***2021-2022 NBA Season Thread***

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

I’d like to see a slight change to the advertisements on the uniforms. Like maybe have them wear Pizza Hut or Dairy Queen visors during the games. Or maybe some Orange Julius ones if they can find enough for an entire team.

[Going Commando]

4 hours ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

The three point dunk would reward cherry picking. I'd always have someone cheat dramatically to half court if I could get a cheap three off it. The math would be crushingly in my favor over time. A wide open three is going to be missed at least 55 percent of the time. A wide open dunk is going to be missed 1 percent of the time.

 

Also, do you think the definition of a catch in the NFL is a nightmare? How about the definition of a dunk in the NBA? Three or four times a year, Lebron catches an errant alley oop pass and just sort of throws it in the basket from a foot away.

 

1 - You'd be giving up easy dunks or lay up threes if you tried to play 4 defenders on 5 offensive players.  The math wouldn't be in your favor if the opponent is shooting 60% and you're only getting 4 or 5 extra dunks a game.  And you could easily have a guard drop back and play the outlet pass on a missed shot at the rim or an inbounds pass.

 

2 - Define a dunk as any shot a player makes where the hand with the ball touches the rim.

 

It wouldn't be any harder to implement this than it was to implement the three point line.  It would encourage inside play and it would reward bigs for pulling off difficult plays and make a highly entertaining skill more valuable.

 

It just doesn't make sense that a twerp like Steph Curry is exponentially more valuable than a freak like Giannis Antetokounpo simply because of a flawed, outdated set of rules.  It's bad for the sport.

[Going Commando]

4 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Are you including fast break points in that assessment?  

 

Definitely.  A fast break dunk is the second most exciting play in basketball, after the half court poster jam.

 

It's a huge bummer when teams have a 3 on 1 with lane fillers and they pass it out for a ****ing three point attempt.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

2 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

Dubs and Klay talking about a team friendly extension. Weird how these Dubs guys keep taking less than market value to win.

 

It's almost as if the team is owned by Silicone Valley billonaires who can make them partners in endless number of money making schemes when they retire.

 

I'm convinced that Dirk owns a piece of Shark Tank through some secret LLC.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

8 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

It's a huge bummer when teams have a 3 on 1 with lane fillers and they pass it out for a ****ing three point attempt.

This is my biggest complaint. If I want to see guys jack a bunch of threes I can see that at down at the Y. I want to see dudes dunking on each other.

[Going Commando]

2 hours ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

Hinkie getting five years is maybe the most amazing part of "The Process."

 

I think it's actually going to be far more common now that Philly proved that it works.

 

Your solution is fine IMO.  It also gets rid of the cheesy ass luck of Cleveland getting three #1s in 4 years and Orlando getting 2 #1s in a row, which is a problem in and of itself.

 

I still think mine would work too.  If every lottery team has the same odds, the only teams that might tank are ones that are caught between the 8th and 9th seed.  Lottery teams would have incentive to compete throughout the year in order to sell tickets, and fans of lottery teams wouldn't have to sit there rooting for losses each night.

 

And, assuming a ton of statistically unlikely things like the same team getting top three picks four years in a row doesn't happen, it would be a WAY better system for the lottery picks themselves because they'd be distributed around the league during their rookie deals.  Teams tend to pick in similar draft ranges for bunches of seasons because they're either stuck on the treadmill (Detroit, Milwaukee) or they're stuck in the cellar (Sacramento, Brooklyn).  This means they tend to draft a bunch of the same type of player (Philly picking three pure centers in a row because they were going for the dominant big of the draft) and this leads to unbalanced rosters where a lot of these guys fail to develop.

 

I think getting rid of the absurd conditional trades that the NBA allows is a no-brainer.  No other league allow draft pick protection on trades so far as I know, and they all do just fine.  A draft pick should convey the year it was intended to be made when it was traded, no matter what.  If some dumbass GM is trading picks in bad trades to try and save his job, he shouldn't be allowed to completely **** that franchise over five years after he gets fired because of a horrible trade he made.

