NBA thread (rock, Celtic, American, member, title)

[TheUsed2lguy]

I guarantee you Tony Parker wouldn't be nearly the player he is if he had been drafted by the Timberwolves. I do like Garnett, but I really think Duncan is better at making the other players around him better.
With Parker, he had a strange approach. He didn't even talk to him in his rookie season. But, I guarantee you it has toughened him up, and along with Poppovich, has really helped him become a better player.
I suspect that Ginobili also wouldn't be nearly as good if he played for a team like the Clippers or Knicks; whoever.

[joderu95]

Originally Posted by matious

Its being played well, but its hardly entertaining.

I agree. Or at least I agree that it is being played well when compared to how well you or I could play or an NBA team vs. a college team. Its ability to entertain me has gone way done in the last 15 years. There are very few great shooters like there used to be. It's a league of slashers and dunkers and you do need those guys, but it would be more fun to watch with some more really great shooters on the floor. And there are some rule changes that should at least be experimented with.

1. Move the 3-pt. line in to college distance. Now college is moving it out, why? Whatever they decide it should be the same between college and the NBA.
2. Let the defense camp in the key as long as they damn well want, it's called a zone (not allowing this defeats the purpose of the zone in the first place).
3. Why do players have to foul out? It is the only sport where this happens. Change the rule so that after 5 or 6 fouls the other team gets two shots and the ball or three shots and the ball but don't send the guy out for the rest of the game.
4. I am not sure if this is the case or not because I almost never watch the NBA anymore but get that semi-circle under the basket painted on every court if it's not already. This gives the referee a reference point to determine where charges can be taken.

[JayJamJah]

Originally Posted by joderu95

I agree. Or at least I agree that it is being played well when compared to how well you or I could play or an NBA team vs. a college team. Its ability to entertain me has gone way done in the last 15 years. There are very few great shooters like there used to be. It's a league of slashers and dunkers and you do need those guys, but it would be more fun to watch with some more really great shooters on the floor. And there are some rule changes that should at least be experimented with.

1. Move the 3-pt. line in to college distance. Now college is moving it out, why? Whatever they decide it should be the same between college and the NBA.
2. Let the defense camp in the key as long as they damn well want, it's called a zone (not allowing this defeats the purpose of the zone in the first place).
3. Why do players have to foul out? It is the only sport where this happens. Change the rule so that after 5 or 6 fouls the other team gets two shots and the ball or three shots and the ball but don't send the guy out for the rest of the game.
4. I am not sure if this is the case or not because I almost never watch the NBA anymore but get that semi-circle under the basket painted on every court if it's not already. This gives the referee a reference point to determine where charges can be taken.

I disagree I think the NBA has gotten much better consistently over the past 10 years. It's not quite what it was in the 1980's but it's better then the late 90's for sure. Also there are way more great shooters now then there ever were before. Guys don't stand out like they used to however because almost everyone can shoot now. Currently 11 of the top 15 players in career 3-pt% are active. The NBA record for three pointers was set the last three seasons. I'll agree that guys take worse shots and maybe the game isn't as crisp as it once was, but the talent and athleticism levels are the highest they've ever been.

To address your suggestions, which I mostly like the sentiment behind.

1. They tried that in the mid-nineties and it was awful. Guys like Charles Oakley and Hakeem starting hitting threes. The fact that that the line in high school and college (until next year) is so close is a major reason that shooting was become less valuable. The difference between a HS and NBA three is huge and really does demand outstanding skill to make consistently.

2. Zone defense is for teams who are not good enough to play man-to-man. If the NBA allowed traditional zone defense only bad teams would play it primarily and it would muck up the game.

3. I love this idea in theory but Basketball has always been a game where fouls have played into strategy. Even though it would be weird to see it change I do think it would benefit the game. I think officials would be more "honest" and consistent. How many time do you hear an announcer say "you can't give a guy his sixth foul on a play like that" or something to that effect. Maybe the player should be required to sit for 2 mins or so each time his personal fouls exceed the limit.

4. That circle is everywhere and is used by officials to decide if a player was far enough from the goal to take a charge. I hate charging, I don't think it should be an offensive foul unless the offensive player initiates contact. It's essentially an undercut, in football or Hockey (much more physical sports) it would be a foul on the defender or a no call. I think if the player gets there in time it should be a no call and if the defender is late, or is determined to have flopped it should be a defensive foul.

Creative ideas and thinking.

[bsmix]

I think they need to change the rules so teams can't use the 'hack-a-shaq' to their advantage. I mean it's legal so teams should do it if it can help, but it's just not basketball.

[joderu95]

I'm glad to hear you like the sentiment behind if not the rule changes themselves. I think your more conventional ideas about the game are shared by league rule makers.

They tried that in the mid-nineties and it was awful.

Yes, but did they allow zone at the same time? Let's see what happens when the rules between college and professional are consistent.

Playing zone is not soley determined because a team is bad at defense, it is also used when the other team matches up poorly against it. You go with what works for your particular team. If there are so many good shooters in the league they should carve up teams that play zone. But we can't know for sure because the league does not allow a real zone defense. The league may have instituted this semi-zone nonsense (undermining it with the defensive 3in the key rule) to appease those in favor of the zone while not affecting the number of dunks in a game. It wouldn't be as sensational on ESPN highlight compilations.

I don't think it should be an offensive foul unless the offensive player initiates contact.

Your right and it's not. That is how it is supposed to be ruled at least. This is one of the least understood rules in sports. Commentators get caught up on if the defenders feet are moving when it has nothing to do with the foul. The charge/block is called based on (1.) who initiates contact and (2.) where the player with the ball is when that contact occurs. The offensive player's head and shoulders need to be around the defender before it can be called a blocking foul.

[LesPaul43]

Originally Posted by joderu95

I agree. Or at least I agree that it is being played well when compared to how well you or I could play or an NBA team vs. a college team. Its ability to entertain me has gone way done in the last 15 years. There are very few great shooters like there used to be. It's a league of slashers and dunkers and you do need those guys, but it would be more fun to watch with some more really great shooters on the floor. And there are some rule changes that should at least be experimented with.

1. Move the 3-pt. line in to college distance. Now college is moving it out, why? Whatever they decide it should be the same between college and the NBA.
2. Let the defense camp in the key as long as they damn well want, it's called a zone (not allowing this defeats the purpose of the zone in the first place).
3. Why do players have to foul out? It is the only sport where this happens. Change the rule so that after 5 or 6 fouls the other team gets two shots and the ball or three shots and the ball but don't send the guy out for the rest of the game.
4. I am not sure if this is the case or not because I almost never watch the NBA anymore but get that semi-circle under the basket painted on every court if it's not already. This gives the referee a reference point to determine where charges can be taken.

I dont think by any means the 3 point line should be changed. That would ruin all kinda of old records set by amazing players who deserve them until someone rightfully beats them.

yea, I dont like the defensive 3 in the key. I just finished my last year of highschool basketball as im graduation this year and under FIBA, our set of rules. There is no Defensive 3 in the key, only offense. I agree about the zone thing.

With players fouling out it makes them want to play clean defence, and I dont think that should be changed at all. I would hate it.

And yea, the Semi Circle is already under all the hoops in the NBA now.

[joderu95]

With players fouling out it makes them want to play clean defence

That's very true. What we're talking about is incentive. As in, players have incentive to not get their 6th foul because they have to leave the game. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other ways of creating the same incentive. For example, what if after the 5th foul the other team got three shots (anybody on the team could shoot them) and the ball? Wouldn't that create a pretty strong incentive for guys not to foul? Is it not even worth a run through a pre-season schedule?

The record book is something that has already been compromised when the 3 pt. line was jerked with in the 90s so when those records are recorded in the official record (ha, ha record 3 times) they have to be qualified anyway. This is usually done with the asterisk*. Different records for different rules, there is no other fair way to show them.

[matious]

I think that over-complicates things to an unnecessary degree.

if it ain't broke, don't fix it

[joderu95]

It is complicated and it is broke. If it was simple the ratings for the NBA Finals would not be in the toilet. I still can't link the damn thing but check out the wikipedia entry for National Basketball Association Nielsen Ratings. Take a look.

[matious]

Ratings for all sports except professional football is down. It can be attributed to many things.

-Kids don't go outside as much.
-Theres a lot more programing on then they're was previously, with 3billion channels i can choose to watch a midget eat his own foot, or i can watch baseball.
-People are also occupied with internet, videogames etc.

I don't think changing the rules is gonna give an immediate rating boost, people just don't rely on sports as entertainment as much as they did. I mean, hell, my dad used to watch bowling as a kid, he didn't even like it, but it was the only thing on.