2023-24 NBA Season Discussion

[sp6r=underrated]

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.

I don't disagree it's a non-starter. But same with sports leagues trying to turn their customers into gambling addicts I wish it was something they consider.

[Owly]

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.

I get that there are different takes on this and different ways of doing things.

Still I'm not sure I'm following.

Its seems

Are you saying you:
don't like low-variance?
don't like tanking but think it's a sensible choice.
do like in season tournament,
Do like anti-load management.

I agree mostly that tanking is sensible in some cases ...

That said the variance on where great players come from is greater. Historically the 2nd pick has been flubbed on quite a lot. 2 of the top 3 players of "this generation" (NJ, GA, JE) came from non-lottery picks and even JE ... was picked behind Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker. Tanking only pay offs off if you draft well.

Otherwise I'd offer an inverted view of your opinions.

The best team winning the biggest prize and "championship" is good.
IST makes regular RS games feel less important and itself feel unimportant by doubling up: 'this is a "league" and "cup" match'. "This competition isn't important enough to have its own games" feels like the message. At least to me.
I think load management is sensible within the context of a system that plays a very long RS but doesn't celebrate RS success. I see the negatives but certainly it feels rational.

The second post has fewer teams in the playoffs, more in the lottery.
You aren't averse to a big, meaningful RS.
I'm wondering if I understand your view properly.

IDK, it depends what one thinks the (biggest) issues are, what models one prefers.

And in reality it depends what moves the league decision makers most ($).


fwiw, don't see teams giving up playoff games (probably not any games, pretty surely not any significant amount but especially not playoffs). Playoff games just about pure profit. The players are already paid what they're paid. Season tickets don't cover playoffs. If I'm not wrong on this that makes it pretty unrealistic, depending on revenue streams.

Tangent
In a knockout tournament eliminating a full round means eliminating slightly over half the games (being best of 7, this will vary slightly). So taking out half the 1st round is probably taking out about a quarter (though these should be less competitive series that are taken out - though away from pure numbers probably means, on average, fewer games with the biggest stars).


fwiw I would also guess 30 game RS would be viable as a business ... if it were what the biggest stakeholders wanted (and wasn't competing against the actual NBA). It would just mean a smaller pie for everyone and nobody wants that (not least the owners - some bought in recently at high values on assumptions of continued "normalcy"/value growth, but if players collectively really wanted it they could create/jump to a fewer game league).

[Owly]

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

But there's a cause-effect issue there.

Do few champs come from "out of nowhere" because playoff experience is valuable.

Or do few champs come "out of nowhere" because the league has long built in mechanisms to allow teams to retain stars, for good teams to remain good, for the vast majority of somewhat good on paper teams to make the playoffs and for the majority of all teams to make the playoffs (at times heavily so, arguably presently if one grants the play-in, an extension of the playoffs, as functionally part of it). Apart from rare blockbuster moves paying off (Boston) or injuries dipping a team's real power in the prior years (several) a team going directly from outside the playoffs to very strong, serious contender should be very rare (and to a title, obviously rarer).


You could add '47 inaugural champ Warriors and technically '49 Lakers to the list, though one could exclude them based on the BAA name technically or on absence of opportunity in principle.

[sp6r=underrated]

Still I'm not sure I'm following.

Its seems

Are you saying you:
don't like low-variance?
don't like tanking but think it's a sensible choice.
do like in season tournament,
Do like anti-load management.

I agree mostly that tanking is sensible in some cases ...

I was merely attempting to describe a dilemma the NBA faces.
For your questions:
Are you saying you don't like low-variance? No,
Are you saying you don't like tanking but think it's a sensible choice? yes
do like in season tournament? Yes
Do like anti-load management? Yes

[sp6r=underrated]

As an aside, the NBA could eliminate a lot of its structural problems by getting rid of maximum individual salaries.

Maximum individual salaries inflates the value of ultra-elite players which isn't a good thing in a sport in which ultra-elite players are already extremely important. And maximum individual salaries means a lot of franchises will find it nearly impossible to acquire an ultra-elite player via free agency

[eminence]

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

But there's a cause-effect issue there.

Do few champs come from "out of nowhere" because playoff experience is valuable.

Or do few champs come "out of nowhere" because the league has long built in mechanisms to allow teams to retain stars, for good teams to remain good, for the vast majority of somewhat good on paper teams to make the playoffs and for the majority of all teams to make the playoffs (at times heavily so, arguably presently if one grants the play-in, an extension of the playoffs, as functionally part of it). Apart from rare blockbuster moves paying off (Boston) or injuries dipping a team's real power in the prior years (several) a team going directly from outside the playoffs to very strong, serious contender should be very rare (and to a title, obviously rarer).


You could add '47 inaugural champ Warriors and technically '49 Lakers to the list, though one could exclude them based on the BAA name technically or on absence of opportunity in principle.

'48 Bullets technically too (dominated the ABL? the prior season). But yeah, I started with the NBA name (ignoring the first season).

Agreed that all those facts keep are why it's unlikely to make such a large team jump. But I wasn't trying to explain the why of the situation, merely showing evidence that is indeed the case. Teams walk before they run except in rare cases.

[Owly]

Still I'm not sure I'm following.

Its seems

Are you saying you:
don't like low-variance?
don't like tanking but think it's a sensible choice.
do like in season tournament,
Do like anti-load management.

I agree mostly that tanking is sensible in some cases ...

I was merely attempting to describe a dilemma the NBA faces.
For your questions:
Are you saying you don't like low-variance? No,
Are you saying you don't like tanking but think it's a sensible choice? yes
do like in season tournament? Yes
Do like anti-load management? Yes

If you don't dislike low-variance what's the issue? Predictability (if so you could always watch less, research less, be less informed)? Is that what you liked in best of five (less predictable)?

If it's just a prior description to frame the "dilemma" ...

Per above good drafting and tanking is good. But even with all the info a lot of teams missed the boat on recent MVPs. And a lot of teams through history have got very poor value from 2.

Per above whilst the NBA ... I would say chooses (and is certainly complicit in) a vision where the playoff winner is all and everything else is little celebrated ... (a) it's not the only possible vision and (b) it's much more their choice than the horn of a dilemma they are caught between.

They've flattened out the lottery odds somewhat recently so one probably needs time to see how that would affect things. Flat lottery odds have been in place in the past and could be again if one felt it desirable.

I'm not entirely sure I see the dilemma.

Aiming for 6th seed versus drafting a generational talent with no injury red flags (in a market they wouldn't jump from as soon as possible and maybe get out from once they're circa 2 years from the end of the 2nd contract) ... yeah that's an easy choice. But the 6th gets money in their pocket and a chance for another round and a slender possibility of beyond. And a team presumably at a level where they might be a move away from full contender status next time. And a team can have all the benefits of tanking just stay in the lottery for a long time because they're not making use of the assets a lottery gives them.

I think I'd like it if the NBA celebrated RS success and it felt less title or bust but I don't think it's some great concern for the league office ... I could be wrong.

(the nearest thing to arguably a "problem" I see along these lines is the North American major league system incentivizes targeting a window and perhaps sacrificing competitive integrity at a franchise (rather than player, and mostly more than "team" ... coaches don't like losing) level around that window. But owners (the people who formed and functionally make up the organization of the NBA) like certainty of top tier status, choose to have a lottery and choose to allow the trading of players for picks so I'd say they see it as a feature not a bug).


Don't think it concerns them (indeed per posts above I'm confident that ultimately, net, it doesn't) but for me I'd look to have fewer games but of higher quality. I could argue for other stuff but won't claim to know of unintended consequences, how it (realistically) would work NA major league sports.

[sp6r=underrated]

sigh this is why I put you on my ignore list. My mistake for wasting my time responding to you when you're primarily interested in critiquing people's analytical reasoning rather than have a conversation.

[Owly]

As an aside, the NBA could eliminate a lot of its structural problems by getting rid of maximum individual salaries.

Maximum individual salaries inflates the value of ultra-elite players which isn't a good thing in a sport in which ultra-elite players are already extremely important. And maximum individual salaries means a lot of franchises will find it nearly impossible to acquire an ultra-elite player via free agency

Yes. Though to an extent it depends whether one regards them as problems.

If you want competitive balance (and an "efficient" marketplace) a system with individual maximums is bad.

One can argue the costs and benefits of Bird rights too (do you want to keep teams together), do you want players "justly" compensated? Maybe scrapping the individual max cuts out some of the Bird rights trap - if you have to pay the genuine superstar what he's worth the solid 4th/5th piece that couldn't be replaced is likely negotiating for money from a smaller pool and this being known probably has less leverage to squeeze and so more directly faces the choice of good team or maximizing money.


I'm not sure I see it changing. IDK but I don't know who's motivated to move it. I believe owners fought for it in response to - for instance - KG. But with BRI percentages locked in it probably doesn't matter to owners either way (I could be missing something). A players union though is majority non-superstar and less pie for superstars and so a bit more pie for others is generally good for them. Unless the superstars threatened to walk to get others in line ... or actually did break ranks to form their own union or even league (which obviously seems unlikely).

[Owly]

sigh this is why I put you on my ignore list. My mistake for wasting my time responding to you when you're primarily interested in critiquing people's analytical reasoning rather than have a conversation.

