fact, some discussion. Perhaps even more than just some. Perhaps it had been discussed for "years."

When you can't even accurately recount information in the public domain, your credibility to opine on David Stern's secret motivations becomes that much shakier.

Posted by Steve | June 14, 2007 7:36 PM

"The 2001 NBA playoffs started on April 21, 2001. The zone defense change, and several other rule changes, were adopted by the NBA Board of Governors on April 12, 2001."

I stand corrected about the precise timing of the change. It came two months before I thought it did. However, to be fair, that meeting took place after a year in which Iverson won the MVP and got the #1 conference seed.

It wasn't clear at that point that the Sixers would make the Finals, but it was an excellent bet.

And FWIW, both Iverson and Larry Brown thought at the time that the zone rule was a response to Iverson. If I'm paranoid, I'm just sharing the paranoia of the principles involved.

-----

"Apparently there was, in fact, some discussion. Perhaps even more than just some. Perhaps it had been discussed for "years"

This, I would dispute.

If the league decided to adopt a Simmons style re-seeding proposal this summer, they would be doing so without any prior league discussion. This is true even though folks outside of the league rules process have "discussed" such an idea for years.

In a world of six billion souls, everything has been "discussed" by someone somewhere. The distinction lies in whether or not it had been previously discussed inside the league.

-----

And finally, from the article you linked, here's the vital question asked of Stu Jackson:

How do you respond to the criticism that allowing zone defenses will only serve to further restrict the individuality and athleticism that makes the NBA great?

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 7:49 PM

The distinction lies in whether or not it had been previously discussed inside the league.

The context of Burns' reporting seems to suggest that it had been discussed for years within the NBA. I very much doubt he would say "After years of discussion, the NBA finally seems to be willing..." if what he really meant was that he and his drinking buddies had discussed it for years.

You can speculate all day but you're still just speculating, which of course you didn't make clear in your original "definitive" pronouncement. The fact that Iverson and Brown both suggested it was directly aimed at Iverson is evidence in support of the paranoia theory, not evidence against it. It's not always about you.

Posted by Steve | June 14, 2007 8:02 PM

"The context of Burns' reporting seems to suggest that it had been discussed for years within the NBA."

I'm still not in agreement with you here.

If this offseason the NBA were to pass a rule declaring Bruce Bowen an unlawful combatant and shipping him off to Guantanamo, while such a rule has indeed been "discussed" for years, it really wouldn't have been formally in discussion previously.

-----

"The fact that Iverson and Brown both suggested it was directly aimed at Iverson is evidence in support of the paranoia theory, not evidence against it."

Meh.

The rule was introduced after a year where Iverson had become the face of the NBA. This was after the year where the controversy about Iverson's rap album with its homophobic and misogynistic lyrics had prompted high level NBA meetings. This was after the year where there was much public concern about the "thug" image that Iverson projected.

I don't think there would've been a shot in hell of the zone rule coming into existence while Jordan was the dominant perimeter force in the league. Similarly, had someone like Grant Hill taken Jordan's crown rather than Iverson, again, I don't think there would've been a shot in hell of the zone rule being enacted.

I'm not a mind-reader, so I can't speak with assurance to Stern's motivation. But I don't think it's a particularly far-fetched reading to think that Iverson and his image was a huge concern for the league at the moment when the zone rule was enacted, and thus that the rule was aimed specifically at Iverson to no small degree.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 8:36 PM

If this offseason the NBA were to pass a rule declaring Bruce Bowen an unlawful combatant and shipping him off to Guantanamo, while such a rule has indeed been "discussed" for years, it really wouldn't have been formally in discussion previously.

A veteran NBA reporter says "After years of discussion, the NBA finally appears to be willing to do away with the illegal-defense restrictions."

And you think the most plausible reading of this is that he's referring to random people on the street who may have "discussed" this at some point, and that as far as internal NBA discussion is concerned, the idea sprung fully-formed from Zeus' forehead when AI achieved prominence during the 2000-01 season? Please.

Even a rudimentary Nexis search shows that the NBA rules committee discussed whether to bring back zone defenses during the 1999 offseason. I very much doubt that was the first time. Please, just give it up. Your conspiracy theories sadden me.

Posted by Steve | June 14, 2007 8:51 PM

"Even a rudimentary Nexis search shows that the NBA rules committee discussed whether to bring back zone defenses during the 1999 offseason."

Well, since I don't have Nexis capabilities, such a citation would actually add something to the discussion. It would prove your point on the specific topic of whether it had previously discussed.

"Your conspiracy theories sadden me."

If your intimation of actual proof that the rules committee had previously been considering the zone rule is true, I still don't think it speaks toward the Iverson hypothesis at all.

If the topic had indeed been previously discussed, that doesn't speak toward why the zone rule was actually approved in 2001, rather than having been approved in 1999, or rather than never getting approved at all.

The petty legalisms of your mind sadden me.

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 9:01 PM

Reseeding the playoffs is just a stupid, stupid idea. How in the world can it possibly be a good idea for the entire league to tilt the playing field in favor of the better teams?