[The Evil Genius]

12 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

It's almost as if the team is owned by Silicone Valley billonaires who can make them partners in endless number of money making schemes when they retire.

 

I'm convinced that Dirk owns a piece of Shark Tank through some secret LLC.

 

Tbf, both Klay and KD are odd dudes. They are probably the exception to the rule when it comes to pro athletes and KD will get paid a lot of money still. Dubs have also drafted some decent replacement parts when Dray or whoever else leaves in a few years. Jordan Bell looks like a steal this year. 

Edited May 11, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[Renegade7]

24 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Definitely.  A fast break dunk is the second most exciting play in basketball, after the half court poster jam.

 

It's a huge bummer when teams have a 3 on 1 with lane fillers and they pass it out for a ****ing three point attempt.

Steve, I don't care if it's "cooler", its 3 points because its harder to hit from that range.  I'm not saying what you're talking about isn't a problem, but i don't agree with your solution.

[Warhead36]

9 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Tbf, both Klay and KD are odd dudes. They are probably the exception to the rule when it comes to pro athletes and KD will get paid a lot of money still. Dubs have also drafted some decent replacement parts when Dray or whoever else leaves in a few years. Jordan Bell looks like a steal this year. 

That and remember, Thompson and Curry both came from money(their dads playing in the NBA and all)so to them its probably worth sacrificing a little bit to continue winning and living in a wonderful city.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

7 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I think it's actually going to be far more common now that Philly proved that it works.

 

Your solution is fine IMO.  It also gets rid of the cheesy ass luck of Cleveland getting three #1s in 4 years and Orlando getting 2 #1s in a row, which is a problem in and of itself.

 

I still think mine would work too.  If every lottery team has the same odds, the only teams that might tank are ones that are caught between the 8th and 9th seed.  Lottery teams would have incentive to compete throughout the year in order to sell tickets, and fans of lottery teams wouldn't have to sit there rooting for losses each night.

 

And, assuming a ton of statistically unlikely things like the same team getting top three picks four years in a row doesn't happen, it would be a WAY better system for the lottery picks themselves because they'd be distributed around the league during their rookie deals.  Teams tend to pick in similar draft ranges for bunches of seasons because they're either stuck on the treadmill (Detroit, Milwaukee) or they're stuck in the cellar (Sacramento, Brooklyn).  This means they tend to draft a bunch of the same type of player (Philly picking three pure centers in a row because they were going for the dominant big of the draft) and this leads to unbalanced rosters where a lot of these guys fail to develop.

 

I think getting rid of the absurd conditional trades that the NBA allows is a no-brainer.  No other league allow draft pick protection on trades so far as I know, and they all do just fine.  A draft pick should convey the year it was intended to be made when it was traded, no matter what.  If some dumbass GM is trading picks in bad trades to try and save his job, he shouldn't be allowed to completely **** that franchise over five years after he gets fired because of a horrible trade he made.

 

I don't like the idea of a 41-41 team stumbling into the number one pick because some tiebreaker on the last day kept them out of the playoffs. Every sport rewards its worst teams with high picks. That's fine. It shouldn't just be some random number generator. Because a bad team playing hard at the end is still a bad team.  You have to let them sell hope.

[The Evil Genius]

If we are changing rules, can we get ride of the moronic move the ball to half court time out rule? 

 

Also get rid of illegal D. Let them play zone. Whatever. It's a dumb concept (the idea that they can't beat a zone) that pros should be able to overcome.

Edited May 11, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[Going Commando]

One more thing: if you evened the lottery odds, it would incentivize teams to keep their good vets and you'd have a lot more roster stability in the NBA and many fewer absolutely uncompetitive teams.

