PC Board OT thread

[Texas Chuck]

I know this is a major issue for you, but I'm not at all convinced the European model is superior to the American model and I think the major sports leagues would need to be concerned about losing their limited antitrust exemption status.

The NBA business model is built on national broadcasting rights. Changing to your system would quite likely lead teams like the Lakers, Knicks, Mavs(Cuban has his own channels already) etc to negotiate their own broadcast rights effectively killing the league.

I understand one's love for free market ideas and I'm not opposed to them in principle, but I think executing a transition would be nearly impossible and like end the NBA as we know it.

[sp6r=underrated]

IF it is true that the NBA forced Colangelo on the Sixers it is a classic case of treating the symptom and not the disease. NBA teams will always have an incentive to tank if there is (i) RBI, (ii) Salary Cap, (iii) revenue sharing and most importantly (iv) a Player's Draft. Promotion/Relegation would do wonders for North American sports.

Currently we deride a team if they have the 9th best record in the NBA over a five year span as a treadmill team with fans calling for them to get the worse record in the league ("blow it up"). This is because NA sports cartel set up ensures there is no real consequence for losing and fact huge rewards for doing so. As a result fans have developed a title or bust mindset that is harmful.

In reality having the ninth best record in basketball is a tremendous accomplishment that should be celebrated not derided. Promotion/relegation gives every team something to play for and makes every game meaningful. I doubt it would ever happen but I would love for NA sports to go that route.

I am confident that the salary cap and players draft will be severely weakened because of the growing popularity of European basketball.

RE: Promotion/relegation. What does that mean? Does that mean the best teams that didn't make the playoffs get the best chance at the 1st pick? Because that'd be awesome.

Relegation involves kicking the bottom teams out of the league and promoting the top teams. I'll use the 00s as an example. Most basketball insiders concede that from 01-03 the West was far superior to the East. Let's treat them as separate leagues (levels is the right term) with the west above the East with two teams from each being relegated promoted.

After 01, the 76ers and Bucks would have been promoted to the WC based on having the top two records. GS and Vancouver would have been relegated to the EC. The bottom two EC teams would have been relegated to the next lower league (level) while the top two would be promoted. So on and so far.

Every team is playing for something now. Rather than trying to lose everyone wants to win. Under our current system, if the Lakers and Sixers played each other at the end of season no one would care but fans of the two teams who probably want to lose to get a higher pick. Coaches would probably do what Minnesota did when they let Madsen chuck a bunch of threes at the end of the game to lose and keep a pick.

In a promotion relegation system in which the loser would be relegated the stakes would be yuge as the GOP frontrunner would say. Both owners would have massive amounts of money on the line. Both fanbases would passionately watch the game hoping their team wins so they stay in the top level.

Which sounds more entertaining to you?

[sp6r=underrated]

I know this is a major issue for you, but I'm not at all convinced the European model is superior to the American model and I think the major sports leagues would need to be concerned about losing their limited antitrust exemption status.

The NBA business model is built on national broadcasting rights. Changing to your system would quite likely lead teams like the Lakers, Knicks, Mavs(Cuban has his own channels already) etc to negotiate their own broadcast rights effectively killing the league.

I understand one's love for free market ideas and I'm not opposed to them in principle, but I think executing a transition would be nearly impossible and like end the NBA as we know it.

I agree it is both unlikely and would require a difficult transition. Nonetheless, I've grown to despise the NA system which rewards sustained incompetence and seeks to punish teams that excel. There are significant benefits to talking about ideal rather than the immediate.

Donald Sterling would have been eradicated or forced to change if he wanted to stay in the top level. For years he invested no money in the team, hired few scounts and allowed an incompetent to serve as GM. He was able to do so because there was no threat to him. The Clippers were guaranteed to stay in the NBA if they were good or bad. The NBA's territorial rules for franchises meant that even LA with the Lakers was a great deal because no other club could move to the territory and take his market share. In a relegation system none of this would have gone on for years. He would either try and fail or continue on his course and suffer relegation. Either would be preferable to what we had.