Amen, brother. All re-seeding does is build a bigger moat between the already-favored teams and the next tier. It also makes being a 7- or 8-seed not worth playing for, taking away the drama of the scramble, and any rooting interest you might have for the lower seed in those early rounds.

I do think that perhaps the initial 1-16 should be seeded on overall record, though. I think that would be enough to cluster the good teams at the top and generate good late-round matchups.

Posted by Brad L | June 14, 2007 9:04 PM

If your intimation of actual proof that the rules committee had previously been considering the zone rule is true, I still don't think it speaks toward the Iverson hypothesis at all.

It certainly speaks to your original hypothesis that David Stern introduced the rule change, out of a clear blue sky with no prior discussion whatsoever, "specifically" to keep Allen Iverson from going to the Finals year after year.

It may not speak to your revised hypothesis that Iverson's prominence may have been the tipping point regarding a subject that was apparently discussed inside the league for many years.

But in light of the fact that the issue was on the table for some time; the fact that the change was recommended by a rules committee including independent-minded folks like Jerry West, Bob Lanier, Jack Ramsay, and Dick Motta; and the fact that the recommendation was accepted by a vote of the NBA's Board of Governors and not in some smoky backroom, my conclusion is that it's very unlikely you could point to any one player or event as the motivating factor for the change.

You want to keep believing it, more power to you. I'm not a mind-reader either, and everyone around here knows you're not exactly noted for being open-minded.

Posted by Steve | June 14, 2007 9:10 PM

"It certainly speaks to your original hypothesis that David Stern introduced the rule change, out of a clear blue sky with no prior discussion whatsoever"

Yup. As I've already conceded upthread on the provision that your alluded to citation is correct.

"It may not speak to your revised hypothesis..."

My "revised" hypothesis is the exact same as my original hypothesis: that as best I can tell, the zone rule was enacted as a response to concerns about Iverson becoming the face of the league.

"the fact that the change was recommended by a rules committee including independent-minded folks like Jerry West, Bob Lanier, Jack Ramsay, and Dick Motta; and the fact that the recommendation was accepted by a vote of the NBA's Board of Governors and not in some smoky backroom"

I don't think you're quite clear on how the NBA decision making process operates.

-----

As stated, petty legalisms...

Posted by Petey | June 14, 2007 9:18 PM

It's not so much the reseeding, as the general problem of NBA suckiness. NBA suckiness is driven by three major factors:

1) Too many teams, talent spread too thin.
2) Too many games, season is far too long and fans are turned off by the end.
3) Terrible refereeing. Just awful.

Fix any two of those three problems and you will have a far better product, one that can (like the NFL) survive one conference's dominance.

Posted by mq | June 14, 2007 9:29 PM

just about everybody else has made this point before me, but just comparing series winners (East's 5 vs. West's 6) truly misses the point.

the cavaliers were never really in this series at all. and miami's win last year was based on a superhuman effort out of duane wayde and some really immature, tired play out of a beat-up dallas team.

i don't know that detroit would have fared any better against any team coming out of the west this season (except maybe the one-trick pony warriors). the talent out west drops the east (with an embarassing ease) 7 out of 10 times.

had your beloved wizards made it into the finals (we can all dream, can't we?) they would have been crushed in 3 games by san antonio. gilbert arenas would have refused out of professional embarrassment to come out of the locker room for a game 7 and washington would have forfeited the 4th game.

re-seed. ASAP. or clone bird, johnson, jordan, and clyde drexler. the nba post-season is becoming a joke.

Posted by speedy | June 15, 2007 12:36 AM

Another odd thing about Petey's theory about zone defenses being designed to slow down perimeter scorers is that you don't see it in the stats of the scorers themselves.

Kobe Bryant has had the two best offensive seasons of his career in the last two seasons, and AI had the best offensive season of his career in 05-06, well after teams had adjusted to zone defenses and, aside from his injury plagued 03-04 season, all of AI's "post-zone" seasons were at or above his career offensive efficiency.

Posted by NickS | June 15, 2007 1:35 AM

Plus scores are up in general.

Posted by Antid Oto | June 15, 2007 1:38 AM

"Kobe Bryant has had the two best offensive seasons of his career in the last two seasons, and AI had the best offensive season of his career in 05-06, well after teams had adjusted to zone defenses and, aside from his injury plagued 03-04 season, all of AI's "post-zone" seasons were at or above his career offensive efficiency."

Agreed!

But the story shifts in the playoffs.

The no hand check rule make things easier on Iverson for a February game in Milwaukee. But the zone rule means that you can take him out of the games in a playoff series.

Posted by Petey | June 15, 2007 2:15 AM

"2) Too many games, season is far too long and fans are turned off by the end."

That wouldn't matter if the games were more obviously meaningful to the teams. 30 teams in an 82 game schedule, where you play every team at least twice, doesn't allow regular season rivalries to flourish.

