NBA Competition Committee looking at how can parity be achieved between offense & defense in today's game

[kodo]

One of the best people in the world really qualified to comment on this is Luka, as he's played at the highest level in two leagues. He did say the NBA is much easier to score, and it is because of the NBA's specific rules.

"But when I said that [about the NBA] many people didn't agree with me. I think now they are starting to agree more and more, but I always say it's because of the rules. The three seconds in the paint in defense is huge, I don't think people realize how huge that is. Because when I'm iso-ing, I watch the defender in the paint because he's got to go out at some point. When he's going out, I try to attack."

We also see the really disappointing results when even our star level guys play with international rules. Team USA lost to Germany, and then proceeded to lose to Canada and failed to medal at all.

[dougthonus]

I wouldn't say players just stopped trying as a blanket statement, but in general defense has been at an all time worst the last couple years. Coaches like Finch and Kerr have been on record stating that defense has been legislated out of the game. Players like Doncic and others have also stated it's much easier to score in the NBA than in euro league.

Lots of people say lots of things that despite having tremendous expertise in their field, do not know what they're talking about. Offense is basically 8% better now, and the gap is basically all explainable through data by 3 point shooting and more early offense, officiating has an extremely small impact on that.

While they may complain about those things, they're simply wrong about it being causal. You can objectively measure the causes, and I've looked at the actual data to do so. That isn't the problem. It may be a problem, but it isn't the problem with scoring.

It definitely is a problem. You can go by any number of measures. Take TV ratings in the Finals or all star games, where we've had some of the lowest rated programming the last few years. Every team pretty much plays the same style, and there is no intrigue or clashing styles like there used to be.

Ratings in the finals are down massively from the Warriors dynasty, but they're up from 4 years ago, 3 years ago, and only slightly down from the previous year. The all star game is an entirely different animal, and has nothing to do with it. Ratings numbers in general are also swept up into all kinds of other issues, and there's no reason to think more offense is causal in that either.

There's a massive change in how people consume sports generationally and interest in TV in general, and all kinds of other things happening across the landscape. A better question to ask first would be "why are ratings down". I'd be absolutely floored if the answer were increased offense, increased pace and all teams looking the same.

The vast, vast majority of fans wouldn't even notice the difference in play or understand the playbook enough or watch enough games or watch enough variety of the NBA games outside of their local team to have any clue about those things anyway (even if we just take the base assumption that this is more true now than it was in the past which I also would disagree with). Higher pace and higher offense have historically been linked to more viewership across almost all sports, so to assume we've hit some threshold because it is now 8% higher that everyone hates it seems pretty wild as a way to fully define this.

Do die hard people hate it? Certainly seems like a lot of them are concerned about it, so maybe, but that's a god awful way to look at how ratings are formed.

[Ice Man]

Doug nails it. At its heart, the game is officiated as it was. Some tweaks here and there but basically a foul in 1994 is a foul in 2024, and vice versa. What has changed, bigtime, is that the game used to have a lot of dirty play that wasn't severely punished. Cheap shots and fights. But those were never common in the run of play, even back then. People think about those things -- stuff like Rodman pushing Scottie in the back with two hands -- when saying the game was more physical. No, it was *dirtier*. But the typical plays were similarly refereed.

The difference, as Doug says, is that players have learned how to shoot 3s.

1994 - 3 point attempts per game 9.9, 33% made
2014 - 3 point attempts per game 39.3, 35% made

Back in the day only specialists took 3s and they were mostly unguarded. Today, four starters in five take 3s, many times on the move, with stepbacks, with a hand in their face etc. The distance shooters are WAY better.

If you want to slow scoring, that increased skill level needs to be addressed. As does the modern use of pace, which dictates that guys take the first decent shot they see, rather than wait around.

[Gant]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but call traveling. Players can even take extra steps now, then change their mind and pass, and it's still not a travel. Current players are great. They don't need this extra help.

[dougthonus]

The 3 point shot isn't even that efficient anyway. A 40% 3 point shooter (which is pretty great) is getting about 60% TS% on those attempts, with league average for all scoring attempts at about 58%. It's boring to watch and by itself not super efficient. Although it does create more high efficiency shots (dunks and layups) due to spacing, long rebounds leading to transition points etc.

For a half court shot, it's one of the better shots you can get, and the best you can reliably get. More or less the best shot is off of basket cut (but not an easy shot to get), next best is spot up, next best is put back, everything else is significantly lower percentage wise and not even close.

