2023-24 NBA Season Discussion

[clearlynotjesse]

How would you tier the WC right now? 1-11 are separated by 1 game in the loss column each.

[Colbinii]

How would you tier the WC right now? 1-11 are separated by 1 game in the loss column each.

Tier 1
OKC/DEN/MIN/LAC

Tier 2
SAC/NOP/DAL

Tier 3
PHO/LAL/HOU/GSW

Tier 3.5
UTA

Tier 4
MEM/POR/SAS

[eminence]

How would you tier the WC right now? 1-11 are separated by 1 game in the loss column each.

Strong title hopes
Nuggets (reigning champs, doing fine)

Expecting to win a round and be competitive from there (Clippers feel more urgency due to age)
Clippers (health concerns and rough to start, but rolling after Harden settled in)
Wolves (strong squad that hasn't proven much in the playoffs)
Thunder (above, but even less)

Good teams that should be happy if they win a round, anything more than that is icing
Kings (solid squad, see if they learned some from last season)
Mavs (Lively being such a good rookie has kept them in this 2nd tier)
Pelicans (they've been hot, but always find a way to let me down)

Currently concerned about making the playoffs
Lakers (for LeBron/AD playing well this squad has been terrible)
Suns (unsurprisingly it's near impossible to get KD/Booker/Beal all on the court at the same time, depth is bad)
Warriors (Dray has missed more than half the season and everyone is getting cranky with the losing)
Rockets (good solid jump from the young squad, but I wouldn't trust them over the more experienced ones in this tier)
Jazz (a fine non-tanking team, but not particularly good either)

I'd expect at least one of the Lakers/Suns/Warriors to make a jump (whether through trade, getting their guys back, or just finding their groove), but can't say which one as of now.

[AEnigma]

Probably agree with that top 6; expect the Pelicans to be in the play-in and lose out to at least one more experienced team — and that should be what the Lakers/Warriors/Suns want, because if it happens to be the Mavericks who slide down a bit, then you feel a lot less confident about “experience” winning out.

[Colbinii]

Probably agree with that top 6; expect the Pelicans to be in the play-in and lose out to at least one more experienced team — and that should be what the Lakers/Warriors/Suns want, because if it happens to be the Mavericks who slide down a bit, then you feel a lot less confident about “experience” winning out.

New Orleans would have been a perfect OG Team. Offer up Murphy III + McCollum instead of Quickley + Barrett.

[eminence]

Huh, they just called a play in the Boston v Minnesota game both a charge and a block.

[Fadeaway_J]

Huh, they just called a play in the Boston v Minnesota game both a charge and a block.

I've never seen a double-foul used that way. The refs explained it but I'm still dubious.

[parsnips33]

This game is a great example of why I haven't been posting much on here this season

But trust me I've been torturing myself by watching

[sp6r=underrated]

I think most of us know basketball is a low variance sport. But the extent is staggering.

In 51 of the 77 NBA Finals played, the Champion has been one of the two number 1 seeds that year. That is 66.2% of the Finals. And if you take into account the seeds 1, 2 and 3, they total the 97.4% of the Champions. Only 2 titles were won by a team with a 4 seed or higher

. 35% of NBA Finals has been two # 1 seeds facing off in comparison to the 20% of finals that didn't have a # 1 seed.

The last time a # 7 seed made a conference finals was 1987 and none has ever made a finals. 2 8 seeds have made a finals.

https://www.landofbasketball.com/championships/champions_by_seed.htm

This is why I sympathize with the Commissioner's Office dilemma. Teams aren't irrational to tanks and fans aren't irrational not to care about making the playoffs as a 6 seed. You really are better off landing a top pick than getting that 6 seed. At same time the NBA makes a lot of money from the first round. Even if fans on sites like this know it is a joke it gets good ratings.


Hence the commissioner's office problem. You're trying to force teams to care about something that isn't in their long-term interest.

Silver, who has impressed me more than Stern, made two good reforms. One a carrot: in-season-tournament. One a stick: making Load Management harder. Load management was really financial asset management so cutting it out made sense. And adding in an in-season tournament is a good carrot.

But the dilemma will remain due to the nature of the sport.

[Peregrine01]

Thought Murray might’ve been an all-star this year but he’s been pretty disappointing. Really don’t know what to make of a player like him.

