Another Idea to Value Regular Season

[the sea duck]

this is a half-baked idea, but only because I haven't put more effort into it yet. i was mowing the lawn last week, thinking about how to improve the regular season experience. one major factor is players taking (too many??) rest days/games off. the individual games are perceived to be of less importance. from league mandating rules around resting stars, to how the games are officiated, to play-in scenarios and in-season tournaments, the league has tried to increase the importance factor for any given regular season game.

how about this idea:

seeding in the playoffs and perhaps even the play-in games remain the same. however, home court in any series goes to the team with the better head-to-head record. if tied, the overall season record is the tie breaker. and subsequent tie breakers work as usual, just with head-to-head as the primary home court factor rather than overall record first.

this will automatically increase the perceived value of any given game with any reasonably competitive opponent, particularly those within the same conference. teams will most often not know whether they will match with a certain opponent, or they will be uncertain of the ultimate head-to-head record for much of the season (some exceptions). this won't make every game more important. but it will increase the importance of any given game even just due to the uncertainty of that game's ultimate significance down the road.

this shouldn't be a particularly popular idea. but it isn't intended as an ideal solution, rather just another force that increases the per game importance factor (IPF) throughout the regular season.

all critiques welcome.

[Wingy]

Simple enough, seems logical. I don’t think it would ever happen, but I don’t personally hate it.

[UcanUwill]

But you can argue it diminishes reg season even more, as record no longer matters.

I do not like it cause, If you lost head to head match up, that means you probably struggle against that team, and now you given even worse odds in play offs, by not having home court, even if you did way better in like 70 other games... Just do not seem fair to me. Like I won 60 games, but this one team gave me trouble, and they were 42-42, but they have home court? I don't know, it seems bogus,

I am very pro idea that top seeds should pick their opponents (from 5-8th. seeds,) Top 4 seeds still have home court, but first seed get to pick their opponent, who they like, second seed does the same, third seed pick from 2 teams left on the board, 4th. seed gets the team is left on the board. It creates storylines and rivalries that NBA apparently loves, like - oh, they picked us, they think we suck, we will show them -.

But it actually makes seeding more important. Because imagine this year is good example, GSW kinda sucked, but at the deadline they trade for Butler, they become different team, and by April they were title contenders almost, but they could have been like an 8th. seed still. And to a team that wins regular season, your prize is possibly GSW in first round just sounds wrong. They should be able to pick their opponent. Then in round two, maybe highest seed left can pick again.

[Liam_Gallagher]

I don't like it for the Finals. Those teams would have only played each other twice, and one of those games is going to by on a gruelling road trip for the away team. I guess if it's 1-1 it'll go to overall record anyway, but I think it's too luck-based. I also don't like it because there are some teams you only play 3 teams in your conference, and others 4. How would that work?

I also think teams will still rest their stars against the lesser opponents, because they know they probably won't play them in the playoffs

[og15]

Sometimes you get a team at a poorly scheduled time, or when your team is injured, etc, and you get a loss. So you go 1-1, get a schedule influenced loss and it is 1-2 and they have HCA? A season series should not have higher precedence over your whole season performance.

If a team won a lot of games through the whole season, it means they were placing some sort of value on the regular season. I'm not seeing this as really solving any sort of problem.

[Saints14]

I think it’s an interesting idea to add value to premier regular season games, but I wouldn’t want the trade off of devaluing overall regular season record

[ropjhk]

I don't like it for the Finals. Those teams would have only played each other twice, and one of those games is going to by on a gruelling road trip for the away team. I guess if it's 1-1 it'll go to overall record anyway, but I think it's too luck-based. I also don't like it because there are some teams you only play 3 teams in your conference, and others 4. How would that work?

I also think teams will still rest their stars against the lesser opponents, because they know they probably won't play them in the playoffs

Better that they rest their stars in games against the bottom dwellers than in the marquee matchups.

[ropjhk]

I think it's an interesting idea. Maybe it could use some finessing but I don't hate the concept.

[Wingy]

But you can argue it diminishes reg season even more, as record no longer matters.

I don’t think this is true. You still theoretically want the easiest path to advance the farthest. That’s still going to be lead to teams wanting a better overall record.

Nobody wants to face squads like the Nuggets/Jokic, or that talented Clips squad in round 1.

I also think the one-off bad matchup you mentioned is a rarity.

[the sea duck]

But you can argue it diminishes reg season even more, as record no longer matters.

I don’t think this is true. You still theoretically want the easiest path to advance the farthest. That’s still going to be lead to teams wanting a better overall record.

Nobody wants to face squads like the Nuggets/Jokic, or that talented Clips squad in round 1.