[_txchilibowl_]

Doug nails it. At its heart, the game is officiated as it was. Some tweaks here and there but basically a foul in 1994 is a foul in 2024, and vice versa. What has changed, bigtime, is that the game used to have a lot of dirty play that wasn't severely punished. Cheap shots and fights. But those were never common in the run of play, even back then. People think about those things -- stuff like Rodman pushing Scottie in the back with two hands -- when saying the game was more physical. No, it was *dirtier*. But the typical plays were similarly refereed.

The difference, as Doug says, is that players have learned how to shoot 3s.

1994 - 3 point attempts per game 9.9, 33% made
2014 - 3 point attempts per game 39.3, 35% made

Back in the day only specialists took 3s and they were mostly unguarded. Today, four starters in five take 3s, many times on the move, with stepbacks, with a hand in their face etc. The distance shooters are WAY better.

If you want to slow scoring, that increased skill level needs to be addressed. As does the modern use of pace, which dictates that guys take the first decent shot they see, rather than wait around.

Your comparison of 1994 to 2024 doesn't suggest a higher skill level, only a change in strategy. They haven't learned how to shoot 3's, they've discovered a cheat code. And it's ruining the game.

[MalagaBulls]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Stratmaster]

- Enforce the rules equally regardless of the player in question

- Punish flopping instead of rewarding it

- Eliminate the stupid rule that results in a shooting foul if the defender lands anywhere near a shooter (it's called contesting a shot)

- Call offensive fouls when players lower their shoulder into a defender

- Call more traveling and carrying, it's out of hand

- Maybe test eliminating the defensive 3-second rule in the G League and see how that goes. I believe the NBA is the only level that has defensive 3 seconds, which contributes to why zone D is more common in college

This is just off the top of my head. It wouldn't fix things, but it would help.

You covered most of mine. I particularly think the flopping (the rule is there now; they just aren't enforcing it), and the foul hunting in general need to be addressed.

As you said with lowering the shoulder, if the offensive player initiates contact it should be an offensive foul, or at least a no call.

But I do think the 3 point shot, which originally added excitement, is now ruining the game. The difficulty level has to be increased. Start the line right in the corner where the sideline and baseline meet and add 2 feet at the center point. It will force shooters out of the corner. The true sharpshooter will still be able to hit them, but the average shooters won't.

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

Relaxing hand-checking restrictions by extending the hand-check zone to inside the 3pt line would probably do the trick. It solves the problem on multiple fronts by limiting dribble penetration, the effectiveness of slow big on fast perimeter player switches (i.e. the big can stay close enough to contest 3s instead of dropping back), and limits wide open 3s generated by collapsing a defense. Enforcing carry rules is also another option, but I can see that having catastrophic effects on game watchability.

I hate that traveling is pretty much allowed anymore. But I agree stopping it now could cause real issues. Same with "palming". I'm not sure players today would be able to play the game of they called it properly.

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

Thought about reducing the shot clock to 20 seconds? But it may just encourage launching more outside shots.

I would love to see more fast breaks in basketball. If teams were scoring 120 points because of pace due to pushing the ball, instead of just launching 3 point shots, it would be a more enjoyable game for me to watch.


Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

[CROBulls]

Thought about reducing the shot clock to 20 seconds? But it may just encourage launching more outside shots.

I would love to see more fast breaks in basketball. If teams were scoring 120 points because of pace due to pushing the ball, instead of just launching 3 point shots, it would be a more enjoyable game for me to watch.


Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

Just switch that inside 3 pt line is 3 pts and outside 3pt line is 2 pts. Bring hand checking back.

[DuckIII]

Doug nails it. At its heart, the game is officiated as it was. Some tweaks here and there but basically a foul in 1994 is a foul in 2024, and vice versa. What has changed, bigtime, is that the game used to have a lot of dirty play that wasn't severely punished. Cheap shots and fights. But those were never common in the run of play, even back then. People think about those things -- stuff like Rodman pushing Scottie in the back with two hands -- when saying the game was more physical. No, it was *dirtier*. But the typical plays were similarly refereed.

The difference, as Doug says, is that players have learned how to shoot 3s.

1994 - 3 point attempts per game 9.9, 33% made
2014 - 3 point attempts per game 39.3, 35% made

Back in the day only specialists took 3s and they were mostly unguarded. Today, four starters in five take 3s, many times on the move, with stepbacks, with a hand in their face etc. The distance shooters are WAY better.

If you want to slow scoring, that increased skill level needs to be addressed. As does the modern use of pace, which dictates that guys take the first decent shot they see, rather than wait around.

Your comparison of 1994 to 2024 doesn't suggest a higher skill level, only a change in strategy. They haven't learned how to shoot 3's, they've discovered a cheat code. And it's ruining the game.

Well, a higher percentage of success on significantly higher attempts is pretty convincing evidence of increased skill. Plus when you go beyond the stats and see how much the degree of difficulty on these shots is now concurrently with the increased efficiency and it’s basically impossible to say there has not been just an increase in skill level, but a massive increase, along with the strategic change.