 

By the trade deadline of his second season, John Wall was the longest tenured Wizard on the roster.  Think about how crazy that is for a second.  You can not win in the NBA with a team like that.  This meant that I had the pleasure of watching absolutely horrific basketball the first four years of his career.  That was a waste of almost a third of his career, when if he had gone to a competitive team right off the bat, both he and the league would have certainly benefited.  But the way things are now, the Wizards were absolutely incentivized to demolish the roster and go super young and suck for four years because it got us Beal and Porter.  And if we would have gotten lucky like Philly, we'd have gotten Anthony Davis instead of Beal and the Wizards would be the ones playing the Warriors in the Finals this season.

 

Make every team's lottery chance the same and you'll get rid of the league's large underclass and spread the top incoming talent around the league and you will end up with a vastly more dynamic and competitive league.

3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

If we are changing rules, can we get ride of the moronic move the ball to half court time out rule? 

 

Also get rid of illegal D. Let them play zone. Whatever. It's a dumb concept (the idea that they can't beat a zone) that pros should be able to overcome.

 

Teams can play zones.  It happens on occasion but the main reason teams play man is because three point shooters must be covered at the NBA level.  But NBA defenders help waaaaaay off of guys who are a skip pass away.

[Renegade7]

Why are ya'll so focused on picks?  At end of the day, you need a GM who knows what he's doing to build around it, even when he hits.  People hit on lottery picks all the time, but that's because a broken clock is right twice a day.  If the clock stays broke...Sixers got rid of that GM and first thing the new guy was build around what they have, and they went to second round of the playoffs.

 

What the hell??? Space Jam on VH1 right now almost over and none of ya'll bammas tell me? For shame.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Renegade7

[Going Commando]

6 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

I don't like the idea of a 41-41 team stumbling into the number one pick because some tiebreaker on the last day kept them out of the playoffs. Every sport rewards its worst teams with high picks. That's fine. It shouldn't just be some random number generator. Because a bad team playing hard at the end is still a bad team.  You have to let them sell hope.

 

I don't know... I think it just enables terrible GMs like Ernie Grunfeld to keep their jobs for longer.  The draft is their crutch.

 

There is also a certain kind of hopelessness unique to the NBA that a fan of a lottery team who won't go into the tank experiences.  It creates a perverse situation where, in order to have hope, die-hard fans passionately root for losses each game.

 

Plus an organization like Miami should be rewarded by the system for trying to win every year even though they don't have the roster to truly compete.  Awful organizations like the Sixers, the Kings, the Suns, the Wizards, the Nets, etc. should not be rewarded for being morons.

[The Evil Genius]

7 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Teams can play zones.  It happens on occasion but the main reason teams play man is because three point shooters must be covered at the NBA level.  But NBA defenders help waaaaaay off of guys who are a skip pass away.

 

The illegal d rule in the NBA makes playing zone almost impossible.

[Going Commando]

1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

The illegal d rule in the NBA makes playing zone almost impossible.

 

You can play a zone, you just can't stand in the paint for three seconds without actively guarding someone.  You can stand just outside of it all day.  The reason teams don't play zones that often is because NBA players can actually shoot, and most of the time the 4 is not playing on the low block in the NBA any more.  But you'll see teams start running zone in games from time to time to switch things up.

The illegal defense rule was changed in 2001 specifically to allow teams the ability to play zone because ISO ball was killing the game.

[Renegade7]

"Whatever it is, you got a lot of it."

[Going Commando]

23 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Steve, I don't care if it's "cooler", its 3 points because its harder to hit from that range.  I'm not saying what you're talking about isn't a problem, but i don't agree with your solution.

 

You don't think it's harder to dunk against a set defense than it is to hit a three ball?  You don't think it's harder to finish a fastbreak dunk, even on something like a 3 on 1 with that defender positioned under the basket than it is to catch and shoot a wide open three?

 

I guarantee you that there are many more threes made than dunks in the average NBA game.  And many more wide open threes made than wide open dunks.

