Four on Four

JC Bradbury explains his scheme to improve the NBA:

I don’t know what it is about the game that has changed—maybe it’s my preferences that have changed—but I don’t enjoy the game very much any more. I think the problem is that there are too many people on too small of a court. Sometimes I feel that I’m watching a rugby scrum, waiting for an orange ball to pop out towards the hoop and hope that there is no whistle. My solution would be to increase the size of the court, which of course won’t happen since the court is constrained by the size of arenas. I think this would open up more passing and reduce fouling.

If you wanted to do something along these lines, the smart move would be not to make the court bigger (constrained by arena size), but to make the game four-on-four instead of five-on-five and then possibly make the court somewhat smaller (but not as much as 20 percent smaller). That would open the game up without requiring bigger arenas, and would also serve to de facto un-dilute the talent pool.

I, however, basically agree with Tyler Cowen that I like the existing NBA just fine and don't really care that others don't like it. One thing that's true of basically all of the existing American sports leagues is that if you eliminated some of the poorly-performing franchises things would be more fun for the fans of the remaining ones.

Comments

With how slow and worthless some of these centers are, it's pretty much four on four half the time anyway. Let's worry about officiating first, people, then cockamamie innovations involving funny hats and moving hoops later.

Posted by Gregorio | August 9, 2007 4:26 PM

I absolutely hate the NBA, mainly because it's not a team sport anymore - it's either a big man posting up, or a fast guard driving the basket, while the rest of the players stand around watching. Maybe it's a function of the sport, but the officiating is more subjective and just flat out worse in the NBA than any other sport.

So far as fixing the sport, I'd certainly push the 3-point line back and increase the shot clock, to put a greater focus on defense and hopefully teamwork. I've got no idea what you do about the officiating, but it's wretched - half the time I feel like I'm watching wrestling. I really don't think they call the game tightly enough and we end up with wrestling.

So far as the league goes, I think it's pretty well run but the salary cap is just terrible. Unlike say football or even baseball, the success of an NBA team hinges so much on a handful of players that salaries are astronomical and because they're guaranteed, they'll just ruin a team for years. You also get these ridiculous multiteam deals designed only to clear cap space or keep teams under the cap.

Couldn't they come up with a fair salary cap structure that the fans would understand? Two-way arbitration wouldn't hurt, either. There are also too many teams in the league, but I'm afraid that trend will continue. At least the NBA is starting to draw more talent from overseas and even the high school ranks. Hopefully that will help the league maintain a level of competence, even as it adds teams. There just aren't enough quality pitchers or QBs in the world to deserve starting jobs in MLB or the NFL, but the NBA (and to a lesser extent, NHL) has the benefit of expanding its talent pool.

Posted by Mike LeP | August 9, 2007 4:36 PM

What a silly idea. It's not like teams would start running their offense 40 feet from the basket just because you created more space along the baseline. You'd just have the same group of extremely large men bunched up around the middle of a bigger court.

Matt is right about contraction, however. The best part about the 80's wasn't "how they played the game." It was how teams had more stars and fewer suckbags as a proportion of their roster. The influx of foreign players has helped, but there still aren't enough worldclass basketball players to go around today. Slash five teams and things would get better fast.

Posted by owenz | August 9, 2007 4:37 PM

"One thing that's true of basically all of the existing American sports leagues is that if you eliminated some of the poorly-performing franchises things would be more fun for the fans of the remaining ones."

I don't like the NBA, and I certainly don't care about Matt's critique of the NHL if he has one.

But this is a great point and it's why we need Europeon-style relegation in all the Big 3 North American pro sports and in hockey. Chicago Blackhawks don't want to make a serious effort to compete and are terrible? To the AHL with you. Ditto whatever NBA team fits that description, probably Atlanta?

I assume none of this will ever happen because the owners are too powerful and they wouldn't allow a system that might strip them of the value of the their franchises by being sent to play in the minors.

Posted by witless chum | August 9, 2007 4:38 PM

actually, a much simpler thing to do would be to widen the lane.

but all 3 major team sports in america would benefit from fewer teams: we wouldn't have a pitching shortage in baseball, we wouldn't have a center shortaage in basketball, and we wouldn't have a depth and quarterbacking shortage in the nfl.

Posted by howard | August 9, 2007 4:39 PM

The NBA should go full contact like hockey.

Posted by blah | August 9, 2007 4:41 PM

Fewer teams, salary and revenue caps. Higher league minimum salaries, dramatically lower league maximums, lifetime pensions and comprehensive health benefits for all players. Profit percentages after a point all gone into pension pool, the rest donated to charity. Maybe a relegation system for underpeforming clubs: memphis grizz, kings of the new DLeague. How are any of these less reasonable than 4 on 4? They are equally unlikely with the current structure in place.

Posted by Gregorio | August 9, 2007 4:45 PM

why is the court size constrained by the arena? they play hockey in most of those stadiums on a much larger surface than the basketball court. is there some other reason?

