LeBron Says Contraction "would be great for the league"

[nickagneta]

This whole subject is about the profitable revenue making streams for the owners and not the quality of the play on the court. The sooner people realize this the sooner they will see that Lebron is correct in what he says.

[Surferdad]

There's a flaw in LeBron's logic:  He assumes that the number of good players is the same as 30 years ago (or whatever).  Given that we recently learned the US has 310 million people and the fact that there are many non-US athletes who want to earn NBA salaries (and basketball is more popular now in non-US countries than ever before), then there clearly should be a larger pool of talent to pick from than ever before.  Watered down?  I don't see why that would be the case.

[Finkelskyhook]

This whole subject is about the profitable revenue making streams for the owners and not the quality of the play on the court. The sooner people realize this the sooner they will see that Lebron is correct in what he says.

As a C's fan, I try to get to any C's game within 10 hours of where I'm living. 

I don't live close to any NBA city.  But when I'm in one during the NBA season I made it a point to take in a game...Regardless of who was playing.  I no longer do that.  From my vantage point, the officiating takes away more from the quality of the game than any watering down of talent ever could.  I'd rather watch an NBDL game live....Where the officials may not be as good.  But the games are called according to the rules and not the participants. 

The messiah may be right.  But he's right for the wrong reasons.  I don't see the quality of play being lessened by a lack of talent.  Surferdad makes a great point that the talent pool is much greater than it was during the times the messiah is referring to because of Stern's brilliantly harnessing international interest to the NBA.

But it's hard for me to stay interested when the games seem fixed.  Yesterday's game was a great example of that.  Where the effort by the officials to keep Howard on the court was overt.  I liked that the official didn't call a technical on him and warned him instead. There should be more of that.  But to not call obvious fouls....Not to mention the ridiculous flop that fouled Shaq out just Edited for profanity.  Please do not do it again.izes the game. 

I don't know that it's watered down talent of officiating that is hurting the non-profitable NBA teams. We lost the Orlando game.  We deserved to lose.  But I think that the Orlando game looked like a team of Donaghys were officiating.  Way too many NBA games look the same way.   

Contraction won't fix the credibility of the NBA if games continue to look like professional wrestling events.

[dpaps]

There's a flaw in LeBron's logic:  He assumes that the number of good players is the same as 30 years ago (or whatever).  Given that we recently learned the US has 310 million people and the fact that there are many non-US athletes who want to earn NBA salaries (and basketball is more popular now in non-US countries than ever before), then there clearly should be a larger pool of talent to pick from than ever before.  Watered down?  I don't see why that would be the case.

There's a flaw in your logic. Regardless of the number of "good" players there are, by reducing the number of teams, the average team gets better. To simplify: If there are only 50 good players in the world, if there are 50 teams, each team has one good player. If there are 25 teams, each team would have 2 good players. Even if there are 300 good players in the league,  reducing the number of teams, still makes each team better. If there are 50 teams, each team has 6 good players. If there are 25 good teams, each team has 12 good players.

It's simple math, it's not complicated.

My problem with this thread is not that I absolutely think that the league NEEDS contraction. I'm cool with the NBA as is, but I would have no problem if they decided to contract a team or two (or 4) and if you can't realize that each team would get better with contraction, you just don't understand logic and mathematics. But the amount of criticism Lebron gets for voicing his opinion is ridiculous. Especially since many experts agree with his statement. But some people on this board will still hate because thats who they are.

[Finkelskyhook]

There's a flaw in LeBron's logic:  He assumes that the number of good players is the same as 30 years ago (or whatever).  Given that we recently learned the US has 310 million people and the fact that there are many non-US athletes who want to earn NBA salaries (and basketball is more popular now in non-US countries than ever before), then there clearly should be a larger pool of talent to pick from than ever before.  Watered down?  I don't see why that would be the case.

