« Assorted links | Main | Why do other countries care more about health care cost control? »
How to improve basketball
Tim Miano writes to me:
I am a longtime MR reader. I have a hypothesis about how basketball could be much more exciting, and I can't for the life of me figure out why people who are into sports haven't widely considered it (as least as far as I know).
Here is my simple thought: games should be played as best 4 out of 7 periods -- perhaps 7 minutes each or perhaps slightly varied period lengths, 6 - 8 minutes long. Maybe the number or usage of timeouts or foul-outs would need to be fiddled with. Maybe playoffs would be slightly different. But that's pretty much it. The best part of a basketball game is almost always the last few minutes, and it seems like the incentives for exciting play would persist more throughly under this design. Teams would need more endurance and deeper benches, but that seems like a good thing. Other than obsoleting old records and the tradition of the game, I can't think of any downside. Maybe marginal cost v. marginal benefit, à la owners/players wouldn't extract much more money from fans but would have to work harder? Maybe the length of games would vary too much for broadcasters to be happy? But still, a *much* more exciting game.
My Hansonian observation is that fans seem to prefer basketball seasons with a dominant player (Jordan) or perhaps a dominant match-up (the old Lakers vs. Celtics rivalries). For the season as a whole, we don't seem to want too much suspense. Does suspense distract us? Are we really more interested in multi-tasking? Or does suspense make it harder to affiliate with the idea of truly skilled and noble players? If we are suspicious about having too much "suspense" across the course of the season (call it parity, if you wish), might we be suspicious about having too much suspense in the course of a single game?
What's so great about suspense anyway?
Here is Jeff Ely on related issues.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 29, 2009 at 12:37 PM in Sports | Permalink
Comments
Popularity in most sports always seems to peak when a great player is hyped and marketed into almost mythological proportions. One prime example is Mike Tyson and boxing. Jordan is another example; though his hype had more merit than Tyson's. In football, you have/had Tom Brady.
Posted by: Ryan Vann at Oct 29, 2009 12:52:09 PM
I should also add that suspense is great, but it needs proper buildup. For example, two juggernaut teams plowing through the competition for an inevitable face-off is a more compelling story than the whole league being great, and every game being a question mark.
Posted by: Ryan Vann at Oct 29, 2009 12:55:37 PM
What's so damn "Hansonian" about that observation? It's pretty clear that there is a benefit to pro sports when there is a focal team or player (Yankees, Tiger Woods) or two. Similarly, any observer of college sports knows that intrastate rivalries, and a few others, draw a disproportionate amount of attention. These things create a simple story line (often David-Goliath) that attracts marginal fans who aren't really deeply interested in the game. The trick is getting the balance right.
That said, I like Miano's suggestion, though maybe two out of three would be better. Basketball does tend to be tedious until near the end.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Oct 29, 2009 12:57:34 PM
Apparently Tim has never heard of the CBA.
THE 7-POINT SCORING SYSTEM (1981-present) - This rule is undoubtedly the most distinctive rule of the CBA. Instituted in the 1981-82 season, it determined playoff positions not by wins and losses of games, but by wins and losses of games and quarters of games. Two teams fought for control of seven standings points per game - three points to win the game, plus an additional point for each quarter in which they outscored their opponent. Essentially this meant that the teams were playing four mini-games (when asked if this would work in the NBA, one general manager said that the players would think they were playing four games and would want to be paid four times as much). The seven-point scoring system also meant that teams kept their star players in the game during blowout contests (each quarter won determined whether a team could make the playoffs or not), and some squads could earn moral victories by losing a close game - yet taking three of the standings points in the defeat. With this exception of the 1999-2000 season, when the CBA was under the ownership of Isiah Thomas, the seven-point scoring system has remained in use in the CBA to this day.
Posted by: Fred at Oct 29, 2009 12:57:45 PM
What's so damn "Hansonian" about all this?
Popularity in most sports always seems to peak when a great player is hyped and marketed into almost mythological proportions. One prime example is Mike Tyson and boxing. Jordan is another example; though his hype had more merit than Tyson's. In football, you have/had Tom Brady.