Posted by mark | August 9, 2007 4:46 PM

Isn’t fixing the NBA what that ref got in trouble for? *rimshot*

Seriously, I have a simple plan to fix the NBA. Eliminate 12 games from the schedule and wipe out the first round of playoffs. If you really want to you can have a wildcard playoff round structured like the NFL, but only a 5 game series. There’s just too many damn games. Basket ball is probably the most physically demanding pro sport (at least in the USA) and the season is just too long. Also, they need to eliminate a round in the playoffs. With half the teams in the nba making the post season, there’s really no reason to care about the regular season at all.

That or allow and encourage fighting like Hokey. Bonus points for taking out fans.

Posted by IMU | August 9, 2007 4:48 PM

Yeah, I don't think court size is constrained much by the arena. If they had to move the first row of seats back 5 feet, they wouldn't eliminate a row of expensive seats, they'e eliminate a row of cheap seats. It's not that big a deal.

Whoever said 4-on-4 wouldn't change things is wrong. Ever play a full-court game of 4-on-4? It's dramatically different, faster-paced, more wide-open, and a lot more exhausting. I still prefer 5-on-5, at least as a spectator sport. 5 guys to a side is like the 10-foot hoop -- it's just too ingrained to change without really fucking up the game.

Posted by too many steves | August 9, 2007 4:50 PM

they play hockey in most of those stadiums on a much larger surface than the basketball court. is there some other reason?

Courtside seats. Personally, I'm in favor of pushing back/getting rid of courtside seats and widening the court - I do think it'll change the spacing of the game, unlike owenz (the idea isn't that everyone's going to eschew layups for 12-footers, the idea is that more space = more room for guys to maneuver in; if the lane's bigger, it's harder to clog) - but the NBA and its teams aren't about to do anything that might cut into their revenue.

Posted by Quarterican | August 9, 2007 4:55 PM

I'm on board for relegation and, with some regret, contraction. But mostly, the NBA just needs to torture Pat Riley for thugging up the game, require the refs to be better at their jobs, and clarify why Bruce Bowen isn't fouling on the wing every time down the court.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 9, 2007 5:02 PM

Relegation rules.

I had never been much of a soccer fan until the last couple of years. But I have paid fairly close attention to the last couple of EPL seasons, and between the transfer process and relegation, this seems like the perfect system for keeping all of your teams competing like mad.

Bruce Bowen doesn't get called for fouls because he is constantly showing the officials his hands, and rather than slapping, he gets into the body and uses his hips and knees to move players. It is probably more intrusive than being a slap-happy fool, but referees look for hand contact.

Posted by Curtis | August 9, 2007 5:10 PM

We've talked about relegation before - I'm not going to find the thread(s), but will simply incorporate my remarks on those threads by reference. Like Matthew and some of the commenters, I think relegation is a great idea.

Regarding 4-on-4, they do that with hockey in overtime, and it definitly makes the game faster and more exciting.

Posted by Al | August 9, 2007 5:11 PM

Courtside seats.

Um, wouldn't the seats on the side of the court always be "courtside", even if the court was larger?

Posted by Al | August 9, 2007 5:14 PM

Court size and team size for high school or kid's basketball is fine.

But NBA games are a little too crowded. The game wasn't originally intended to be this way. When the game was first invented, no one expected we would have a league of so many monstrously tall players like today.

I would recommend cutting down a few players, but cutting down to four would be a little extreme.

Posted by John Rohan | August 9, 2007 5:15 PM

I suppose "courtside" means "folding chairs set up on the same level as the court," and if the court was too big, in some arenas there wouldn't be room for that. You'd start getting into the rising seats. I bet the owners would figure out a way to still have kick-ass courtside seats, though.

Posted by too many steves | August 9, 2007 5:15 PM

Jesus Christ, Al!

Posted by Gregorio | August 9, 2007 5:15 PM

While Al is correct that any seat adjacent to the court can be termed "courtside", too many steves has my intent. I was responding to someone asking, given that these same arenas also host hockey games, and a hockey rink (according to my read of Wikipedia) is 35 feet wider than an NBA court, why widening the basketball court would be a hassle. Clearly, I didn't mean "the phenomenon of the courtside seat would be eliminated," I meant "there are seats - they happen to be courtside - that would be eliminated". Whoever said that they wouldn't eliminate an expensive row, they'd eliminate a cheap row, is also likely correct, I just think owners would be adverse to eliminating *any* rows.

Posted by Quarterican | August 9, 2007 5:23 PM

Every sport would be improved by promotion and relegation: the bottom three teams go down to the minors, and the top minor league teams come up. Works great in Europe, and your home town team never moves cities, just leagues.

Posted by chris | August 9, 2007 5:27 PM

and would also serve to de facto un-dilute the talent pool.

Who on earth believes that the NBA talent pool is too dilute?

Posted by ed | August 9, 2007 5:29 PM

Not Paul Shirley or Brian Cardinal, that's for sure!

Posted by Gregorio | August 9, 2007 5:41 PM

"I, however, basically agree with Tyler Cowen that I like the existing NBA just fine and don't really care that others don't like it."

Yup.

Though the one major change I would support would be a return to the classicism of the original Mesoamerican Ballgame. Using Bruce Bowen's skull as the core around which a new ball is made would be immensely satisfying to fans all across the nation.