I also think the one-off bad matchup you mentioned is a rarity.

this is along the lines of my thinking. that if you view every matchup as one that you'll want to win because of potential playoff consequences, you'll be focusing on achieving the best regular season record by default. if I want the best record head to head against all potential playoff opponents, that's going to be pretty much every game for most of the season (again some exceptions).

[the sea duck]

I don't like it for the Finals. Those teams would have only played each other twice, and one of those games is going to by on a gruelling road trip for the away team. I guess if it's 1-1 it'll go to overall record anyway, but I think it's too luck-based. I also don't like it because there are some teams you only play 3 teams in your conference, and others 4. How would that work?

I also think teams will still rest their stars against the lesser opponents, because they know they probably won't play them in the playoffs

yeah i thought about how this maybe only makes sense for conference opponents. but maybe not. while there's less impact playing a team only twice, there will also only be 2 teams that it ultimately affects. so teams could choose how important it is for them. but at least the underlying value would theoretically be there.

[the sea duck]

Sometimes you get a team at a poorly scheduled time, or when your team is injured, etc, and you get a loss. So you go 1-1, get a schedule influenced loss and it is 1-2 and they have HCA? A season series should not have higher precedence over your whole season performance.

If a team won a lot of games through the whole season, it means they were placing some sort of value on the regular season. I'm not seeing this as really solving any sort of problem.

agree one of the downsides is bad luck.

i agree with your last point as well, but that works both ways. if a team aims to have the best head-to-head record against as many teams as possible, they are also aiming for a good overall record. this way boosts the inherent underlying value of more games overall. since a win equals one win, but also is worth 25-50% of the head-to-head matchup.

essentially, this turns the nba season into a subset of many different in-season tournaments of actual consequence.

[Ssj16]

But you can argue it diminishes reg season even more, as record no longer matters.

I do not like it cause, If you lost head to head match up, that means you probably struggle against that team, and now you given even worse odds in play offs, by not having home court, even if you did way better in like 70 other games... Just do not seem fair to me. Like I won 60 games, but this one team gave me trouble, and they were 42-42, but they have home court? I don't know, it seems bogus,

I am very pro idea that top seeds should pick their opponents (from 5-8th. seeds,) Top 4 seeds still have home court, but first seed get to pick their opponent, who they like, second seed does the same, third seed pick from 2 teams left on the board, 4th. seed gets the team is left on the board. It creates storylines and rivalries that NBA apparently loves, like - oh, they picked us, they think we suck, we will show them -.

But it actually makes seeding more important. Because imagine this year is good example, GSW kinda sucked, but at the deadline they trade for Butler, they become different team, and by April they were title contenders almost, but they could have been like an 8th. seed still. And to a team that wins regular season, your prize is possibly GSW in first round just sounds wrong. They should be able to pick their opponent. Then in round two, maybe highest seed left can pick again.

I don't mind OP's solution but I always liked the idea of having the top 3 seeds pick their opponents. I think this is a simple enough of a solution that I think will have a net positive effect.

But ultimately, I think they should just reduce the games and make the season about 15 - 20 games less.

[the sea duck]

But you can argue it diminishes reg season even more, as record no longer matters.

I do not like it cause, If you lost head to head match up, that means you probably struggle against that team, and now you given even worse odds in play offs, by not having home court, even if you did way better in like 70 other games... Just do not seem fair to me. Like I won 60 games, but this one team gave me trouble, and they were 42-42, but they have home court? I don't know, it seems bogus,

I am very pro idea that top seeds should pick their opponents (from 5-8th. seeds,) Top 4 seeds still have home court, but first seed get to pick their opponent, who they like, second seed does the same, third seed pick from 2 teams left on the board, 4th. seed gets the team is left on the board. It creates storylines and rivalries that NBA apparently loves, like - oh, they picked us, they think we suck, we will show them -.

But it actually makes seeding more important. Because imagine this year is good example, GSW kinda sucked, but at the deadline they trade for Butler, they become different team, and by April they were title contenders almost, but they could have been like an 8th. seed still. And to a team that wins regular season, your prize is possibly GSW in first round just sounds wrong. They should be able to pick their opponent. Then in round two, maybe highest seed left can pick again.

I don't mind OP's solution but I always liked the idea of having the top 3 seeds pick their opponents. I think this is a simple enough of a solution that I think will have a net positive effect.

