Speaker 1: What is up, Fellowsikos, I am Dan Valley coming at
you with the one, the only, my certified fantabulous co host,
mister Grant Hughes. Everyone knows what time it is except
for everyone who's not me and Grant. It's Commissioner for
a day time in the NBA. We asked we have
some of our own, but we asked for rule changes
from our discord members and some of our followers. We
were inundated with responsors, so responses, so thank you for
all your submissions. We're clearly not gonna get to every
single one because there was like it was like a
hundred of them. Grant, I think it came out too,
so that was really cool. But the pretense of this
podcast is you are commissioner for a day and you
can just give executive orders to do literally anything that
you want. So there'll be no pushback, no process that
goes through. So we have a bunch Grant and I
will respond to them while proposing a couple of our own.
But first and foremost, mister Hughes, how the heck are you?
Speaker 2: I'm drunk with power, Dan, I feel I feel it
just coursing through my veins. I never knew I needed
to be in a powerful position like this until I
feel it for today. So hopefully we don't abuse it
and hopefully it does not corrupt us. But I'm excited
about just deciding how the NBA should operate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, like these are all just hours, are right,
Although it is always fun, we're I had to cut
like you and I were gonna I exk for a
few from us, and we each have two. And here's
because we have so many responses that and some of
which like step on the toes of other things that
sure we would have come up with anyway, anything notes
or thoughts on this exercise before you sort before we
sort of dive into it. By the way, nothing personal here.
If we think an idea is terrible, that's not We
don't think you're a terrible human being for proposed to.
Let get that out of the way.
Speaker 3: Your idea is just real dom, that's all.
Speaker 1: I mean.
Speaker 2: I think that what I what I did notice, and
like this won't be a surprise because I feel like
this has come through when we've had like state of
the game conversations before. But generally speaking, I think the
NBA product is really awesome, right, now.
Speaker 3: I think it's really good, and like I do have
I have some notes, but it is it is hard
for It's harder.
Speaker 2: Now to do this than it would have been like
a few years ago, I think because generally, like, well,
what you'll see is like a lot of mine are
go to like the viewing experience as opposed to like
the game itself. So yeah, that's kind of where I
had to go, just because I do think the game
is being played really great right now.
Speaker 1: I'm mostly in the same camp I found myself like
when I was thinking about it, there was nothing like
I either wanted to focus on like actual dumb or
funny shit which I didn't include, or it was okay,
this is sort of maybe it's not granular, but it'll
have a mild impact. I wasn't looking to overhaul the
way that the game is played right now, so I
was like, you are pretty content with how the product
is right now. From some of the submissions that we received, though,
it's very clear that not everyone shares that thought, which
always makes for hopefully good discussion. But what do you
say we find out Grant.
Speaker 3: Let's see our first.
Speaker 1: One is from gam who might be me. I don't
want to see any intentional fouls beyond the arc for
teams up by three inside of a minute or something
to play it. If you do, it should either result
in I would say, like an automatic three free throws.
I've seen some people say that it should be a
choice between that or two, or we can go to
that and say the team gets to choose between you
get your two free throws or you get one free
throw and the ball back immediately. I understand why teams
foul up three, I really do. I don't want to
see it. Let's force them to play defense.
Speaker 2: So this is the intention here, is to disincentivize defenses
in these specific situations from like making it so the
trailing team can't get a three up to tie it. Right,
This is like the right, that's what we're targeting here.
The like Yeah, and some teams don't foul, by the way,
like it because it seems like the math is just
never settled on whether you should or shouldn't foul. I
think you hear both sides of it.
Speaker 3: I like this.
Speaker 2: I liked or this proposal because it just is objectively
more fun. If a team that's up has to defend
in like a high pressure situation and can't just like
play the math game and rob us of a game
tying three or or you know what I mean, Like
that's I don't feel like this should This wouldn't like
fundamentally change the game. It would just make these isolated
situations more fun. So you're one for one as far
as I'm concerned.
Speaker 1: I was trying to think about what the argument would
be against it, and I guess you could say that
it'd be difficult to define intent because what if you're
playing defense and like actually fouling. I still think that
rules should apply because that's just gonna make the game
more exciting. But you could make the case that let's
say there's like I don't know, like twelve seconds left
and you defend like really well for eight of them,
but then you foul because you're going for the ball.
I could see like quibbling over that, But I still
I would rather remove all of the opportunities for teams
to foul up three. Then I would like, Okay, if
that happens, like all right, that happens, and so deal
with it. Maybe it's would you prefer to be the
automatic three free throws, like even if you're not in
the shooting motion or should it be you get a
choice between I think it should be the like, maybe
a choice between shooting one and getting the ball back
or the three free throws, because I just don't like
at that point, like, what is the like if you're
just gonna get two free throws anyway, why would you
ever vote in favor of that scenario? Like what would
be the logic between saying will take two free throws?
Is it because you think that you could make one,
miss one and get the rebound. I was struggling with
that part of this.
Speaker 2: I think if if it was a straight two free throws,
which is sort of what it is now, which we
don't like, then it still is too easy of a
decision if you're inclined to want to foul when you're
up three. I like the one free throw in the
ball because if you're the trailing team, you're not one,
you're running very little time off, you're getting the point,
you're getting the ball back out, and now you're down
two assuming you make it. I mean, if you miss it,
is that a live ball? And then because that would
be an interesting strategy too, maybe it would change the
strategy somewhat. I just think like like if you're if
you're any any rule proposition, you have to think about,
like what are the potentials for like gaming it or
abusing the rule, And you'd say, like, well, the offensive
players might really try to flop or or like accentuate
contact to try to get those three free throws. I
think making it one in the ball I like a
little better. And I also don't the potential for abuse
is like I mean, guys are going to accentuate contact
in these situations anyway, So I don't really think you'd
have some some and some crazy issue with that.
Speaker 3: I think it's good. I like, I like the one
in the ball, though better than three free throws I think.
Speaker 1: I don't say by the way one in the ball.
I think it would have to be sort of just
like a technical fault situation where if you miss, it's
a dead ball, because if it was a live ball
after that that would be just bizarre.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you almost should foul just because it's like, well,
there's a twenty percent chance we just get the ball
and we're still up three, like that's then the math
would probably suggest you should foul.
Speaker 1: And I know it would or vary by player, but
if it was actually a choice between three foul shots
or one and then getting the ball back, there would
be an actual decision there, right, because anecdotally, if like
whenever I watch someone get three consecutive free throws, like
in those situations, it always feels like they're gonna miss
one for sure.
Speaker 3: It really I don't know.
Speaker 2: I wonder what the numbers are on that, but I
feel exactly the same way. It's like, well, he's he's
definitely not hitting all three of these, Like that's impossible.
Speaker 1: But you know our next one comes from you would
you like too, like to read it?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so this is a viewing experience thing, really, so
I would like to see a shot clock. I want
to shortened free throw time full out, so like this
isn't just a shot at Yiannis. It's just everybody like
there's the guys can game the ten second count by
like you see him put a hand up and like,
don't throw me the ball yet, ref I'm not ready.
I have to do my two deep breaths. Then I
get the ball. Then the clock starts, which nobody actually
enforces anyway, hard eight seconds, Like you get fouled the
second you step to the line. The ref throws, like
we needed This isn't a rule as much as like
a behavior thing, like we gotta get this thing started
more quickly. So that's one eight seconds, and like there's
a visible clock ticking like the in baseball. They've have
the pitch clock now that the picture can see, Like
just put it up, do eight seconds on the shot clock.
Speaker 3: Use the same thing. It's right there. He's looking at
it anyway.
Speaker 2: Then, because I'm really just I they do this a
little bit now, and I think I would be fine
with an expansion of it. I want ads being run
like you know in a half screen or quarter screen
picture and picture set up during free throws because who's
paying attention anyway, Like, and then the the sort of
trickle down of that is it allows you to cut
You're not hurting your advertisers. You can cut out commercial breaks,
you know of a minute or two down the road
in the game, like hopefully in the last few minutes,
because I really am driving at just you know, making
the end of game not so hrky jerky stop and start.
So this is like three rules in one, but I
want three throw to be done faster. I want ads
during free throws and I want all that to pay
off in like just a more streamlined late game experience.
Speaker 1: I like this rule, but I think you undermined it
in your justification by saying, because who's paying attention anyway?
If those ads are running during free throws, and I.
Speaker 2: Think you can't say that to the advertisers, you definitely
lost over that part of it.
Speaker 1: It would be nice and specifically. I don't know why this.
I'm sure there's a reason, and I just haven't dug
or cared to ask about it. But like the ESPN
Show versus the TNT Show, forget about the quality of
what you think of either of them. There's more time
spent in studio with the TNT guys, and with ESPN
everything just feels like like it's a minute and then
there's more commercial breaks. It's like, if you were to
shove more advertisements and during the free throws, would it
allow or compel ESPN to expand the actual you know
in game or studio analysis. Now, whether you want more
of that's it's again it's a separate matter. But in theory,
having more time to break down the game, like rather
than having a rush to these commercial breaks at halftime pregame,
post game all that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think, like to dump on my own rule,
it's not necessarily a given that that networks that are
collecting AD dollars would say we will yeah, we'll keep
that the bottom the bottom line number of AD dollars
we're getting the same by pulling out commercials later in
the game and making and you know, breaking even by
having free throw commercials. They might just be like, we'll
do both, like we like this these and we should
have ads on every free throw anyway, and we'll just
keep the same link the commercial breaks like that. That
presumes that that the networks are like, well, we don't
want to cap on how much AD revenue we can make,
which is probably.
Speaker 1: Then this will also all end with you mentioned quarter screen,
but the quarter screen will be the actual free throw
attempt all the ads.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, no, I mean you kind of that.
Speaker 2: I feel like that kind of happens sometimes now where
they'll read they'll have a quick like ten second ad
during the free throw, and somehow it like won the
audio is up on the AD and so you're hearing
the ad over the free throw, and then I feel
like the picture sometimes does get really like what you're
talking about like I think actually happens sometimes.
Speaker 1: It's also kind of like when they do those coming
out of halftime updates. I'm like the like the person
covering the game in person where it's okay, so they're
sometimes the game is smaller than the actual interviewer most
of the time not But I like this rule in theory.
It just feels like it could open the door for
the NBA would compromise, say yeah, we're gonna show more
ads during free throws and keep the same amount of
Exactly that's the problem. So before we hit to my
next one, there were ones that were kind of tied
to this, so they will be in between your next one.
I'm not showing favoritism to anyone over you, except that
I actually am. I just wanted to give you a
heads up for there. So my next one is, let's
have officials emphasize calling more offensive fouls on the habitual
users of the off arm to create separation or generate contact.
And this is associated a lot with big guys Sabonis, Shanngoon,
even Jokic. We see it from smaller players like Shaekillers
and Alexander will Do. We just see it all the time,
and it gets into freedom of movement stuff, which they're
some specific things coming here, but this specifically is just
I just find it annoying because not only is it
okay sometimes it's already called and sometimes it's not, so
I want to see it being more of an emphasis,
but also you kind of open the door for additional flopping,
which doesn't feel as prevalent necessarily, or at least not
as much of a point of an emphasis as it
did previously. But like, because of this just proliferation of
the off arm, you can either actually be an offensive
foul that's not like should be an offensive foul that's
not called, or like I said, you're kind of paving
a way for then slight contact and be exaggerated. And
so i'd like to see I'm all open to try
and make things harder on offenses without shrinking the floor necessarily.
And I think this is one of the freedom of
movement aspects that I would like to see be called more.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is something that's just kind of gotten
away from officials because it used to be. The explanation
you'll hear now from broadcasters and stuff is like, well
he didn't get the arm extended, like when the arm
gets extended in a push off off by an offensive player,
that one gets called pretty often, and as a result,
players have just gotten really good at pushing off with
like a bent arm, you know, it's almost like a
shoulder shrug, like Jason Tatum SGA Like they're just like
they're so good at it that you don't even see
it half the time. Shan Gooon is like, you know,
it's very obvious most of the time.
Speaker 3: I think, like.
Speaker 2: I don't, I wish should have looked up the actual rule, Like,
it doesn't feel like full extension of the arm should
be a requirement for this to be an offensive foul,
because the whole point is you're just.
Speaker 3: Like shoving someone and you happen to have the ball,
so we're okay with it. It's I would.
Speaker 1: Definitely argue that the elbow is more well, yeah, anywhere as.
Speaker 2: Like as effective, which is like, you know, it works
just as well, and if you can hide it better
then it's probably more effective than a full on push.
So yeah, this this is one that it's like, I mean,
would you agree that in terms of like how the
game is actually played, this is like kind of new
and pretty clearly a problem, like because it just is
a foul.
Speaker 1: What's interesting, too, is I remember watching a video I
think Monnie McCutcheon on NBA dot Com was going through
points of emphasis for I want to say it might
have been in twenty twenty two, like the coming season,
and the off arm was like one like it was
supposed to be called more in favor of the defender,
like those were gonna be offensive fouls, and I don't yeah,
I mean what is time, Like I don't remember thinking
that season that it was a problem.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and then like we're only what.
Speaker 1: Two or three years removed, and it does feel like
it's just completely and by the way it gets called sometimes.
But that's part of the problem. Is there needs to
be if you're not gonna make it an emphasis for like,
there needs to be some type of uniformity with it.
I would just prefer for it to favor the defense
at this point where it's like you said, your arm
doesn't need to be fully extended, and yeah, you A
lot of stuff's always going to be subjective, open to interpretation,
but I think you could decide whether there's a consequential
level level of contact when someone's backing down or like
going forward and trying to like push off or because
it's not even just to let me try and draw
contact thing or let me get like it's associated with
big guys, but it's like that's how shake Gil just Alexander,
Like you mentioned Jason Tator, Like we've seen Jalen Brunton
do it too, Like can push off and create separation
that way on the perimeter.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's it's just it's a foul, and I
think like it's the type of thing this is not
a good test to use for all situations like this,
but like if it's a pickup game and you're defending
someone and they do this, everyone's like, yeah, okay, well
why what are we doing? Like that's not you're not
gonna call that foul because we get made fun of,
but it's like obviously a foul.
Speaker 1: You want to take us through our next one.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So this is from Patrick Fenlon.
Speaker 2: So I'd like to see the freedom of movement in
quotes emphasis reversed so as to allow for more physical
perimeter defense. This is one that, like you, some version
of this gets raised whenever it's like offenses out of
control or look at these crazy.
Speaker 3: Numbers and this.
Speaker 2: Do you take this to be like bringing back hand
checks like full on like hand on the body type
of thing, or.
Speaker 3: Just or what what? What do you what do you
think this means more specifically?
Speaker 1: I mean it probably. I would think it does refer
to that. I think it might even incorporate the off
arm stuff that we were just talking about. I would
like two of the other things is I don't know
if this will fall onto that, but like the landing
space for shooters where it's you know that we've seen, Okay,
they've called more of those offensive fouls, especially from threes
if there's a leg kickout or an unnatural motion there.
But I feel like it not to he's injured and
he plays for my favorite team, not to single him out,
but like some of the spread eagle attempts from Jalen Brunton,
like that when you're in the lane, that stuff, I
feel like doesn't get called as much, and the other
thing doesn't. It feel like I don't know how far
back we'd have to go, but like the off ball
stuff where it's like you get in the way of
someone who's trying to run to the corner, where it's
like a defense setting a screen almost. I'm not saying
you should be allowed to bear hug them, but if
you're gonna derail their path of motion, if they're trying
to relocate to a corner or something. I've seen too
many of those calls over the past couple of years,
like being called the defensive found It's just maybe that's
not an offensive foul, but it certainly to me shouldn't
be a defensive faul.
Speaker 2: Well, so then let's think about the effects of this,
because I'm open to it because it is really like, well,
I mean, I don't, I don't know, I don't, I
don't know if I when I'm watching games, am I thinking, like, Man,
these offensive players are allowed to like move around too much.
Like so if you you're gonna curtail drives, I would
assume right like you're you're and maybe that will because
it's just gonna be harder to get around somebody in
a one on one situation if they can kind of
hold you, probably harder to get open off the ball
if you can. If more physicality is allowed, so like,
it definitely reduces scoring and slows the game down, probably
maybe emphasizes postplay.
Speaker 3: Again, I don't know, It's hard.
Speaker 2: It's hard to guess that anything effect wise other than
I think it would knock scoring down like that, that
seems like pretty clear.
Speaker 1: I think it would definitely make the game more physical.
I don't know if that's necessary. I mean, we have
all these stars injured, so maybe that is a terrible thing.
I don't like, do you actually think that it would
result in more I mean, like one of this screen
shot pot like one of the things they used to
emphasize is kind of if a defender is getting under
someone in the post, like where like with Al Horford
in this picture, no one could see it unless they're
on YouTube where he positions his leg, like they could
call stuff like that. Sometimes I can't imagine. There's intended
and unintended consequences for everything. I can't imagine that it
would re emphasize post play though. Yeah.
Speaker 2: No, I'm just thinking, like, well, if if the perimeter
game and driving and getting clean looks is just harder,
maybe you're like, well, we'll try something else and then
that is as a result, that's where we just dump
it into the post more or more.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I can't decide if I think the level of physicality
allowed on the perimeter is a problem or not, And
that's kind of a tough threshold issue to get over
for me.
Speaker 1: I lean, do you think there was a happy medium
two years ago when they did make the point of
emphasis on some of this stuff where it wasn't full
boor into it, but it did feel like that Or
did you find that it was that it impacted the
product or that it was for some reason more dangerous or.
Speaker 3: No, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I think I think the thing we definitely I'm sure
now yet because what is time, Like you said, like.
Speaker 3: There was a stretch there. This could be five.
Speaker 2: Years ago at this point or more where it was
just like the defense was just in an impossible position
because of all the foul baiting that was allowed by
offensive players like the Tray Young like driving, you know,
totally change your path to get contact. The Chris Paul
would do it all the time. Like so I think
like we actually are maybe allowing more physical defensive play
in that like any contact was just benefit to the
offense and you know, in the last half half decade
or so, so maybe.
Speaker 3: This is already sort of happening.
Speaker 2: But but yeah, I don't I don't know, Like if
you isn't isn't basketball like theoretically a non contact sport,
Like it's you're not supposed to be able to hold
and obstruct and do all this other stuff. So like
this would change it, I guess really back to what
it was like in the eighties where you could just
like get a handful of jersey with on defense all
the time.
Speaker 1: I guess I could see the like, especially this if
you're looking at the way that the off arm stuff
is called or not called, depending on how you want
to frame it. Like, if you see offensive players getting
that advantage, why shouldin defensive players like have something to
counter that with?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I mean that would make it so like
very small, very quick players would be at a disadvantage
because they could they can't use that physicality, and they
would be a victim of like physical defense. I also
think as a Warriors fan, you might argue that Steph
Curry is defended physically enough away from the ball, especially
in the playoffs. Is that is that where you're going
with this next one we have is from Andy Tobo.
I would like to ban the charge call, just make
it a personal foul to run into somebody too violently
and stop having people diving in front of defenders and
throwing themselves backwards. Anecdotally, I agree, like sort of an idea,
Like I don't know if you could ban the charge altogether,
but I don't want to see players undercutting other players.
I mean, I will like, where would Kyle Lowry rank
among the greats if they banned chargers?
Speaker 3: Is not in favor of this rule. I think that's
pretty clear.
Speaker 1: He's like on his way out of the league, so
maybe he doesn't care too much. So I just I
don't what would be the like, because if you then
ban charges, do you think that, like, what would I
guess what would be the primary consequence of that? It's like,
if you're banning charges, does that mean like defenders can't
get in the path at Also, this is going to
increase the number of drives and the number of plays
at the rim and then increase scoring even further, or
you're saying ban charges in this sense just like almost
anything within reason goes So I like, I would just
be curious is what you think the effects of something
like this would be.
Speaker 2: It feels to me like if you ban the charge
and you have there's no longer an incentive for a
defender to beat an offensive player to the spot, stand
still and take a hit, what you'll have is offensive
players are no longer afraid to okay if you're trying
to like stop. So I guess like one you would
have offensive players attacking bodies like way more aggressively because
like now nobody's ever set and it's up to the
official to decide.
Speaker 3: I guess, like, was that too violent of a collision?
Speaker 2: I think the whole idea of like it's a charge
when the defender is set. That's certainly the most common
charge taken. I guess you could take a charge or
it's an offensive foul if you're not set but the
off arm comes out or a shoulder gets lowered or whatever.
But like, I think it makes it too difficult to
decide because then you're just like you know what I mean,
Like it's too hard to decide was the offensive player
out of control? Was the defensive player? Like you just
need some kind of baseline, I think, And if like
being set and in position when the upward shooting motion starts,
it's like, was did he accomplish that or not? And
then it's a charge or it isn't based on those
criteria that feels clean enough, I would say I think
something needs to be done, whether it's like position needs
to be established sooner by the defender or you move
the charge circle out just because if I totally agree that,
the whole like stepping under is like we got to
get that out of the game injury reasons and like
that's just it sucks to watch that, like, oh, congratulations,
like a six or two guard just undercut somebody you
know who's taking off from really far away.
Speaker 3: That Like I don't want that in the game either,
And I don't.
Speaker 1: Necessarily want unimpeded dungks though either. But I think the
extending their like charge circle feels like the the best
move here. I don't know. I guess you could argue,
like where some guys are taking off, like how far
do you need to extend it for it's like materially matter.
But I think even if you extend it a little bit,
theoretically you're just making that less dangerous because guys aren't
you know, they're not attempting, Like most of these players
are not lifting off from like the foul line to
go for a type deal.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, it's it's it's I mean that this gets that,
like this is an issue that like the undercuts and
like they're getting in there late, like that's got to
figure something out for that. So I don't know about
this banning it all together, but I think a tweak might.
Speaker 1: Be in order. You want to take us to our
next one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's go back to all this from BJP. Let's
go back to the travel rules of high school slash
college level. Remove the gather step and force traveling and
carries at a strict level. This is actually from Steve Kerr.
I think I don't know if if we can prove
it's not.
Speaker 1: I like this one independent of I don't really care,
Like the carrying just doesn't bother me. Like that is
if you want to, like if it's if it's egregious,
like the one time Lebron kind of picked it up
stop dribbling for two seconds and then started dribbling again.
But first, if you wanted to do something with the
gather steps, even like some of the pivot foot things,
I don't. I don't have an issue with that. What
about you?
Speaker 2: No, I I think this. I always feel like it's
me just getting old. But the gather step is something
that like I never learned and it's like, well, therefore
it's this is stupid. I think this is an unfair advantage.
I kind of dig the like the step throughs that
everybody's doing now because I think technically, by the book,
that is not a travel if that other foot does
not come down release the ball, and that's like that's
like a cheat code sometimes because defenders have not fully
adjusted to the guys that Jalen Brunson does it all
the time.
Speaker 3: For example, like some wicked Grandon Pajemski does it.
Speaker 2: It's always like it's weird that it's like the super
athletic guys and then the really small like.
Speaker 3: Under athletic guys that make it work.
Speaker 2: I I think, I think I like this because it
just feels like guys are getting three steps and it's
literally impossible to defend, like a three step Giannis euro
in transition, like if he's allowed to do that, I
I agree. I think I think the gather step thing
and just deciding when you start counting steps needs to
be modified to because the NBA is fundamentally different now
and how that rule is enforced than other levels where you.
Speaker 1: Land on the carrying aspect.
Speaker 3: Of it all. It bothers me less. It does feel like.
Speaker 2: Certain like Jah Morant, I think is one that has
like perfected the art of and Jordan pul got called.
Remember when carrying was a point of emphasis for like
two months a couple of seasons ago, and Jordan Poole's
turnover rate spiked like five x because he just kept
getting called for it.
Speaker 3: I think, I think I would like a little bit
less carrying called, or a more carrying called. But it's
like hard to be less.
Speaker 1: Let's not even dribble anymore.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's just tuck the ball like a running back
and take five steps. The traveling seems to me like
a bigger issue because not everybody is an egregious carrier,
but almost everybody is an egregious traveler by like the
old school rules.
Speaker 1: At this point, would you care to know why Jalen
Johnson has pictured on the car for this one? No?
I would yes, Among rotation players, he leads the league
in travels for thirty six minutes.
Speaker 2: Really good stat man. I would have needed a lot
of guesses to get that one.
Speaker 1: Next up is yours? You got there?
Speaker 3: Just another viewer experience situation.
Speaker 2: Here, there's a theme in my suggestions, I want to
eliminate one full time out per half, and I want
another one.
Speaker 3: Convert what happened to the twenty second time out? We
don't do it anymore, and.
Speaker 2: You get to do the hands on the shoulders thing
as a signal that's a twenty second time out.
Speaker 1: You just want Bill Kennedy having the ability to flex.
Speaker 2: Oh, for one hundred percent, I missed the twenty second
time out because it was like, I don't know, it
takes me back. We can do without all the timeouts right,
like we really now, it's an ad thing as much
as anything else. I think the game would just be better,
especially like they do speed up the timeouts late when
it's clearly just for like an offense defense sub or
like to drop a But like, I need the twenty
second time out back that you're getting a minute or
two back in terms of like wasted time from that,
and cut another one. You might get three or four
minutes back if it goes to commercial and you got
to do the whole ramp up, you know, get the
ball back and bound. So I'm just trying to trim
just Dan, can you tell him someone who tries really
hard to watch more than one game every night, and
I need to blow through the downtime, like we need
less downtime.
Speaker 1: I agree for the most part. And I just said,
if you made it a ten second timeout, like, it's
still gonna be like a minute timeout or right, Yeah,
my whole issue is and I just don't there's nothing
to at least I haven't seen evidence to suggest this
if we're now cutting down the number of in game
breaks for players. I know everyone thinks that load management
sucks and that these players are sought, but like the
amount of injuries just continue to go up, and so
if we're just gonna make these guys have less rest
and less rest, like, do you think that there are
we going to reach a point where it's too far?
Ok Now you have the games played minimum, and I
just that would be my one concern. But these are
such granular breaks we're talking about. I guess it doesn't matter.
I'm all for speeding up just the dead time. So
I want to make that a clue. Maybe it's just
enforce how long, enforce how long full timeouts are supposed
to be, like we haven't.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, right exactly that that might be the real answer.
Can we have a digression. So you mentioned like the
load management and the like, injuries will go up if
if you're you know, taxing players more by cutting out
some of the rest. I think I've reached a point
now where I really do think there's enough evidence to
suggest that, like it's not the number of games played,
it's it's at the travel, the whatever. It really is
that the game requires more physical exertion in terms of
like time spent sprinting and changing direction and attention and
stuff on both ends than it ever has. And so
like if you it's it's not like give a guy
a game off, that'll that's the right way to load manage. Like,
I think the only way you get injuries to trend
back down is you do institute rule changes, like maybe
a freedom of movement thing, where it's like you can't
it's just harder to move around as much, and so
guys just are not as taxed. I don't know how
you ever implement that, but I'm starting to think the
load management thing is really just like it we're going
at it the wrong way. It is just about how
the game's played, and this is the new normal. Like
there will be injuries like this while as long as
the game is played at like this level of intense
physicality and like speed and that kind of thing.
Speaker 1: It's almost kind of like you need to figure the
way you need to figure out how to load manage
is in the game rights, not even it's played. But
TH's you Steph as an example, again, it's how can
we get Steph a rest in the game? Is it? Okay, sure,
cut his minutes, but it's also ah, he's not flying
around the court as much because we have other options
which you can now do with a Jimmy Butler there
in theory, I would I think you're one hundred percent
spot on with that, and that would be for people
that want to go back to sort of nineties erras
basketball if it's going to slow it down and the
possessions or their sheewer possessions there are more post ups.
They call that brand of basketball was more physical, and
I have no doubt, like in a vacuum, it was
more physical body to body. But in terms of non
contact physicality, I think you're absolutely right.
Speaker 2: It's just like again the Ben Taylor video is like
guys thirty years ago on offense would stand still for
like the whole shot clock, sometimes and like that just
does not exist anymore. It's it's a totally different game. Anyway,
we can go to the next rule.
Speaker 1: We're leaving the realm of us. This is now all
submissions from here on out, which is me just a
displacing blame if anyone gets mad, clearly is what's what's
happening here. Our next one no more retroactive fouls awarded
during the replay review for other reasons like out of
bounds calls. This one comes from Jamie O'Grady. I favorit.
I think this is just like what especially if especially
on challenges where it's like if you're challenge what thing,
you could win the challenge, but your team could come
out behind from it. I don't like that element of it.
Speaker 2: I guess like this is really is just going to
get down to like replay itself, really because like the
question needs to be is the point of replay to
like get the call correct like across the board, Like
do we make sure we document like what actually happened
on like oh it went out on him, but it
was a foul that we didn't see, so that that's
how we resolve it, because like that's actually what happened,
so you should call that or is it just like
do we need to I don't know. I don't know
how I feel about this one. It's if feels like
a bigger question. It's like goes to the purpose of replay,
like are you trying to get it right or are
you trying to like get it pretty close but also
keep the game moving.
Speaker 1: I will say, if I had to pick, I actually
think that replay reviews are going to go in the
opposite direction of this, where they're going to be expanded
to include more things under the umbrella, maybe even more challenges.
And I think the solution might just be I mean,
this is different because it can impact the outcome. There's
got to be a way to just make that process faster, right.
Speaker 2: Do you see suggestions of like make the whole thing
like an off site thing decision so it's like.
Speaker 1: The jersey all those people are sitting in front of
those TVs, like, don't even have the refs on site.
Have to be the ones to do it just I mean, yeah,
the only thing I want to retain is Bill Kennedy
and his dramatic pauses in theater. I saw some people
getting mad. It was actually the Warriors Nets game. I
think where he like had this long pause, I tweet
out equipment and so I'll be like, oh, I don't
want to see this ever again. I find that funny.
Speaker 3: No wrong, wrong opinion. That was great. I enjoyed that
last night as we're recording this. That was a great.
Speaker 2: Okay, So I think that's really it, like because if
you I hope we're not stepping on another suggestion here,
but it's like, have secaucus decide it then, like the
decision making tends to be more uniform. The refs on
the floor don't even need to look at anything. They
just get relayed. You pop the headphones on, they'll tell you,
like secaucus will tell you what the call is.
Speaker 3: You relate the call to the crowd. That's it. That
has to be faster than what we're doing right now.
Speaker 1: This specific one from Jamie, though, I guess I don't
know where I'm laying on it. I think I actually
like it. But then it's just because you're going to
see the replay. I don't know if you want to
give let's say, fans or analysts of the aggrieved team,
or even not the aggrieved team, but just us in general.
If we look back and say, oh, like, no, this
was actually all they were challenging something else, like the
contact on Jalen Brown. But it's like, it's no, it's
actually off of Jalen Brown, and it should be the
Calves ball or something. I'm I'm in favor of accuracy,
So I actually feel like I wouldn't go this round
out because then you add to Also you're adding more pressure,
which I guess would be a good thing. You're atting
more pressure on like if a coaching staff wants to challenge,
if they're worried that it could also go against them,
they're going to be less likely. I don't know.
Speaker 3: This is Here's the thing.
Speaker 2: So the reason I think I'm against this suggestion, the
much appreciated Jamie is like taken to its logical extreme
balls out of bounds off Jalen Brown. Uh, that's what
we're going to challenge that.
Speaker 3: Let's review it.
Speaker 2: Turns out Jalen Brown, U body, you know, let's see
which way would have to be. Uh, Jimmy Butler body
slammed Jalen Brown and in the process the ball went
off Jalen Brown.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: But we're not going to review this for a foul
on Jimmy Butler because we're just looking at who it
went off of, and so then you have to go
back into the game having said, uh, no foul.
Speaker 3: And it's like everybody watched the replay, like what do
we do?
Speaker 2: So it's like you gotta if you're going to open
the replay box and everything that comes out with it,
like you sort of have to try to get it right.
I think, right, Like, that's the reason this rule exists
now is to try to get it right.
Speaker 1: I think if you're gonna go this path, which if
if that's what you want to find, you then need
to restrict like reviews in general something.
Speaker 3: Sure. Yeah, our next.
Speaker 1: One comes from oh geary nine thousand. Make the winner
of the All Star Game West or East have home
court advantage in the finals. This assume as we go
back to I guess like the previous version of the
All Star Game, because what would have happened this year,
whether they.
Speaker 2: I don't know so Baseball did this or used to,
I don't even know major League Baseball the All Star
Game winner have home court in the World Series, right,
I think that was the thing.
Speaker 1: Oh it was, I don't think it still is though, right, no,
because it was like.
Speaker 3: That's dumb, Like that's a bad idea.
Speaker 2: I think like so many things would have to happen
with respect to the All Star Game and like the
quality of play in it and the investment by players
in it for this to be on the table for me,
because even then it's like you have you're gonna have
the a majority, a vast majority of All Stars on
both teams, probably not having any skin in the game
because they well, maybe a vast majority is a stretch,
but like a lot of players like we're not going
my team's not going to the finals?
Speaker 3: Who cares? Like why am I trying?
Speaker 1: You know what I mean?
Speaker 2: As an example exactly, so that's such a home court
advantage in the finals, Like I don't know, go back
in the last, like twenty five finals.
Speaker 3: How many series.
Speaker 2: Does its swing if you flip who has home court advantage?
Like a decent number probably, So, like that's a huge
prize to pin on the results of a game nobody
cares about.
Speaker 1: I think it would just make more sense if you
knew that every single player was going to be invested
in it, and there's no way to guarantee that will
that will ever happen. So I think this I wouldn't.
I wouldn't go this route. And by the way, you
don't think this is going to that was your point.
You don't think to incentivize enough players to care about
the All Stars?
Speaker 3: No, I think you would just yet, No, I don't
think it would.
Speaker 1: I still think the solution this is more of an
NBA All Star solution. I like the idea of the draft.
It needs to happen. Playground stop all the night of
in front of the arena on national tell They got
to the point where they did it sort of on
national television. Remotely, make it happen in persons that you
could see players get annoyed about where they're picked, and
then maybe that would that might incentivise trying more than
putting finals home court advantage.
Speaker 2: All yeah, grievances, great fuel. I think that's the way
to go.
Speaker 1: What do we have next?
Speaker 3: All right, this is from Villadus.
Speaker 2: Nationally televised NBA games should actually start on time. Did
you see the stat that ESPN games start an average
of fourteen minutes after their posted start time? Turner is
like seven minutes, which is bad, but it's not not fourteen.
Speaker 1: You know, why it's shorter though, right, Why because we
publish things to that parent company and have a say,
and we've been able to we're able to knock them
down from fourteen all the way down.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is who's against this other than the
networks themselves, like.
Speaker 1: This advertising and marketing department.
Speaker 3: It is insane, Like I it is ridiculous. How how late?
Speaker 2: And it's like if it's a West Coast game and
you're adding fourteen minutes to that and it's an ESPN game,
so you're gonna they're all a half hour longer.
Speaker 3: Than they should be.
Speaker 2: In addition to that, we got I mean, I'm spoiled
out here, but you're you're going to bed at like
two in the morning after games sometimes probably.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't even the Nicks Lakers game the other
night as an example, Yeah, my god, just I want
the games to be done by like twelve thirty Eastern time.
Would be'd be great. But who, yeah, who other than
like the advertising marketing department of the league and the like,
who would actually be against them? Sometimes if there's a
fan out there that likes the like, is it because
they get off work and it's like an eight and
like oh, we're home by eight fourteen. I'm able to
watch this. I don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would say, uh, because we have the Good
League Pass and I never watch games totally live.
Speaker 3: I'll wait an hour.
Speaker 2: This is not an issue for me because I just
bang through. Yeah, I'm not watching any pre game, I'm
not watching any halftime. Half the time, I'm zipping through
free throws, So that's my.
Speaker 1: I would I know you don't have this problem clearly,
but anyone listening watching let us know in the comments
or discord whatever, do anyone. I don't have a problem
like watching things that you know the outcome's already predetermined,
because when I do that, what I do feels like
work the most, Whereas I still recognize I'm working when
it's happening live, but I feel more involved and attached
to the outcome of it, and so just always rewatching
stuff like I'm not gonna lie. Watching film is like
an obligation for me. I don't sit there and I'm
not like drooling over it. I recognize that I'm lucky,
but at the same time, I would prefer to watch
this live as it was happening or rewinded a few seconds,
rather than Okay, not that I think I can impact
the outcome. I sort of like living through the outcome
as it's happening.
Speaker 3: Totally.
Speaker 2: If I know what happens, I'm eighty five percent less
interested in the game, Like just it just I can't
It's it's not the same experience.
Speaker 1: I do know not to spoil things that are happening
with the Warriors, Like like the Nets Warriors game the
other night. They started out, it was an atrocity, and
I knew they were gonna come back. I new Steph
was gonna hit that half core shot. And you text
me like, I'm only in the first half of Warriors whatever.
I was like, I'm very anxious to hear what you
think get half time.
Speaker 2: You know what else I said is I think think
they're going to come back and win this.
Speaker 1: That's right, by the way, very prophetic by you. Next
one grant is I think deserves some unpacking. Yeah, so
it comes from Candon twenty nine to fifty one. Eliminate
the draft and allow rookies to become free agents. Economic
studies show that competitive balance is not preferred based on
live game attendance, and rookies are exploited in the name
of competitive balance. I'm very curious to see where you
land on. This is basically, should the NBA abolish the draft?
Speaker 2: I think I've tried to think about this quite a
bit ahead of time, because I know we've I don't
know if you and I have discussed this, but at
some point over the years, I feel like we've written
or this has been an issue in the past, like
just the draft, yeah or nay, kind of the kind
of that that thing has cycled through a few times.
Speaker 3: So I think at first blush.
Speaker 2: Like it's objectively unusual and weird that the NBA operates
this way where it's like, if you compare it to
other professions, it's like you get out of school and
then you go find a job where you'd like to
live and a place you want to work. Maybe you
have connections there that pre exist, like that kind of thing,
Like that's how the real world tends to function. And
this is just like, no, you're gonna be a millionaire,
except we get to decide who's paying you to you know,
to some extent, and that's like a strange thing to kind.
Speaker 3: Of get over.
Speaker 2: It feels like weirdly like patriarchal and like almost like
it's not forced labor, but it's.
Speaker 3: Like you don't get to choose where you go. The
number one pick in the draft that probably just made
millions in college in this era can't decide. Now you
can hold out.
Speaker 2: You can steer yourself places, like through the workout process
or whatever. Like good agents will to some extent get
to influence where players with a lot of draft cloud go.
But it's just weird. So like if that's if you
bump on that, I get it now, Like and then
the other side of it is if or the other
thing I've been thinking of out and then I'll throw
to you because like the draft does theoretically preserve competitive balance. Uh,
And I think the changes that have been made to
the lottery structure have made it so that, like you know,
egregious tanking is a problem, the payoffs not such that
egregious tanking is like clearly the greatest way to go.
Teams have been more careful about that, I think.
Speaker 1: I mean, who won the number one pick in this
past draft in Atlanta?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's yeah, Atlanta had no business, Like they
didn't try to tank and they got So.
Speaker 3: The draft is not perfect. I think though.
Speaker 2: The alternative, and maybe we're not really addressing the competitive
balance and live game attendance and and all that stuff
more it's like the rookie exploitation thing. I think the
alternative is a little scarier to me, And I think
the alternative might be so damaging to competitive balance that
like it would in the if it's as extreme as
I think it has the potential to be. Whatever economic
studies are saying that competitive balance is not preferred, it
might like just walk over that to where it's like,
what I'm talking about is everybody wants to play for
the Lakers, everybody wants to play for Miami or Houston
or whatever. And if you have the ability to steer
yourself where you want to as a as an incoming rookie,
doesn't it seem like certain powerhouses would be getting like
huge advantages where like who's choosing to play in you know,
small market city of your choice if all things are equal.
Speaker 1: So to play Devil's average. And by the way, I
think the NBA has moved, not that it was ever
embracing this idea. First of all, the draft is its
own like coverage process for the league.
Speaker 3: And so if you get rid of that's a big
element of it too.
Speaker 1: That's like they'll never do it, and if anything, insofar
as they would ever consider it, it feels like the way
that the CBA is set up where they've like tried
to limit like the amount of control players have on
where they're going because all the incentives with extensions now
and now players will like free agencies just not as
interesting as it used to be. It feels like they're
going in the opposite direction. I share a lot of
your same concerns, and I know so Candon is saying
that economic studies show that this isn't going to impact
live game attendance. My whole thing is, I know the
salary cap might negate some of the fallout to whards,
Like Okay, if you want to go to the Lakers
as the number one pick, like they're not gonna have
the money to give you that another team would. At
the same time, like over over a longer period, you
might say that Parry doesn't matter. And I think in
any given season, like some I think people genuinely liked
super teams and found them compelling. And so that stretch
of the Kevin Durant era Warriors where Warriors Cavs felt inevitable.
Is fine, that was four years if you have to
go through that where it just feels like, oh, the
same six or seven teams, and I know if you
go it might feel like that way. Anecdotally, I like
what we have now where it feels like so many
different teams could win the title in this moment, and
I don't think we get to this point if there's
not a draft, and case in point would be is
Oklahoma City in the position that it is? And then
like that's what. Yeah. The other thing is what does
this do to the trade market, which is another big
deal of team building, because now you're never trading draft picks,
so what can you trade? Do you trade? Are you
trading rookie exceptions? Which I guess would essentially be the
same thing. And I would also counter here, the real
world the NBA is not I tend to be more
pro player, like I'm not gonna root for the billionaire
owners in the bottom line of the league. At the
same time, like is it the real world in the
sense like we're talking about millions of dollars here and
the stuff that seems more sketchy is getting a player
like to get like to guarantee that drafting them in
the second round to save money rather than having to
pay them a rookie scale at the end of the
first But I would also wonder, let's just say you
get rid of the draft as of right now, next year,
the last pick in the first round is gonna make
over two million dollars in year one. I think it'll
be like two point two or two point three. Are
team's gonna want to pay those types of players if
they had a choice. You could say the rookie scale
works out in favor for the teams a lot of
the times in the lottery or whatever, and overall it
is cost controlled relative to the percentage of the cap.
But could you see a situation where if there's no
draft and you're the twenty eighth best prospect, are they
actually even gonna want to pay you what you would
make now coming out of the draft? So I wonder
if this is another thing where, even if you're looking
at it from the player only perspective, are we talking
about like five guys every year that this truly impacts
to where they would have their choice of team or
would have made enough money to where they'd want to
take a pay cut to play somewhere else. I totally
recognize that, Like this is just I find it too
integral to team building right now, especially when you look
at how extensions and restricted free agency work after the
draft too.
Speaker 2: And then like zoom out a little bit, like what
problems are we solving if we're getting rid of the draft?
Like you would say, one is like the idea that
a rookie can't choose where he's gonna play, and that's
that's odd, Like okay, is that a problem?
Speaker 1: Maybe?
Speaker 3: And then after that is the problem we're solving too
much parody? Is that?
Speaker 2: Is that what we're going after here? Like we want,
you know, like a premier league situation where like you know,
for long stretches, four or five teams who who are
you know, big powerhouse clubs that spend the most or
whatever are at the top of things, Like is that
is it a So? I guess if you if you
if your problem with the league is one of your
problems with the league is that we don't have enough
just like dynasties with teams that seem like insurmountably good,
then I guess this would probably help that. But I
don't know that I think that's a problem.
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 2: I think like dynastic teams kind of arise no matter
what you do, because somebody always figures out how to
just game the system or lucks into talent, and you
have these windows where like Boston's in one now, Boston's
been in the conference finals like fifty times, like with
this group, you know, I just don't know if I
if I see problems that are so desperately in need
of a solution that we go this route, and I
don't know that this like solves anything.
Speaker 1: Do you view this because I go back and forth.
The word exploited was used here, and I think there's
something too if you get drafted by the wrong team right,
like they don't develop you properly or they just don't
do right. But like, yeah, that really could fuck up
your career earnings to no end. I just it just
feels like when you're dealing at this scale of money,
for the most part, I don't know, like it just
feels like the guys who are being exploited, if anything,
are gonna be the second round guys, the two way
contract guys, more than the people who are being guaranteed
life changing money regardless and I hate to downplay it
in that round because it's all relative. I just I
don't know that I feel like players are being exploited,
especially like these things are collectively bargained as well.
