OT: NBA testing out 44 minutes basketball game

[cliftonparksufan]

What's next. MLB tries out 8 inning baseball games.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/sto...reseason-game-length-nets-celtics-adam-silver

 

[stuckinbig11]

So, would scoring records be converted to game-minutes to allow comparisons?

 

[Fireball Jr.]

The season, not the games, is too long.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2233158-dirk-nowitzki-comments-on-current-length-of-nba-season

 

[stuckinbig11]

The season, not the games, is too long.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2233158-dirk-nowitzki-comments-on-current-length-of-nba-season

Eh? The NBA regular season doesn't start until June, after the pre-season exhibition games are over.

 

[SmilinBob]

This reminds me of Jabbars line in the movie airplane.

 

[Knicks411]

The only thing I really don't like about it is it would suck to have to convert 44 game scores/stats etc to 48 in my head for comparison sake. I know I've been reading the NBA would like to get games down to about 2 hours or so.

The season, not the games, is too long.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2233158-dirk-nowitzki-comments-on-current-length-of-nba-season

Season is definitely too long, but there is a hell of a lot of money invested in that. I wonder how many players would be cool with cutting the season to 66 games if they cut their salaries by 20% or so. A guy like Dirk, I'm sure would be fine, at his age. But the guys in their 20's?

 

[Cusefan0307]

Christmas should be the NBA's opening day. That's their day, and when the season really kicks off for fans. Football is slowing down at that point, and it would decrease the amount of games to about 60 or so. Casual fans don't pay attention in November and December, they are too busy watching football and getting ready for the Holidays. While were at it, I also believe College Basketball should be a Spring Sport. Start January 1st, that way you aren't competing as much with football as well. The amount of games for college basketball isn't the problem, but casual fans once again don't start watching until January.

As for the pace of games, I agree it needs to be sped up. The way to do this is to get rid of either TV or Team Timeouts in both college and the NBA. You want your games done in a two hour window, its never going to happen when there are 20 total timeouts in a 48 or 40 minute game.

 

[Cusefan0307]

The only thing I really don't like about it is it would suck to have to convert 44 game scores/stats etc to 48 in my head for comparison sake. I know I've been reading the NBA would like to get games down to about 2 hours or so.



Season is definitely too long, but there is a hell of a lot of money invested in that. I wonder how many players would be cool with cutting the season to 66 games if they cut their salaries by 20% or so. A guy like Dirk, I'm sure would be fine, at his age. But the guys in their 20's?

Theres a whole host of issues cutting the season. If you cut the season or the amount of time in a game, the owners may tell the players union they don't need as many roster spots because there are less minutes to give out during the season. Star players will still play the same amount regardless, because nobody is averaging 44 minutes a game. They still will play 35-40 minutes a game. If you cut the number of minutes a game, you won't need as many subs. The owners could argue they don't need as many players, and they could make the same arguement decreasing the number of games, thats why I don't think you will see the players association agree to this. Less games and minutes available=less players needed.

 

[RF2044]

The only thing I really don't like about it is it would suck to have to convert 44 game scores/stats etc to 48 in my head for comparison sake. I know I've been reading the NBA would like to get games down to about 2 hours or so.



Season is definitely too long, but there is a hell of a lot of money invested in that. I wonder how many players would be cool with cutting the season to 66 games if they cut their salaries by 20% or so. A guy like Dirk, I'm sure would be fine, at his age. But the guys in their 20's?

Why would they have to cut their salaries? Don't players get paid the full salary even if they get injured [for example], and only play 66 instead of 82 games? They're not being paid by the hour / game.

But I can't see a reduction in games ever happening. Why would the owners willingly sacrifice revenue associated with the games that would get chopped? No incentive to do so.

 

[Fireball Jr.]

Why would they have to cut their salaries? Don't players get paid the full salary even if they get injured [for example], and only play 66 instead of 82 games? They're not being paid by the hour / game.

That's what Dwayne Wade says.

 

[Knicks411]

Why would they have to cut their salaries? Don't players get paid the full salary even if they get injured [for example], and only play 66 instead of 82 games? They're not being paid by the hour / game.

But I can't see a reduction in games ever happening. Why would the owners willingly sacrifice revenue associated with the games that would get chopped? No incentive to do so.