There's a flaw in your logic. Regardless of the number of "good" players there are, by reducing the number of teams, the average team gets better. To simplify: If there are only 50 good players in the world, if there are 50 teams, each team has one good player. If there are 25 teams, each team would have 2 good players. Even if there are 300 good players in the league,  reducing the number of teams, still makes each team better. If there are 50 teams, each team has 6 good players. If there are 25 good teams, each team has 12 good players.

It's simple math, it's not complicated.

My problem with this thread is not that I absolutely think that the league NEEDS contraction. I'm cool with the NBA as is, but I would have no problem if they decided to contract a team or two (or 4) and if you can't realize that each team would get better with contraction, you just don't understand logic and mathematics. But the amount of criticism Lebron gets for voicing his opinion is ridiculous. Especially since many experts agree with his statement. But some people on this board will still hate because thats who they are.

How does that guaranty to elevate the quality of play?  When Glen Davis can overtly flop and continually get a bogus call.  When Paul Pierce can upfake and overtly barrel into an opponent and get to the free throw line.  When Steve Nash or Dwyane Wade can flagrantly carry in front of the officials and not get called.  When the messiah can take up to 4 giant strides without a dribble.  With the exception of Davis, these are some of the best players in the game.  Does consolidating the bogusness somehow upgrade the quality of play?   Why would Davis need to learn to improve his defensive footwork if he continually gets "run over" by players half his size and celebrates the boguness after.  Why does the messiah need to develop a post or midrange game?  He can dribble once past halfcourt and barrel in 3-4 steps for an uncontested dunk in front of the officials because any player who contests it will guaranty an and-one.  Why would Pierce go straight up when he can flagrantly charge and go to the free throw line?  How much better would the current stars be if they actually had to develop their games instead getting special treatment?  The quality of the game would be a hundredfold better for it.  The credibility of the game would be infinately better.

You could contract to 5 teams and the games wouldn't be upgraded the current way they're being officiated.

[dpaps]

There's a flaw in LeBron's logic:  He assumes that the number of good players is the same as 30 years ago (or whatever).  Given that we recently learned the US has 310 million people and the fact that there are many non-US athletes who want to earn NBA salaries (and basketball is more popular now in non-US countries than ever before), then there clearly should be a larger pool of talent to pick from than ever before.  Watered down?  I don't see why that would be the case.

There's a flaw in your logic. Regardless of the number of "good" players there are, by reducing the number of teams, the average team gets better. To simplify: If there are only 50 good players in the world, if there are 50 teams, each team has one good player. If there are 25 teams, each team would have 2 good players. Even if there are 300 good players in the league,  reducing the number of teams, still makes each team better. If there are 50 teams, each team has 6 good players. If there are 25 good teams, each team has 12 good players.

It's simple math, it's not complicated.

My problem with this thread is not that I absolutely think that the league NEEDS contraction. I'm cool with the NBA as is, but I would have no problem if they decided to contract a team or two (or 4) and if you can't realize that each team would get better with contraction, you just don't understand logic and mathematics. But the amount of criticism Lebron gets for voicing his opinion is ridiculous. Especially since many experts agree with his statement. But some people on this board will still hate because thats who they are.

How does that guaranty to elevate the quality of play?  When Glen Davis can overtly flop and continually get a bogus call.  When Paul Pierce can upfake and overtly barrel into an opponent and get to the free throw line.  When Steve Nash or Dwyane Wade can flagrantly carry in front of the officials and not get called.  When the messiah can take up to 4 giant strides without a dribble.  With the exception of Davis, these are some of the best players in the game.  Does consolidating the bogusness somehow upgrade the quality of play?   Why would Davis need to learn to improve his defensive footwork if he continually gets "run over" by players half his size and celebrates the boguness after.  Why does the messiah need to develop a post or midrange game?  He can dribble once past halfcourt and barrel in 3-4 steps for an uncontested dunk in front of the officials because any player who contests it will guaranty an and-one.  Why would Pierce go straight up when he can flagrantly charge and go to the free throw line?  How much better would the current stars be if they actually had to develop their games instead getting special treatment?  The quality of the game would be a hundredfold better for it.  The credibility of the game would be infinately better.