But ultimately, I think they should just reduce the games and make the season about 15 - 20 games less.

i like the idea of having the top 3 seeds pick their playoff opponent. but that seems to make the playoffs more interesting. this particular idea was to make the regular season more interesting, and it could happen in coordination with picking playoff opponents. maybe top 3 pick their opponents and their choices create a little more interest. because maybe there's a bad team that they for some reason lost the head-to-head to during the season. so do they pick a harder opponent, or do they pick home court advantage?

[wegotthabeet]

The problem with this idea is when a team goes up two nothing vs a team they play three times then they have almost zero insensitive to try in game 3. It’s even if they play another team five times and win the first three.

[the sea duck]

The problem with this idea is when a team goes up two nothing vs a team they play three times then they have almost zero insensitive to try in game 3.

in that scenario, they just go back to having the same incentive they have now. the game is worth 1 game in the overall standings, which still determines seeding (and maybe some other more advanced tie breaker scenarios)

[Lalouie]

if you have the mind stone you can alter people's perception of an 82game season into thinking it's only 40games

[bkkrh]

Sometimes you get a team at a poorly scheduled time, or when your team is injured, etc, and you get a loss. So you go 1-1, get a schedule influenced loss and it is 1-2 and they have HCA? A season series should not have higher precedence over your whole season performance.

If a team won a lot of games through the whole season, it means they were placing some sort of value on the regular season. I'm not seeing this as really solving any sort of problem.

Yeah, that would also be my major concern here. On the other side, it might even create the opposite situation than of what was intented. Let's say a head to head is already decided (2-0 or 3-0 depending on the amount of games), what's stopping one or both teams to treat this like an end of season game? The losers because they already lost home advantage and can rest their players for games where it isn't the case, the winners because there is nothing to gain for them in that series any more.

[Wingy]

Sometimes you get a team at a poorly scheduled time, or when your team is injured, etc, and you get a loss. So you go 1-1, get a schedule influenced loss and it is 1-2 and they have HCA? A season series should not have higher precedence over your whole season performance.

If a team won a lot of games through the whole season, it means they were placing some sort of value on the regular season. I'm not seeing this as really solving any sort of problem.

Yeah, that would also be my major concern here. On the other side, it might even create the opposite situation than of what was intented. Let's say a head to head is already decided (2-0 or 3-0 depending on the amount of games), what's stopping one or both teams to treat this like an end of season game? The losers because they already lost home advantage and can rest their players for games where it isn't the case, the winners because there is nothing to gain for them in that series any more.

I think people are getting too stuck on the HCA idea in a specific matchup. Everyone still has overall seeding to worry about.

I’m willing to risk a tougher first round opponent, and a tougher road to the Finals just because I can’t earn HCA vs one specific team?

That doesn’t make sense.

[bkkrh]

Sometimes you get a team at a poorly scheduled time, or when your team is injured, etc, and you get a loss. So you go 1-1, get a schedule influenced loss and it is 1-2 and they have HCA? A season series should not have higher precedence over your whole season performance.

If a team won a lot of games through the whole season, it means they were placing some sort of value on the regular season. I'm not seeing this as really solving any sort of problem.

Yeah, that would also be my major concern here. On the other side, it might even create the opposite situation than of what was intented. Let's say a head to head is already decided (2-0 or 3-0 depending on the amount of games), what's stopping one or both teams to treat this like an end of season game? The losers because they already lost home advantage and can rest their players for games where it isn't the case, the winners because there is nothing to gain for them in that series any more.

I think people are getting too stuck on the HCA idea in a specific matchup. Everyone still has overall seeding to worry about.

I’m willing to risk a tougher first round opponent, and a tougher road to the Finals just because I can’t earn HCA vs one specific team?

That doesn’t make sense.

It all depends on the situation you are currently in.

Cavs and Celtics both had at least 10 wins more than the 3rd seed and were way ahead all year. If the Celtics have won/lost their series against Cleveland, there is absolutely nothing to gain for them in the last game of that series, which was their 60th game of the season.

The West had this season 7 teams that had between 48 to 52 wins. So as long as a team doesn´t wind up facing the 1st seed, it is pretty save to say that there will be 2 very equal teams facing each other (which is also what we saw during these playoffs). So it really doesn´t make much difference if I´m the 2nd, 4th, or 6th seed and it might make more sense to win a game that gets me home court advantage and lose one that gives me a lower seeding.

Last season you had a similar situation like this in the East, with 6 teams having between 46 and 50 wins. Or take the West, where the top 3 teams had 56 and 57 wins, with a 5 game gap to the 4th seed. So a team might have a huge advantage based on how games are scheduled. Imagine a situation where OKC would have played Denver first and had already won/lost that series and then the following game Minnesota. This will not be a thing that will constantly happen, but if it happens, fans of the impacted team will (rightfully so) lose their ****.