I have no idea how this would work (probably part of the reason it won't happen) but if you cut the season by 20%, you're cutting revenue by 20% (in the ballpark). Though that gets into a lot of questions; can the NBA agree with the PA to cut the season without getting an ok from ESPN/Turner, who are going to start paying them $2.4 billion per year in a few years, etc.

Your last paragraph is the point; if the owners are chopping the revenue, there's no way they do it without the players getting their salaries chopped likewise.

So I wonder if you see teams start to adopt more of the Spurs (and to a lesser extent, Miami with Wade) strategy of just resting guys more. In baseball you rarely see players play all 162 games, even if they're "healthy" for the entire season. Maybe teams go into the season with the idea of we're only playing our star player 77 or 78 games over the course of the season even if he doesn't need to miss time, to save some wear and tear. Or maybe the number is 75. Of course, it's easy to say that in the abstract but if you're in a playoff race...

 

[Pat Kelly]

Why would they have to cut their salaries? Don't players get paid the full salary even if they get injured [for example], and only play 66 instead of 82 games? They're not being paid by the hour / game.

But I can't see a reduction in games ever happening. Why would the owners willingly sacrifice revenue associated with the games that would get chopped? No incentive to do so.

Fewer tickets to be sold, fewer games on television… money earned by the teams goes down, therefore, the team plays the players less.

I'd love the idea of shortening the season. The lockout-shortened season was honestly the most interested I've been in the NBA in years.

 

[realorange]

Could the NHL please follow. The longest sport season in creation.

 

[br801]

What's next. MLB tries out 8 inning baseball games.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/sto...reseason-game-length-nets-celtics-adam-silver

Interesting. Hadn't seen this until now, as I was getting in a quick 16 holes of golf.

 

[jncuse]

Great news. Cut 4 minutes of game time or About 8-10 minutes of real time. Then use that saved time for more riveting commercials.

 

[Lawrinson14]

What's next. MLB tries out 8 inning baseball games.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/sto...reseason-game-length-nets-celtics-adam-silver

I know you were just joking, but the MLB should move to 7 inning games (like high school). Starters barely go more than 5 or 6 innings anymore and the game is already too long. Also, who wants to watch sub-par relievers?

 

[Knicks411]

I know you were just joking, but the MLB should move to 7 inning games (like high school). Starters barely go more than 5 or 6 innings anymore and the game is already too long. Also, who wants to watch sub-par relievers?

In general relievers are better than starters. 9 innings is fine, they just need to stop everyone from stepping out of the box every pitch.

 

[br801]

In general relievers are better than starters. 9 innings is fine, they just need to stop everyone from stepping out of the box every pitch.

You're absolutely right about the relievers, and that's a major factor contributing to the reduced scoring.

And while many batters slow the game with their routines, there are also lots of painfully slow-working pitchers out there these days, especially when runners are on base.

 

[Knicks411]

You're absolutely right about the relievers, and that's a major factor contributing to the reduced scoring.

And while many batters slow the game with their routines, there are also lots of painfully slow-working pitchers out there these days, especially when runners are on base.

Definitely didn't mean to only pin it on the batters. My gut feeling is the average reliever takes longer between pitches than the average starter, and I even think SNY had a stat this year to that point. They're working on ways to speed up the game, and they really have to. Games are as low scoring as they've been in 25-30 years, they shouldn't be taking this long

 

[Cusefan0307]

You're absolutely right about the relievers, and that's a major factor contributing to the reduced scoring.

And while many batters slow the game with their routines, there are also lots of painfully slow-working pitchers out there these days, especially when runners are on base.

It's a general theory that people think relievers are better than starters, but it's hard to compare pitchers who pitch one inning and throws 16 pitches compared to a pitcher that pitches 6 and throws 100 pitches. I'm not sure relievers are better, or do throw harder on the whole. A guy who comes in for one inning can throw as hard as he wants because he doesn't have to pace himself for an entire game. I remember watching the All Star game a few years ago and Brad Penny was pitching during his best years with the Dodgers. They guy very rarely broke 94 or 95 during his starts came out in the All Star Game throwing 98-100. Yeah theres a ton of hard throwing relievers, but they wouldn't throw as hard if they had to pitch 6 innings every five days.