Speaker 2: Like, yeah, I think, like the other thing I just
thought of is that you gotta think about fan bases
that all they have in a lot of seasons to
care about is their team's draft position and who they're
gonna get to pick, because like that's the payoff for
being really bad. Now, again, we've already talked about like
flattening lottery odds. It means it's like there's no sure thing.
But it's like if you're I don't know, pick, if
you're Charlotte, a Charlotte fan or a Washington fan or whatever, like,
and you're going through this season and you're thinking there's
no like, we might not get any good young players
in this draft cycle, Like this might just be our team. Now,
you'd have to run your team very differently. You wouldn't
strip things down as much. Maybe like and maybe that's
a positive, but like, I think you lose a lot
of fan attention if there's not the like the silver
lining of a terrible season being we might pick first
in the draft, or we're gonna get somebody in the
top six, seven, eight or whatever.
Speaker 3: Right like you lose that, do you think.
Speaker 1: Would ad stakes or lead it mostly the same where
it's I mean kind of look like the thunder popularize
this with the Sam Presty special contracts where they're finding
these guys either in the second round or these undrafted
guys and they're turning into real players. Does this then,
I think it would increase the importance of like your
scouting department identifying guys who are not drawing me attention
of other teams, because if you're in those less desirable markets,
let's say like that's those are the players that for
the most part, even if you have all the cap
space in the world, I just don't. I mean, maybe
these players are young enough and it's the NBA to
where like it would be more of a level playing
field and a rookie free agency class. But I think
if you're trying to give these players more agency, i'd
like to see them not have to go to college
at all. Might be the better solution here, which then
you're still entering the pool of the draft, of course,
but I just it feels so unlikely that the NBA
ever would get rid of the draft. And I think
this is just kind of one of the situations where
I understand it where it's Okay, this might not be perfect,
but the way you phrase it just now, where it's
you need every team to believe that it has a chance.
And I feel like this, even if you have the
most competent ownership, scouting department, great team culture, this would
just skew the playing field too much towards these big
markets that again the current CBA has tried to make
sure can't keep these teams together for as long as possible.
Speaker 2: Yeah, now it's an interesting I mean, I don't think
the draft's going away, but like, there really are decent
arguments on both sides of it.
Speaker 1: We do have another lottery base though, suggestion here grant
if you want to take us through it. All.
Speaker 3: Right, so this is from Mattiel.
Speaker 2: Do away with the lottery base it on record on
regular season worst team gets first pick, similar to what
the NFL does. So this this pretty clearly would bring
tanking back in like extreme versions, right, and we just
have to decide if we want that over what we've
got right now.
Speaker 1: I I don't think I do, because you could argue
that some of the tanking jobs when you're just going
after the top four flattened spots, can get egregious enough.
But could you just imagine what would be happening right
now in New Orleans and Utah and Washington if if
this was the case.
Speaker 2: It's it's like it's a tough thing because you sort
of as so if you're one of the those teams
that's in the bottom four. As a fan, I guess,
like I don't know, everybody involved sort of has to
embrace the fiction that we're competing, even though it's so clear,
like what your incentives should be. If if you believe
that the best way to build sustained winning is to
find a superstar, and that the best way to do
that is in the with a high draft pick, like
that does seem to be how you get your y Honest,
you draft your guys Yannis Yokasga look at the MVP frontrunners,
like that's just how you do it.
Speaker 3: This would just be this.
Speaker 2: I think I think it was a good decision to
flatten the lottery odds because you don't have this like
breakneck race to the bottom. Now you could if you
do this if you get rid of the lottery and
you just make it straight reverse order of record like
the NFL does. I think you need some additional rules
that sort of bolster the fiction of competition where it's
like more robust, you know, preventions against resting healthy players
again you know I And that's just how do you
possibly enforce that, like lower back strain, like well, okay,
prove that he doesn't, prove that the guy doesn't have
that issue.
Speaker 1: It's it's it just makes it harder. I think I
would agree with you. I think that's that's a to
Ben who I.
Speaker 2: Mean, this is how it was for a long time,
Like you know, it's not that long ago that this
was the rule.
Speaker 1: So we have one of the opposite direction now from
Hans Bungle. Wait, the non playoff teams in reverse order,
so the best record gets the best shot at the
top pick. That's why you didn't even notice that Cooper
flag is in a Miami Heat jersey right here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like, who is that? I hate that it
took you pointing that out for me to notice that. Okay,
So what you get here is this this I think
again hurts It makes it harder. For the teams that
just need the talent to get better to acquire it.
And and I think maybe you address this after a
few years of the a few more years of the
current lottery system, because what's the the positive is you
keep like mid pack teams competitive for longer as opposed
to the.
Speaker 3: Which they kind of would be. Anyway, I don't know,
I don't know how I feel about this. Do you
have a strong feeling.
Speaker 1: I don't have a strong feeling. I'm wondering how well.
I guess if you're just getting the best odds, it
would almost incentivize mediocrity. And then I don't know, like
you might put yourself Okay, well you get the top pick,
but then how do you want to build from there?
Is it gonna rush this? So say the Miami Heat,
they're like they have building blocks in place. I guess
that'd be the point of ills. Oh, you have Cooper
Flag on the Miami Heat, Like, they're then incentivized to
keep building. But if you're if you're incentivized to get mediocre,
can you also trap yourself though? Because what if you
had Cooper Flag on this super mediocre team and you
can't get worse because that's not gonna help you get
more prospect. I just don't that seems a little backwards too.
Speaker 2: Wouldn't it be strange too, if like you had I
get I guess it's not specified, but say you're in
the life playing spot, or say you're like sixth in
the West or whatever, and let's say if you're in
the play in you're eligible.
Speaker 3: For a shot at the top pick.
Speaker 2: Like, it would be very strange that a team with
like guaranteed playoff position would have to be thinking about like,
should we try to lose on purpose to ball to seven?
Speaker 3: You know what I mean?
Speaker 2: Like that, Yeah, that's like I don't think you want
teams that are competitive that probably have winning records like
losing on purpose down the stretch of the season.
Speaker 3: That would be that.
Speaker 2: I think it's better if the teams that are really
bad are the ones losing on purpose.
Speaker 1: We also had this is tangentially related. I don't think
I included it. If it comes up later, I apologize
that there should be some sort of a tournament to
determine like the win, so you have the worst teams
in a tournament and the winner determines the number one pick.
I would just be curious. That'd be interesting. But and
I know this isn't like the exact case everywhere, but
how do you get players invested in a tournament where
the outcome is it makes it easier for your team
to get someone better than you exactly?
Speaker 2: That's like, yeah, you'd be so conflicted. I think that
is the problem. You're like, play really hard so your
replacement will be better. Like, that's that's a tough sell.
Speaker 1: I think next one up a bit of a long one.
So if you want to get a cup of coffee
while I while I read this, shout out to a
lot of foreth art here from John Misty. Team free
throws are rotated via a lineup similar to in baseball.
When someone subs into the game, they take their place
in the free throw lineup one to five. For the
players your team has on the court, one trip to
the free throw line would go as normal from there.
This would reduce hack a shack, slash, rudy slash ben
to zero because the teams wouldn't be able to depend
on that one player dragging the games to a stop.
But it would also stop over the top foulbating because
you need to depend on a team wide free throw
percentage and your individual scoring stats will be lower.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of interesting stuff in here, so.
Speaker 2: It's okay, So what we I think you probably well,
some of the goals stated here would probably be achievable,
like the foul baiting, because it's like, if you're just SGA,
like you're not as incentivized to like accentuate contact. If
now I see I should have picked the team with
a more obviously terrible free throw shooter. Uh, if you're
I don't know, if you're Jamal Murray and you know
DeAndre Jordan is up next in the free throw rotation,
you might not be looking for calls as much.
Speaker 3: Like just that I think might be. I think although
you like to get the team foul, I don't know.
Speaker 1: And don't you think the way that they've kind of
you know, made the down the street, like especially in
crunch time, like hakka is just not as big of
an issue as it was, right right.
Speaker 2: If the other team was aware of like whose turn
it was, then you might have hakka just like so
I'm gonna go, I'm gonna go tackle Jason Tatum because
again I should have picked someone with it, you know
what I mean? So because I know that this terrible
free throw shooter is like next up in the rotation.
Speaker 3: That'd be really weird.
Speaker 1: And would it be also weird to see players maybe
avoid like driving because they don't want like you don't
you know, Scotty Barr doesn't want Yaka Perle taking a
shot or something.
Speaker 2: You did a better job of finding the right examples there. So,
But also if you sub like what prevents a team
from subbing out a bad free throw shooter when it's
their turn in the rotation in the order.
Speaker 1: Well you would burn Well it's here, it could be
a dead ball to it, like burn burning a time
out to do that would be a pretty big functional decision.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, okay, okay, I'm trying to think, like, well
you could do it between free throws like that, that's
that's not a time There are ways you could sub
guys in and out without a time out.
Speaker 1: How do you think it would be to keep track
of this like the viewer.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, that would be you'd have to You'd almost
need a graphic like on the bottom of the screen
at all times, like with.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's that's that's This.
Speaker 1: Is great thought process on.
Speaker 3: This for sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, John Misty thought harder about this than any rule
change I thought about.
Speaker 1: So I do wonder if this is just maybe it's
good and it's just too rare for me to embrace.
I would I would like if you try this in
the G League or something like. I would absolutely be
interested to see how it goes. Right, What do we
got next, mister Hughes?
Speaker 2: All right, this is from Oh we got Ryan Hess
and let's be rational. Let's I'll go with Ryan Hess here. First,
they're kind of gonna do to eliminate the corner three,
just have the arc and at the sideline, and then
let's be rational, says fix the three point line to
be a true arc. It would eliminate the short threes
along the baselines. Hopefully it would be bring back a
better balance than scoring.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so this, I guess this.
Speaker 2: Is one of the more frequently trotted out solutions to
the everybody just shoots threes thing. What are the knock
on effects here? If we get rid of the corner three,
you shoot corner twos, I guess, because you're still gonna
want to well, yeah, because then your defenders will not
pay attention to corner shooters. So those guys probably just
on offense won't be in the corners anymore, because why
would you. Now that's a terrible shot, that's like a
long two at a tough angle. So does that mean
that everything is above the break and you have five
guys like dotted around a smaller space and it's more congested.
Speaker 1: It's either more congested beyond the arc or it's more
congested inside it. I don't think the spacing would remain
the same with lower values to those corners. I really
don't think it would, at least.
Speaker 3: I don't think so either. So what are we what's
the positive? What are we gaining from this? Do you think?
Speaker 1: I so a lot of the problem because we had
some variation of this from a few people. I really
do think the perception of one the average corner three
point shot is just it's because it's shorter. Their percentage
of think this year it's thirty eight and a half
percent is the average from the corners versus thirty five
point six percent outside of the corners. That's a big difference.
Corner three pointers are also taken less, and that's why
I also kind of push back. A lot of people
say it gives players who aren't that good too much
impact on the game. But then wouldn't this just sort
of have the opposite effect to where it's already I
think if you're a spacing liability, so if you if
your space or ability and the regular season maybe your
team plays you, but you're unplayable in the playoffs, we're
kind of just opening the door for is maybe a
different type of lesser player where it's okay, like maybe
there's like Andre Robertson might be like still in the
league at this point if there was no corner three
point shot involved.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think, like I guess I would push back
to against the the idea that the corner three allows, like, well,
I don't want to put words in your mouth like
less skilled players to be out there, because.
Speaker 1: Like I can think that's the the not the prevailing.
But that's one of the arguments that's made about the
prevalence of the three point shot in general, is that
because you have to concern yourself with guys who can
make these shots that are high value shots, but maybe
they can't dribble and they're not good defenders. I do
think we tend to see the ladder when they're not
good defenders, like those guys get like rooted out that
in the playoffs for sure.
Speaker 2: Exactly what I was gonna say is I think I'd
be more inclined to believe the opposite is true, because
because the corner three is so valuable, you got to
be able to shoot it if you're not an on,
And you also have to be able to defend an
offense that puts two guys in the corners that require
you to cover a ton of space, you know what
I mean, like a ton of space, Like you've got
to be a good athlete and mobile, and yeah, I
guess maybe not. You can be like a specialist sort
of and get away with just being a corner three
point shooter, But like, who are the most Like PJ.
Tucker just only ever shot corner threes for some of
those Houston teams, but he guarded five positions and played center,
Like that's incredibly skillful. It's just not like he's not
running pick and rolls and posting up like. So, I
think the overall skill required because of the corner three,
I think I would argue, is higher than it would
be if you eliminated it, because you could get DeAndre
Roberson's or Whoever's out there that just like they can't
do something just full stop, you know what I mean?
Like I so I would be more inclined to, like,
if you want to widen the court and make the
corner three like as long as the above the break three,
that's interesting to me.
Speaker 3: I'm more interested in that.
Speaker 1: I actually think that's what I was gonna ask you
is and we actually have something that I think was
PJ Tough Prinspyer that I kind of like though coming up.
I don't know when this though, I would argue in
favor of widening it then because then the corner threes
would come more difficult now as people have talked about
now you're shortening the baseline, and you could say we
could push back like the baseline and the bench, but
then you're gonna push out seats and stuff. So it
gets into that. But I don't care about that, Like
if we're talking about strictly the game, and you're if
I think, if you're trying to optimize the game or
make this version of the NBA better, I don't think
getting rid of the corner three would make as positive
of a difference as just widening the cord and then
lengthening what the corner threes are in the first place.
Speaker 2: And also, if you're paying for front row NBA seats,
you'll pay more than that for you know, if you
widen the court and you lose that quote unquote front
row as a franchise, you could just up the cost
of the new front row seats so that you're like
offsetting a lot, right.
Speaker 1: I think it's the third time I brought this up
on the podcast and only happened like four days ago.
If the Dallas Mavericks of all teams think they can
get away with raising their season ticket price by ten
percent or whatever it is, then yes, this can absolutely
work out. Next one we have from Alex from MPG
eight Alex trom pgh, excuse me, don't stop the game
for free throws. Have them happen at the same time
at the end of the quarters. Can you get you
haven't laughed at any of my backgrounds. I'm very upset.
Speaker 3: That's that's the Grizzlies hype man.
Speaker 1: I know that I Regon is his name, he's one
of the He's his hair always gets me. I don't
know what it is. I don't like it or like
I mean, I don't hate it or or love it.
I think that in game end sees either would hate
this or love it, because could you imagine this guy
like are you narrating what's happening with the free throws? Oh?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: So this I think I saw this a version of
this suggested a couple different times, and this comes up
for it where I saw it originally. Don't you think
this just like, aren't isn't everybody going to the concession
stand in the bathroom when this is happening? If you're
if you're just lining people up and having them shoot
a bunch of free throws and like.
Speaker 1: If they're not, Can I ask you a question? Would
you rather watch these guys take foul shots? Or you know?
This isn't I almost had Red Panda in here as
sort of the but she's she's halftime entertainment, so that's
not gonna be that. But I would rather see like
the because we have the good with well talk about
a superiority cop like we got the good leads the
league pass that we have, Like I'm seeing all the
in arena stuff in between, and I would rather as
someone who covers the league and gets paid for it
if I'm actually watching that part I'd rather see all
of that than dudes lining up to take their foul shots.
Speaker 2: Yeah, me personally, if actually we should, I should be
in favor of this, because I would just not watch
the free throws and the and the you know, I
would just skip it and and then the game itself
would be much quicker.
Speaker 1: Now Here, I guess I'm assuming you would have to
do this, But like, doesn't this if you stay true
to the rule through every quarter, doesn't this just eliminate
like game winning shots, these just become foul shooting contests
at the end of each game.
Speaker 3: That's the biggest issue.
Speaker 2: It's the fourth quarter of it all, Like it maybe
it doesn't matter the first three, but you end the game,
and maybe you could make it the rule that like
just for the first three quarters we do this. Fourth
quarter we shoot free throws as normal because what you're
because otherwise the game ends. The margin is what it is.
And Okay, Milwaukee's got eight free throws to shoot, Brooklyn
has four. Who knows what's gonna happen. We'll decide this
game standing still, not playing shooting free throws.
Speaker 3: That's objectively bad.
Speaker 1: Do you think players would push back against this by
saying there's a chance they could be out of rhythm
when they have to go shoot the free throws. Or
is it like, so let's say you pull someone out
of the game midway through the first quarter, but they
have to shoot free throws at the end of it.
Are they just going to be like on the practice
court rather than watching like they're practicing their free throws
or something. That'd be weird.
Speaker 3: And guys would say, we need the minute rest in
the game.
Speaker 1: That's a really good point.
Speaker 2: We got to have those little breaks, especially since me
since I'm trying.
Speaker 1: To add.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's it's it's it's a tough one. I don't
know who would want to watch that.
Speaker 1: I do think it's speed up the game.
Speaker 3: Yeah, definitely. What do we have next?
Speaker 2: All right, this is from uh, this is from Brian
Brent Spork. Uh bring back the amnesty clause.
Speaker 3: Clause MF. First, I'm not gonna say it. I don't
know why.
Speaker 1: Drop on the last podcast. So your sudden aversion to
to cuss words.
Speaker 2: Is I got I got something about them? The motherfuckers
is like, it feels like more aggressive.
Speaker 1: You just said it. Anyone just said it?
Speaker 2: Yeah, And Joe, who would the Sixers amnesty, like I
think probably would be indeed, but Paul Georgia has something
to say about it. Okay, now, good job Dan the
Bradley Beal thing. I just noticed anyone watching on YouTube.
Speaker 1: I finally got Grant to laugh. This took me forever
to put together.
Speaker 2: Well, you texted me yesterday and said if you don't laugh,
I'll be disappointed.
Speaker 3: And I'm like, well great, that's the real set up
for organic words.
Speaker 1: All the rule changes takes time for sure. Then to
set this up takes a little bit time. But I
was trying to find like images and include a little
East exert. It's like this relates to the rule. I
didn't need it. That's just no one's gonna care about
that except for me. And I'm waiting for you. Like,
what is Grant laugh at? Does he laugh at anything? Yeah?
Speaker 2: This is too much pressure on me. Uh, why not
bring back the amnesty clause. I think it's a good idea.
Everybody needs a do over.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but like, how how often does it get recycled?
Is just once every fifteen years? You get an amnesty clause?
I don't, And how long do you have to use it?
Speaker 2: That's a good question, Yeah, you can't have unlimited amnesties,
although like who would use multiple amnesties because then you're
just adding to payroll year over year.
Speaker 3: That does not attach to a player.
Speaker 1: I mean, matt Ishbia would. My whole thing is, you can't.
It shouldn't be like you just get the amnesty play
like that shouldn't be like something that's every other year.
It shouldn't be the bi annual amnesty clause or something.
My whole thing is, the two things I'd be worried
about is part of like advantage in the NBA is
that if you're going to give out these contracts, you're
they need to be good contracts, at least relative to
how you want to build your team and how you
can build your team. So you're giving it a chance
to undo one mistake. But I guess there's the two
downsides would be you're allowing your incentivizing franchises to be
a little bit more reckless because they know they have
this in their back pocket. And then the other thing though,
is just like if you're a really bad franchise, let's
go back to those lockout era Nicks and you amnesty
the wrong player that just looked like where they went
to go get the amnesty. Chauncey billups to go get
Tyson Chandler, and so you're opening, Yeah, in retrospect, that's
kind of funny that everyone's like they should have amnesteyed
stat and it was clear in the moment. So I
just I don't know, I mean, is a this is
just a typical Sixers fan. They're going to get out
of the MP.
Speaker 3: Sorry enduring Super Bowl. Nobody feels bad for you.
Speaker 2: We should when we're really hurting for content at some point,
go back and look at that first round of amnesties
and like grade them, like decide which amnesty decision was
actually the best and which one was the dumbest.
Speaker 1: I do.
Speaker 3: I would imagine dozens of people would love to hear that.
Speaker 1: Which player because they would have to be an amnesty
candidate would be most likely right now to ski tweet
whatever post amnesty that.
Speaker 3: Joel Embiid wants the Sixers amnesty.
Speaker 1: I would have said, Jordan Poole, I feel like the
most likely to have actually posted that, uh, this is so,
would you do you actually like let's go?
Speaker 2: I want you Let's do one one every one every
five years per team.
Speaker 1: I think that's too often seven won every CBA.
Speaker 2: Well any yeah, anytime, Well how often is that? I
guess that's more like seven.
Speaker 1: Five or seven years actually probably right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're in the same neighborhood. I think I want
this back. I think it's kind of fun, do you honestly?
Speaker 1: But do you know what's interesting? How many teams would
actively use it? Right? Because there doesn't it feel like
there's fewer bad contracts.
Speaker 2: It does, but you I think, well, embiid is just
like he's on the graphics, so that's part of it.
But like a guy that you've committed to for like
three more years, that insane money that might not be
good ever again, like yeah, there's one. It does seem
to unfortunately come up with like injury situations, And I
guess like the alternative is to structure a contract like
the Pelicans did with Zion, where it's like we got
out if we need them. So you know, maybe that's
the Maybe that's just a trend that needs to increase.
Speaker 3: I don't know. Beal would beal be amnestyed.
Speaker 1: I think if they were looking, I mean to get
out of the second apron have the right to aggregate contracts.
I think the I think the Phoenix would do it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm trying to you. You make a good point.
Speaker 2: It's not like there's it felt like five six years
ago really after what what summer was that the twenty
sixteen where the cap went up and everybody spent crazily,
Like a lot of those guys might have got amnesteed
pretty quickly.
Speaker 1: Because I mean like it would be second Apron teams
right now. But like even those contracts aren't like what
the Bucks, what's their bad contract?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Right, well they might have would they have I was
gonna say, would they have just amnestyed Middleton for example,
instead of.
Speaker 1: If he was coming back? That'd be such a dumb Yeah.
Speaker 3: Bad example. Yeah, not a lot of options.
Speaker 1: Still, I want to I guess bring it back then,
just for Philly? Is that what the moral is? Interesting?
Next up we have from BJP, let Dallas move to
Vegas and award expansion franchises to Seattle and Dallas. I
guess they mean Vegas. There no let Dallas with Vegas
an award expansion franchises to Seattle in Dallas, but remove
cap and pick limitations of previous expansive expansion drafts, I e.
Full cap space year one allowed to land the first
overall pick. From the start, I.
Speaker 3: Don't like the idea.
Speaker 2: I mean, Dallas is just like, what do we even
say at this point, Well.
Speaker 1: You're gonna put an expansion team in Dallas? Why would
you you put the expansion team in I just don't lot.
I know because of who owns it, But I'm not
trying to do the mont and they can go buy
Seldom Avericks again and then go buy the Vegas experience.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they they want they want a casino situation
in Dallas. Like, that's that's the reason they bought the team.
It seems like, although you get push back on that sometimes.
Speaker 1: No, it's it's a hundred that is one hundred percent. Yeah,
why they purchased this.
Speaker 2: So, I mean, I like anything that gets seattle of
the team. Maybe that's the point the place to start.
I just here's what I don't want is the current
Dallas ownership to be in any way rewarded for anything.
So like, if they actually want to go to Vegas,
I'm against it. And if they don't want to be
in Dallas, then you have to stay. That's where I'd
come down on it.
Speaker 1: The what's interesting about this to me, do you like
Vegas as an NBA market? My whole thing is Mexico
City is just a bigger market and it feels like
in Las Vegas because you're playing in Vegas on nearer
or on the strip. I'm assuming you're dealing with a
lot of like tourists or transplants that are they going
to have a ton of loyalty to the Vegas team.
I like the WNB, like I know the aces it's worked.
It seems like it's worked out well for them there.
But I just everyone's zeroed in on Vegas and uh Seattle,
And I agree with Seattle, but like, if you're looking
to old like market, goodwill, almost like Mexico City would
make more sense. Am I wrong?
Speaker 2: No, I think, But Mexico City has its own set
of challenges, Like the altitude is one, and just like
I think I forget who wrote it. It's a really detailed,
like sort of look at Mexico City might have been
Howard Beck. I don't I don't want to get I
could be wrong about like the challenges of like security
and just like infrastructure and like would there would be
a certain percentage of NBA players are like I want
to live someplace where I can speak English, like or
just things like that would be would be an issue.
But like the market size is insane, like it would
just it would the the percentage of fans you'd have
to reach in Mexico City would be like vanishingly small
to just have a great following because there's so many
people there. I think Vegas as a professional sports like
your people that go to Raiders games and it's like, yeah,
the whole the whole stadium is full of people that
are like there from wherever for the weekend and like
let's see your Raiders, you know what I mean? Like
it's not I wish I knew more about the aces
and like the nights and to see if like there
are like real organic followings. But I don't like Vegas
as a as a sports town. It doesn't make sense.
It's too it's too like you know, what percentage of
the population that in Las Vegas at any given time
is just like there for two days?
Speaker 3: Like that seems like a weird setup.
Speaker 1: Do you know what I do? So this kind of
BJP mentions about kind of changing some of the expansion
draft rules, and they focus on the cap and the
like the cap and the winning the first overall pick.
If you're expanding with two teams, because right now, in
an expansion draft, you protect eight players I believe, yeah,
it's eight. What about substantially lowering, Like, if you're having
two more franchises come in, shouldn't that number be lowered
to like four?
Speaker 2: That would make for I mean, just for chaos purposes.
I kind of would be into that because man, that
would be there'd be some wild decisions teams would have
to make that would be just fun.
Speaker 1: Like even if it was five, it'd be wild. Right,
Oh yeah, I.
Speaker 2: Mean either way, it's like a fascinating thing to go through.
But yeah, if you like just take Boston, like, okay, Boston, Like,
who are you gonna put out there?
Speaker 3: You can't spare any of these guys.
Speaker 2: If you're talking about protecting four or five like that,
that would be a wild I don't know, I don't
know if it's good, but it would be interesting.
Speaker 1: What do you think of this is a good point
to talk about it. What do you think of expansion overall?
Because I think Howard Beck had a very interesting piece
of the ringer. When you look at the players who
would be protected, and so was Michael Pena also did
this exercise on the ringer shout out to the ringer
for ruining our own expansion week here whatever. Like the
best player that would go unprotected for the Atlanta Hawks
is Kobe Buffkin. So that's like set up right now.
Do you think there's enough talent in the league to
actively expand? I would say yes, if you're willing to
tweak the parameters as the lower that who the number
of players you can protect, and then again upping their
spending power and of course the ability to maybe win
the first pick. I don't know if I buy that,
but like up their spending power in the first year.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think.
Speaker 2: What do I think about expansion generally? I guess I
mean Seattle needs a team, So again that's just kind
of my baseline for it. I think I think there's
probably no way to get around it being pretty bleak
for several years. Like even if you you'd have to
really relax the protections, probably four or five is you
might get some real teams put together.
Speaker 3: But you know, I think anything you can.
Speaker 1: Then expand, I'm sure it's happened at some point. I'm
not like a big enough history buff But you can't
introduce two teams at the same time and then I
can still have them protect eight.
Speaker 2: Right, Well, no, I wouldn't think so, but you do
have to do too, right, Like, there's not I don't
think there's ever been any talk of whenever there's thirty
one team.
Speaker 1: The NFL did it for a minute though, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's true. I mean, yeah, I guess you just
have one team. One conference has one more team and whatever.
That team's not going to be competing for a playoff spot,
So who cares.
Speaker 1: The East with the rest of them? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Right, yeah, it's interesting. I don't I'll be curious at
least to see what they, if and when an expansion happens,
what they'll do. Mexico City is like, it's on so
many levels, a no brainer, though, you're right, what do
we have next? This from Andreas Anderson's salary cap doesn't
matter for offseason trades as long as you're in compliance
by season start.
Speaker 3: Oh can you imagine that?
Speaker 2: Just the chaos and like the having to solve the
problem before October?
Speaker 1: What would be the downside to this?
Speaker 2: So the downside would well, like, what's the penalty for
not being in compliance. You just have to be I
think the downside is like landing on a punishment that
is sufficient so that you don't have a team just
lose its mind over the summer.
Speaker 3: But I don't know that's a downside.
Speaker 1: I think one of the downsides would be because what
are you gonna do. They have to be compliant is
the entire rule, So if you doesn't, it feel like
there'd be one team that would end up like either
they're forced into it, or it would open the door
for bad teams to make worse decisions to where it's
let's say the Phoenix Suns need to be in compliance,
but they're unwilling to give up what it takes. Like
you could argue that other teams would have the leverage,
but what if they go full Nico Harrison and just
accept the really bad deal to help another team be
in compliance. That feels like the biggest downside, And then
maybe it would emboldened like bigger swings by these other franchises,
and it's on like would it be on the rest
of the league to feel in combing to help them
get compliance? I would just be curious. I like this
in theory, though, is just the chaos then it would
create and the layers would add to the decision making process.
But I do feel like the team that ends up
getting the teams that end up getting hurt the most
from this feels like either let's say the initial move
where you're not in compliance, the team that's giving up
the bigger sacrifice. They're getting hurt because they're not gonna
get as much equity back from selling off of I
don't want to use the word sell off, excuse me,
but like trading a really good player because that other
team knows what we need these other assets because you
want to take on this money to be in compliance?
Speaker 2: Just does does the CBA still apply? So it's like
would you still be required to match salaries and trades?
Like because he says salary cap?
Speaker 3: So I does that mean? Like you know, you don't,
I don't know. It's not fair.
Speaker 1: You're wondering, like could Phoenix just trade Kevin Durant to
Denver no incoming or outgoing players and then Denver has
to figure out a way to be in like salary cap?
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, Like is that what this is?