 

Another bonus from making dunks worth three: And-1s would be so much more valuable than getting fouled and throwing up some lame ass mess that never had a chance of going in.  Four points instead of two.  Guys would have a lot more incentive to actually finish their drives instead of just settling for a trip to the line after the contact.  We should be rewarding athletic, aggressive, exciting finishing that we get from LeBron/Westbrook/Giannis instead of the **** ass bull**** artistry of James Harden.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I just don’t want to see a bunch of people driving to the paint trying to dunk all the time instead of shooting. 

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

You don't think it's harder to dunk against a set defense than it is to hit a three ball?  You don't think it's harder to finish a fastbreak dunk, even on something like a 3 on 1 with that defender positioned under the basket than it is to catch and shoot a wide open three?

 

I guarantee you that there are many more threes made than dunks in the average NBA game.  And many more wide open threes made than wide open dunks.

 

Another bonus from making dunks worth three: And-1s would be so much more valuable than getting fouled and throwing up some lame ass mess that never had a chance of going in.  Four points instead of two.  Guys would have a lot more incentive to actually finish their drives instead of just settling for a trip to the line after the contact.  We should be rewarding athletic, aggressive, exciting finishing that we get from LeBron/Westbrook/Giannis instead of the **** ass bull**** artistry of James Harden.

 

These are NBA players, but even you commented about how many players throw up shots that have no chance.  What's harder, a defended three or a defended dunk?  It doesn't matter.  Again, I'm not saying this isn't a problem, you just using a jackhammer to thumbtack something the the bulletin board.

 

NBA could give bonus money to players for dunks, but then players are going to be picking money instead of what makes the most sense on the court.   Who's more valuable, DeAndre Jordan or Steph Curry?  This could inadvertently change the value of players as well, a lot of people already making more then they should anyway.  I don't like when people throw the ball up looking like a muppet with the strings cut behind the line so they have a chance at 3 foul shots, address that.

 

I like teams that can score inside and hit 3s, this would discourage that.

[Going Commando]

3 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

I just don’t want to see a bunch of people driving to the paint trying to dunk all the time instead of shooting. 

 

It's hard to dunk on someone.  That's the limiting factor.  Much harder to dunk on someone than it is to pull up and shoot or go for a softer below the rim finish.

 

The rule change would incentivize more dunk attempts as well as better rim defense to prevent dunks.  It'd create a tougher, more aggressive and exciting style of play.

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

I just don’t want to see a bunch of people driving to the paint trying to dunk all the time instead of shooting. 

This is exactly what would happen if a dunk is already 3 and people are going to be looking for the contact.  We aren't saying a dunk is 3 points in that case, we're now saying it will be 4.  You risk people doing more stupid **** that could get people hurt as well.  

[Going Commando]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 I don't like when people throw the ball up looking like a muppet with the strings cut behind the line so they have a chance at 3 foul shots, address that.

 

Easy enough: just keep it so you get two shots when you get fouled on a missed dunk.  You only get the reward of the third point for making the dunk.

 

Think of how incredible the moment would be if somebody just yams on Rudy Gobert late in a playoff game for a four point play.  You've made the poster jam the greatest play in basketball, not just from an aesthetic point of view (which it already is), but a competitive one as well.

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Easy enough: just keep it so you get two shots when you get fouled on a missed dunk.  You only get the reward of the third point for making the dunk.

 

Think of how incredible the moment would be if somebody just yams on Rudy Gobert late in a playoff game for a four point play.  You've made the poster jam the greatest play in basketball, not just from an aesthetic point of view (which it already is), but a competitive one as well.

Telling them if they miss the dunk will lead to max half the points you could if you make it will make your idea worse not better.  Now you're making them desperate.  

 

[Going Commando]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

Telling them if they miss the dunk will lead to max half the points you could if you make it will make your idea worse not better.  Now you're making them desperate. 

 

How does it make it worse?  You don't think they're going to be giving full effort to make the dunk either way?  Isn't giving full effort to dunk it what everyone would want to see?