The three point shot would have been utilized far quicker because one of the weaker clubs would have turned to it in attempt to make up for their talent disadvantage. Eventually one of them would have figured it out and it would have spread to other clubs. Instead it was and orphan for a decade because there is less of an incentive to experiment with strategy. In a relegation system in which survival is on the line experimentation will occur at a higher rate.

The internationalization of basketball is slowed by a players draft. With a draft clubs have no incentive to go abroad and find top notch young men who would be good at basketball because when you find them they would still have to declare for the draft with only a one in thirty chance of keeping that player. Without a draft teams would search the globe for top players spreading the game we love everywhere. Nigeria has a population of 182 million people. Only 6 people born in Nigeria have played in the NBA. I feel extremely comfortable in stating there is a wealth of untapped basketball talent in that country that we will never in part because of the draft. This is bad for us as basketball fans and worse for the potential players who are trapped in poverty.

The current system blows. Hopefully internationalization of the game will at least get cause the cap and luxury tax to weaken.

As an aside, I'm far from a free market enthusiast. I don't even think there are a such thing. The free market rhetoric in the US is mostly used to get the working classes to vote against their own interest. When the bankers actually faced economic ruin, the WSJ Editorial Page and the rest of that crowd were screaming for government action.

[E-Balla]

Just got a notification that Hot Rod passed. RIP big fella.

[dontcalltimeout]

So, teams have played an average of 22 games. Not super scientific, but interesting to look at where we are ITO stabilization of things like opponent four factors, etc. Some of these are just different over time, but we should see the variances of opponent eFG%, opponent TOV% drop, and opponent DRB% drop a bit.

[dontcalltimeout]

Just got a notification that Hot Rod passed. RIP big fella.

Wow, he was only 53. RIP

[MisterHibachi]

We might have 3 guys finish over 30 PER this year. Right now Curry, WB, and KD all over the 30 mark. KD's barely over right now, but he's probably gonna go on a January tear to raise it up bit.

2009 is the only season with multiple guys over 30: LeBron and Wade. CP too if you round up.

[Quotatious]

We might have 3 guys finish over 30 PER this year. Right now Curry, WB, and KD all over the 30 mark. KD's barely over right now, but he's probably gonna go on a January tear to raise it up bit.

2009 is the only season with multiple guys over 30: LeBron and Wade. CP too if you round up.

Another proof that we're witnessing a GREAT era of basketball right now.

[MisterHibachi]

We might have 3 guys finish over 30 PER this year. Right now Curry, WB, and KD all over the 30 mark. KD's barely over right now, but he's probably gonna go on a January tear to raise it up bit.

2009 is the only season with multiple guys over 30: LeBron and Wade. CP too if you round up.

Another proof that we're witnessing a GREAT era of basketball right now.

Agree that this is one of the, if not THE, greatest eras of basketball.

But I don't think this is evidence. I believe PER is pegged to league average, so this just means 3 guys instead of the usual 1 has separated themselves from the pack. So could be used as an argument against this being a great era if there's more outlier players according to PER.

[Quotatious]

We might have 3 guys finish over 30 PER this year. Right now Curry, WB, and KD all over the 30 mark. KD's barely over right now, but he's probably gonna go on a January tear to raise it up bit.

2009 is the only season with multiple guys over 30: LeBron and Wade. CP too if you round up.

Another proof that we're witnessing a GREAT era of basketball right now.

Agree that this is one of the, if not THE, greatest eras of basketball.

But I don't think this is evidence. I believe PER is pegged to league average, so this just means 3 guys instead of the usual 1 has separated themselves from the pack. So could be used as an argument against this being a great era if there's more outlier players according to PER.

Very good point, but if you look at the list of players who had at least 25 PER in a season, you can see that years like 1990 (or 1991), 2006 and 2016 have more of those than other years, and it correlates with overall condition of the league, to a very high degree.

[Clyde Frazier]

[youtube]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cPtV0omYVzI&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

RIP, Hot Rod.

[ronnymac2]

Relegation involves kicking the bottom teams out of the league and promoting the top teams. I'll use the 00s as an example. Most basketball insiders concede that from 01-03 the West was far superior to the East. Let's treat them as separate leagues (levels is the right term) with the west above the East with two teams from each being relegated promoted.