Speaker 2: Because because if it isn't, then like I don't think
anything really changes because you're just hams. You're you're restricted
by the rules of like salary matching and the aprons
and that. So if it's like the aprons are off
and or it's just like it seems like what I
don't know what the question is asking, but like I
can imagine not any like nothing would change unless you
also made it so that like none of the second
apron rules apply, none of the aggregation restrictions applying the
match salary applies.
Speaker 1: But maybe they don't apply like in the actual transaction.
But you have to be like in the But I
guess wouldn't that just be like a very protracted way
of non simultaneous trades to where it right? Yeah, if
you did, if you did trade Kevin Durant to Denver
for nothing, now Denver needs to shed all this money,
so they're gonna have to send it somewhere else. You
could just fold those transactions together. It might be the
same thing.
Speaker 3: YEP. I think that's a good point. That might be
what you ended up with.
Speaker 1: Interesting one though, I thought that was interesting. Next one
comes from discard Tom Max players get granted an automatic
no trade clause. I say no, because the sheer number
of like what what constitutes a max like the way
that players get max's, specifically coming off rookie scales. It's
just Desmond Bane. I don't know why he first came
to mind, be like why does he have no trade
clause but Jaron Jackson junior won't because he was injured
when he negotiates his contract. I don't that's like that.
I mean you look at the Lucas situation that you're
kind of like, okay, so what I don't want? How
do you feel about this? But would you be in
favor of can you negotiate no trade clauses into like
that first max deal where you haven't technically been on
the team long enough or do you only need to
be on the team for four years? I thought it
was longer than that, right.
Speaker 2: I think I'm just thinking of like the effects of this,
and you saw what like what a massive like transaction
ruiner just Bradley Beal's no trade clause created? If you
have five, ten, fifteen more of these in the league,
Like if you think trades are hard to pull off,
now like.
Speaker 3: For it the league?
Speaker 1: Would the league?
Speaker 2: I think and in our industry like really cares about
the whole trade economy and I think this would hurt
it to a point where like it would drive interest down,
don't you think, Yeah, And.
Speaker 1: You're just it's another case where there are probably too
many ear how many players on the Bulls right now
would have a no trade clause, all of them Josh
Giddy mass contract, So maybe Josh Gitty would probably exit
this summer with a no trade clause for aball. You know,
I think it would just I think it would make
it too easy. And maybe you don't want to protect
the franchises who are getting in their own way, but
I think would make it too easy for bad franchises
to be even worse.
Speaker 2: I think the counter is, and I don't agree with this,
but like this would The argument you'd raise is like,
it's just objectively unfair that a player and a franchise
sign a contract and only one of them gets to
really make a decision on who who says it's over
in terms of like the relationship. So you would be
like for a certain class of players, you would be
giving them, you put them on equal footing with the organization,
which like, well, that seems fair, is an equal footing
what we're after. But I think the effect of that
would just be mostly negative.
Speaker 1: I think the counter to it as well would be
if a player like Quenton Grimes can force his way
out of Dallas, is there like some recipient because you
look at it, the higher like that, not the super
high end, but the higher like diarn Fox played some
role in coming out of Sacramento. Really feels like the
Kings just bungled that once. Probably maybe a bad example,
but I don't think you could do this like already.
The way that the aprons are set up, like trades are,
just becomes so hard as it is. And look, you
can Quin. I feel terrible for Mavericks, and there's probably
only certain franchise that benefit from this, but people love
in part. If you root for the NBA, I would
argue that you like, at least on some level, the
transactional aspect of it, and this would recap that more
than the apron stuff already has. Right, what's up next?
Speaker 3: From discard Tom?
Speaker 2: Have the best of five have best of five series
for the entire playoffs rather than best of seven? So
how many I forget which which rounds used to be
best of five? Certainly the first round first? Yeah, I
mean it does raise the likelihood of upsets because you
shrink the sample in like two hot shooting games from
a bad team swing a series, whereas if they do
that in a seven game series it may not. So
this is again, this is a in favor of chaos,
and you have like very chaos, a chaos bulls logo
on this one. I kind of think I like it
because the first round there's it just it's a lot, man,
I think it's a lot, And I think half the
series are like what are we the one to eight,
the two seven, like what are we doing? Like the
these are just perfunctory at this point with seven games.
Speaker 1: Now, my pushback on that would be should you get
rid of the playing tournament at that point, because then
you are upping the vent like that the playing tournament
was introduced to I'm sure instant implement more gate revenue,
but to up the variance factor. And my whole thing
is not that they're at a different disadvantage and they
should beat them regardless, but it's gonna be weird that
the Calves will be one of the last teams to
find out who they're facing in the playoffs after being
so good during the regular season. So when you already
have that in there. Now you're gonna shorten the series
to give them and even like not that there's no
point then to being the one seed, but now you're
lowering their mark. Isn't the whole point? We want the
regular season to matter, and it feels like to have
the play in tournament on top of best of five
throughout the entire thing. It just devalues the ular season
even more at a time when people already think while
obviously agree, but everyone's entitled their opinion, when they already
feel like the regular season doesn't matter, so now we're
gonna dilute it even further.
Speaker 3: That's a great point. It would.
Speaker 2: It would devalue the regular season for especially for the
best teams, which is like do we want that? I
think the trade off of in like who doesn't love
an upset?
Speaker 3: Like who doesn't?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 2: I think I think I think you're probably right that, like,
as we've talked it through, it would be a net negative.
But I think it's the possibility that like if what
like what casual is such a loaded word, but if
what like with a broader NBA watching fan base wants
is like excitement, I think this makes the first round
way more exciting, and if that's really when people tune
in anyway, maybe you know, maybe maybe the net gain
is there.
Speaker 3: I don't know. It's interesting.
Speaker 1: I think it definitely makes it more entertaining. I just
don't know if it's fair. It's definitely not fair to
like the upper echelon teams. But then my bigger concern
would be, like I just outlined, with the regular season,
I would be I think at least the conference finals
in the NBA Finals should be best of seven, like
those should do.
Speaker 2: I think one of the best parts about the NBA
in comparison to other sports, like baseball in particular, is that,
like the best team usually wins the championship.
Speaker 3: You know what I mean.
Speaker 2: It's not like we're in baseball. You get a hot road,
you know, who knows. The samples are so tiny that
like anything seems to be able to happen in baseball.
I don't think the best team always wins the World Series.
I feel like the best team pretty much always wins
the NBA Finals, and this would make that less likely.
Speaker 1: Maybe you could counter that by saying, is the NBA
more than baseball? More than football? With I get the
exception of the quarterback position, like one injury can change everything. Yea.
And so now you're then like, there's the variance of
that plus the play in tournament, and now you're adding
this into the hold. Is that too much variance? I
think I just think it would be more enter like.
It's because you're less likely to get the outcome, right
or the better team quote unquot the better team is
less likely to win. That's more compelling.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Next one comes from the Candace Padrezza. I love what
Unrivaled does a lot of but I liked it the focus.
I don't know if I like the right word. There's
a lot of focus on free throws. I appreciate it.
I love what Unrivaled does with free throws that count
for two points or three points depending on where the
shot attempt came if it was a shooting foul. I
think it'd be nice for the NBA to implement something
similar to both cut down on time spend in the
line and to add drama to free throws. What do
you think about this one from Candace?
Speaker 2: I mean, as an avowed let's cut down the free
throw lag times. I think I'm in it would make
the game faster. It would like raise the stakes of
every free throw to like, I mean a free throw
worth three points, Like that's a that's insane, that's something.
The downside is I don't see it, Like what's I
guess like you lose so here. Practically speaking, you lose
the substitution after the first free throw that you have. Now,
if you're shooting too, you have to figure out how
to provide a substitution opportunity, which maybe just happens after
the make.
Speaker 3: What if it's a miss, it's a miss, you gotta
keep playing.
Speaker 2: You just lose it, Yeah, because like the whole point
of this would be to speed the game up, so
you couldn't just add a stoppage for a sub what's
the downside?
Speaker 1: So I actually really like this one. I want to
make this clear. I'm just trying to Devil's advocate. We're
talking about how it does feel like The one thing
I think I can agree is that the NBA feels
set up for offenses to thrive, and this, for the
most part, feels like even more of an advantage for
offenses because it's if defense makes a mistake, it's not okay,
you foul, you know. Devin Booker on a three pointer,
he has to make all free three foul shot. I
can't say three free throws, can you?
Speaker 3: You just did it?
Speaker 1: Well, there you go, like he has to make all
three of those versus one. So I again, from an
entertainment perspective, in terms of speeding up the game and
adding levers to the free throws, I love it. I
just wonder if now you're nizing defenses even further.
Speaker 3: I don't know, it's tough, like.
Speaker 1: You would have to would you have to look at
because what is the what is the foul like percentage?
Like if you go by shot, like of what's the
foul shot like your free throw percentage on the first shot,
the second shot, and then a third shot.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, it probably goes up between the first, like
I've a man there. I know there have been I've
read something about this where like the second free throw
is made more frequently than the first.
Speaker 3: I think I think that's true.
Speaker 2: So I don't know, you're just increasing variance then, really
because that first shot is going to be less likely
to go in and now it counts for double or triple.
Speaker 1: Could you imagine that at the end of the game.
Oh no, that's what I mean.
Speaker 2: Like, how low did you get foul shooting a three
at the end of a game and you're down two,
you have one shot, You're either gonna win or lose
the game. It's it's just like, I don't know, that's
that's kind of I mean, shooting three free throws in
an end of game situation is like if it's close
as tense anyway, but one is just like I think
the adrenaline spike would be higher with just one.
Speaker 1: Actually, the adrenaline spike might be higher, But isn't there
like a more sustained adrenaline rush if it's three. Because
let's say you miss the first or the second one. Dennis, Well,
what do they do on the third one? Now? Is
it's just over after that one shot attempt?
Speaker 2: But imagine the the volume and the like palpable resignation
in the in the oh when they missed the one
shot for three, the crowd, like the crowd reaction would
be like amplified. I would love I love this idea,
I think, but this is my this is my favorite
so far.
Speaker 3: It's just it's simple. It gets the job done.
Speaker 1: What do we have next?
Speaker 3: All right? From David Offensive three second violation in the corner. Oh,
here we go.
Speaker 2: So you can still take corner threes, but you cannot
camp out in the corners. Now this is interesting. Uh,
I have never heard this idea, have you.
Speaker 1: No, that's I saw it. I was like, that's why
I was like, I mean, I don't know what PJ.
Tucker's career arc would look like.
Speaker 3: If this was you know, but this is fascinating.
Speaker 1: I So I was trying to think of the way
you approached it with the free throw idea. I was
trying to take the downside here, and I don't know
if this is a stretch, but like, okay, so you
know they have to move is this just goes so
they're going to vacate inside the arcause like they just
have to come touch the like and then jump back.
It's like, I don't does it compromise spacing at all?
Does it even? Does it just not have a material difference.
I think it definitely adds a mental layer to what
players have to think about.
Speaker 2: For sure, right because you see guys two point nine
in the lane all the time and just step in,
step out, and you can't just can't, you know, you
can't just as a center stand in the restricted area
and just wait for a pass all day. Yeah, you're right, Like,
I wonder if we need a little bit more on
the like what are the specifics of how you like
refresh the three seconds? Like do you need to like
leave a certain amount of space or can you just
like tiptoe inside and then tiptoe back. But like, I'm
way more open to something like this than getting rid
of the corner three or just.
Speaker 3: Like cause I mean, this promotes more movement. Good.
Speaker 1: We like that.
Speaker 2: It promotes like I don't know, like more advanced like
strategic thinking. Like you because you've got a time out.
One possible drawback is like now you've got a ref
additional having to pay attention to another official at two
more you need one in each corner now, Yeah, those
this is I don't know.
Speaker 3: I like this.
Speaker 1: Than a just created jobs. I'm all for it, right.
Speaker 3: Green jobs out here? Is it really interesting?
Speaker 2: I would like to see what it would look like
more so than the getting rid of the lines or
anything like that.
Speaker 1: That was a really good one, David, shout out to you.
I like that one. Okay, this one from Paul. I
remember putting this one in every Who's the player that's pictured.
Speaker 3: Here grant is that my guy Lindy Waters.
Speaker 1: It is And this is this is why it matters
because Lindy Waters ranks I think second in average shot distance,
like how far out it is. But every team gets
to determine where the three point line is on its
home court within defined limits, or not have one at all.
Decision must be final before start of preseason and can't
be changed till the next year.
Speaker 3: Oh wow, so.
Speaker 1: This is like immediately this is just sort of like
one decision can feel like it might fuck up your
entire year. So I don't necessarily love it when there's
all like between trades and free agency or draft, like
you could do enough of that, but just sort of
the juxtaposition between well, what team is, like this could
impact how you build your.
Speaker 3: Team totally totally.
Speaker 2: Well, it's like the parallel citing a lot of baseball,
but it's like every ballpark has different dimensions, and you
don't usually see teams tailor it to like a specific
player or players because it's like we're gonna move an
entire wall because we got this one right handed hitter
with power, so let's bring in the left field like this,
though I saw what I thought it was gonna be
like game to game you could tweak it, which would
be like in insane.
Speaker 3: It just did like depend on the opponent.
Speaker 1: I do you think the Magic would try and move
theirs into the foul line or.
Speaker 2: Magic would get rid of it. I feel like we're
playing twos only and they'd be great.
Speaker 3: It'd be so good.
Speaker 2: Who would be the best team in the league if
you couldn't shoot threes? If there were no three point line?
I think it's still the Thunder.
Speaker 1: You're right, it's probably still the Thunder just because the
transition opportunities and the defense. Who's the second best that
might be more compelling.
Speaker 2: Maybe Denver just because it just gets to be near
the basket all the time. Yeah, hmmm, this is another
fascinating one. I think I think teams would be so
scared of having to make the decision in preseason and
live with it all year that it would like everyone
would just choose the standard.
Speaker 1: Right, And could you imagine like having to adjust like
game by game from that, Like, I just do you
think that could worsen the product because it's not like
these teams have a ton of time in between games
as it is, and worried about like it just feels
like we could have some stinkers, especially early on, but
this is so radical, Yeah, a novel that kind of
like it.
Speaker 2: It would make like stat comparisons by era and like,
I mean even year to year really weird, because there
would be like, you know, you, okay, it's it's Detroit
Milwaukee tonight, it's gonna there will be no line, or
there will be a forty foot line or the It's
like you'd go into the game being like, oh, it's
gonna be this type of game, and it would be
like completely different from another type of game in the
same league, in the same sport, potentially involving the same
two teams, just so it'd be like it would just
be the sport would be like fundamentally different night tonight,
which like I don't know, maybe there's some appeal to that,
but it makes like apples to apples comparisons really strange.
Speaker 1: And I think, look, some of the arguments too, is
just like maybe people don't have a like an actual
problem with the prevalence of three pointers, but they hate
how easily big leads are erased, and this would like
give you a counter the views don't have a three
point line, like you get out to a big lead,
it's it's curtains.