You could contract to 5 teams and the games wouldn't be upgraded the current way they're being officiated.

What a joke.

Read the post before you comment. Again, I never said it would "Elevate the level of play" I said it would make the average team better. Which logically, it would have to. No debate, no argument.

I said my problem was the ridiculous  criticism people were giving lebron for nothing.

And I disagree with 100% of your post. Your comments about Baby are flat out wrong. Watch the HEat LA game yesterday, show me ONE play where Lebron takes 4 steps.  If you hate the NBA so much, don't watch. It doesn't need you.

[Finkelskyhook]

I did read the comment before I wrote.  The only joke here is that you can look at Glen Davis, all 300 pounds of him, get touched into by someone half his size, flop like he's been hit by a bazooka, and think that he's taken a charge...Obviously a good thing based on the fact that he wears a green uniform.  

Strangely, I see a direct correlation between better teams and better quality of play. dpaps, they are one in the same. I also see that currently the NBA officiating standard is to officiate according to who the participants are on a given play and and not what actually occurred on a given play..Until that is fixed, neither the standard of play nor the quality of the teams will improve in any marked way to spur more interest in the game... Whether there are 10 NBA teams or 100.

I love the game.  More important, I respect the game.  Contraction isn't going to upgrade anything until the game is officiated like an NBA game as opposed to some kind of exhibition.

The messiah is the most physically gifted player in NBA history.  Maybe in sports history.  But he's not even the best player in the NBA.  He doesn't have to be because he's officiated like an NFL quarterback.  That's the sad reality of the NBA since the Jordan years. When the goal is to keep certain players on the court instead of calling the game as it is, the game suffers.  Consolidating the silliness may raise the athletism some.  But it doesn't improve the quality of play one iota.  So it doesn't make the teams better.  There's just less of them. The quality of the game would be infinitely better if the game's stars weren't coddled.  Therefore the quality of the teams would be also.  Because everybody would have to continually raise their level to compete.  

We have more gifted athletes playing in the NBDL now than we had in the NBA 25 years ago.  Roughly the same NBA number of teams.  Why was the quality of the NBA game so much better then than it is now?  

[Eja117]

There's a flaw in LeBron's logic:  He assumes that the number of good players is the same as 30 years ago (or whatever).  Given that we recently learned the US has 310 million people and the fact that there are many non-US athletes who want to earn NBA salaries (and basketball is more popular now in non-US countries than ever before), then there clearly should be a larger pool of talent to pick from than ever before.  Watered down?  I don't see why that would be the case.

There's a flaw in your logic. Regardless of the number of "good" players there are, by reducing the number of teams, the average team gets better. To simplify: If there are only 50 good players in the world, if there are 50 teams, each team has one good player. If there are 25 teams, each team would have 2 good players. Even if there are 300 good players in the league,  reducing the number of teams, still makes each team better. If there are 50 teams, each team has 6 good players. If there are 25 good teams, each team has 12 good players.

It's simple math, it's not complicated.

My problem with this thread is not that I absolutely think that the league NEEDS contraction. I'm cool with the NBA as is, but I would have no problem if they decided to contract a team or two (or 4) and if you can't realize that each team would get better with contraction, you just don't understand logic and mathematics. But the amount of criticism Lebron gets for voicing his opinion is ridiculous. Especially since many experts agree with his statement. But some people on this board will still hate because thats who they are.

How does that guaranty to elevate the quality of play?  When Glen Davis can overtly flop and continually get a bogus call.  When Paul Pierce can upfake and overtly barrel into an opponent and get to the free throw line.  When Steve Nash or Dwyane Wade can flagrantly carry in front of the officials and not get called.  When the messiah can take up to 4 giant strides without a dribble.  With the exception of Davis, these are some of the best players in the game.  Does consolidating the bogusness somehow upgrade the quality of play?   Why would Davis need to learn to improve his defensive footwork if he continually gets "run over" by players half his size and celebrates the boguness after.  Why does the messiah need to develop a post or midrange game?  He can dribble once past halfcourt and barrel in 3-4 steps for an uncontested dunk in front of the officials because any player who contests it will guaranty an and-one.  Why would Pierce go straight up when he can flagrantly charge and go to the free throw line?  How much better would the current stars be if they actually had to develop their games instead getting special treatment?  The quality of the game would be a hundredfold better for it.  The credibility of the game would be infinately better.