Posted by Petey | August 9, 2007 5:42 PM

How about raising the hight of the rim? The 10 foot hight was settled upon 100 years ago when players were much smaller, less mobile and had a far lower vertical jump. Raising it to 11 feet would make layups and dunks much harder and encourage more outside shooting.

Posted by SLC | August 9, 2007 5:42 PM

"Who on earth believes that the NBA talent pool is too dilute?"

I think it's really a marketing and quality of entertainment concern rather than a quality of play concern.

If you limited the league to 16 teams, there is an argument that you could better promote the more limited number of teams and players. Fans could form a better attachment to the players they knew better. Each remaining team could get more national TV exposure. There would be many more teams with multiple superstars. Etc, etc.

There's a perfectly plausible argument to make that it would be a better experience for fans and more profitable for the association.

Posted by Petey | August 9, 2007 5:48 PM

"The best part about the 80's wasn't "how they played the game." It was how teams had more stars and fewer suckbags as a proportion of their roster."

Mmmmm yes and no. To me, Showtime was the pinacle of the game. I enjoyed watching the Bulls in the 90's, but I had a feeling something was happening to the game. And it happened. It became all about MJ.

The thing about watching the Lakers in the 80's was that from the moment Coop snagged a lazy pass, and the fast break was on, you were watching 3-5 players running the floor with one mind. It was incredible.

I haven't seen anything like it since, and I don't know how you come back from the single-superstar orientation the game's seemed to be stuck in since Jordan. Also, I think it's safe to say that if Kobe and Shaq had been on any of Reilly's 80's Laker teams, they woulda been traded for the shit they pulled.

It may just be nostalgia, and I'm open to hearing about why I'm wrong, or how my opinion's no different than those of folks back then pining for the Russell/Chamberlain days, but there really was something special about the game, about Dr. J's Sixers, about the Lakers/Celtics rivalries, about Michael Cage and Charles Oakley's perennial rebounding competition that just seems like it's missing today.

Posted by chiggins | August 9, 2007 5:51 PM

"Raising it to 11 feet would make layups and dunks much harder and encourage more outside shooting"

Um, no. Well, it would make dunks and layups harder, but how would it encourage outside shooting? Putting the rim at 11 feet makes the rim higher for everybody, not just the big guys. And if the rim is 11 feet then ONLY 7-footers would have any hope of getting an easy bucket inside. It would be impossible for a 6-foot guard to drive the lane and get a finger roll.

Plus, the 10-foot basket is what makes it basketball. It's like 90 feet between bases -- you don't change that, for chrissake.

Posted by too many steves | August 9, 2007 5:51 PM

I'm all for lowering the WNBA hoop.

Posted by Gregorio | August 9, 2007 5:57 PM

The talent dilution argument is so damn old it gets ridiculous. If we had 8 fewer teams people would complain about talent dilution. There will always be a range of talent in the league. Get over it. And some teams will be poorly managed. There are easily 300 basketball players in the world worth watching. You can tell this critique is totally bogus because its used for baseball too. Too few pitchers? What are you smoking? These guys throw 90mph and up for strikes consistently. If you dropped the number of teams the hitting quality would go up and the no 5 pitchers on the roster would have the same kind of numbers. And you can't possibly claim beauty of play there. You can't tell the difference b/w a guy throwing 92 and 90. I'm not sure if I accept Petey's argument here, but it does avoid this issue. Relegation could also make things more interesting (but will also never happen). I think a minor league would do more for the quality of play in the NBA than anything else.

A bigger court would be a waste of time. Getting a reasonably good look from the arc is not a problem. Its the real estate inside the arc that is valuable and well defended. The best ways to open up the game are to drop the game to 4 on 4 (never going to happen) and to reduce the amount of defensive contact allowed. In a seperate category, if you want more shooting, you could make the lane bigger for offensive players (but not necessarily defensive guys) b/c this would limit post up play. Making the rim higher might help, but I'm not sure. Seems to me that threes might get easier in comparison to layups, but I'm not sure. Moving the 3 point line back is really dumb. It will actually reduce the amount of outside shooting and clog up the middle, and thus the passing game, more.

The salary cap structure has some very weird implications. But the real problem is that dominant players are just that. If you lower the max contract it becomes even more critical that you have one or two of the best players in the league on your roster. This will always limit competitiveness in the NBA.

Finally, nobody who dislikes dunking can be trusted. A dunk is harder to block than a layup and is thus frequently the better move. Why anyone thinks the NBA should change the game to appeal to people who admit they still wouldn't watch is beyond me.

Posted by mpowell | August 9, 2007 6:12 PM

Though the one major change I would support would be a return to the classicism of the original Mesoamerican Ballgame. Using Bruce Bowen's skull as the core around which a new ball is made would be immensely satisfying to fans all across the nation.

Sounds like fun. Do you also recommend the ancient ritual of the the winners ripping the still-beating hearts from the bodies of the losing team?

Posted by Al | August 9, 2007 6:18 PM

Al gets his knowledge of Mesoamerican cultures of from Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom and Apocalypto. This explains a lot abotu 'wingers in general.