[The-Power]

Victor showing signs of being a special passer. Damn, if he can be an upper-tier big man passer – which seems very possible right now – in addition to everything else he brings to the table... wow. I just really hope the Spurs figure out the roster and line-ups as soon as next season.

[Colbinii]

This seems more direct than any "LeBron Trade Demand" I have ever seen.

Steph Curry on whether he feels the Warriors need to show the front office by the trade deadline that this group should stay together: "It’s pretty evident that if things stay the same ... That’s the definition of insanity, right? Do the same thing and expect the same result?"

[tsherkin]

This seems more direct than any "LeBron Trade Demand" I have ever seen.

Steph Curry on whether he feels the Warriors need to show the front office by the trade deadline that this group should stay together: "It’s pretty evident that if things stay the same ... That’s the definition of insanity, right? Do the same thing and expect the same result?"

Watch the interview, though.

[Doctor MJ]

I think most of us know basketball is a low variance sport. But the extent is staggering.

In 51 of the 77 NBA Finals played, the Champion has been one of the two number 1 seeds that year. That is 66.2% of the Finals. And if you take into account the seeds 1, 2 and 3, they total the 97.4% of the Champions. Only 2 titles were won by a team with a 4 seed or higher

. 35% of NBA Finals has been two # 1 seeds facing off in comparison to the 20% of finals that didn't have a # 1 seed.

The last time a # 7 seed made a conference finals was 1987 and none has ever made a finals. 2 8 seeds have made a finals.

https://www.landofbasketball.com/championships/champions_by_seed.htm

This is why I sympathize with the Commissioner's Office dilemma. Teams aren't irrational to tanks and fans aren't irrational not to care about making the playoffs as a 6 seed. You really are better off landing a top pick than getting that 6 seed. At same time the NBA makes a lot of money from the first round. Even if fans on sites like this know it is a joke it gets good ratings.


Hence the commissioner's office problem. You're trying to force teams to care about something that isn't in their long-term interest.

Silver, who has impressed me more than Stern, made two good reforms. One a carrot: in-season-tournament. One a stick: making Load Management harder. Load management was really financial asset management so cutting it out made sense. And adding in an in-season tournament is a good carrot.

But the dilemma will remain due to the nature of the sport.

Great points, but of course there's a critical thing not mentioned here:

The only reason this is a problem is because there are so many games.

To add to the regular season sense of information game, shorten the regular season.
To remove the "yeah but they have no chance" factor, reduced the number of teams that get in the playoffs.
To add to the variance in playoff series results, shorten the series.

Pro baseball, basketball, and hockey all of have the too-many-games problems of course, and it stems from the fact that fans used to be primarily about attending games during the season rather than just caring about who the champion is.

And then as you say, basketball also has the "problem" of being a sport where the victor isn't determined primarily by chance. One would think this would be an advantage - the champions of the MLB & NHL are largely meaningless in the sense that if you simply had the ability to run the season back a ton of times, the same team generally wouldn't win - but baseball & hockey fans that exist today have come to like their sport despite the flukiness of who actually wins, so those sports don't have quite the same issues as basketball. (I'd argue hockey gets around it by the fans actually loving to go all the games, while baseball gets around it by having old fans who fell in love with the sport decades ago. There are costs to this of course. For hockey this means the sport will never grow that big, for baseball it means the sport is gradually getting less and less popular.)

Anyway, it's hard to know how to solve the problem for the NBA because logical solution is just not something likely to be seen as a financial option, but this is why I've long been supportive of an in-season single-elimination tournament.

Beyond that, I'm glad they're trying the awards restrictions based on games played. In a situation where you can't really tell someone "No, you have to play today no matter what shape your body is in.", this represents a consequence that will matter for a lot of players.

I think with the tanking thing, there is one bit of good news: Players don't tank, organizations do. Players will never be incentivized to go out there and play badly so the team can get better draft picks that can replace the players playing badly. So it's never really a situation where the teams are just going out there and mailing it in.

From there it becomes a question of how teams tank in practice.

I think it's pretty clear that if a team has nothing but young guys on their roster that aren't that good, there's nothing to be done.

The more egregious thing is when the team has better veterans that they aren't playing. We can of course levy penalties on a team for sitting a veteran without reason...but unless the player himself is against this and voices his objection, the team can always claim injury, and I don't see the league stepping in to inspect the players with independent doctors and then force them to be played.

