Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Houston Rocket officially propose change!!!! Bout time!

    Earlier this spring the Houston Rockets formally proposed a change in the NBA calendar. The proposal is to shift the opening of free agency and the draft. The idea is to open free agent first then hold the nba draft after. The idea fits with how the NFL is run but the thought process would allow teams to use draft picks more effectively. The proposal has support among general managers and many owners. Though it has been discussed over the years it has never been officially proposed until now.

    This would be a terrific move imo!
    It doesn’t matter if you are a king or street sweeper pretty soon you will dance with the reaper!

    Its better to be silent and everyone think your an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

    “Statistics are no substitute for judgment”
    Henry Clay


  2. #2
    I'm sure there would be things that would need to get sorted out, but it does sound like it has some major potential benefits.

    I also read that the NBA is exploring ways to revamp the end of games. It'd be a huge change (and nowhere close to being implemented), but basically the clock would go off at 3 minutes and then the teams would play to a score 7 pts more than the leading team's point total at the 3 min mark. So...if a team was up 101-99 at 3 minutes, it'd be first team to 108.


  3. #3
    I think the offseason should be changed the games should not.
    It doesn’t matter if you are a king or street sweeper pretty soon you will dance with the reaper!

    Its better to be silent and everyone think your an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

    “Statistics are no substitute for judgment”
    Henry Clay


  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by dschroeder01 View Post
    I'm sure there would be things that would need to get sorted out, but it does sound like it has some major potential benefits.

    I also read that the NBA is exploring ways to revamp the end of games. It'd be a huge change (and nowhere close to being implemented), but basically the clock would go off at 3 minutes and then the teams would play to a score 7 pts more than the leading team's point total at the 3 min mark. So...if a team was up 101-99 at 3 minutes, it'd be first team to 108.
    I'd have to pass on that one.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    5,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick K View Post
    I'd have to pass on that one.
    I agree. Not sure what they are trying to "solve" with that change.


  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by TJ Styles View Post
    I agree. Not sure what they are trying to "solve" with that change.
    The issue is that end of games devolve into something that really isn't basketball. Multiple timeouts. Stalling. Etc. The goal would be to foster more of a basketball feel then the discretely different end of game basketball that the clock fosters. Think of the concept like pick up ball, play to a score. I know it's drastic change, but it's not like they're not going to explore it further first....

    http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23825970/zach-lowe-basketball-tournament-nba-crunch

    "Fans loved it," says Jonathan Mugar, founder and CEO of TBT. "There were instances in which they stood for the whole thing."
    Even some old heads were sold.

    "It was awesome," says John Wallace, the former Syracuse star who coached the Paul Champions -- featuring Earl Boykins! -- in last season's play-in segment. "It was different. It added intrigue."
    Mark Cuban and Daryl Morey are among NBA luminaries excited to see Elam's idea play out in games of consequence. "This idea would address the number one viewer issue I see in NBA games -- the endless trips to the free throw line and timeouts at the end of games," Morey, Houston's GM, told ESPN.com last year.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    5,847
    I suppose, but if this was going for the last season, the Suns and Kings may still be playing for the 7th point now. 8)

    I do get that the end of games drags down and changes completely from the rest of the game (which is why the NFL changed the overtime rules, too, which I actually like). But, this rule just seems...hokey. I don't think I can actually explain why I feel that way, but it does. I am generally not a huge fan of rules that are in effect for small portions of the game. I would personally much rather see them just change free throws to 1 plus the ball back (unless you scored on the foul, in which chase you would get the current "and one" and the ball would go to the other team). Hack-a-Shaq would disappear forever. The end of games would stay fast paced. And, there would be the added benefit of fouls taking less time during the course of the game, too, since there would only be one shot instead of two. To me, the issue is that the thing that is supposed to be a benefit actually becomes a penalty when you have the lead late in the game. If they adjust the thing being abused to always be a benefit, they don't have to make any other changes.