For example, the Atlantic division has been absolutely horrible the last two years. But that wouldn't matter so much if those teams mostly played within their division and winning those games was decisive in getting to the playoffs. As it stands, the Celtics might play the Bulls 3 times and the Nets 5. If they played the Bulls twice and the Nets 6 times, not only does familiarity breed contempt but beating the Nets (a division foe) becomes naturally more important to the team and to fans.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 15, 2007 10:17 AM

On that perimeter player vs. the zone thing, Tony Parker killed everyone this playoff by... driving the lane and getting to the hoop.

On the seeding, who cares? The season is too long, the playoffs are ridiculously drawn out and by June no one cares.

There are a lot of other little annoyances that make the experience less than enjoyable. The surfeit of timeouts, stoppages, and ads. The reffing is so inconsistent and subjective that I throw up my hands several times a game and ask what a foul is or how come that wasn't a walk. Baseball has improved by getting the umps on the same page on defining the strike zone. The NBA should try that with fouls, etc.

Finally, ABC barely broadcasts any regular season or playoff games so they don't have any established audience for their coverage of the Finals.

Posted by SteveH | June 15, 2007 10:35 AM

"On that perimeter player vs. the zone thing, Tony Parker killed everyone this playoff by... driving the lane and getting to the hoop."

Yup. And that's why Timmy was the real MVP.

Second year in a row where a guard got to play 4 on 3 and won MVP, (though TP is obviously no Dwyane.)

Again, you can't double the post and live to tell the story under current rules, but you can double on the perimeter.

That's what the zone rule does. It disadvantages dominant perimeter players taking over a playoff series. It's great for a scoring guard playing off of a dominant post player.

Posted by Petey | June 15, 2007 1:08 PM

"On that perimeter player vs. the zone thing, Tony Parker killed everyone this playoff by... driving the lane and getting to the hoop."

A lot of people have been making similar points. It turns out that this is completely irrelevant. Parker didn't kill anyone this year. Duncan combined with Parker killed people. If you take a player with Parker's skill set and make him the primary focus of on offense (ie, he is the best player on the offense), his job will get MUCH harder. Nobody is running soft doubles against Parker and even once he beats his man, if the big down low shifts over to pick him up, Parker may have a pass option to Duncan and even if he misses Duncan can go for the offensive rebound b/c his man is no longer blocking him out.

Everyone has gotten sidetracked by the whole AI debate. But the interesting point Petey made with the rule change, and one that is undeniably true, is that it is MUCH harder for a score-first perimeter player to function as the marquee player on a playoff team these days. Opposing coaches can scout their tendency and coach their team on the proper soft double approach. The Pistons failed to do this against James b/c they don't have the right personnel and b/c Flip Saunders is an idiot. On the other hand, soft doubles are not what you employ against post men. You send a double when they put the ball on the floor and you can do that under either rule set. If you send a real double team against a marquee player on the perimeter, you leave the rest of your defense much more vulnerable than if you double the post player.

Posted by mpowell | June 15, 2007 2:13 PM

I suppose I should have refreshed my browser before posting.

Posted by mpowell | June 15, 2007 2:26 PM

But the interesting point Petey made with the rule change, and one that is undeniably true, is that it is MUCH harder for a score-first perimeter player to function as the marquee player on a playoff team these days.

I think the team in the East with the best perimeter player got further in the playoffs than the team in East with the best post player (whichever team that is). Zone is useful against bigs because it lets you pack the paint. That's why people have to either shoot over a zone or break it by penetration (which is better).

I just noticed over at ESPN, Abbot had a discussion with the winner of his Stat-off playoff prediction guys. The winner claimed he won because he ignored everything but the number, especially the regular season numbers. I'm not sure why that would be a smart rule for the team, but not for the players that make up the team. And, as someone noted, lots of perimeter players have had good years post rule change.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 15, 2007 2:51 PM

Extend that list back two years, and look at who's won titles other than Jordan:

Hakeem: 2
Shaq: 4
Timmy: 4
The Wallaces: 1

So much for the idea, very popular at the time, that Jordan had ushered in the age of the dominant guard.

Posted by Larry Hardesty | June 15, 2007 3:35 PM

"I'm aware of the compensations in the rules that were made to try to balance the damage the zone did to dominant perimeter players.

(And you should add the 'no charge semi-circle' rule to the 'no hand-check' rule.)

But that's giving back a quarter after you've stolen a dollar. The current rules make it possible to load up against a dominant perimeter player in a way that just wasn't possible prior to 2002. This is especially true in the playoffs, when you have the time and attention to design a scheme to take a dominant perimeter player out of the game.

To repeat myself, the Jordan Bulls would have been far more vulnerable under current rules."

------------------------------------------------------------

Dude, Kobe scored 80 in a game last year. He scored 60-something in three quarters in another game. If anything you make an argument that awful coaches still stuck in the old era of all iso plays all the time get smashed by the new rules, but that's a good thing. Mike Brown's a bad offensive coach. Sorry you weren't entertained, b

Reseed?

Comments (82)