True. Tiger Woods is another example. In general, it's clear that pro sports benefit when there is a focal team or player (Yankees, Woods). This creates a story line (often David-Goliath) that draws in marginal fans who otherwise have no deep interest in the game. The trick is getting the balance right. Too much dominance and t he game is boring - a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition.
Also, the lure of rivalries is obvious to anyone who follows college sports, where intrastate rivalries and a few others attract disproportionate attention. (Or consider Fischer-Spassky).
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Oct 29, 2009 1:08:00 PM
What's so great about suspense, anyway? It's fun! You might as well ask what's so great about sex -- not that I think the two are in the same league.
PS- Why Tom Brady and not Peyton Manning? (Okay, okay, maybe it's just because I'm from Indiana.)
Posted by: Neal at Oct 29, 2009 1:20:02 PM
I always thought they should start both teams with 80 points and play for two minutes. Maybe three.
Posted by: efp at Oct 29, 2009 1:26:16 PM
I would like players over six feet tall to have to have their feet always planted on the floor, while players under six feet can jump. I'd find the game more interesting that way.
Posted by: Don the libertarian Democrat at Oct 29, 2009 1:28:48 PM
I don't think this would be good. First, the first quarter is usually kind of sloppy and ugly because players are not fully warmed up; I would hate for this to actually matter. Second, let's say that there is a close game, but one team outscores the other team for the whole beginning of the game. The remaining 3/7 of the game is garbage time. In the NBA, it is not until the last 2 minutes that we really hit garbage time for a 10 point lead (and even then comeback are quite possible).
Posted by: derek at Oct 29, 2009 1:30:28 PM
sounds like tennis
Posted by: casey at Oct 29, 2009 1:34:07 PM
I think they should make it so players can kick the ball too. Other than messing with past records and tradition, I see no downside.
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Oct 29, 2009 1:39:47 PM
As a basketball player, allow me to suggest that all the "boring" minutes are what make the last few minutes of excitement possible. When you've invested a lot, you've got a lot to lose, and that affects the fans and the players. Don't bother telling me about sunk costs -- your adrenal glands didn't get that message.
Posted by: Gary at Oct 29, 2009 1:41:22 PM
I have a theory which holds that the best spectator sports are those which have many well-developed peaks and valleys in intensity. Call it the Alps theory of sports. In sabermetric and financial jargon, people like leverage. But people also like a build up in leverage and then a release from the intensity. Think about a scoring drive in football or a rally in baseball. Each of those sports has a 6 or 8 mini-peaks in intensity prior to the end of the game.
Soccer and hockey arguable claim this as well, but their peaks are too short and punctuated. It takes 15 minutes to have a big rally in baseball. A scoring drive in football is usually even longer. But the rally that leads to a high intensity in soccer in hockey is perhaps only ten or twenty seconds long.
Posted by: Justin Martyr at Oct 29, 2009 1:55:43 PM
There are few entries on this blog that ever make me just blink in confusion. This is one. I'm not even a huge fan of basketball (in fact I can barely get in to pro basketball), but this is utterly bizarre. (Even if I could be convinced that basketball is lacking in excitement or fan interest.)
Posted by: BKarn at Oct 29, 2009 1:58:40 PM
Interest in sports is governed by the law of inertia: a person interested in a sport tends to stay interested in that sport. This force impedes change.
Posted by: john at Oct 29, 2009 2:18:21 PM
Sorry about posting essentially the same comment twice. The first one seemed to disappear off into the ether, but I guess it found it way home.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Oct 29, 2009 2:19:12 PM
"PS- Why Tom Brady and not Peyton Manning? (Okay, okay, maybe it's just because I'm from Indiana.)"
I'd even throw Big Ben in the mix. Football has more room for stars by sheer number of positions. With that said, I think the amount of positions, and the level of specialization of each position sort of dilutes the star power any one player can have. Even with a great QB, you aren’t going to win titles if your line is sub-par and your skills positions aren’t very good. For example, I doubt any of the three QBs mentioned would win 50% of their games if they were with Detroit. Even Jordan (though he was old as dirt at the time) couldn't do much with the Wizards, and that's just 4 other positions he needed to worry about.