And I don't see anyone out of this - other than reducing games - except to change the draft order more and more to sour the milk.

[The High Cyde]

This seems more direct than any "LeBron Trade Demand" I have ever seen.

Steph Curry on whether he feels the Warriors need to show the front office by the trade deadline that this group should stay together: "It’s pretty evident that if things stay the same ... That’s the definition of insanity, right? Do the same thing and expect the same result?"

Probably the only superstars not effected by crap rosters were Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki, even then Timmy was considering Orlando once upon a time and who knows what was going through Dirks mind seeing Nash flourish in Phoenix and himself being trounced in R1. These stars are ultra competitive with a short window to win. Of course this is incredibly surface level “analysis” lol but It’s coming as no surprise Steph has had enough, they are imploding due to factors outside his control (but he can start pushing his weight around, he’s been patient thus far). Bron at 40 years old is still crucified by fans and media when he demands better from teammates and the FO, I’m not saying Steph should as well, it’s just they won’t be playing forever and have a right express disappointment.

I say they trade Klay and Draymond, maybe even with the youngins and go all in this year. If they don’t make the WCF at the very least they should trade Curry to a contender of his choosing and rebuild.

[sp6r=underrated]

I think most of us know basketball is a low variance sport. But the extent is staggering.

In 51 of the 77 NBA Finals played, the Champion has been one of the two number 1 seeds that year. That is 66.2% of the Finals. And if you take into account the seeds 1, 2 and 3, they total the 97.4% of the Champions. Only 2 titles were won by a team with a 4 seed or higher

. 35% of NBA Finals has been two # 1 seeds facing off in comparison to the 20% of finals that didn't have a # 1 seed.

The last time a # 7 seed made a conference finals was 1987 and none has ever made a finals. 2 8 seeds have made a finals.

https://www.landofbasketball.com/championships/champions_by_seed.htm

This is why I sympathize with the Commissioner's Office dilemma. Teams aren't irrational to tanks and fans aren't irrational not to care about making the playoffs as a 6 seed. You really are better off landing a top pick than getting that 6 seed. At same time the NBA makes a lot of money from the first round. Even if fans on sites like this know it is a joke it gets good ratings.


Hence the commissioner's office problem. You're trying to force teams to care about something that isn't in their long-term interest.

Silver, who has impressed me more than Stern, made two good reforms. One a carrot: in-season-tournament. One a stick: making Load Management harder. Load management was really financial asset management so cutting it out made sense. And adding in an in-season tournament is a good carrot.

But the dilemma will remain due to the nature of the sport.

Great points, but of course there's a critical thing not mentioned here:

The only reason this is a problem is because there are so many games.

To add to the regular season sense of information game, shorten the regular season.
To remove the "yeah but they have no chance" factor, reduced the number of teams that get in the playoffs.
To add to the variance in playoff series results, shorten the series.

Pro baseball, basketball, and hockey all of have the too-many-games problems of course, and it stems from the fact that fans used to be primarily about attending games during the season rather than just caring about who the champion is.

And then as you say, basketball also has the "problem" of being a sport where the victor isn't determined primarily by chance. One would think this would be an advantage - the champions of the MLB & NHL are largely meaningless in the sense that if you simply had the ability to run the season back a ton of times, the same team generally wouldn't win - but baseball & hockey fans that exist today have come to like their sport despite the flukiness of who actually wins, so those sports don't have quite the same issues as basketball. (I'd argue hockey gets around it by the fans actually loving to go all the games, while baseball gets around it by having old fans who fell in love with the sport decades ago. There are costs to this of course. For hockey this means the sport will never grow that big, for baseball it means the sport is gradually getting less and less popular.)

Anyway, it's hard to know how to solve the problem for the NBA because logical solution is just not something likely to be seen as a financial option, but this is why I've long been supportive of an in-season single-elimination tournament.

Beyond that, I'm glad they're trying the awards restrictions based on games played. In a situation where you can't really tell someone "No, you have to play today no matter what shape your body is in.", this represents a consequence that will matter for a lot of players.

I think with the tanking thing, there is one bit of good news: Players don't tank, organizations do. Players will never be incentivized to go out there and play badly so the team can get better draft picks that can replace the players playing badly. So it's never really a situation where the teams are just going out there and mailing it in.