After 01, the 76ers and Bucks would have been promoted to the WC based on having the top two records. GS and Vancouver would have been relegated to the EC. The bottom two EC teams would have been relegated to the next lower league (level) while the top two would be promoted. So on and so far.

Every team is playing for something now. Rather than trying to lose everyone wants to win. Under our current system, if the Lakers and Sixers played each other at the end of season no one would care but fans of the two teams who probably want to lose to get a higher pick. Coaches would probably do what Minnesota did when they let Madsen chuck a bunch of threes at the end of the game to lose and keep a pick.

In a promotion relegation system in which the loser would be relegated the stakes would be yuge as the GOP frontrunner would say. Both owners would have massive amounts of money on the line. Both fanbases would passionately watch the game hoping their team wins so they stay in the top level.

Which sounds more entertaining to you?

OK gotcha. Yeah that would keep owners/management as motivated to keep a winner on the court as fans are.

Would be fun to watch if implemented, and I say that even as a Knicks fan who knows owner engagement/money can take a terrifying decades-long turn for the worst.

[ronnymac2]

Any MMA/UFC fans excited for UFC 194? Predictions?

[HeartBreakKid]

IF it is true that the NBA forced Colangelo on the Sixers it is a classic case of treating the symptom and not the disease. NBA teams will always have an incentive to tank if there is (i) RBI, (ii) Salary Cap, (iii) revenue sharing and most importantly (iv) a Player's Draft. Promotion/Relegation would do wonders for North American sports.

Currently we deride a team if they have the 9th best record in the NBA over a five year span as a treadmill team with fans calling for them to get the worse record in the league ("blow it up"). This is because NA sports cartel set up ensures there is no real consequence for losing and fact huge rewards for doing so. As a result fans have developed a title or bust mindset that is harmful.

In reality having the ninth best record in basketball is a tremendous accomplishment that should be celebrated not derided. Promotion/relegation gives every team something to play for and makes every game meaningful. I doubt it would ever happen but I would love for NA sports to go that route.

I am confident that the salary cap and players draft will be severely weakened because of the growing popularity of European basketball.

What would be there to promote and relegate? There isn't enough talent to have a plausible B-league to send the worst teams down too.

[Quotatious]

.

Nice to see you back on the board, man.

[ronnymac2]

.

Nice to see you back on the board, man.

Thanks Q!

[ceiling raiser]

While I have been more excited on a team-level about this Lakers squad for than any iteration in recent memory (probably going back to the Shaq days, though I'm sure I've deluded myself into overrating the potential of Russell & Randle ), in general over the last decade, I feel I've become less of a team fan, and more of a fan of good basketball (and I think some in the media, particularly Lowe, have described a similar phenomenon).

I've spoken with Paulie about this some (and I think we agree), and a lot of this extends to the front office level. In a game in which you don't have rooting interest as a fan, t's difficult to root for backwards or generally poorly-managed organizations. As much as I've been a proponent of CP3, it's difficult to support that franchise, because as an outsider, it really gives seems that the organization is run poorly. Could be completely off-base, and a lot of this is winning bias, but you have to wonder if the front office is squandering an opportunity, now in its fifth consecutive year with two guys who are conservatively among the top ten in the league.

This is the second year without Sterling I believe? It really feels like they'll need a different decision-maker in the front office. I don't think Doc is or will be that guy. Can't blame Pierce and Smith seemingly falling off a cliff entirely on him I guess. On a coaching level, others have commented on his lineup management being suspect. I'll leave that criticism to those who watch LA extensively.

Just an observation, the 5-man unit of CP3-BG-DAJ-Redick-Lance has been crazy good (+18.0). So have 4-man subunits of that group. Pretty much any time Pierce/Smith/Rivers/Crawford are on the floor, looks like things go to hell. Wes Johnson seems like he's fit decently as well. But it seems those other four guys are allowing leads to be cut down, and putting the team in deep holes.

Is there any move they can make? They don't really have many (any?) tradable assets. But I don't think they can afford to stay still, given the climate of the West (CP3 should age well, but I don't know if you can wait out GS).