You could contract to 5 teams and the games wouldn't be upgraded the current way they're being officiated.

What a joke.

Read the post before you comment. Again, I never said it would "Elevate the level of play" I said it would make the average team better. Which logically, it would have to. No debate, no argument.

I said my problem was the ridiculous  criticism people were giving lebron for nothing.

And I disagree with 100% of your post. Your comments about Baby are flat out wrong. Watch the HEat LA game yesterday, show me ONE play where Lebron takes 4 steps.  If you hate the NBA so much, don't watch. It doesn't need you.

There are flaws in your logic too though. There's only so many minutes to go around. For example if the Celts added an all-star point guard right now - say Tony Parker- instead of a former 6th man of the year like Nate - the team wouldn't get that much better because Tony would only have like 12 minutes a game to make an impact.

It's better to have him be on a different team where he can play 37 minutes.

Technically the league got "watered down" when they expanded from 12 teams to 15 or whatever it was. Then again when it went to 20, then again when it went to 25. 

It's better than when it was 12.

[dpaps]

I did read the comment before I wrote.  The only joke here is that you can look at Glen Davis, all 300 pounds of him, get touched into by someone half his size, flop like he's been hit by a bazooka, and think that he's taken a charge...Obviously a good thing based on the fact that he wears a green uniform. 

You really think Big Baby has never taken a legitimate charge? One of the stupidest comments I've ever heard. And you think that I only think he has because he's a Celtic? Please, grow up. See now, you're argument would be logical if I had argued that no non Celtic in the league has ever taken a charge. But like your argument, that would be retarded. Big Baby has taken dozens of legitimate charges, and anyone who thinks other wise is a moron. If you don't believe me, ask any one involved with the NBA, ask any referee at any level of basketball, or anyone who has any idea about the sport. You would not find a single intelligent human to back you on that thought.

And your points on officiating are just moot, no one in this thread, nor Lebron, are talking about officiating. If you really think that it is impossible to improve the level of play, or the caliber of teams without changing officiating, you don't understand logic. You can argue, the best way to improve the league is by changing the officiating. Fine, but that's another topic. I argue that by contracting teams, the caliber of each team would have to improve because the talent on each individual team would go up. Officiating has nothing to do with that argument.

Eja, The Celtics wouldn't be a better team with Tony Parker instead of Nate Robinson? Have you ever watched a game of basketball in your life? I mean if you really think that, there's no need to argue with you anymore, because as you've demonstrated over the past few days, it's useless. Just a ridiculous statement.

[Roy H.]

Time to simmer down a bit, guys.  See this thread regarding the expected tone of posts:  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=43251.0

[bdm860]

I'd feel bad for all the people who would lose their jobs (which I have not seen anyone mention). Sure the players would lose a couple mil (I feel so bad for them 0.0)... what about all the people behind the scenes?

many people across the country lose their jobs every year when companies downsize or shut down, it happens. If they were good as an organization then they wouldn't be talked about for contraction. I'm sure most of the people in the organizations can find other jobs, and the players that don't make it onto other teams shouldn't  be paid as NBA players anyway. It's a much more fair option than asking people to pay good money to see teams like the bobcats and the clippers on a regular basis.

The reality is that if those teams were continually losing money they would either move, be sold, or fold.  Fans are attending those games....Paying good money to watch them.  So why contract? 

http://deadspin.com/5708313/the-new-orleans-hornets-sad-financial-documents/gallery/

"The New Orleans Hornets' Sad Financial Documents

We've obtained audited financial data for David Stern's new prize, the New Orleans Hornets. The statements cover 2008 and 2009, and among other things they paint a picture of a team already in hock to the NBA.

Two things jump out, at least to this layman's eyes: the team's operating income, which in 2008 was a $6.4 million loss and in 2009 was a $5.9 million gain (slide 11), though that latter figures includes $3.4 million in revenue assistance from the NBA (slide 28); and the team's net cash in operating activities, which represents the "measurement of money [owner George Shinn] is being asked to take out of his pocket to keep operations going," according to sports economist Andrew Zimbalist. In 2008, that amount was $7.4 million; in 2009, $1.4 million (slide 13). Zimbalist points out that "things got much more problematic for the franchise" the following year."


Just take a peek through those financial documents and realize the Hornets still exist this year.

Looking at that stuff is pretty interesting (of course it would nice to be able to compare it to other teams to know if some numbers are high or not, also it would be cool to see a more detailed, itemized listings to get a better idea of where the money is going).

What I found interesting:
Revenue from season tickets and playoffs was $45M, and then another $41M for broadcasting rights, add in a few other minor revenue streams and total revenue is $110M.

Now for expenses, player salaries was $75M, and everything else (cost of operating the arena, front office personal, marketing, advertising, etc.) brought total expenses to $105M.

With such slim margins, I'm surprised so many coaches and GM's get fired with their multi-million dollar salaries.  It also makes it seem a lot harder for the small market teams, to just sign a veteran for the minimum and cut him if things don't work out (like we discuss so often here).

They had to pay a $30M relocation fee when they moved from Charlotte to NO, which is paid at about $4.3M per year, and they're still paying that!  That's a lot of money to move, especially to another small market, and when you're barely making money.

And wow, the League Office takes a lot of money from playoff teams to pay Stern's salary. To cover "league expenses", the NBA takes 6% from regular season home game gate receipts (seems reasonable), but a whopping 45% from playoff game gate revenue!  That playoff jump just seems ridiculous to me.  I always thought the league just took it's money out of the broadcast deals.  Wow.

They have what appears to be a HUGE amount of debt (but have no other teams to compare it to) at $110M.  If they didn't have $110M in long term debt (which they pay about $9M in interest on every year) then they wouldn't be doing so bad, and if they still didn't have to pay $4.3M per year from relocating (they have like 3 more payments yet to make, which is being put off for a few years as their finances straight).  Although not present in the numbers, they also fired Byron Scott last year, and he had a $5M salary, so they probably owed him at least $4M of that for doing nothing.  Overall, it just seems like some poor management decisions (but everything does in hindsight, and who knows how much of that debt they had to take on because of Katrina - though it looks like they took out $66M in debt in 2003, so before Katrina).

Interesting stuff to look at and read (if you like financial statements).

[dpaps]

Time to simmer down a bit, guys.  See this thread regarding the expected tone of posts:  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=43251.0

You know, after I posted that, I figured it wasn't the best way to go about the situation. Sorry about that Roy, I'll be much more civil with my posts. Haha just one of those knee-jerk reactions I guess.

[guava_wrench]

There's a flaw in LeBron's logic:  He assumes that the number of good players is the same as 30 years ago (or whatever).  Given that we recently learned the US has 310 million people and the fact that there are many non-US athletes who want to earn NBA salaries (and basketball is more popular now in non-US countries than ever before), then there clearly should be a larger pool of talent to pick from than ever before.  Watered down?  I don't see why that would be the case.

There's a flaw in your logic. Regardless of the number of "good" players there are, by reducing the number of teams, the average team gets better. To simplify: If there are only 50 good players in the world, if there are 50 teams, each team has one good player. If there are 25 teams, each team would have 2 good players. Even if there are 300 good players in the league,  reducing the number of teams, still makes each team better. If there are 50 teams, each team has 6 good players. If there are 25 good teams, each team has 12 good players.

It's simple math, it's not complicated.

My problem with this thread is not that I absolutely think that the league NEEDS contraction. I'm cool with the NBA as is, but I would have no problem if they decided to contract a team or two (or 4) and if you can't realize that each team would get better with contraction, you just don't understand logic and mathematics. But the amount of criticism Lebron gets for voicing his opinion is ridiculous. Especially since many experts agree with his statement. But some people on this board will still hate because thats who they are.