Sorry you feel this way.

As I said I wasn't sure I understood you and yeah, as presently presented/understood, I just don't see it as a dilemma.

[HeartBreakKid]

The reason why the #1 seed wins so much in the NBA is because they play 4/7 games and the CBA is not balanced for parity.

That's promotional rules not the sport. You're not seeing much consistency in the NCAA.

[Doctor MJ]

The reason why the #1 seed wins so much in the NBA is because they play 4/7 games and the CBA is not balanced for parity.

That's promotional rules not the sport. You're not seeing much consistency in the NCAA.

I would argue that the NBA is more balanced for parity than college. Imagine if the Lakers got to recruit top college prospects like Duke recruits top high school players.

Of course that only illustrates how huge your first point is. Make the NBA playoffs single elimination and the #1 seeds would certainly win less.

[sp6r=underrated]

The reason why the #1 seed wins so much in the NBA is because they play 4/7 games and the CBA is not balanced for parity.

That's promotional rules not the sport. You're not seeing much consistency in the NCAA.

Very good points. I'd just say as a fan the owners decision to push for maximum individual/rookie salaries and maximum contract length is the best example of the owners working against fans interest. They pushed these policies to divide the union. These policies did divide the union. And by dividing the union they were able to reduce the amount of money that goes to players while giving the median player a raise.

But it encouraged tanking to an insane degree, made winning a title without a superstar in the team sport where superstars naturally matter the most, made getting off the treadmill harder and made signing superstar free agents very hard for most franchises by eliminating the ability of teams over paying for a superstar.

[sp6r=underrated]

The reason why the #1 seed wins so much in the NBA is because they play 4/7 games and the CBA is not balanced for parity.

That's promotional rules not the sport. You're not seeing much consistency in the NCAA.

I would argue that the NBA is more balanced for parity than college. Imagine if the Lakers got to recruit top college prospects like Duke recruits top high school players..

True. It is too engrained for it ever to happen in the US but I do prefer the Euro model of promotion/relegation over the US cartel system.

[sp6r=underrated]

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/274268/Adam-Silver-Says-Current-TV-Partners-Will-Have-Exclusive-Negotiations-For-New-Deal

Silver said that there was no real update on the negotiations, but that conversations have begun. He also noted that the NBA's current TV partners will have exclusive negotiations to begin the process.

I'm surprised NBA is giving exclusive negotiation rights to ESPN/Turner. Fox has been making a big move into sports, bought up the right to the Big Ten.

I could easily see them scaring ESPN/Turner to up their offer.

At same time, this may be an example of good long-term thinking. Turner/ESPN (as much as I loathe ESPN) have been strong business partners for the NBA

[Doctor MJ]

The reason why the #1 seed wins so much in the NBA is because they play 4/7 games and the CBA is not balanced for parity.

That's promotional rules not the sport. You're not seeing much consistency in the NCAA.

I would argue that the NBA is more balanced for parity than college. Imagine if the Lakers got to recruit top college prospects like Duke recruits top high school players..

True. It is too engrained for it ever to happen in the US but I do prefer the Euro model of promotion/relegation over the US cartel system.

Oh hell yes! The football pyramids of Europe are the absolute gold standard, and I wish we had it here in the States.

It won't happen here for a number of reasons, including the lobbying of existing bad major league teams, but the other factor here is the lack of bottom to the pyramid. In theory you can start a neighborhood football team in the UK and just win your way until you're atop of the very highest leagues. There is no such plausible starting point in American pro sports.

[sp6r=underrated]

I would argue that the NBA is more balanced for parity than college. Imagine if the Lakers got to recruit top college prospects like Duke recruits top high school players..

True. It is too engrained for it ever to happen in the US but I do prefer the Euro model of promotion/relegation over the US cartel system.

Oh hell yes! The football pyramids of Europe are the absolute gold standard, and I wish we had it here in the States.

It won't happen here for a number of reasons, including the lobbying of existing bad major league teams, but the other factor here is the lack of bottom to the pyramid. In theory you can start a neighborhood football team in the UK and just win your way until you're atop of the very highest leagues. There is no such plausible starting point in American pro sports.

My late father was a baseball nut. He made the point that promotion relegation was the road not traveled by MLB in the 80s/90s. He was a Philly fan and thought it was nut Milwaukee (Selig) fans felt entitled to a same shot at the pennat as team with large fanbases like the Phillies.

When they realized the players wouldn't agree to a cap he argued to turn triple A through Single A into relegation and go back to 2 divisions.

In retrospect he was right.