[RSCD3_]

While I have been more excited on a team-level about this Lakers squad for than any iteration in recent memory (probably going back to the Shaq days, though I'm sure I've deluded myself into overrating the potential of Russell & Randle ), in general over the last decade, I feel I've become less of a team fan, and more of a fan of good basketball (and I think some in the media, particularly Lowe, have described a similar phenomenon).

I've spoken with Paulie about this some (and I think we agree), and a lot of this extends to the front office level. In a game in which you don't have rooting interest as a fan, t's difficult to root for backwards or generally poorly-managed organizations. As much as I've been a proponent of CP3, it's difficult to support that franchise, because as an outsider, it really gives seems that the organization is run poorly. Could be completely off-base, and a lot of this is winning bias, but you have to wonder if the front office is squandering an opportunity, now in its fifth consecutive year with two guys who are conservatively among the top ten in the league.

This is the second year without Sterling I believe? It really feels like they'll need a different decision-maker in the front office. I don't think Doc is or will be that guy. Can't blame Pierce and Smith seemingly falling off a cliff entirely on him I guess. On a coaching level, others have commented on his lineup management being suspect. I'll leave that criticism to those who watch LA extensively.

Just an observation, the 5-man unit of CP3-BG-DAJ-Redick-Lance has been crazy good (+18.0). So have 4-man subunits of that group. Pretty much any time Pierce/Smith/Rivers/Crawford are on the floor, looks like things go to hell. Wes Johnson seems like he's fit decently as well. But it seems those other four guys are allowing leads to be cut down, and putting the team in deep holes.

Is there any move they can make? They don't really have many (any?) tradable assets. But I don't think they can afford to stay still, given the climate of the West (CP3 should age well, but I don't know if you can wait out GS).

Their Bench brigade which tries ( and fails miserably ) to be an equivalent of the GS death squad plays is rubbish.

It's their 5th most played 5 man lineup

Smith
Pierce
Wesley
Crawford
Rivers

Has a net ORTG of -32.8

[ceiling raiser]

Their Bench brigade which tries ( and fails miserably ) to be an equivalent of the GS death squad plays is rubbish.

It's their 5th most played 5 man lineup

Smith
Pierce
Wesley
Crawford
Rivers

Has a net ORTG of -32.8

Yikes.

What do you think they should change?

[HeartBreakKid]

While I have been more excited on a team-level about this Lakers squad for than any iteration in recent memory (probably going back to the Shaq days, though I'm sure I've deluded myself into overrating the potential of Russell & Randle ), in general over the last decade, I feel I've become less of a team fan, and more of a fan of good basketball (and I think some in the media, particularly Lowe, have described a similar phenomenon).

I've spoken with Paulie about this some (and I think we agree), and a lot of this extends to the front office level. In a game in which you don't have rooting interest as a fan, t's difficult to root for backwards or generally poorly-managed organizations. As much as I've been a proponent of CP3, it's difficult to support that franchise, because as an outsider, it really gives seems that the organization is run poorly. Could be completely off-base, and a lot of this is winning bias, but you have to wonder if the front office is squandering an opportunity, now in its fifth consecutive year with two guys who are conservatively among the top ten in the league.

This is the second year without Sterling I believe? It really feels like they'll need a different decision-maker in the front office. I don't think Doc is or will be that guy. Can't blame Pierce and Smith seemingly falling off a cliff entirely on him I guess. On a coaching level, others have commented on his lineup management being suspect. I'll leave that criticism to those who watch LA extensively.

Just an observation, the 5-man unit of CP3-BG-DAJ-Redick-Lance has been crazy good (+18.0). So have 4-man subunits of that group. Pretty much any time Pierce/Smith/Rivers/Crawford are on the floor, looks like things go to hell. Wes Johnson seems like he's fit decently as well. But it seems those other four guys are allowing leads to be cut down, and putting the team in deep holes.

Is there any move they can make? They don't really have many (any?) tradable assets. But I don't think they can afford to stay still, given the climate of the West (CP3 should age well, but I don't know if you can wait out GS).

Considering Doc plays favorites and one of those guys won him a championship and another one of those guys is literally his son, this doesn't bode well for LAC.