Speaker 3: Yeah, grinding it out. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Interesting, all right, this is from Aaron Woodard. You use
real time data too, and we have Fizzdale. I get
it Dan data. Uh use real time data to immediately
determine the distance from the basket any shooter is A
zero foot shot is worth two, a twenty five foot
shot is worth three, and every one foot in between
is worth an additional point zero four points shout out
to crunching the numbers here. I assume the point zero
four has arrived at like.
Speaker 3: For a purpose.
Speaker 2: It makes it so every shot up to twenty five
feet is approximately equally efficient. This would allow teams to
significantly diversify their offensive systems without needing to worry so
much about layups and threes. Okay, I gotta think about
this for a second.
Speaker 1: Now, can I Can I do the surface level repeat
to it? This feels unfair, like so you're gonna need
like there's gonna have like fans aren't gonna know the
score when a shot, but like it's just not math.
They're gonna be able to process. You have machines calculating it.
So it's automated. I get it, but like, isn't there
something to knowing, like, cause you don't know we've eve
you've watched the broadcast where they have the shot distance
when they take it off. Yeah, you're not immediately gonna know, like, no,
that shot is worth three point one to two points.
And so this is what, like what would the final
scores of these games be.
Speaker 2: You have some decimals in there, that's for sure. So
I'm trying to decide. So what this fixes quote unquote
is the problem that two inches or however wide the
line is, is the difference between a three and a two.
So that makes it so that like twos that are
close to the three are stupid shots, and then twos
close to the rim are great. So yeah, you get
rid of the layups and threes like spread. But then
wouldn't I'm trying to does so does this then make
it so long twos?
Speaker 1: You know what?
Speaker 2: This would make it so long? Twos are like better
shots than they are. So I think if that's a
problem in your mind as far as like how offense
is played, this addresses that. I think just the like
ability to follow it, which you pointed out might be
like the killer of it.
Speaker 1: Though, I would like to see this implemented in the
G League, just to know what the viewer experience would be.
Forget stylistically for sure, but just like seeing the score
like that. But I don't think that I could. This
might be my old person yells at clouds a moment
where it's I don't know if I like a final
score of one hundred and nine point three six like
to I don't know if I could ever get used
to that.
Speaker 2: The more I think about it, though, the more it
would encourage like shot diversity, because it does make it
so it doesn't like the either or of the three
or layup is like easied enough to wear a seventeen
foot SHOT's like, all right, that's two point two points.
That's better than a layup. So if you can make
that at this percentage, it's you know, I think probably
you're still gonna hunt layups and threes. It might just
like it might not be as extreme and like maybe.
Speaker 3: That's I like that too.
Speaker 2: I like that better than moving the lines around again, Like,
I think that's a decent suggestion.
Speaker 1: I will say I do like the issue or like
advantage quality evangels. This is trying to create I definitely
appreciate that from Dog from so no coaches get to
keep their challenges until one is unsuccessful. Top timodeau phames
this he's won like eighty five percent of his challenges
or whatever this year.
Speaker 2: I love the possibility of a coach just being on
an incredible heater and it's just like he's going for
his eighth in a row. That'll be a single game record,
and he just flex after getting it. I think I
don't have a problem with this. I think, like, if
you get it right, just keep it up, keep going.
Like there's I don't I mean, it slows the game
down and we've been against that, but like, I don't know.
Speaker 1: That's where the Again, I don't want them to have
fewer referees, like just increase the number of people working
remotely and like just be like no, this is the call,
Like it could be done quicker.
Speaker 3: It feels like, right, yeah, I'm in, I'm on board.
Speaker 1: I like this one. What do we have next?
Speaker 3: All right? No more jump balls? Not exciting and slow.
Speaker 2: Just change a possession that's from bill, eliminate it or
allow any player to take it.
Speaker 3: For Pete Udkins.
Speaker 2: So we're hitting jump balls now, I the possession arrow,
like in college and like youth levels, is kind of
exciting because like, oh my god, if we tie up
the offense right now, we get the ball, you know,
as opposed to like if it's a guard, it's just
the jump ball. Is is a coin flip. Maybe it
depends on who's involved.
Speaker 3: I guess it does feel like.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I think I might be into this.
Speaker 2: I think it's more dramatic if the possession arrow comes
back and you're not doing jump balls. Plus like how
many like what referees would you say? Are like always
like it's straight up and down every time. There's always
like a weird amount of variance that makes me uncomfortable
in the tosses.
Speaker 3: So let's get let's cut that out too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't hate it. Is it just the possession arrow.
Isn't that like a weird like to have it this level?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: It is, but every other level has it. It's so
like I don't know, like maybe they got it right.
Speaker 1: I like the second one where it's allow any player
to take it then that and the smallest players on
the court.
Speaker 3: Yeah, now we're talking and shouldn't that.
Speaker 1: No, No, go with me on this. There's actually a
reason for it. Those players are probably typically they're obviously
not as tall, not gonna take up as much space,
they're not as long, so wouldn't it be easier they're
not like you see kind of the encroachment that happens
between like each jump ball. I think that was and
maybe is that another thing? Do we have players just
more spread out for them where it's like you can't
they have to be you have designated spots where it's
like around the jump balls. I think I feeling more
like that.
Speaker 3: I'm still in favor of getting rid of jump balls.
Speaker 2: And I'll tie it back to you're gonna knock thirty
seconds off of game time every time there's a jump ball,
and you just go, possession arrow, you got it. And
now we're not gonna all line up, we're not gonna
all fight and reposition, and we're not gonna toss three
times like I think you know, that doesn't feel like
there's a glood of jump balls every game.
Speaker 1: But could you theoretically with the possession arrow be punishing
like the defense that is forcing the jump balls, or
viewed as they get a chance to get set again.
If they're not getting the ball back.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it does in all incorporates like a
little bit of luck, I guess, because like just depending
on who's got it. The like the payoff of a
jump ball is like wildly the swings are crazy. It's
like you either get the ball or you don't. But like,
I don't know, I think I think the time element
of it is kind of pushing me even further in
favor of getting rid of jump balls.
Speaker 1: And how do you determine? So it's but you're keeping
opening tips, I'm assuming, Uh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's fine. Well just just once we're limited to
one jump ball per game.
Speaker 1: Next up, we have a longer one here from reg REGs.
While maintaining possession, the first basket attempted and scored that's
the direct result of a steal, block or force turnover
is supercharged. We need like an NBA jam voice. Yeah,
the basket would be worth four points regardless if it's
a two or a three point attempt. So if a
team gets a steal that leads to a breakaway dunk,
that's worth four points. If the first attempt is missed,
the shot clock runs out, or the ball turned over,
the supercharge ends for that team. If the player is
fouled on the shot attempt for free throw, the free
throws are worth two points each. The additional points can
be recorded to the team rather than the player, so
doesn't mess with historical scoring stats.
Speaker 3: Oh interesting.
Speaker 1: Do you know what this made me think of? And
I had to look up the names? I didn't remember
it Jock Jam for MTV, And the only reason made
me think of it is do you remember had like
three hoops on top of each other and you could
try to make it all three? I remember Gary Payton
was balling and one well.
Speaker 2: There was like a twenty twenty point shot or something.
Speaker 3: There were like spots on the floor. Okay, so the
first basket at the score?
Speaker 2: Like when when is I'm having trouble understanding, like when
the supercharge is allowed? Like is it the first turnover
to break away that you get or that's you know
what I mean? Like that's my that was my read
of this. So this happens once a game?
Speaker 1: Is that?
Speaker 3: Is that what it is?
Speaker 1: Maybe it resets each quarter?
Speaker 3: Okay, hmmm, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I feel like there's a lot happening, a lot happening here.
It would incentivize trying to get steals and running out
in transition, which is fun. But teams already kind of
try that as much as they can because that's those
are the the highest ev points there are. So I
don't know, I don't know, if you know, I'll get
on board if somehow on the broadcast we can like
animate the players that have the supercharge and make it
look like they're on fire or something like.
Speaker 3: I think that would be.
Speaker 1: There's like a turbo button or something.
Speaker 3: Yeah, right, yeah, some make it just look like NBA
jam If that's at all possible, I think I think
that would get me on board.
Speaker 1: Do you think it would be if you're so it's
only on let me read this again, so it's only
on the result of a steel block or force turnover. Uh.
I do wonder like it might change the mindset of
how teams are operating after those was like in terms
of who they're trying to get the ball to, Like
would you pause for a second round, Like couldn't in
theory decrease breakaways a little bit to where if you
were like, no, we need to get the ball to
player X now more than ever because this is this
possession is super arched yeah.
Speaker 2: Or it's just like we're on a breakaway, this layup
is worth four, but like you're gonna try to make
the layup.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't know if it changes that much.
Speaker 1: There should be, you know, be another version of this
just came to me. It might be a terrible idea.
There should be, you don't how there's the moneyball and
the three point contest. There should be like pick an
arbitrary number, like it's five or ten, and teams can
place like these stickers on the floor and it's like
for the entire game, those shots are worth x amount
more points it's three or four points, and then they
once you use it, you lose it. So you take
So it's do you save it until you when you
might need it?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's you definitely would save it. That would have
to be the strategy.
Speaker 3: I think that.
Speaker 1: Or you just get out to such a big lead,
right and you make all these like if you have
the Celtics or they'll put all ten of them behind
the ark, I assume. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Plus if you as a defense, you would just defend
those spots like more attentively because you can't let shots go.
Speaker 1: Up from the from the there's a three second room
on those bodies.
Speaker 3: We need seventeen more refs to police this.
Speaker 1: What do we have next?
Speaker 2: All right, Uh, it's from MAVs. Muse players can touch
the ball on the way down or on the rim
like FOBA bringing this from chance, bringing foba goaltending rules.
Once the ball touches the room becomes fair game. Man,
this would be like things would look very different. And
if again, if you want to bring big guys back,
I think this helps, probably because.
Speaker 1: If you don't like the high scoring nature, then this
definitely helps.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, if you if you can get the ball
on the way down like so that you can block.
Speaker 1: Everything as if you increase like one of the like
Michael Jordan type of plays that are mythologizes him just
pinning the ball against the backboard, I think would increase
the amount of times we see that and that that
actually is really cool.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and so I really then this isn't stated. But
like so getting the ball to the backboard first as
an offensive player does not insulate you from that's not goaltending.
If that gets swatted away either, because it's technically like
on the way down, I.
Speaker 1: Get rid of goaltending is that like you would have peaked.
Speaker 2: DeAndre Jordan's has gotten a couple mentions here, but this
is for a good reason this time, Like DeAndre Jordan
would just stand under the basket and block threes right
like he would just go up and get them, and
they were on the way down. And that's not goaltending.
We can't have this, this, this, this, this would not work.
Speaker 1: I'd like to see it just perimeter shooting.
Speaker 2: You just I guess the three seconds thing, but like
you would just station like what Wemby.
Speaker 3: Wemby becomes you.
Speaker 2: Can't score on the spurs now because he stands on
the block and he goes and blocks every jump shot
on the way down.
Speaker 1: So on the way down to find but rim or
backboard after it touches it, you should be allowed to
do something now if.
Speaker 2: It's the FEEBA rule, because the on the way down
thing is not a fever rule. But like, yeah, if
it's on the rim, it's like a live ball. That
makes things pretty interesting. I could get I could get
behind that, not the.
Speaker 3: Not the on the way down.
Speaker 1: It would increase the value of these players who take
like these moon ball shots though, right because those are no.
Speaker 3: Way you would still block those.
Speaker 2: You just you don't think Wemby could stand under the basket,
jump up with one hand and just like he's like,
I've got my hand flat like.
Speaker 3: A shoot it and just tip it out.
Speaker 1: That's Wemby, I'm talking. But like kis going to do
that as a like Sa Bona is gonna do my
So it be like maybe it would change the dynamics
of what you're when you were younger and you were
being taught to shoot one of like my coaches used
to say, aim for the back of the front of
the rim. Now maybe that changes to aim for the
front of the back of the rim.
Speaker 2: Or I just don't see a scenario where every team
doesn't have like three guys and without even having to
hunt them down that are big enough at like Quintin
post on the Warriors suddenly a defensive monster because he
could just stand under the basket and tip balls out
that are about to go.
Speaker 1: I wonder what the frequency of that would be, but
even if it was pretty high frequency, it will kind
of force more of a reversion to emphasis on two
pointers that.
Speaker 2: Somebody that dunk is the only safe shot, that's the
only shot that can't be goldtend.
Speaker 3: I'd be chaos. We can't have this.
Speaker 1: I am for the FEBA rule, and I wonder why
the NBA doesn't allow that is they're like, what's the reasoning?
Speaker 3: I don't know, Probably because I don't. I don't know.
Speaker 2: It just it would be it's more ec because you
got guys going after the live ball in the rim more.
Speaker 1: Okay, this one comes from Theodore Toronto and a CFL
style crossover roll in the play in if the tenth
place team in the West has more points than the
tenth place team in the East or vice versa. But
come on, they get that spot.
Speaker 2: So I wish I was more familiar with the CFL
style crossover being referenced here.
Speaker 3: So what does that mean. Let's let's take the crying
Bulls thing that we have here.
Speaker 1: So the Bulls, the tenth place team in the West,
scored more points this season than the team like you
have the ability to like shift conferences, like.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, So some kind of tiebreaker. It could
be just record, honestly, right, It wouldn't need to be or.
Speaker 1: Like something fun like record against teams above five hundred
or something.
Speaker 3: I don't know, So what really what this accomplishes?
Speaker 2: Is it incentivizes teams in the play and range because
like sometimes the play in gets pretty well stratified, and
like you're not going to move up or down in
your conference very much like over the last two weeks,
would give them like, oh, but that team in the West,
we might be able to overtake them and then snake
that spot.
Speaker 3: And I think I don't hate it.
Speaker 2: I think because who even cares about the playing teams anyway,
like preserving conference integrity? Just like let them everybody's going
to jump to the East number one, probably, although maybe
not this year.
Speaker 3: I like it. I'm in.
Speaker 1: I'm in for this one too. What do we have next? All? Right?
Speaker 2: From DT Savage, stay with the team ten years and
you can take some of your salary as an equity
stake in the team vesting on retirement that does not
count against the cap. I wholeheartedly agree with this, uh
because the players on my favorite team are old and
I would like them to not be so expensive.
Speaker 1: That's uh now.
Speaker 3: And if it's the Warriors more than any other team.
Speaker 1: Now my thing would be doesn't this put maybe undue
pressure on the player to say that they want a
vested ownership stake in the team, and that if they
don't take it, they're looked at it sort of like
some villain by proxy. Because the appeal of this right
now is understandable, But are we in like a sports
franchise valuation bubble. They can't continue to just go up
and up and up like this, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's true, and you wouldn't you'd want them. Yeah,
you would want the equity decision to be like the
obviously correct one for the player. It's like, I will
make more money doing this, which probably you still would
because you're just you got a piece of it forever. Yeah,
that would be it. That would be a sticking point.