 

[br801]

Definitely didn't mean to only pin it on the batters. My gut feeling is the average reliever takes longer between pitches than the average starter, and I even think SNY had a stat this year to that point. They're working on ways to speed up the game, and they really have to. Games are as low scoring as they've been in 25-30 years, they shouldn't be taking this long

Short of reducing the advertising windows between half innings and during pitching changes, it will be hard to speed up the game significantly as long as games are micro-managed as they are currently. I also think the expanded replay review system, as currently configured, lengthens games at the expense of "getting things right."

 

[br801]

It's a general theory that people think relievers are better than starters, but it's hard to compare pitchers who pitch one inning and throws 16 pitches compared to a pitcher that pitches 6 and throws 100 pitches. I'm not sure relievers are better, or do throw harder on the whole. A guy who comes in for one inning can throw as hard as he wants because he doesn't have to pace himself for an entire game. I remember watching the All Star game a few years ago and Brad Penny was pitching during his best years with the Dodgers. They guy very rarely broke 94 or 95 during his starts came out in the All Star Game throwing 98-100. Yeah theres a ton of hard throwing relievers, but they wouldn't throw as hard if they had to pitch 6 innings every five days.

Relievers today are significantly more effective (statistically) than in the past, and more teams are deploying them as strategic weapons now. I'm not saying these guys could sustain that performance over 6 or 7 innings. If they could, they would likely be starting. I'm just saying that teams seem to be grooming more big arms for set-up and closing roles than in the past, and it seems to be working for a lot of teams.

 

[Knicks411]

Short of reducing the advertising windows between half innings and during pitching changes, it will be hard to speed up the game significantly as long as games are micro-managed as they are currently. I also think the expanded replay review system, as currently configured, lengthens games at the expense of "getting things right."

I think they can shave some time off with the constant stepping out of the box/pitchers taking time between pitches. They're trying some stuff in the AFL this year. Hopefully it works, at least a little.

It's a general theory that people think relievers are better than starters, but it's hard to compare pitchers who pitch one inning and throws 16 pitches compared to a pitcher that pitches 6 and throws 100 pitches. I'm not sure relievers are better, or do throw harder on the whole. A guy who comes in for one inning can throw as hard as he wants because he doesn't have to pace himself for an entire game. I remember watching the All Star game a few years ago and Brad Penny was pitching during his best years with the Dodgers. They guy very rarely broke 94 or 95 during his starts came out in the All Star Game throwing 98-100. Yeah theres a ton of hard throwing relievers, but they wouldn't throw as hard if they had to pitch 6 innings every five days.

This is what I meant; everything else being equal starters are better cause they can maintain their stuff over 100 pitches, i just meant relievers almost always have better ERA's cause they can let it loose.

 

[Cusefan0307]

I think they can shave some time off with the constant stepping out of the box/pitchers taking time between pitches. They're trying some stuff in the AFL this year. Hopefully it works, at least a little.



This is what I meant; everything else being equal starters are better cause they can maintain their stuff over 100 pitches, i just meant relievers almost always have better ERA's cause they can let it loose.

I wonder if we see an evolution in baseball where starters are eventually phased out and teams rely on 6-8 relievers to get through a game. Obviously you would have to have 13 pitchers on a roster for this to happen, but starters used to go all 9 and now they don't. Maybe you see in the future the starter go two innings followed by 5 or 6 relievers doing one or 2 inning stints. Heck the Astros no-hit the yankees this way back in 2003.

 

[Knicks411]

I wonder if we see an evolution in baseball where starters are eventually phased out and teams rely on 6-8 relievers to get through a game. Obviously you would have to have 13 pitchers on a roster for this to happen, but starters used to go all 9 and now they don't. Maybe you see in the future the starter go two innings followed by 5 or 6 relievers doing one or 2 inning stints. Heck the Astros no-hit the yankees this way back in 2003.

You have teams that carry 13 pitchers now, at least for points of the season.
There's always going to be value in a SP who can go 7 innings and shut the opposition down. I do think there is value in working the latter half of your rotation like that though, especially in the playoffs with all the off-days and the like. You get 4 or 5 good innings out of your #4 starter in game 4 of a series? Don't press your luck, get some fresh arms in there so he doesn't need to go through the lineup three times.