The average team doesn't get better because the average team is a .500 team.

The more players in the NBA, the bigger the talent game between the top few rotation players in the league and the bottom few rotation players. Likewise, on a single team, all things being equal, more teams means there will be a bigger gap between the ability of starters on a single team and the bench players. Thus, the quality of play when bench players are in or when starters have injuries might look much worse with more teams.

The points I have made are NOT valid when comparing to another time period for the reason that there are more people playing basketball internationally (bigger talent pool) and there is a limited ability for the ability of the top players to increase from one decade to the next. If the ceiling isn't rising (are players really going to get significantly better than Jordan, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron?) but there is more talent, then the league can support more teams without the talent gap increasing.

# of HOF players per team is not a good target since there is a traditional # of players that are usually admitted from year to year, even as the # of talented players internationally increases. Beyond that, ideally, $ would keep the best players on separate teams. Of course, maximum contract limits stop this from happening.

It is silly for Lebron to compare one of the worst teams in the league (Minny) to all-time great teams. There is always a worst team. He should compare Minny to the bad teams of the past, teams that also had productive players.

For every team that wins, by definition, there has to be a team that loses, regardless of the # of teams in the league.

[guava_wrench]

I did read the comment before I wrote.  The only joke here is that you can look at Glen Davis, all 300 pounds of him, get touched into by someone half his size, flop like he's been hit by a bazooka, and think that he's taken a charge...Obviously a good thing based on the fact that he wears a green uniform. 

You really think Big Baby has never taken a legitimate charge? One of the stupidest comments I've ever heard. And you think that I only think he has because he's a Celtic? Please, grow up. See now, you're argument would be logical if I had argued that no non Celtic in the league has ever taken a charge. But like your argument, that would be retarded. Big Baby has taken dozens of legitimate charges, and anyone who thinks other wise is a moron. If you don't believe me, ask any one involved with the NBA, ask any referee at any level of basketball, or anyone who has any idea about the sport. You would not find a single intelligent human to back you on that thought.

And your points on officiating are just moot, no one in this thread, nor Lebron, are talking about officiating. If you really think that it is impossible to improve the level of play, or the caliber of teams without changing officiating, you don't understand logic. You can argue, the best way to improve the league is by changing the officiating. Fine, but that's another topic. I argue that by contracting teams, the caliber of each team would have to improve because the talent on each individual team would go up. Officiating has nothing to do with that argument.

Eja, The Celtics wouldn't be a better team with Tony Parker instead of Nate Robinson? Have you ever watched a game of basketball in your life? I mean if you really think that, there's no need to argue with you anymore, because as you've demonstrated over the past few days, it's useless. Just a ridiculous statement.

So we should have just 2 teams? Any more than 2 teams and we can make the argument that less teams would make teams better.

If we have only 1 team, they would have no one to play against.

This is why the contraction argument based on consolidating talent is pointless. Contraction arguments based on finances are the only ones that really make sense. There is plenty of talent to go around.

Back in 1972-73 Philadelphia 76ers went 9-73. There were only 17 teams back then. Bad teams are not a result of a watered down league. They are the result of there being better teams.

Remember, for every win in the NBA, there is a loss. Only hockey has the bizarre OT losses where you get a point still, leading to 3 points awarded in a single match and a potential league points to games played ratio that is more than 1.0.

Our view of a bad team is almost completely relative (based on their W-L record). Even if we decrease the # of teams to 17, it is likely that one team will be significantly worse than the others.

[indeedproceed]

I've been beating this drum for a while, but if what you want is more talent on teams, the first place, the easiest thing to do, is to revamp the D-League and the rules involving it.

First, increase the D-League's maximum money per player, then allow teams to send players down and replace them with another player without keeping a roster spot on the active 15 for the player in the D-League.

You'd get more talent in the D-League (mostly reclaiming players from overseas), and teams would be deeper in the 10-15 roster spots.

You'd see play during games increase in quality dramatically.