I'm still I'm in.
Speaker 3: I think of.
Speaker 1: Benefits about this one to where it's Let's use Jaron
Jackson Junior as an example. Let's say he qualifies for
All NBA Defensive Player of the Year and wins gets
in one or both of them. You have a supermax,
but it doesn't count against the salary cap for that much.
It still counts as let's say, instead of thirty five
percent of the max, it would count as thirty percent,
or if it's thirty versus like, what about that type
of a break?
Speaker 2: I feel a little more like that does feel like
it should be implemented because you are sort of there's
the weird thing of like, yeah, as a team, you're
really hoping your player plays well enough to get the
super Max because obviously that means he's awesome. But then
at the same time, like part of you might be
rooting against it, or like, boy, I hope he doesn't qualify.
Speaker 1: Kyrie's MAXI last year with the Sixers, where it was
like it was cool to see what he was doing,
but you knew their fans were kind of rooting for
him not to make All NBA so that they could
have the off season banonsa that they did.
Speaker 2: Yep, that cleans that up your suggestion, because it's like
everybody's happy they get the player gets the thirty five percent.
It doesn't hurt the team, you know, as much as
it would.
Speaker 1: I like that. Let's see what we have next. Oh okay,
actually I think I like this one. This one comes
from Clark Matthews. I would like to see fouls to
break up alley oops be free throws. As it stands,
the defender is encouraged to foul because it will be
a side out, even if the catching player still gets
the ball after the foul instead of allowing a really
fun play.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think.
Speaker 2: What's hard is like it's already hard because you do
see free throws of war on allup atten finishes if
like they if it becomes like a shooting motion, like
if they're actually about to dunk it down. I think
those are called fouls, right, But it's like if you
catch them in the air earlier before, Like first of all,
stop fouling guys that are in the air, Like, let's
let's get rid of that. If you're standing on the
ground as who is that? Who's that Bradley Beal again,
that's fouling Edward's there. Yeah, man, get out of here.
I'm okay with I'm okay with that. I think I
think cause it's like one it's it's basically a shooting foul,
and two it's like dangerous, so let's disincentivize it as
much as possible.
Speaker 1: This done in like kind of conjunction with the charge rules,
where it just feels like it would make the game safer.
Like I would say extending the charge circle makes the
most sense. It feels like it would make the game
safer for players like that are going airborne.
Speaker 3: Yeah, which we want like that.
Speaker 2: Everyone agrees, like it's way cooler to watch a game
where guys are flying through the air than not.
Speaker 1: Next one, grant, Oh, how'd you do that?
Speaker 2: We got Bronnie and lebron syncd up uh actually called
techs for flops again from a Nitzied Yes, please, Yeah,
it's kind of coming back.
Speaker 3: Doesn't it feel like it happens?
Speaker 1: They just like it was a point of emphasis and
it's just and I think, honestly, you know, what you
do is that there should be retroactive fines for flopping,
even if they're not called, and they should be way
more punitive as a percentage of your salary than they
actually are.
Speaker 3: Aren't there supposed to be fines?
Speaker 1: Still? Like it's like an unrat Like, I guess they
feel like they curtailed it enough to where it's not
disagree you, But I would say, do you think that
flopping though, has become like worse for offensive players than
defensive players at this point?
Speaker 2: Yeah, because the rules are the last several years have
become such that, like you just it just favors the offense.
So contact still is like, well it's gonna be against
the defensive.
Speaker 3: Player, Like who was it?
Speaker 2: I think it was Zion Williams against Golden State last night,
like kind of ran into a backcourt screen and just
like both arms flail, like yes he got hit, But
like the accentuation. I don't know how you police that,
but like there's some some line of like what's accentuation
and what's a flop? Like we need to like aggressive
accentuation is close, Like we gotta get the like you know,
call bating like fake arm flailing thing out. So I'm
I think that first of all, it is a rule now,
so just like enforce it.
Speaker 1: I can't add anything to that. I like it nice
that bron and bron Lebron and Ronnie got to have
that father son moment of the dual flop though. This
next one comes from Dante from the four oh four
postgame interviews. For referees that lead assistant coaches but not
head coaches or players get to attend review shot clock
of thirty seconds if there is no conclusion by then
the call on the floor stance. I like that second one.
That's like, so just implement there's a time limit, just
like you want a time limit on free throws. There's
a time limit on the reviews the postgame interviews for referees.
So right now they already have like the pool reporters
get to speak to the referees. It'd be interesting. It
feels like it could be pretty contentious if you now
had coaches inserted in the equation. However, I'm game if
those interviews are televised, then they're done on the sidelines
and we get to watch them.
Speaker 2: Oh man, I feel like I want to come if uncomfortably,
want to come down on the side of referees and
be like, that job is hard.
Speaker 3: They're gonna miss calls.
Speaker 2: I actually don't want to hear from them after the
game in any capacity, Like we all just can acknowledge
that they're going to mess up sometimes that's I don't
know what are the assistant coaches have to do with this.
Speaker 3: I'm having a hard time parsing that part.
Speaker 1: I think head coaches like could you imagine freaking I
don't know, Michael Malone or Rick Carlisle, like a referee the.
Speaker 3: Lead assistant gets to attend this review.
Speaker 1: Oh, so here's the basically, let lead assistants into the
pool reporting one. I'd rather see the assistants interview the referees. Actually,
that's what I thought.
Speaker 2: That's that initially, that's I don't know what's happening here.
Let's move on from Nutter. Oh, Jordan Poole introduced relegations.
Why is Jordan Poole have to be involved in tanking
would be less of an issue if teams face the
possibility of dropping out of the league. It'll never happen,
but it'd be amazing. I mean, you would solve tanking
like that's full stop.
Speaker 3: That would help. Relegation has always seemed so harsh to me,
Like it happens another in this case, Well, you just
have a a you cut.
Speaker 2: The league in half more, you know, but then they
then you and also do expansion. So now there's sixty
teams and thirty of them are is it?
Speaker 1: So you do expansion, but like two of the teams
start out in the G League and have to earn
their way to I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't know. Yeah, it's it's tough.
Speaker 2: Like the Premier League is like wildly popular. I don't
know if other international yeah, other international soccer leagues have relegation.
I just it's hard having not grown up with like
that as a sports mainstay. To imagine, like, what would
happen if your favorite NBA team was not in the
NBA your year to year like that wouldn't that be
I just don't know how that would feel.
Speaker 1: How would you build? Would you build or squander loyalty
by doing something like that?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I don't know, because like, theoretically, if
you get relegated, odds are you're gonna be at the
top of the league you just went down to, so
you might like kick ass for a season and fans
would like that, and then hey, we get to go
back up.
Speaker 3: That's fun.
Speaker 2: That's probably more fun than being an NBA purgatory, right,
Like you get dumped down, but then you get to
climb back up and you have this goal to achieve.
Speaker 3: I don't know. Maybe that's why it like works in
every other sport in every other country.
Speaker 1: I guess I would just struggle to see what this
like you would really so cut the league in half
just feels That's why.
Speaker 2: I don't know how the logistics are tricky. You just
seems like you need more teams.
Speaker 1: I do. The idea of the stakes behind it, though,
would be like what about sort of something like if
you're this ex bad if you win fewer than x
percentage of your game over a five year span, like
the owners should be forced to sell or something at
that point. This is our final one, I believe, so
get really sad. It comes from Pete Dawkins. Not really
a rule change, but the MVP debate is so toxic
and ridiculous now that I would revive and refine the
IBM Award. It used the computer formula to measure a
player statistical contribution to their team. Do you recall this award?
Because I did not. I had to google it was
so here's a quick recap of it. The IBM Award
was an award given out to NBA players from nineteen
eighty four to two thousand and two. The award was
sponsored and calculated by technology company IBM and was determined
by a computer formula which measured a player statistical contribution
to his team. The player with the best contribution to
his team in the league received the award. The first
recipient was Magic Johnson of the Los Angeles Lakers and
the final recipient was Tim Duncan of the San Antonio Spurs.
With the caveat that I'm old but not old enough
to remember this. I feel like I should remember Tim
Duncan having won the IBM Award. In the fact that
I don't might say all that needs to be said
on it.
Speaker 2: I have no recollection of that award, and I was
paying attention to the NBA for at least half of
the time period you mentioned, Oh wow, okay, that I mean,
I really would like to know more names, because like
two for two if Magic Johnson in eighty four and
Tim Duncan and O two got it pretty solid.
Speaker 1: But I wad want to know the winners. Well, sure,
so Magic Johnson won the first and then this is
in nineteen eighty five, Michael Jordan, Then Charles Barkley won
it in eighty six, eighty seven and eighty eight. Michael
Jordan won it in eighty nine. David Robinson won it
in ninety ninety one, ninety two was Dennis Rodman, Okay,
ninety three was a Cheme, ninety four, ninety five and
ninety six was David Robinson again. Grant Hill won it
in ninety seven, Carmelone won it in ninety eight, the
Kene Matumba won it in ninety nine. Shack won it
in two thousand and two thousand and one, and then
Tim Duncan won it in two thousand and two.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's not far off from from Hughes, pretty
close to the MVP stuff, the Matumbo and I mean,
who knows, maybe Matumbo was the you know what I mean?
I think I think we sort of If you're a
halfway conscientious MVP voter, you're paying attention to several catch
all metrics as it is now, So like you, I
guess you do remove the debate by just letting the
computer decide. But I don't find the debate to be
toxic enough that that's an issue.
Speaker 1: Uh well, I disagree with you with it not being
toxic enough. But shout out to David Robinson. The IBM
a war goat apparently the way like half a dozen
of them, I would say, when you look back, Okay,
the debates, I really do think the tenor of them
just sucks at this point for the most part, but
especially when you get to like Shay versus Jokic, it
just creates this contention. It's like, and people get hostile,
they're they're derisive. But if you go back through the
list of MVPs, how many times do you think that
they've been an egregious pick for MVP.
Speaker 2: That's the thing, like really really rarely, Like what do
people point to, like the Derrick Rose one people highlight
all the time as like I don't know about there's
I think there's another.
Speaker 1: Russell Westbrook one is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but yeah, I mean even those like he averaged
a triple double and Derreck Rose was the best player
on a team that was first in the conference, Like
you know what I mean, Like even those might not
be egregious. So I don't think you get MVP like
objectively wrong almost ever.
Speaker 1: Do you think there could be something done? And I
don't know if it's implementing a set of criteria that's
not as I mean they have the games played threshold,
but like to make the ward award less interpretational but
not too formulaic that would then force people to evaluate
it within sort of the same prism. Or no, there's
just nothing that can be done.
Speaker 2: I think we are where we need to be on
the MVP Award, which is if you're like, it's okay
if you have a differing opinion, like I think as
long as it's like reasonably well informed and it's like
the game's limit thing like how we always talk about
like just let people decide whether sixty four games of
this is worth more than seventy one games of that.
Like everyone's using good numbers now, I mean hopefully, and
everybody's watching games. Like I don't have a problem with
the MVP debate being contentious to your point, it sucks
that like you have to denigrate, like the guy you
don't think should win it, as opposed to just say,
like they're both awesome. I hope this guy wins it,
but I get it if the other guy does, which
is kind of where I'm at this season. By the way,
same with Embiid and Jokic. I thought Yokic should have
won it a couple of years ago, But like, how
are you gonna deny like like Embiid was not good?
Speaker 3: Like or what do we do?
Speaker 1: I don't know how you're gonna look at if Shay,
if Shayer Jokic wins it, I mean, share Yokic will
win it. I don't know how you look at the
winner and say they didn't deserve it and like it
should have been so and so by a landslide.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think we're I think we're good. I think
I think we can handle a little disagreement, so you.
Speaker 1: Don't think and I guess just the results. But maybe
I don't know if this would impact the at least
the discourse around it. Maybe it wouldn't matter. But I've
seen some people I think, I'll say many of whom
are both of which probably think that they should be
on set panel, but have thought about let's shrink the
voter pool when it comes to MVP or these awards
in general, so that it's not I think specifically. Some
people want to exo communicate, you know, regional people from
the process and have it be more national media members.
And then my concern with that is, I don't if
you wanted to, because in theory, if you're picking a
league wide award, it should be someone who's trying to
keep a pulse on all thirty teams as much as possible.
At the same time, when you look at some of
the quote unquote national media members that have it, it
might lend itself to worse for sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know how you solve that, because the
local guys are gonna be biased all the time and
they may not vote that way, but they will have
to overcome that bias I think to be objective, and
then a lot of the national guys just like aren't
paying attention most you know, that's just how it is.
So I don't know what I think about the size
of the voting body. I think if you dumped out
all of the local guys, you might just really have
like an increased instance of like groupthink. You know, it's
because I think the local guys are the ones that
provide like local local people are the are the ones
that provide like more context or more nuanced or just
like a baits on the ground kind of feel, which
I think is valuable if you're trying to break close ties,
like some of all that information helps.
Speaker 1: I also don't think it matters for year end awards
as much as like the broader scope points where it's
when it comes down to all NBA. Is that where
you might be more susceptible to egregious results because the
pool has extended so much where it's maybe it's MVP,
it's always like three players or fewer that it comes
down to for real.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 1: The goal was to get through as many as we
could in two hours, and we did like about like
we held to that grant. How are you feeling after this?
Speaker 3: I feel like, what was your favorite rule?
Speaker 1: Just a free throw one from uh Candice Padraza, like
let's make them one shot worth two points or three points? Yeah,
I think that in retrospect that was that was my
favorite one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I was most intrigued by the three
seconds in the corner. But I don't know if I
could ever get.
Speaker 1: That one feel like perhaps the most realistic one.
Speaker 2: Well, it was just I liked it because i'd never
heard it. I think we've heard some version of all
of these, and I was.
Speaker 3: Like, oh, I haven't thought of that. That's that's interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thanks everybody for all your submissions. If we didn't
get to yours, it probably overlapped with one that we
did get to, hopefully, so you don't feel short changed there.
This is really good, really interesting. We solved the NBA,
I think collectively is the takeaway we did everybody, So everybody,
you're welcome. If you enjoy this, remember rate, review, subscribe,
you didn't enjoy it, rate highly, still review, subscribe, do
all that stuff. Wherever you're getting your podcast, subscribe on
our YouTube channel. Hopefully you were watching this there so
you got the You got to see all of Dan's
painstakingly made graphics, which I appreciate and you should also appreciate.
Speaker 1: You did you shout it out? I think the bare
minimum that I said I would be worth it was
three and three, so I hit the quota.
Speaker 2: I'm glad I didn't want to let you down. What
else showing our discord links for that.
Speaker 3: YouTube podcast description.
Speaker 2: That's where we got a lot of these suggestions from
good place to reach us, good place to interact with
a lot of people that provided use of suggestions. That's
gonna do a shouts frankly, Keenan apologies, Jared Allen