Posted by Gregorio | August 9, 2007 6:19 PM

mpowell makes an excellent point: anyone who thinks there should be less dunking is not a basketball fan.

Posted by too many steves | August 9, 2007 6:20 PM

John Rohan,

Wasn't the game originally invented to help football players stay in shape in the off-season?

Posted by Fred | August 9, 2007 6:23 PM

I like watching teams like the Warriors and Suns. Spurs/ Pistons style b-ball is boring. Is it fundamentally more sound? Maybe, but I like runnin' and gunnin'. Grindcore is for trench warfare, not sports entertainment.

Posted by Gregorio | August 9, 2007 6:25 PM

Al gets his knowledge of Mesoamerican cultures of from Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom and Apocalypto.

Two responses: (a) Temple of Doom took place in India, so that obviously doesn't apply to Mesoamerican cultures, and (ii) I don't watch movies that are in Aramaic or Mayan.

Posted by Al | August 9, 2007 6:27 PM

"Al gets his knowledge of Mesoamerican cultures of from Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom and Apocalypto. This explains a lot abotu 'wingers in general."

Actually, Al's knowledge of the Mesoamerican Ballgame mirrors the Wikipedia link provided upthread. Thanks for playing, though, Gregorio. You may have an extremely low true shooting percentage, but you make up for it with volume shot attempts.

Posted by Petey | August 9, 2007 6:28 PM

Fully agree with mpowell. The reducing teams will make the NBA more popular argument is beyond silly. I'm not even sure exactly what the rationale is because all the arguments I can think of (talent dilution, more big stars) are so self-evidently silly when you actually think about them. What am I missing?

Relegation would be a great idea, however. And I actually think there are ways to make it seem viable, although that's a post for another day.

Posted by Gordon | August 9, 2007 6:29 PM

I don't think it's true that grind-it-out ball is more "fundamentally sound" than fast-break basketball. The Suns play a fundamentally beautiful offensive game. So did the '80s Lakers.

The game was invented to give roughneck college students a non-contact, indoor sport to play in the wintertime. Most of them played rugby or soccer or some early form of football, but basketball wasn't specifically meant to keep them in shape for their outdoor sports.

God bless Dr. Naismith. The more I read about the guy, the more I like him. He was always advocating changes to the rules he made up, to keep the game evolving, and he definitely wanted more flow, more offense, a faster pace. Personally, I think he'd love watching Dr. J or Magic or Jordan play his game.

Posted by too many steves | August 9, 2007 6:32 PM

Relegation would be a great idea, however. And I actually think there are ways to make it seem viable, although that's a post for another day.

That day was July 4. As I posted on that thread, I think there are two main issues: how do you get owners to volutarily accept the dimunition of value associated with being a relegated team, and how do you incorporate new talent into the league.

Posted by Al | August 9, 2007 6:36 PM

Al just admit that you think all darkies look the same.

Oh, and petey, being criticized by you is the most reassuring thing that could happen to a feller.

Posted by Gregorio | August 9, 2007 6:37 PM

I'm on board for relegation and, with some regret, contraction. But mostly, the NBA just needs to torture Pat Riley for thugging up the game, require the refs to be better at their jobs, and clarify why Bruce Bowen isn't fouling on the wing every time down the court.

This thread should have ended at this point.

Posted by Pooh | August 9, 2007 6:38 PM

Re too many steves

"Um, no. Well, it would make dunks and layups harder, but how would it encourage outside shooting? Putting the rim at 11 feet makes the rim higher for everybody, not just the big guys. And if the rim is 11 feet then ONLY 7-footers would have any hope of getting an easy bucket inside."

Thats the whole point of raising the hight of the basket. Making it tougher for the smaller players to score on layups and dunks forces them to work on their perimeter shooting. One of the major complaints about the NBA is the poor perimeter shooting capabilities of most of the players.

"Plus, the 10-foot basket is what makes it basketball. It's like 90 feet between bases -- you don't change that, for chrissake."

Not so. It's more akin to moving the goal posts in football from the goal line to the back of the end zone and kicking off from the 30 yard line instead of the 40 yard line. Both of those changes were made in response to the huge improvement in the kicking game brought about by the introduction of soccer style place kicking.

Posted by SLC | August 9, 2007 6:40 PM

Why are we talking about this anyway, when we have the possible comebacks of Reggie Miller AND Allan Houston to discuss! Heeeee...

Posted by Al | August 9, 2007 6:43 PM

SLC: moving the goal posts in football from the goal line to the back of the end zone

pls. tell me there's footage of guys running into the posts! LOLZ

Posted by Gregorio | August 9, 2007 6:43 PM

"One of the major complaints about the NBA is the poor perimeter shooting capabilities of most of the players"

Really? Who makes that complaint? NBA players are much better shooters than college players, to my eye.

I'm a 3-point shooter myself, but perimeter shooting isn't the be-all and end-all. Watching guards and forwards penetrate and get to the rim and finish with dunks and layups is incredibly exciting -- the league should encourage more of it. 11-foot hoops would eliminate that. If I played with 11-foot hoops, I'd just dump it in to the big guy in the post every time. He could still get an easy shot, maybe even a dunk or an above-the-rim layup.

As for Reggie Miller, anything that gets him out of the broadcast booth is OK with me. But what the hell are the Celtics thinking? They think they need more veteran shooters? More members of the 1999 all-star teams?

Posted by too many steves | August 9, 2007 6:49 PM

Why are we talking about this anyway, when we have the possible comebacks of Reggie Miller AND Allan Houston to discuss! Heeeee...

Our long national nightmare has...no wait, it's not Jan 2009 yet.

Posted by Pooh | August 9, 2007 6:52 PM

I agree with SLC here. It seems that if human height averages continue to increase over time, a couple hundred years from now we could be seeing dudes so tall they are practically eye-level to the rim. Given the increases in height over the years, the argument that changes should be made to preserve the spirit behind the notion of putting the basket out of reach isn't completely off base. I'm not sure about raising the rim a foot, but, you know, incremental adjustments based on some sort of calculation wouldn't be a bad idea. You've got to figure that the game was invented in 1891, when the average height of an american male was roughly 5'7". The baskets were affixed to a 10 foot high railing, and the ten foot standard hasn't changed since then, even though humans definitely have. The height of the average american since 1890 has gone up by over 3 inches, and, since 1950, the average height of the NBA has grown 3 inches, from 6'4" to 6'7". This has obvious consequences for the game.

Of course, you could argue that it doesn't really matter, basketball is an evolving game, there are lots of things James Naismith couldn't have anticipated in the future of the game he invented. But it should at least be noted that the point of putting the basket up ten feet a hundred years ago was to put it effectively out of reach. There are basketball players now who can touch the rim without jumping. That's pretty damn crazy, and it makes for something a little at odds with the intended design of the game.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 9, 2007 6:57 PM

I wouldn't go raising the hoop, though. Part of the fun is seeing how the game evolves around these behemoths. And if you notice, non of these giants are as dominant as, say, a Wilt Chamberlain in his day. 7'6 is trade-off height. You are going to be high, but have little vert and limited mobility. Do I like watching these donkeys play? No, but keeping them on the court is a risk and a nice added dimension to the game.

Posted by Gregorio | August 9, 2007 7:21 PM

Gordon,

So the average height of an NBA player has gone up by 3 whole inches, and you think we need to move the rim? By the way, the average height has been pretty much the same since the 1980s, so we're not moving any closer to that rim-at-eye-level scenario. If human beings are ever 10 feet tall, it would happen over tens of thousands of years, not hundreds of years. Evolution doesn't work that way; we're taller than we were 100 years ago because of nutrition and such, not evolution, and there's a limit as to how tall we'll get through those measures.

Posted by too many steves | August 9, 2007 7:23 PM

Widening the court will give more opportunity beyond the three point line near the baseline. There's very limited space on the court in that area, and today's team quickness allows defenses to recover from double teams on the post to the outside shooter. If players have more room to operate in the corners, perimeter defenders will have much more ground to cover and it will free up the inside.

If you have a deeper court underneath the basket, defenders can't straddle the line the cut off baseline moves to the hoop. When defenders cut off the baseline penetration to the rim, the offensive player will still be able to push the ball to the other side of the court on the baseline, rather than having to pull back on the same side of the court.

I think it's a great idea. But to raise the rim, you're altering a fundamental aspect of the game , and it will perhaps take a long time for shooters to adjust to the new height. 4 on 4 is just fucking retarded and tells me that you never played organized ball on any level.

Posted by Tim | August 9, 2007 7:32 PM

The reason I think the court should be widened is because we're always seeing guys step out of bounds when they're lining up a 3. There should at least be enough room to shoot a corner 3 comfortable. Maybe even enough room so the 3-point line doesn't get closer at the corners. Then Bruce Bowen would lose his one offensive skill -- the corner 3 that's not really a 3 -- and we'd all be better off.

The college 3-point line needs to be moved back about 2 feet, but that's a separate discussion.

Posted by too many steves | August 9, 2007 7:49 PM

Also, Tim is right that going to 4-on-4 is a drastic and crazy idea. The game is 5-on-5. The hoop is 10 feet tall. Mess with the other stuff, but those are the basic elements.

Posted by too many steves | August 9, 2007 7:52 PM

Re Gregorio

In actual fact, the post holding up the uprights was 3 or 4 feet behind the goal line with the uprights themselves on the goal line. The goal posts were not moved back to the end line because of players running into them; they were moved back because the distance and accuracy of soccer style kickers was so much better then the toe kickers that teams were in field goal range when they crossed the 50 yard line. The kickoff line was set back to the 30 yard line because the increased distance of soccer style kicking practically took the kickoff return, one of the most exciting plays in football, out of the game as kickers were invariably reaching the back of the end zone on the fly from the 40 yard line.

Re Gordon Lightfoot

Just as important as the increase in player hight is the great improvement in player mobility and athleticism. I would be willing to bet that the vertical leap of modern players is at least a foot more then players 100 years ago. Even back in the 50s' players 6' 10" were invariably slow and clumsy. Today, players that hight are as mobile and athletic as players 6' tall were in the 50s.

Posted by SLC | August 9, 2007 8:14 PM

mpowell, it's rather much later in the thread, but i have no idea where all these swell pitchers are that you think are populating major league rosters: there are maybe half a dozen teams with a legitimate 5-man rotation.

as for basketball, the issue isn't whether the world has plenty of 2s and 3s: it does. the issue is whether the world has plenty of 1s and 5s, and no it doesn't.

and i absolutely agree with those who are saying that basketball is a game of 5-on-5 with a 10-foot basket. widening the lane or widening the court are both, i think, legit options: i simply like widening the lane more because it would change floor spacing for the better.

Posted by howard | August 9, 2007 8:25 PM

Gordon,

So the average height of an NBA player has gone up by 3 whole inches, and you think we need to move the rim? By the way, the average height has been pretty much the same since the 1980s, so we're not moving any closer to that rim-at-eye-level scenario. If human beings are ever 10 feet tall, it would happen over tens of thousands of years, not hundreds of years. Evolution doesn't work that way; we're taller than we were 100 years ago because of nutrition and such, not evolution, and there's a limit as to how tall we'll get through those measures.

The average height of NBA players has gone up 3 inches since 1950. But if you assume that basketball as a game was originally conceived for people of average height to play in 1890, then the average height of basket players in the NBA relative to the height of players the game was originally designed to accommodate has gone up a whole foot. Now, we can quibble over whether that's the right way to look at the data, but it doesn't seem uncontroversial to me to suggest that the height of the basket was assigned on a basis roughly relative to the average height of the average male during the period basketball was invented, and that, due in part to average height increases generally, and in part to selection factors in pro basketball that favor height exceptional height, we are reaching a point where the 10 foot height of the basket no longer straightforwardly serves its intended purpose.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 9, 2007 8:34 PM

Since Magic Johnson essentially had Paul Westhead fired and replaced with Pat Riley, I can hardly see how Kobe would have been treated any different by Jerry Buss if he had played in the 80's. Buss has always doen anything to protect his stars, for the most part.

No reason to lengthen the NBA court, but widening it makes a lot of sense. I am however against raising the rim or widening the lane much, though I would be willing to have the lane match the international one and also to move the three point line back.

For the most part, I still love the NBA, though I do think the way the current salary cap is structured has really hurt a lot of teams ability to compete. Yes, it's typically because those teams make so many mistakes.

I do think a lot of old white men have grown to dislike the league because they simply don't like the way the black players handle themselves. And I think those old white men are simply out of touch and should be ignored.

Posted by The CarpetMuncher | August 9, 2007 8:42 PM

And 4-on-4 is the stupidest idea I've ever heard. Sounds like something a person who watches but never plays hoops came up with. Anyone who actually plays hoops has likely been in a 3-on-3 or 4-on-4 full court pick up game, and seen how terrible these "no defense" games can be. 5-on-5 hoops is a beautiful game, no reason to mess with that....

Posted by The CarpetMuncher | August 9, 2007 8:53 PM

The correct answer to what would happen if you widened the court is neither "courtside seats would be eliminated" or "cheap seats would be eliminated".

The correct answer is that the rows immediately next to the court would be labeled "courtside" and fetch top dollar. But the row that would be eliminated would be the last row of the lower level-- and the lower level in any NBA arena is basically the demarcation between expensive seats and moderately priced seats, because sitting on the lower level "seems" like a good seat to many basketball fans.

So a row of lucrative seats would be eliminated.

Plus, I should add, there are plenty of basketball-specific arenas in the NBA, including in Salt Lake, Miami, Oakland, Seattle, Sacramento, and Pheonix. In these facilities, there might actually be an issue with fitting a larger court.

Posted by Dilan Esper | August 9, 2007 8:56 PM

Someone said they felt Showtime was the pinnacle of the game, but I think it was Showtime vs. the Celtics that was the pinnacle of the game.

Probably the two best teams ever - or at least 2 of the top 5 - both playing at their peak and meeting in the finals every year, with big stars, huge talent, different styles, and true hatred of each other by both the stars and their fans.

Rivalries & match ups is what it's all about. This past year's finals was killed because the east was weak and Cleveland was unworthy. But that is just bad luck. It will eventually work itself out.

By the way, if McHale and Walton hadn't gotten hurt, the Celtics would have rocked the Lakers in 1987 in maybe the greatest series of all time. Alas, injuries happen. Just like they did to Magic and Byron Scott before Detroit swept them, and to Karl Malone, Rick Fox & Devon George that year the Laker's team of Hall of Famers lost to a lesser Detroit team. But that's the nature of sports. I don't think this years anticlimatic finals was any worse than those three years, except that the team that won, the Spurs, is one the public simply could care less about. Unless Eva Longoria is being shown in the stands.

Posted by The CarpetMuncher | August 9, 2007 9:10 PM

"One thing that's true of basically all of the existing American sports leagues is that if you eliminated some of the poorly-performing franchises things would be more fun for the fans of the remaining ones."

If that philosophy had been followed in the past in the NFL then Saints fans would have missed out of a lot of fun over the past year.