Posted by: Ryan Vann at Oct 29, 2009 2:21:04 PM
5 players isn't enough - make it 11. Make the court bigger to compensate. Rotate the hoop from the horizontal plane to the vertical plane. Make it rectangular, not circular. Don't throw the ball, kick it. That game would probably sweep the world.
Posted by: dearieme at Oct 29, 2009 2:25:43 PM
"I have a theory which holds that the best spectator sports are those which have many well-developed peaks and valleys in intensity. Call it the Alps theory of sports. In sabermetric and financial jargon, people like leverage. But people also like a build up in leverage and then a release from the intensity. Think about a scoring drive in football or a rally in baseball. Each of those sports has a 6 or 8 mini-peaks in intensity prior to the end of the game."
I think your theory applies to Americans, but Soccer sort mucks it up. Soccer is pretty much the epitome of building to a peak moment, as goal per game stats would indicate. The problem, and one of the reasons I can't watch the sport, is the lack of mini-peaks (plus I need a level of violence in my sports, thus my preference of boxing, MMA, wrestling, football, rugby and its variants).
Basically you spend 90 minutes to watch 2 goals or so scored, and a few missed attempts. Yet, Soccer is huge pretty much everywhere that isn't the US.
Posted by: Ryan Vann at Oct 29, 2009 2:32:35 PM
While we are offering ideas to make Basketball better, I think that we should dump the 3 point shot and instead to open the game up make the courts longer and wider. Plus have limited substitution and always give the ball back to offended team after a foul shot (IHMO there is too much grabbing in the game today).
Posted by: Floccina at Oct 29, 2009 2:34:03 PM
Similarly, any observer of college sports knows that intrastate rivalries, and a few others, draw a disproportionate amount of attention.
I live in VA and don't watch or follow any college football. But last month when William & Mary beat UVA 26-14, I knew about it within minutes and was very excited by the result.
I always thought they should start both teams with 80 points and play for two minutes. Maybe three
The Twitterization of basketball?
Posted by: anon at Oct 29, 2009 2:39:15 PM
5 players isn't enough - make it 11. Make the court bigger to compensate. Rotate the hoop from the horizontal plane to the vertical plane. Make it rectangular, not circular. Don't throw the ball, kick it. That game would probably sweep the world.
BRILLIANT!
Posted by: Neal at Oct 29, 2009 2:41:05 PM
As it is every play is important as long as the game is in contention.
They may actually work less hard once a period seems out of reach.
I think this is called baseball.
Posted by: Andrew at Oct 29, 2009 2:53:49 PM
5 players isn't enough - make it 11. Make the court bigger to compensate. Rotate the hoop from the horizontal plane to the vertical plane. Make it rectangular, not circular. Don't throw the ball, kick it. That game would probably sweep the world.
I love that game, and I did not care about nor watch sports when I was younger. But after watching my child play that game for more than 10 years, about year 7 something clicked and I started to really enjoy that game.
Now I pay extra to have the 2 channels covering it that are offered by my local cable provider. My family and friends, who all love (American) football, basketball and baseball, think it is hilarious that I follow the game so closely. And I agree with them!
No fanatic like a convert....
Posted by: anon at Oct 29, 2009 2:54:39 PM
This points to what is a real problem with basketball. You turn on a game (note that games are not broadcast as often now), and its the beginning of the fourth quarter, and a typical score might be 85-76. But in one quarter a team can easily make up a 9 point deficit. Maybe the score is 85-52, but then who wants to keep watching a blowout? Really, the first three quarers of play seem to do nothing but establish whether the game will be a blowout or whether the fourth quarter will matter. And in the latter case, just watch the fourth quarter.
I had a similar idea. The first team to win three quarters wins the game. If a team wins each of the first three quarters, they win, the fourth quarter isn't even played. If both teams win two of the first four quarters, then there is a fifth quarter to determine who wins three and who wins the game. The result is the same, every quarter matters. And blowout games at least get finished early.
Posted by: Ed at Oct 29, 2009 3:07:19 PM