From there it becomes a question of how teams tank in practice.

I think it's pretty clear that if a team has nothing but young guys on their roster that aren't that good, there's nothing to be done.

The more egregious thing is when the team has better veterans that they aren't playing. We can of course levy penalties on a team for sitting a veteran without reason...but unless the player himself is against this and voices his objection, the team can always claim injury, and I don't see the league stepping in to inspect the players with independent doctors and then force them to be played.

And I don't see anyone out of this - other than reducing games - except to change the draft order more and more to sour the milk.

All good points, I think you're right that the number of games is high but the issue I think for the NBA is reducing from 82 to 66 or 50 doesn't really add to fan enjoyment. Even at 50 games the RS seems like a waste.

And going to a 20-30 game schedule is completely non-viable. You would more fan interest in the RS with a 20-30 game season but I'm very skeptical basketball could get the TV ratings necessary to make it work as a business.


First Round: I'd love to slice the 1st Round off Entirely. I didn't appreciate it at the time but one of the worse decisions made in the was ditching the best of 5 in 2003.

My ideal, semi-realistic playoff format would be

Top 6 teams per conference make the playoffs, top two seed gets a bye. 1 Day in between games for the first round.

1. This creates a lot more interest in getting a top 2 seed to get rest.
2. The NBA doesn't feel the need to absurdly stretch out the first round.
3. It doesn't cost the NBA much revenue since 1st round games compete against each other for ratings.

Baseball

I was a baseball fan who has basically fallen out of it. I think baseball's big mistake was trying to ape the NBA/NHL with a huge playoff field. The old Division Winner playoff format ensured you had to be a good team to win the world series. The World Series winner was a fluke but it made their RS really enjoyable. Winning a 7 team division over a 162 games schedule really was an impressive accomplishment on par with winning a title. That's gone now. And I think the atrophy of their fanbase is partly due to it.

[Colbinii]

I think most of us know basketball is a low variance sport. But the extent is staggering.

. 35% of NBA Finals has been two # 1 seeds facing off in comparison to the 20% of finals that didn't have a # 1 seed.

The last time a # 7 seed made a conference finals was 1987 and none has ever made a finals. 2 8 seeds have made a finals.

https://www.landofbasketball.com/championships/champions_by_seed.htm

This is why I sympathize with the Commissioner's Office dilemma. Teams aren't irrational to tanks and fans aren't irrational not to care about making the playoffs as a 6 seed. You really are better off landing a top pick than getting that 6 seed. At same time the NBA makes a lot of money from the first round. Even if fans on sites like this know it is a joke it gets good ratings.


Hence the commissioner's office problem. You're trying to force teams to care about something that isn't in their long-term interest.

Silver, who has impressed me more than Stern, made two good reforms. One a carrot: in-season-tournament. One a stick: making Load Management harder. Load management was really financial asset management so cutting it out made sense. And adding in an in-season tournament is a good carrot.

But the dilemma will remain due to the nature of the sport.

Great points, but of course there's a critical thing not mentioned here:

The only reason this is a problem is because there are so many games.

To add to the regular season sense of information game, shorten the regular season.
To remove the "yeah but they have no chance" factor, reduced the number of teams that get in the playoffs.
To add to the variance in playoff series results, shorten the series.

Pro baseball, basketball, and hockey all of have the too-many-games problems of course, and it stems from the fact that fans used to be primarily about attending games during the season rather than just caring about who the champion is.

And then as you say, basketball also has the "problem" of being a sport where the victor isn't determined primarily by chance. One would think this would be an advantage - the champions of the MLB & NHL are largely meaningless in the sense that if you simply had the ability to run the season back a ton of times, the same team generally wouldn't win - but baseball & hockey fans that exist today have come to like their sport despite the flukiness of who actually wins, so those sports don't have quite the same issues as basketball. (I'd argue hockey gets around it by the fans actually loving to go all the games, while baseball gets around it by having old fans who fell in love with the sport decades ago. There are costs to this of course. For hockey this means the sport will never grow that big, for baseball it means the sport is gradually getting less and less popular.)

Anyway, it's hard to know how to solve the problem for the NBA because logical solution is just not something likely to be seen as a financial option, but this is why I've long been supportive of an in-season single-elimination tournament.

Beyond that, I'm glad they're trying the awards restrictions based on games played. In a situation where you can't really tell someone "No, you have to play today no matter what shape your body is in.", this represents a consequence that will matter for a lot of players.

I think with the tanking thing, there is one bit of good news: Players don't tank, organizations do. Players will never be incentivized to go out there and play badly so the team can get better draft picks that can replace the players playing badly. So it's never really a situation where the teams are just going out there and mailing it in.

From there it becomes a question of how teams tank in practice.

I think it's pretty clear that if a team has nothing but young guys on their roster that aren't that good, there's nothing to be done.

The more egregious thing is when the team has better veterans that they aren't playing. We can of course levy penalties on a team for sitting a veteran without reason...but unless the player himself is against this and voices his objection, the team can always claim injury, and I don't see the league stepping in to inspect the players with independent doctors and then force them to be played.

And I don't see anyone out of this - other than reducing games - except to change the draft order more and more to sour the milk.

All good points, I think you're right that the number of games is high but the issue I think for the NBA is reducing from 82 to 66 or 50 doesn't really add to fan enjoyment. Even at 50 games the RS seems like a waste.

And going to a 20-30 game schedule is completely non-viable. You would more fan interest in the RS with a 20-30 game season but I'm very skeptical basketball could get the TV ratings necessary to make it work as a business.


First Round: I'd love to slice the 1st Round off Entirely. I didn't appreciate it at the time but one of the worse decisions made in the was ditching the best of 5 in 2003.

My ideal, semi-realistic playoff format would be

Top 6 teams per conference make the playoffs, top two seed gets a bye. 1 Day in between games for the first round.

1. This creates a lot more interest in getting a top 2 seed to get rest.
2. The NBA doesn't feel the need to absurdly stretch out the first round.
3. It doesn't cost the NBA much revenue since 1st round games compete against each other for ratings.

Baseball

I was a baseball fan who has basically fallen out of it. I think baseball's big mistake was trying to ape the NBA/NHL with a huge playoff field. The old Division Winner playoff format ensured you had to be a good team to win the world series. The World Series winner was a fluke but it made their RS really enjoyable. Winning a 7 team division over a 162 games schedule really was an impressive accomplishment on par with winning a title. That's gone now. And I think the atrophy of their fanbase is partly due to it.

Minnesota winning 6 of 9 AL Central Championships from 2002-2010 was so awesome as a fan and going .500 or better in 9/10 seasons in that stretch was a true "American Pastime" for me growing up. Great teams who never got over the hump but had memorable and enjoyable moments in this time period, starting with Torii Hunter robbing Barry Bonds in the All-Star game, to me as a 17-year old shouting "Derek Jeter has no Peter" as I was able to attend the ALDS game(s), to Joe Mauer winning MVP and trying to flirt with .400.

[Texas Chuck]

We have watched the NFL and MLB expand their playoffs in recent years. NBA the same with the play-in games. The NBA isn't going to reverse course now and contract theirs. It's just a total non-starter financially and with their TV partners.

[The-Power]

Teams aren't irrational to tanks and fans aren't irrational not to care about making the playoffs as a 6 seed.

I understand the sentiment but I'll add two thoughts here. First, this assumes that the only thing that matters is winning the title. Boom or bust. And while I respect someone having that attitude, I don't think we should see it as the only valid one when it comes to assessing success and experiencing joy. Second, making the playoffs even as a lower seed matters because it is a step towards the ultimate goal of winning it all. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither are championships for the most part. Participation in the playoffs, even when you lose in the first or second round, is part of building a winning culture and gaining the experience necessary to contend for a title.

[eminence]

Teams aren't irrational to tanks and fans aren't irrational not to care about making the playoffs as a 6 seed.

I understand the sentiment but I'll add two thoughts here. First, this assumes that the only thing that matters is winning the title. Boom or bust. And while I respect someone having that attitude, I don't think we should see it as the only valid one when it comes to assessing success and experiencing joy. Second, making the playoffs even as a lower seed matters because it is a step towards the ultimate goal of winning it all. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither are championships for the most part. Participation in the playoffs, even when you lose in the first or second round, is part of building a winning culture and gaining the experience necessary to contend for a title.

Agreed, I believe this is the list of NBA teams to win the title without making the playoffs the season prior:

'56 Warriors
'75 Warriors
'77 Blazers
'08 Celtics
'20 Lakers
'22 Warriors