Posted by showden | August 9, 2007 10:24 PM

Some of the complaints that are made now about basketball have actually been made for decades, and concern features that are built right into the fabric of the game. Chief among these is that basketball is a unique game in the sheer amount of scoring that occurs. The drama in basketball comes from its overall ebbs and flows, and only at particular times of the game from individual possessions. Occasionally, you have a game that is fought so hard and so closely from beginning to end that almost every basket is dramatic (i.e. the Duke-Kentucky classic). But the vast majority of games are nothing like that. There is way too much sneaker-squeaking time in contemporary NBA games: long stretches where the crowd is relatively quiet, the play is physical but passive, and main sound to be heard are the shoes squeaking on the floor. The players frequently look bored, and who can blame them.

The low-intensity stretches are related to the extreme devaluation of possessions in contemporary basketball. The value of a possession is related both to the percentage of possessions that result in a score and the average length of possessions, and basketball has been designed to allow easy scoring and short possessions. Since baskets are relatively cheap in the NBA, the investment that goes into scoring one is diminished. I don't at all think basketball should go back to the no shot clock days. But they might experiment with lengthening the shot clock to a minute. Force teams to maintain defensive intensity over a longer span; and force offenses to be more inventive in working for higher percentage shots, with a greater stigma for lower percentage shots. If you raise the value of baskets you raise the intensity at which people compete for them, and you raise the necessity for higher-quality planning and playmaking going into each one.

Another thing that would increase the demand for high-percentage shooting is something that would make offensive rebounding harder, and raise the ration of defensive to offensive rebounds. When Mike Jarvis coached St. John's, for example, it often seemed to me that the general approach was to chuck the ball up in the general vicinity of the basket and then hit the boards, which made for an extremely ugly, foul-ridden, brick-laying style of play. There is a bit too much of this in the NBA as well.

I tend to disagree with the notion that the problem with basketball is that there is too little space on the floor and that the game might be improved by decreasing the number of players, widening or lengthening the court etc. The contemporary prevalence of boring post-up and isolation 1 on 1 basketball has a lot to do with there being too much space for individual players to operate. The creation of the three-point shot spread the offense and defense. Because defenders have to play two or three men on the court far from the basket, it is harder to play team defense. The one-on one isolation moves are the boring result.

I think an interesting experiment would be to move the three-point arc in, but slightly decrease the behind-the-arc shot premium. Instead of making a behind-the-arc basket worth 50% more than an inside the arc basket, as it is now, make it only 25% more. (You could do this by making foul shots 2 points, ordinary shots four points, and behind the arc shots 5 points.) By moving the arc in, players guarding a behind-the-arc shooter could more easily drop down and help on another player. This would make 1-1 basketball harder, and increase the need for motion and sophisticated play-making.

I doubt 4 on 4 play would do nothing to make the game more interesting. Anyone who has ever played 4 on 4 in a full-court pickup game knows what I am talking about. It would make the game a bit faster, and substantially increase the number of fast breaks, and unobstructed lanes to the hoop. It strikes me this would be quite boring.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 9, 2007 10:27 PM

I am NOT a basketball fan, though I sometimes play, so I will contribute what I don't like about watching pro-basketball.

As far as I can tell, the first half of most NBA games are meaningless. Scoring is so easy (Dan Kervick makes some good points) that a team can recover from all but the most lopsided deficits at the half. Arguably, only the last quarter of a NBA game matters, which is why most time outs are hoarded again. My question is, as a fan, why should I watch what is essentially an exhibition game (the first half) before the real game (the second half) starts?

You don't have this problem in professional baseball or professional football, where scoring is difficult but not rare. The NBA situation would be as if every baseball game was always 6-6 in the 7th inning, or every football game was always 23-21 or so at the half. However, you do have this problem in professional soccer, but for ths opposite reason, in that scoring is too difficult. So you tend to get games where no one has many chances to score until the late game, unless someone scores on a fluke play. And you also get a game that is fun to play but more boring than it needs to be to watch on TV.

Some of the ideas advanced above seem to be reasonable, but if I were the NBA commissioner I would first fix the officiating. A professional sport simply won't be taken seriously if the fans thing a good percentage of the game is thrown. Major League Baseball took drastic measures to address this in the 1920s, and probably still needed Babe Ruth to get past the 1919 World Series, and I think the NBA is in a similar situation. So fix the officiating before you start monkeying around with anything else.

But after that, I think possessions should be longer and scoring should be more difficult. So I agree with extending the shot clock. The other really good idea here is to have the fouled team always get the ball after a foul shot. Another possibility is to provide for "automatic victory"; if a team gets a certain number of points ahead, say sixteen, the team wins and the game ends. This would also increase the importance of the first half since a team that falls behind early can't let itself fall too far behind.

On a side note, while I'm anti-salary cap in principle, the NBA salary cap is so convoluted and weak (teams that violate it essentially can't sign free agents, in a league where long term contracts area norm and at least one roster-turnover trade happens each year), that it has little affect on the game other than increasing the gap between on-the-ball and clueless front office personnel.

Posted by Ed | August 10, 2007 12:17 AM

The reasons I dislike the salary cap idea is that the most competitive professional sport, in terms of a different team winning the championship each year, has been for some time baseball, which has the weakest "cap". We live in an era with a high concentration of wealth, meaning there is always a billionaire willing to spend too much money on his toy, even in a small market. We also live in the TV era, meaning that every team has a chance to build a nationwide fan base, witness the Atlanta Braves, for example.