Indeed I think it’s likely that the strategic change was driven by the skill change, but hard to say for sure and the chicken/egg part is not really pertinent to the point.

[DuckIII]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Good to see. I’m of the opinion that the solution is based on how officials call the defensive game and, hopefully soon, the NBA taking the reigns off defensive coaches and allow them to play essentially any kind of defense they want.

Other than that it’s going to be based on mathematically reducing the value of a 3 relative to a 2. Because skills don’t erode collectively over time. They just continue to improve.

[coldfish]

Shrink the rim diameter by 1 cm?

My theory is that would disproportionately impact range shooting vs. scoring inside, encouraging more balanced play and reducing reliance on the 3.

Came in here to post this. Any referee based solution isn't going to work. The game has to fundamentally change to account for the radical increase in shooting acumen amongst the players.

[RagingBull316]

Bring back hand checking, and start calling carry's and traveling again and that will fix most the problems. If you can play guys physical on the perimeter, you aren't going to get as many open 3's. Same with if you cut down on all these bogus carry's, combined with endless crab dribbles/gather steps. If you actually call a travel or offensive foul on the players who travel and push and shove their way down the lane it will take away a lot of the wide open kickout 3's as well. When you go back and watch games from the 90s and early 2000's it's clear how much the game has changed, and it's not for the better.

[Risk Addict]

Fact checked

[dougthonus]

Shrink the rim diameter by 1 cm?

My theory is that would disproportionately impact range shooting vs. scoring inside, encouraging more balanced play and reducing reliance on the 3.

Came in here to post this. Any referee based solution isn't going to work. The game has to fundamentally change to account for the radical increase in shooting acumen amongst the players.

Shrinking the rim is an interesting idea, but I think you'd hurt mid range shots more than 3s. A smaller rim will hurt lower arcing shots more than higher arcing shots. Generally 3s have more arc on them.

Either way, in the end, if you want to change the offensive styles, you need to change the value proposition of different shots, but in the end, in this day of analytics, it's probably really hard to create a game that has wildly divergent but similarly successful strategies.

As humans, we're so advanced now an analytical breakdowns that whatever meta emerges, teams will copy it. Now, if you can find a meta that's more entertaining to fans, go for it.

[coldfish]

Shrink the rim diameter by 1 cm?

My theory is that would disproportionately impact range shooting vs. scoring inside, encouraging more balanced play and reducing reliance on the 3.

Came in here to post this. Any referee based solution isn't going to work. The game has to fundamentally change to account for the radical increase in shooting acumen amongst the players.

Shrinking the rim is an interesting idea, but I think you'd hurt mid range shots more than 3s. A smaller rim will hurt lower arcing shots more than higher arcing shots. Generally 3s have more arc on them.

Either way, in the end, if you want to change the offensive styles, you need to change the value proposition of different shots, but in the end, in this day of analytics, it's probably really hard to create a game that has wildly divergent but similarly successful strategies.

As humans, we're so advanced now an analytical breakdowns that whatever meta emerges, teams will copy it. Now, if you can find a meta that's more entertaining to fans, go for it.

I believe you and I have discussed this before but the analytics on 3's are just broken. They shouldn't be worth 50% more than a mid range shot. People's brains would explode, but it should be a 2.5 point shot. I suspect that if you did the analytics based on that point value, the whole floor would look more even.

That said, the offense would still be overpowering the defense. They would just get less points for doing so.

[Ice Man]

I wonder if the 3 point line is even necessary. The point of the line was to pull shooters away from the basket, so that all the offenses wouldn't congregate within 15 feet of the basket. Well ... you don't need the 3-point reward any more to do that, because the shooters have become so good! If you look at the stats on NBA.com, teams tend to shoot about the same % on wide open 3s than they do with tightly guarded 2s. And better than with very tightly guarded 3s.

Basically, without the 3 point line, teams would first try to get a fast break shot (as they do now). And then within the half court, they would seek an open shot from the closest position possible, but if they didn't get an open 2 point shot they might well take an open 3 rather than attempt a guarded 2 point shot.

[dougthonus]

I believe you and I have discussed this before but the analytics on 3's are just broken. They shouldn't be worth 50% more than a mid range shot. People's brains would explode, but it should be a 2.5 point shot. I suspect that if you did the analytics based on that point value, the whole floor would look more even.

That said, the offense would still be overpowering the defense. They would just get less points for doing so.

Yeah, I agree that would drive more parity (and we'd never do it).

To be honest, I don't think the offense is even really a problem at all anyway. I think people saying this is why ratings are down are chock full of fundamental attribution error.