    To be perfectly honest, I am not even sure that changing the rule to "first to 7" is going to actually "fix" anything long term. I can completely see that in a small sample run this had a positive effect. But, this really just flips the script and puts the leading team in the drivers seat. If I need 7 points and my opponent needs 10 with the clock not being an issue, it makes a heck of a lot of sense for me to foul and take the 3-point shot and the "and one" away from my opponent. I force them to either foul me or play me straight up on defense, while I don't need a defense at all, and I max out their points per possession at 2 (assuming I can rebound a missed FT on the second shot). If they foul me, we are on even ground, and I need 3 less points to win the game than they do. The games I used to play were all to 21, and when a team got to 17 or 19, all they did was defend the 3 point line and allow the other team shots closer to the basket with their best offensive player cherry picking the other team. If they could send them to the line, they would have. I would not be surprised if this rule change ultimately makes things worse in a couple of seasons. The other thing you might see are teams that are behind by a few points fouling before the 3-minute cutoff to get their score closer for the final run. If I am down by 6 and there are 3:50 left in the game (with the clock "turning off at 3:00 and going to "first to score 7"), I am absolutely thinking about stalling out the clock a bit to get that difference down to 3 or 2.

    I get why they want to make a change; I just don't think this change will fix the problem. I think the real problem is how free throws work today. If they change that, the problem will fix itself.


  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by TJ Styles View Post
    I suppose, but if this was going for the last season, the Suns and Kings may still be playing for the 7th point now. 8)

    I do get that the end of games drags down and changes completely from the rest of the game (which is why the NFL changed the overtime rules, too, which I actually like). But, this rule just seems...hokey. I don't think I can actually explain why I feel that way, but it does. I am generally not a huge fan of rules that are in effect for small portions of the game. I would personally much rather see them just change free throws to 1 plus the ball back (unless you scored on the foul, in which chase you would get the current "and one" and the ball would go to the other team). Hack-a-Shaq would disappear forever. The end of games would stay fast paced. And, there would be the added benefit of fouls taking less time during the course of the game, too, since there would only be one shot instead of two. To me, the issue is that the thing that is supposed to be a benefit actually becomes a penalty when you have the lead late in the game. If they adjust the thing being abused to always be a benefit, they don't have to make any other changes.

    To be perfectly honest, I am not even sure that changing the rule to "first to 7" is going to actually "fix" anything long term. I can completely see that in a small sample run this had a positive effect. But, this really just flips the script and puts the leading team in the drivers seat. If I need 7 points and my opponent needs 10 with the clock not being an issue, it makes a heck of a lot of sense for me to foul and take the 3-point shot and the "and one" away from my opponent. I force them to either foul me or play me straight up on defense, while I don't need a defense at all, and I max out their points per possession at 2 (assuming I can rebound a missed FT on the second shot). If they foul me, we are on even ground, and I need 3 less points to win the game than they do. The games I used to play were all to 21, and when a team got to 17 or 19, all they did was defend the 3 point line and allow the other team shots closer to the basket with their best offensive player cherry picking the other team. If they could send them to the line, they would have. I would not be surprised if this rule change ultimately makes things worse in a couple of seasons. The other thing you might see are teams that are behind by a few points fouling before the 3-minute cutoff to get their score closer for the final run. If I am down by 6 and there are 3:50 left in the game (with the clock "turning off at 3:00 and going to "first to score 7"), I am absolutely thinking about stalling out the clock a bit to get that difference down to 3 or 2.

    I get why they want to make a change; I just don't think this change will fix the problem. I think the real problem is how free throws work today. If they change that, the problem will fix itself.
    Good thing they're experimenting with it then. Seems like several people/fans like the change and they're going to continue experimenting. I don't imagine that they'd even consider changing things in the league unless the success in the trials is overwhelming and sustained. Unitended consequences are a huge downside to change and the NBA is smart to try things at lower levels to see what those are before making any change.



 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •