Bill Simmons Article on "How He Would Fix The Lockout"

[LooseCannon]

The only way for smaller market teams with less-wealthy owners to compete is to offer similar or even more lucrative contracts, since their own cities are generally less desirable destinations.

If the NBA institutes a hard cap, I suppose this means that small markets and cold weather cities are going to be less likely to sign free agents and retain their own because even more limited cap space means that players are more likely to decide on where to go based on intangibles.

Not if the CBA includes measures to empower franchises to resign their own players for more money / longer deals etc.

Also, lower / hard cap means fewer teams will have the cap space to sign free agents away from other teams.

A hard cap also means teams will have less of an opportunity to re-sign their own players for more money.

I suspect that one effect of a hard cap would be that role players will be switching teams more often.

[LooseCannon]

a) teams need to have more incentive not to tank if they aren't at least a playoff contender

Part of the problem there is that teams are generally smart enough to at least have plausible deniability when accused of tanking.

b) players need more incentive to put forth the full effort to keep improving even after they've landed a big contract.

In theory, they have the motivation of earning another big contract after the current contract expires.

[PosImpos]

The only way for smaller market teams with less-wealthy owners to compete is to offer similar or even more lucrative contracts, since their own cities are generally less desirable destinations.

If the NBA institutes a hard cap, I suppose this means that small markets and cold weather cities are going to be less likely to sign free agents and retain their own because even more limited cap space means that players are more likely to decide on where to go based on intangibles.

Not if the CBA includes measures to empower franchises to resign their own players for more money / longer deals etc.

Also, lower / hard cap means fewer teams will have the cap space to sign free agents away from other teams.

A hard cap also means teams will have less of an opportunity to re-sign their own players for more money.

I suspect that one effect of a hard cap would be that role players will be switching teams more often.

Role players?  Yeah, definitely.

Stars?  Probably not.

a) teams need to have more incentive not to tank if they aren't at least a playoff contender

Part of the problem there is that teams are generally smart enough to at least have plausible deniability when accused of tanking.

b) players need more incentive to put forth the full effort to keep improving even after they've landed a big contract.

In theory, they have the motivation of earning another big contract after the current contract expires.

Yeah, so?

I said teams should have incentive not to tank.  The fact that they currently have the ability to do it without being obvious about it doesn't mean much.


As for the players, "in theory" is all there is to it when you've got a player on the first, second, or third year of a 5 or 6 year deal.

[RAG50K]

There's a reason people all across the country go nuts for March Madness.  It's because you can never be sure how it's going to play out.

That isn't the reason people go nuts for March Madness at all.  Its GAMBLING.  Plain and simple.

Do you realize how many peolple who know nothing about college basketball get involved in tounranment pools?  A lot!  There are always people who otherwise wouldn't care a lick who get interested just for the sake of getting in on the fun of possibly winning some money and being invovled in the competetion indirectly.

It's the same reason the NFL is so wildly successful (along with the Super Bowl-which people who don't even care about football watch).  I am in a couple of football pools each year, and almost half of the participants have very little knowledge of football and probabaly couldn't name even 10 current players.  Yet despite this, these same people become interested when there is money to be won.

Honestly, all I'm talking about is an NBA where the champion is much more often like the '04 Pistons than the '01 Lakers or the 96 Bulls.  That's what I'd like to see.

This may be what YOU would like to see, but the casual fan definitely wouldn't.  TV ratings prove this.  TV ratings are always higher when there are dynasties and/or the major market teams are good.

As RAG50K stated, a league where a team like the '04 Pistons are commonplace would be less interesting for casual fans, and would also make the accomplishments of team like that less special.

Hold on, apparently you've misunderstood me.  I do not care AT ALL what the casual fan would find most interesting.  The casual fan would love to see the Miami Heat run over the league every year.

What I want to see is a good, competitive basketball league where the best TEAM wins.

No, I didn't misunderstand you.  I get it that you prefer a league where the teams that win fit your ideal of the way basketball should be played.  I don't even really disagree that it's nice to see teams like that win.  My point was, the NBA is far more concerned about it's casual fans than they are their die-hard and knowledgable fans.  Fans like yourself will, for the most part, watch regardless.  Maybe a few would stop watching if they were substantially turned off by the style of play of the league, but not that many.

The NBA makes it's most money when casual fans are interested.  Teams like Miami are what interest casual fans, so, of course the NBA would like to see teams like that exist.

Yep, I'm fully aware of that.  And it's too bad, because as we saw during the Finals this year, it's the true teams that play the best basketball -- even against the stacked superstar squads.

I think people are going overboard with calling Dallas a  'true' team, and saying they won because of their team. They were amazing in the Finals? Yes. But the only reason they got to the finals was because Nowitzki had an otherworldly playoffs. First three rounds,he just could not miss a shot. Leaners,fallbacks, fadeaways, everything was falling.
The only reason Dallas seems like a 'true' team, is because they played Miami, whose lack of a proper team is well known. If they had played the Celtics or maybe a Spurs in the Conference Finals, we wouldn't be calling the league's answer to star driven teams. Its all about relativity

[LooseCannon]

I suspect that one effect of a hard cap would be that role players will be switching teams more often.

Role players?  Yeah, definitely.

Stars?  Probably not.

The point is, teams are probably going to see more roster churn and you will see less cohesive "team" play because coaches with more developed systems just aren't going to have players with the same level of knowledge.  Teams are less likely to have "glue" guys sitting on the bench who know what they are supposed to do.  Thick playbooks will have to be stripped.  That seems like an environment that will increase the importance of iso-ball.

a) teams need to have more incentive not to tank if they aren't at least a playoff contender

Part of the problem there is that teams are generally smart enough to at least have plausible deniability when accused of tanking.

b) players need more incentive to put forth the full effort to keep improving even after they've landed a big contract.

In theory, they have the motivation of earning another big contract after the current contract expires.

Yeah, so?

I said teams should have incentive not to tank.  The fact that they currently have the ability to do it without being obvious about it doesn't mean much.

It means its hard to offer a incentive not to tank when you can't identify for sure when it is happening.

You could go back to the old draft lottery method of giving all teams an equal chance of drawing the #1 pick.  That completely wipes out the incentive to tank, but people will whine when a big-market team like the Knicks barely misses the playoffs and get the first pick.

[CaptainJackLee]

In another thread I've cited a paper that suggests that "the contract year effect" is not an issue in the NBA; future contracts are incentive enough because teams factor the effect in their contract offers. Teams aren't being fooled.

Under a hard-cap, it'll be less probable for free-agents - stars and role-players alike - to remain with their own teams relatively to the current situation, ceteris paribus.

There are many types of great teams: a couple of superstars put together, like Miami; a superstar with a great supporting cast, like Dallas; a team with multiple All-Stars, like Detroit. They're all great teams. The point is that only great teams can produce great basketball consistently. A league of average/mediocre teams would have lots of uncertainty but great basketball would be a seldom occurrence. People who value "sports emotion" over "quality basketball" already have the NCAA.

Funnily enough, under a hard-cap the model that would be less penalized would be Miami's. A few stars with long-term contracts running simultaneously and then you'd just need to use the rest of the cap every Summer in the best free-agents available for the price. Teams like Detroit or Dallas would be doomed because they'd quickly become victims of their own success and lose important parts of their teams.

A hard-cap isn't really good for anyone (except teams like Miami, I guess). Since the 80s that academics have been saying that hard-caps are nothing but a source of distortions and inefficiencies. It's used because it's easy to implement and to understand. But it's possible to achieve the same positive effects of a hard-cap by using revenue-sharing+highly progressive taxes without having to deal with the negatives.

[LooseCannon]

The team that is really doomed under a hard cap may be OKC.  It would be really bad to have a core of players all around the same age who will start demanding bigger contracts around the same time.  There's no way you could afford to pay them.

The model for many teams will be to clear out the roster in the hopes of signing stars whose teams won't have the cap space to re-sign them.

[PosImpos]

I suspect that one effect of a hard cap would be that role players will be switching teams more often.

Role players?  Yeah, definitely.

Stars?  Probably not.

The point is, teams are probably going to see more roster churn and you will see less cohesive "team" play because coaches with more developed systems just aren't going to have players with the same level of knowledge.  Teams are less likely to have "glue" guys sitting on the bench who know what they are supposed to do.  Thick playbooks will have to be stripped.  That seems like an environment that will increase the importance of iso-ball.

a) teams need to have more incentive not to tank if they aren't at least a playoff contender

Part of the problem there is that teams are generally smart enough to at least have plausible deniability when accused of tanking.

b) players need more incentive to put forth the full effort to keep improving even after they've landed a big contract.

In theory, they have the motivation of earning another big contract after the current contract expires.

Yeah, so?

I said teams should have incentive not to tank.  The fact that they currently have the ability to do it without being obvious about it doesn't mean much.

It means its hard to offer a incentive not to tank when you can't identify for sure when it is happening.

You could go back to the old draft lottery method of giving all teams an equal chance of drawing the #1 pick.  That completely wipes out the incentive to tank, but people will whine when a big-market team like the Knicks barely misses the playoffs and get the first pick.

A couple things: 

You don't need to know for sure that a team is losing on purpose in order to give them incentive to win more.  You just need to make it worth their while to win even when they don't have a chance of contending, or even making the playoffs.  I'm not saying I have a better solution than Bill's ridiculous tourney, but I do think that something ought to be done.

The old draft lottery method is pretty clearly not the best solution to the problem. Hence the call for outside-of-the-box thinking.