So I'm not sure if there are any true small market teams, which if true undercuts any rationale for a salary cap. Add to that the fact that double city teams, which in theory can draw on the same market, tend to have completely different long term records.

Posted by Ed | August 10, 2007 12:24 AM

Cut down the number of fouls it takes to foul out from 6 to 5 and insist the refs call the game tight every game even if it means star players foul out. Do this through preseason and the first two months when no one cares and teams will adjust by the All-Star break.

Posted by Antid Oto | August 10, 2007 12:37 AM

Pretty much all (American) professional sports would be vastly improved by a shorter season. In baseball, play only five games a week over a slightly shorter season - say 100 games. Then the four-man rotation would be the logical choice, and the worst 20% of pitchers go to the minors. Basketball, just shorten the season so the playoffs happen in April-May, with a few more days off in between - lose the mid-season slog when nobody, player or fan, cares what happens in a given game. Football, I don't know - but surely 350-pound men are not supposed to run around in the August heat trying to get in shape. (Maybe shortening the preseason is better here.) Hockey, let the Canadians figure it out.

Shortening the season (either with extra days off over the same span, or fewer games in total) would result in fresher players, more intensity (because each game counts for more), and better overall play. Of course, it would also result in less money which is why it'll never happen.

Posted by five toed sloth | August 10, 2007 1:33 AM

"the NBA salary cap is so convoluted and weak (teams that violate it essentially can't sign free agents, in a league where long term contracts area norm and at least one roster-turnover trade happens each year), that it has little affect on the game "

On paper, it's weak.

In reality, about 90% of the teams every year treat the tax threshold as a hard cap.

Thus the NBA ends up with a very strong cap for all but a handful of teams. San Antonio just gave away a key player to a rival entirely to make sure it'd be under the threshold. Phoenix just paid another team two first rounders to take a key role player off their hands to get under the threshold. Stuff like that is how almost every team in the league operates.

Posted by Petey | August 10, 2007 2:40 AM

there still aren't enough worldclass basketball players to go around today

As a liberal, I propose a massive government program to address this.

Posted by rea | August 10, 2007 8:09 AM

You know, I didn't think about it before this discussion, but adding 4-6 inches to the heigth of the rim wouldn't be a bad idea in principle. There would be a major short term issue with shooting as people adjust. And it actually would probably cause a significant one time cost (think about all the hoops in america... you really want to raise not just pro hoops, but every hoop anyone practices on). But not a bad idea given the increase in average height from the time of the game's creation.

I still think that shortening the season and the playoffs is critical. Much more important than anything else.

Posted by IMU | August 10, 2007 11:05 AM

Actually, the NBA is much better than it was a decade ago. The league's partial crackdown on hand-checking and loosening up of the zone defense rules has brought back passing, ball-movement and up-tempo transition offense. How could anyone prefer the Rockets-Knicks '94 finals to the Suns-Spurs semifinals this past year

The leagues biggest problems are:

(1) The refs tend to revert back to calling the game pre-rule changes in the playoffs, giving the half-court grinding teams an advantage.

(2) The imbalance in the conferences, which has led to mismatches in 6 of the 9 finals in the post-Bulls era; and

(3) The season is too long, which leads to players coasting for the first half of the year.

Radical changes are not necessary, but the league should definitely needs to improve the consistently of the refs.

It should also consider cutting back the number of games and re-seeding the playoffs - although the Conference imbalance is going to eventually work itself out.

Posted by mhp | August 10, 2007 12:00 PM

Any time someone's argument is based, even in part, on the premise that scoring is too easy in the NBA, I know to dismiss everything else that comes out of their mouths on the topic: you have proven you know nothing about basketball, and rise to level of offensive ignorance on the subject.

You simply have no concept how difficult even an 'easy' NBA shot is by virtue of the extreme length and closing speed of the defenders. That the best NBA players are still nearly unstoppable one-on-one is a testament to how good and skilled your Kobes and McGradys and Iversons actually are, rather than an indication of a lack of defense.

/rant

Posted by Pooh | August 10, 2007 1:24 PM

my thought:

nba games are way too long because of all the time stoppages from fouls, timeouts, etc. i can actually watch an NCAA game because it doesn't take forever, the minutes actually fly by, you can watch the second half in less time than an NBA playoff 4th quarter. might be a problem with TV revenue, but i think people would watch more, even lame games early in season, if it weren't such a chore. (along these lines, going down to 5 fouls would help, assuming players compensate and foul less so few stoppages (and then you'd have the maroons who would foul at same rate, also be gone).)

Posted by dj superflat | August 10, 2007 2:44 PM

Pooh, I think it's safe to ignore anyone who says they want: fewer dunks; fewer points; or fewer basketball games.

Posted by too many steves | August 10, 2007 4:16 PM

hdzqi ubkojrte vzfpyqbgl dcsbinjr rtplqxva pcik gavobk

Posted by kszw wnhebr | August 17, 2007 6:36 PM