2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[Texas Chuck]

Worth noting they didn't force him. He could have continued to stay away from the team, they just weren't going to pay him to do so. Nor should they have.

[falcolombardi]

every way that goes by the worst morey looks for not cutting his losses, taking brogdon or McCollum or whoever borderline all star he could get por simmons and run

this gamble of a disgruntled player somehow recovering value or in any circunstances getting them a Damián lillard was insane

the sunk cost fallacy is off the charts

[MO12msu]

Daryl has an ego and wants to clearly win every trade. Going to waste one of Embiid’s prime years.

[Doctor MJ]

Okay, do understand that the connection between fewer games and audience engagement has been considered something of a known thing for a long time. Maybe what was thought was "known" was wrong in your assessment, but the idea that the NFL was actually benefitting by only having 16 games instead of 5 to 10 times that many occurred to people in and around media for a couple of decades at least.

Do you have a source for this known thought? I'd love to read it if so. It's curious that you bring up the NFL considering that they just added another regular season game to the schedule. I don't think the NFL is a good comp for the NBA anyways though.

Well, here's one thing:
IMPACT OF TELEVISION
How television has changed the game.

Televised games fueled the dramatic increase in the NFL’s popularity and profitability. Fans soon set aside time each week to watch their favorite teams play on Sundays. Games were eventually added to other days and moved to prime time.

Now, there are reasons why football is more suited to television than baseball that go beyond the fact that its schedule resonates with our weekly schedule, but there is a reason why when TV networks schedule show programs, they always try to do it in a way that makes it easy to remember when that show is happening. The concept is called "Appointment Television".

I think you need to make sure you're looking at this not just from a perspective of whether or not you think it's going to work, but also from a perspective that some kind of financial squeeze is at work in motivating this newfound creativity.

We wouldn't be talking about this right now if the main stakeholders thought the regular season was doing great TV ratings.

I'm well aware that money is the main motive in the majority of these decisions. When I speak of things working or not working, I'm talking about from an overall interest generating perspective, which goes hand in hand with the finances.

Fair enough and forgive me if it sounds like I'm just stating the obvious. I'm just seeing folks who seem to be saying "Why are they monkeying around with something that's already working?", and the answer to that is: It's not working like it used to.

It's not working like it used to because people are watching less of what we would typically call "television programs" on major networks and cable, so network TV is feeling a bit desperate, and because the NBA still gets most of its revenue from network TV, they share the plight.

Eventually the NBA might find a way to better monetize its social media footprint and all this might become moot, but as things stand, the problem is significant and merely pitching "We'll play less games and it will make more money so keep paying us just as much for less programming hours." likely isn't going to work.

Re: better idea, reduce regular season to 66 games. I'm with you. I think they might be better served to strive to go even further, though 66 seems like a reasonable first step. I don't see this as a competing idea though. To me it just makes sense to reduce the regular season while you add a mid-season tournament, and yeah, I don't think adding more games without taking any away should even be on the table as an option.

Do you have an idea for how they could make it so that the tournament is not just a bunch of glorified exhibition games between 2nd stringers from both teams, essentially a 2nd preseason? Otherwise how is that any better than a random regular season game where one of the stars is doing load management?

From my perspective, the incentives for the tournament would need to:
1. Be lucrative enough for the players such that Lebron James, Kevin Durant, etc. would actually want to play with effort
2. Have enough championship incentives for teams so that the doctors won't look at this as an opportunity to grab some rest in the middle of the season.

Not something I've thought a ton about, but in general these players aren't skipping games that are going to get featured on national television are they? All you really need is for the Nikes of the world to buy in and the players will follow suit. Doesn't mean it will be a big hit, but I don't think you'll see players skipping these games.

I'd certainly encourage financial bonuses and playoff benefits - maybe clinching a Top 4 seed - but I won't claim to know exactly what the optimal levers are.

[MO12msu]

Well, here's one thing:
IMPACT OF TELEVISION
How television has changed the game.

Televised games fueled the dramatic increase in the NFL’s popularity and profitability. Fans soon set aside time each week to watch their favorite teams play on Sundays. Games were eventually added to other days and moved to prime time.

Now, there are reasons why football is more suited to television than baseball that go beyond the fact that its schedule resonates with our weekly schedule, but there is a reason why when TV networks schedule show programs, they always try to do it in a way that makes it easy to remember when that show is happening. The concept is called "Appointment Television".

Thanks for this. I don't necessarily think this goes hand in hand with the "fewer games automatically equals more audience engagement" thought, especially if we change the perspective from the NFL to the NBA.

Fair enough and forgive me if it sounds like I'm just stating the obvious. I'm just seeing folks who seem to be saying "Why are they monkeying around with something that's already working?", and the answer to that is: It's not working like it used to.

It's not working like it used to because people are watching less of what we would typically call "television programs" on major networks and cable, so network TV is feeling a bit desperate, and because the NBA still gets most of its revenue from network TV, they share the plight.

Eventually the NBA might find a way to better monetize its social media footprint and all this might become moot, but as things stand, the problem is significant and merely pitching "We'll play less games and it will make more money so keep paying us just as much for less programming hours." likely isn't going to work.

Right, I do follow these things and agree with the fact that the current revenue model for the NBA is based on TV deals and ratings. I was never trying to pitch, "play less games" as a solution. I do think there are jother solutions that I've previously stated that are I find more intriguing and have a higher upside than an exhibition tournament in the middle of the season. I understand that differing minds will disagree and be more enticed with the in season tourney idea than me.

Another related piece that I want to mention is that I really do think the NBA has a marketing problem. It's the first day of the season tonight and twitter is abuzz again about some NBA drama instead of the actual games tonight. That's how this league has been for the last handful of years, and while I understand that drama = social media content = good, I'm not sure how good it really is for the long term health of the league. For one, as you mentioned, the league hasn't found a way to effectively monetize this social footprint. Second, it takes the focus off of the actual game on the court, which at the end of the day is what you want people to watch to grow the sport. I could go on a full rant about how the NBA and its media personalities (former players) are atrocious at promoting the actual damn game but I'll stop here.

Not something I've thought a ton about, but in general these players aren't skipping games that are going to get featured on national television are they? All you really need is for the Nikes of the world to buy in and the players will follow suit. Doesn't mean it will be a big hit, but I don't think you'll see players skipping these games.

I'd certainly encourage financial bonuses and playoff benefits - maybe clinching a Top 4 seed - but I won't claim to know exactly what the optimal levers are.

If the tournament is for all 30 teams, are they going to get all of them on national TV? Maybe if some were during the day ala March Madness? I guess this will just come down to the format of the tournament. If it's condensed (like I picture most tournaments) then I just have a hard time seeing an incentive structure that could really entice the true veteran superstars of the game to exert too much energy for these games. Even if it were spread out, I just don't see how they would approach this any harder than a normal regular season game when the championship will always be the main goal. And if you're getting regular season effort from the players, why are we making these games a bigger deal? That's why I think it'll be viewed as gimmicky.

Your suggestion for the team incentive is an example of what I'm scared of. I know you just threw it out as a suggestion, but imagine if the Lakers won the tournament in November (I think this is when it would be), clinched a top 4 seed, and had zero incentive for the rest of the season. You'd end up with significantly less intriguing games over the course of the season. Those kinds of unintended consequences are what I'm weary of as well.

[Doctor MJ]

Another related piece that I want to mention is that I really do think the NBA has a marketing problem. It's the first day of the season tonight and twitter is abuzz again about some NBA drama instead of the actual games tonight. That's how this league has been for the last handful of years, and while I understand that drama = social media content = good, I'm not sure how good it really is for the long term health of the league. For one, as you mentioned, the league hasn't found a way to effectively monetize this social footprint. Second, it takes the focus off of the actual game on the court, which at the end of the day is what you want people to watch to grow the sport. I could go on a full rant about how the NBA and its media personalities (former players) are atrocious at promoting the actual damn game but I'll stop here.

I think the tricky thing in the end is that most sports fans don't have the foggiest idea how team strategy actually works in any facet of their life. The gold standard for monetizing sport is American football, and there's probably no sport where the fanbase has less of a clue as to what's actually going on, so it's really not about getting fans more engaged in the actual gritty details of play.

I think the truth is that the NBA was an unimportant league until Bird/Magic/MJ, and so it's not so much that they made a choice to focus on their best players as celebrities but that the choice was made for them when these stars became celebrities and popularity of the sport skyrocketed. But when your league's star is literally connected to stars, you're going to have a celebrity culture driving much of the mainstream popularity.

Not something I've thought a ton about, but in general these players aren't skipping games that are going to get featured on national television are they? All you really need is for the Nikes of the world to buy in and the players will follow suit. Doesn't mean it will be a big hit, but I don't think you'll see players skipping these games.

I'd certainly encourage financial bonuses and playoff benefits - maybe clinching a Top 4 seed - but I won't claim to know exactly what the optimal levers are.

If the tournament is for all 30 teams, are they going to get all of them on national TV? Maybe if some were during the day ala March Madness? I guess this will just come down to the format of the tournament. If it's condensed (like I picture most tournaments) then I just have a hard time seeing an incentive structure that could really entice the true veteran superstars of the game to exert too much energy for these games. Even if it were spread out, I just don't see how they would approach this any harder than a normal regular season game when the championship will always be the main goal. And if you're getting regular season effort from the players, why are we making these games a bigger deal? That's why I think it'll be viewed as gimmicky.

Your suggestion for the team incentive is an example of what I'm scared of. I know you just threw it out as a suggestion, but imagine if the Lakers won the tournament in November (I think this is when it would be), clinched a top 4 seed, and had zero incentive for the rest of the season. You'd end up with significantly less intriguing games over the course of the season. Those kinds of unintended consequences are what I'm weary of as well.

If they do it like they're already doing it in the WNBA they'll have a situation where regular season games count toward the qualification of the tournament so it's not a situation where you actually have 5 rounds of single elimination games. So there's a way to avoid having too many teams involved if that's considered a problem for TV. I would expect that literally everything the NBA is doing pertaining to this idea is going to be designed in conversation with TV though, so I'm not worried that they can't get the national coverage, because I think the TV networks are at least as desperate than the NBA is.

Re: how to get true veteran superstars to exert enough energy. Might be a problem, but I think in general the issue isn't that veterans coast the entire regular season, but that they pick their spots strategically. I must admit I've never done a thorough analysis myself, but I'd be pretty surprised if you couldn't find various stats indicating that veterans take games on national TV more seriously than average games.

Re: Tournament in November. I don't think a November tournament is what we're talking about here. The truth of the matter is that the start of the year is exciting for both fans and players and it's often the highest quality play we get to see all year from many teams (including those in the playoffs). If you want to get people talking about you, get buzz for an upcoming free agency, open people's eyes, etc, your best guaranteed chance to do this is at the start of the year.

As I see it, the NBA on-court season is built around certain landmarks:

Late Oct/Early Nov - start of the year when everyone's curiosity is piqued
Christmas - the peak moment of the NBA's regular season
MLK - a wider showcase than Christmas
All-Star Weekend - which people used to care a lot more about
Playoffs - the real season begins

I'll add that basically up through the end of January, you're still in NFL season, and the NBA knows it can't win that battle, so the time where the NBA really needs to be taking advantage of owning the American sports world is Feb-Jun, and the reality is that it really owns just Apr-Jun. What I'd imagine they want is something that really sparks interest in that Feb-Apr time frame where we're all just twiddling our thumbs waiting for the regular season to end.

I'd expect a situation then where you're talking about a tournament that's populated by teams who have been doing well and the tournament gives them a chance to state definitively "We beat all-comers", and to mention the WNBA again, that's clearly what they're doing over there. Not saying it's working or not, but that's what they're trying for.

I will acknowledge that any kind of post-season incentive will tend to cause the winner of the tournament to coast through the end of the regular season, but I'd argue that they typically already doing this. Yes there are specific moments where motivation based on a playoff seed or some other thing produces something beautiful, but typically the most exciting thing to happen to NBA teams in Feb-Mar is a major trade rather than anything actually on the court.

[Clyde Frazier]

Read on Twitter

Very excited to have games back but... Why does so much mainstream NBA coverage have to suck? This is legit embarrassing.

[eminence]

Oh baby, basketball is back.

[BIGJ1ER]

Read on Twitter

Very excited to have games back but... Why does so much mainstream NBA coverage have to suck? This is legit embarrassing.

People complain about casuals, but when they see mainstream media members putting guys like damian lillard in their top 5, how can anyone really blame them for spouting awful takes?

That is a terrible look for ESPN tbh, but it's not really surprising at this point.

[BIGJ1ER]

On a more positive note, really glad SVG is back in commentary, I really like him in the booth.

[falcolombardi]

hope jrue is ok

[HeartBreakKid]

Stephen A ain't putting a big on his list, their shoes are wack!

[eminence]

Strength in numbers may be back, Warriors bench looked quite strong on opening night. Lakers not so much. Oddly the trio of WB/LeBron/AD looked okay, but WB with just one of the other two did not look so hot.

[GSP]

Strength in numbers may be back, Warriors bench looked quite strong on opening night. Lakers not so much. Oddly the trio of WB/LeBron/AD looked okay, but WB with just one of the other two did not look so hot.

The trio looked like Bron, Ad and Bazemore

Bjelica looked like Jokic out there he's good and gives them a spacing dimension they haven't had outside of the Kd years. Insane how bad he was used in Sacramento

[Peregrine01]

Why is it that all the players from former Yugoslavia countries have such good vision? Jokic and Luka are the obvious ones. But Bjelica as well.

Mind boggling how many great players come from Yugo.

[Dr Positivity]

Warriors style of play looked light years ahead again. Bjelica was a great fit and Poole might just average 20 and win MIP (he was 22 pts/36 last year so it might not be too much of a reach)

[Colbinii]

Warriors style of play looked light years ahead again. Bjelica was a great fit and Poole might just average 20 and win MIP (he was 22 pts/36 last year so it might not be too much of a reach)

He also scored an astonishing 37 points per 36 minutes in the pre-season. He likely averages close to 20 PPG this season [For those who care about raw numbers, which is something like the MIP award].

Warriors are so fun to watch and I dont know if any other superstar could do as well there as Curry does. His movement off-ball was incredible.

I'm also impressed by LeBron. He made plays defensively and was in a rhythm offensively. Its impressive when we all thought he would start to have a major decline at 33/34.

[falcolombardi]

lebron and davis looked so good

now is everyone else job to do somethingh lmao

[parsnips33]

The amount of ground AD can cover on defense is ridiculous. Combined with his shot making offensively, he might be one of the best "2nd option" type players ever.

Melo was really really bad defensively, they need his shooting certainly but he gives up more than gets.

Bjelica has blown me away, looks like we got a 2014 Boris Diaw type in him

[The High Cyde]

Zion reportedly told over 300 pounds What the hell are he and the Pels doing? He’ll barely have a career at this point. Dude needs to get advice badly, but you can’t help the people that don’t want to be helped I guess.