[dlpin]

I agree that both ideas are very silly, but I think his sentiment -- that the league should be open to trying creative / outside-the-box ideas to fix long standing problems -- is great.

a) teams need to have more incentive not to tank if they aren't at least a playoff contender

b) players need more incentive to put forth the full effort to keep improving even after they've landed a big contract.

But these two things are trivial observations that most people are aware of.

And his solutions will have precisely the opposite effect. Making it so the worst team still has a shot at the title, their own draft pick, and a 10 pick by winning whatever tournament that is will not make anyone care more. If anything, #7 seeds would likely tank to the 8th spot where they would still be favored to make the playoffs proper and win a additional draft pick.

[PosImpos]

I agree that both ideas are very silly, but I think his sentiment -- that the league should be open to trying creative / outside-the-box ideas to fix long standing problems -- is great.

a) teams need to have more incentive not to tank if they aren't at least a playoff contender

b) players need more incentive to put forth the full effort to keep improving even after they've landed a big contract.

But these two things are trivial observations that most people are aware of.

And his solutions will have precisely the opposite effect. Making it so the worst team still has a shot at the title, their own draft pick, and a 10 pick by winning whatever tournament that is will not make anyone care more. If anything, #7 seeds would likely tank to the 8th spot where they would still be favored to make the playoffs proper and win a additional draft pick.

again, his idea is silly, but the fact that something needs to be done is not.  we're not disagreeing here, it seems.

[LooseCannon]

You don't need to know for sure that a team is losing on purpose in order to give them incentive to win more.  You just need to make it worth their while to win even when they don't have a chance of contending, or even making the playoffs.  I'm not saying I have a better solution than Bill's ridiculous tourney, but I do think that something ought to be done.

Well, if a horrible team is actually trying its hardest to win games, no incentive can make the team win more.

I just think you're trying to do the impossible.  As long as win-loss affects draft position, teams will always have incentive to tank.  You basically have two scenarios.  You can either have there be more incentive to tank, meaning that truly bad teams have more hope of improving, or you have less incentive to lose on purpose, at the cost of those bad teams having less of a chance of getting better.  It's like saying you want lower taxes and more government services. 

There will be meaningless regular-season games.  There will be bad teams.  There will be hopeless teams that are a few seasons from being relevant.  Hard cap, soft cap, guaranteed contracts, unguaranteed contracts.  It doesn't matter.  If you really want to change the competitive balance of the league, think about changing the structure of the season or the rules of the game.

Anyways, if I wanted to do something like that stupid Simmons tournament, it wouldn't be for the last playoff spot and a draft pick, it would be for extra cap exceptions.  (Keep in mind, I am a proponent of keeping the soft cap, so exceptions still play a role in my proposed future.)

[PosImpos]

You don't need to know for sure that a team is losing on purpose in order to give them incentive to win more.  You just need to make it worth their while to win even when they don't have a chance of contending, or even making the playoffs.  I'm not saying I have a better solution than Bill's ridiculous tourney, but I do think that something ought to be done.

Well, if a horrible team is actually trying its hardest to win games, no incentive can make the team win more.

I just think you're trying to do the impossible.  As long as win-loss affects draft position, teams will always have incentive to tank.  You basically have two scenarios.  You can either have there be more incentive to tank, meaning that truly bad teams have more hope of improving, or you have less incentive to lose on purpose, at the cost of those bad teams having less of a chance of getting better.  It's like saying you want lower taxes and more government services. 

There will be meaningless regular-season games.  There will be bad teams.  There will be hopeless teams that are a few seasons from being relevant.  Hard cap, soft cap, guaranteed contracts, unguaranteed contracts.  It doesn't matter.  If you really want to change the competitive balance of the league, think about changing the structure of the season or the rules of the game.

Anyways, if I wanted to do something like that stupid Simmons tournament, it wouldn't be for the last playoff spot and a draft pick, it would be for extra cap exceptions.  (Keep in mind, I am a proponent of keeping the soft cap, so exceptions still play a role in my proposed future.)

I don't know whether it's impossible or not.  I'm not throwing out solutions.  All I'm saying is I think there's merit to what Simmons is trying to do, which is think outside of the box to find some kind of a solution, because although the current system isn't exactly "broken" right now, it isn't great, either.  The fact that there is no obvious solution means that it would take something that most people wouldn't consider right away -- something that might seem kind of crazy at first.

[LooseCannon]

Or it may mean that there is no "solution" and that the system is pretty close to as good as it's going to get.

[PosImpos]

Or it may mean that there is no "solution" and that the system is pretty close to as good as it's going to get.

Yeah.  People also thought that everything worth being invented had been invented at the turn of the 20th century.

[sox_01]

Not gonna lie, this is my own blog post so feel free to hate on me for shameless self promotion.  I just thought I'd post some of my views on Simmons' article.

http://brendanwolters.blogspot.com/2011/07/nba-lockout-response-to-bill-simmons.html