[penbeast0]

In theory could do it in baseball (AAA teams moving to the majors, bad major league teams moving down, A to AA, etc.), but stadium size, TV contracts, and demographics make it a less predictively profitable business model so it's very unlikely to happen.

[Owly]

I would argue that the NBA is more balanced for parity than college. Imagine if the Lakers got to recruit top college prospects like Duke recruits top high school players..

True. It is too engrained for it ever to happen in the US but I do prefer the Euro model of promotion/relegation over the US cartel system.

Oh hell yes! The football pyramids of Europe are the absolute gold standard, and I wish we had it here in the States.

It won't happen here for a number of reasons, including the lobbying of existing bad major league teams, but the other factor here is the lack of bottom to the pyramid. In theory you can start a neighborhood football team in the UK and just win your way until you're atop of the very highest leagues. There is no such plausible starting point in American pro sports.

It depends on ones priorities.

I tend to prefer a true league format.

But for those with concerns over predictability ...

Bayern Munich have won 33 of 60 Bundesliga titles. All the last 11. 18 of those since 2000 (inclusive).

In Portugal 3 clubs have 30, 30 and 19 league titles. Two others have one each. Those first place dominators also claim the vast majority of 2nds, with the 1 time title winners each claiming 2nd thrice, and three other clubs doing so once.

In Scotland Rangers and Celtic (in one city) have each claimed over 50 (top) league titles whilst the next highest teams have 4.

In Spain Real Madrid won 35 titles (25 time 2nd place finishers), Barcelona 27 times (and 27). Athletico Madrid are next at 11 (and 10). If you grant that Athletico are now part of a big 3, the last team outside that group to win the title were Rafa Benitez's Valencia in 2004 (and 2002).


In Italy it's Juventus leading the way with 36 titles whilst Inter and AC Milan each have 19.

English top flight title has had more changes in the dominant force but in the EPL era there have clear hegemonic forces for spells. Manchester United winning 7 of the first 9 and 8 of the first 11. Arsenal took 98, was 2nd for a spell then took the title in 2002 and 2004. Chelsea win 2005 and 2006 titles. United again win 4 of 5 (and 5 of 7). The back end of that era smears into greater uncertainty (from 2010 no team defends the title (Chelsea win 3, United their last two of that spell, rising power Manchester City two and genuine underdogs Leicester City 1 (their 81 points being comfortably enough that year, though those 81 points or +32 goal difference would not typically lead to a title). Now Manchester City have won five of the last six (Liverpool claiming the other, and two close seconds including gaining 97 points in 18-19).

France also has a greater historic spread but in the 2000s has seen two dominant forces. Lyon won 7 straight (01-02 to 07-08) and PSG have won 9 of the last 11.

The Dutch Eredivisie (pro era, top flight league) has seen Ajax win it 28 times, PSV Eindhoven 21 times, Feyenoord 11 times and 4 other teams win a cumulative 5 other titles.


This isn't to say I dislike it (I don't) but there are tradeoffs and if predictability is an issue then ... the format might be considered wanting.

(Then too the increasing financial tilt in favor of top clubs has meant they've felt emboldened to attempt a "Superleague" in recent years, and some suggest are getting one with Champions League changes, though without the embedded places the Superleague would have had.)

The oversight of the game including issues such as team ownership, tournament locations and perhaps the prominence of gambling where that is regarded as an issue are other areas where some can have issues, how much one sees these as intrinsic to the model could be argued. Differing fan cultures will also have their own pluses and minuses.

I can't compare it with AAU but these commercial operations pursuit of (often young) children hasn't always worked out for the best including some historic safeguarding issues though this will vary from academy to academy and from country to country.


This has tended to focus on the negative in part because the "gold standard" does somewhat ask for a bit of pushback or at least highlighting of the less positive side of the structures in place. But this is not to deny the merits of for instance local teams, true "league" formats but to highlight that there are issues and tradeoffs.

[SportsGuru08]

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/274268/Adam-Silver-Says-Current-TV-Partners-Will-Have-Exclusive-Negotiations-For-New-Deal

Silver said that there was no real update on the negotiations, but that conversations have begun. He also noted that the NBA's current TV partners will have exclusive negotiations to begin the process.

I'm surprised NBA is giving exclusive negotiation rights to ESPN/Turner. Fox has been making a big move into sports, bought up the right to the Big Ten.

I could easily see them scaring ESPN/Turner to up their offer.

At same time, this may be an example of good long-term thinking. Turner/ESPN (as much as I loathe ESPN) have been strong business partners for the NBA

I expect NBC to make a big push. With their loss of the NHL, their only current contract with the four major sporting leagues is Sunday Night Football. And it's their only game every week.

I don't expect Fox will get it since they've already got baseball and the NFC package.