Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
scott@scottlongonline.com
Despite the topic seeming a bit too obvious for me to want to tackle, I just can’t ignore the NBA. A little background check on me would enable you to discover that professional basketball used to be my favorite sport. During the 1980’s, the NBA was the most exciting, well-played team sport in the world. While the Lakers and Celtics were dynasties, there were other great teams, as well. The 76ers during the early 80’s were the most exciting team I’ve ever seen, while the Pistons of the late 80’s were the toughest. To give you an idea of how good the top teams were in the league during this decade, the Milwaukee Bucks won the Central Division every season between 1980 and 1987, but not once played in the Finals.
The 1970’s started great for the NBA, as the Knicks and Lakers waged some of the best battles in league history. After these 2 teams last final showdown in 1973, the NBA began to fall off, as the rival ABA siphoned off many of basketball’s most exciting players. During this period forgettable teams like the Warriors, Bullets, and Sonics won it all. Only the 1977 Trail Blazers were a team that could have competed with the best of the past decade.
It has been chronicled many times about how Larry Bird and Magic Johnson brought the game to a new level, when they joined the NBA in 1979. I possess no contrarian arguments to this view. These 2 men, who were not particularly fast or strong, had the rare ability to dictate the pace of the game. At no time has anyone this tall, been such brilliant playmakers. Not before, not since. No basketball players have made their teammates better than Bird and Magic.
During the 1990’s, the NBA became even more popular, as the star-power of Michael Jordan catapulted the sport to ratings only behind the NFL. This was also the time that the quality of the game began to slip, as the isolation play became a feature of most offenses. Clearing out most of the floor to allow the brilliant abilities of Jordan was often thrilling, but it damaged the free-form nature of the game.
To try to combat this type of offense, coaches began to over-manage play, especially through clutch and grab defenses. After Jordan retired, the game steadily lost national attention, as the key to winning became who has the best big man. Shaquille O’Neal is an immovable force, as his 4 championships this decade point to. Tim Duncan is more versatile in what he offers, but his robotic style is not fun to watch. Hard to question Duncan’s production, though, as he is about to win his 4th NBA championship. Since Jordan left the game, these 2 men have won 8 of the past 9 NBA titles, with the only exception being the boringly efficient Pistons, who won it all in 2004.
While the addition of foreign born players have brought more outside shooting and passing back to the NBA, these players seem to lack the drive and killer instinct of a Magic or Bird. The influx of these players has helped the marketability of the NBA overseas, but it has made it harder for U.S. fans to connect with the players. It is a natural instinct to bond with athletes you relate to.
A good example of this is auto racing. It was not that long ago that open wheel racing was more popular than stock car racing. While there are many reasons why NASCAR has become such a phenomenon at the same time Indy Car has been left in the dust, a major part of it is the total American domination of NASCAR by the Jimmy Jeffs and Dickie Dales. Indy Car has too many fur-n-ers getting the checkered flag.
The issue of race is often used as a major reason for the NBA’s decline. I think this is an overrated factor. The greatest force in raising the popularity of the league was Michael Jordan. During this NBA ratings bonanza of the 1990’s, only one of the Top 25 players in the league was white, John Stockton. During each of the past 3 years, the MVP has been white, (Nash and Nowitski). Not since the 1950’s have there been so many top-notch white players in the NBA. While the thug behavior of players like Allen Iverson and Ron Artest might have turned off some of its fans, it is the product on the floor that is the NBA’s biggest problem.
The league has been proactive in trying to fix some of its strategic problems, but I’m not sure what can be done to make it better. It kind of reminds me of what happened in tennis. Much like the NBA, tennis hit its pinnacle during the 1980’s, as personalities like McEnroe, Connors, Evert and Navratilova made it arguably the 4th most popular sport in the U.S. During the 1990’s, tennis continued to prosper, but the quality of the game began to decline, as the mix of improvements in racket technology and the overall athletic ability, created quicker points which took away some of the strategy of the game. The improved nutrition and training methods have built better bodies in all sports, but it has negatively impacted tennis and basketball, as brute force has eclipsed much of the grace that used to be such a key component to success.
While I’m on the NBA and tennis comparison, are there 2 great athletes who mirror each other more than Pete Sampras and Tim Duncan? Both of them seem like great guys, who have always conducted themselves with class. They both have a fluid nature to their game that at times looks effortless. On the surface, they seem to be what sports fans claim they want in their superstars. Sampras and Duncan are just a couple more examples of what people say they want often being not what they really desire.
It is no secret that NBA ratings are declining year after year. So what is there to discuss with this topic? Declining ratings or not, the league still has millions of fans and is able to fill most of its arenas. I have gone from someone who loved professional basketball more than any sport to someone who can’t watch more than 5 minutes of a game. I’m not one of those everything was better in my day type of guys, so it isn’t nostalgia why I think what I do about the league. For example, I think Major League Baseball is better game now than it was back in the 1980’s.
The one thing that the NBA can point to in selling itself is that it shows off the features of high-definition TV more than anything else. (Greg Popovich is done no favors by it, though.) Despite this technological advantage, I would still prefer to tune-in bad 1980’s graphics replayed on ESPN Classic over today’s NBA. Give me a 1988 Atlanta Hawks/Boston Celtics battle…NBA on CBS, with Brent Musberger behind the mic…Larry Bird coming up in an epic battle versus Dominique Wilkins...You are watching what greatness, is all about….And this was just a Eastern semi-final playoff series.
If you are still a fan of the game, Please Explain why I’m off about the NBA. Outside of an occasional playoff game, I just don’t understand the appeal of the 2007 model.
1) The schedule is impossible to follow. When do these guys play anyway?? NFL is on Sunday (mostly), MLB? Everyday (mostly). Granted this may not explain the drop in popularity from 10 years ago, but it explains one reason for my disinterest.
2) The race thing. Jordan may have been black, but he wasn't 'rapper' black, if you get my meaning. The black stars of the 80's and 90's went golfing with Alice Cooper and Bobe Hope, today's NBA star fires weapons at strip clubs---or at least that's the perception. You get the impression that you wouldn't mind MJ living next door, Ron Artest , not so much.
3) I think you are on to something about the size of today's player...the court seems cramped and entirely too small these days. The NBA could use to add about 15 feet side to side and 20-25 end to end to the size of it's courts to open things up.
Again, as someone who has zero interest in the NBA, take this with a grain of salt.
I don't hear the complaints about two small market teams playing each other in the Super Bowl that I hear in the NBA.
For me, I've noticed that I tune in less and less to games not involving the Lakers. I just have no interest. Though I enjoy basketball much more than I enjoy football, I can watch any game of football and be entertained--not just 49er games.
(I am admitting that advertising and promotion does have an affect on me, though I hate to say it.)
Chick Hearn used to talk about increasing the size of the court. Not by 15 feet, but at least ten inches to a foot.
One minor quibble; Shaq was hardly the factor on his fourth championship team that he had been on his previous three. Miami won b/c Dwyane Wade put on a Jordanesque performance (and got Jordanesque treatment from the refs) in the finals. Shaq's performance was forgettable in 2006.
In 2007, it is usually a mistake to watch the NBA for competitiveness rather than direct entertainment. The reason is that for even the most skeptical personal, the main problem with the NBA is the credibility of the competition going on. The NBA has been proactive as you said, but if rules change every couple of years, who's to say this year's MVP is really the best basketball player and not just the beneficiary of rule changes. In addition, flopping has become a huge problem. It's one thing for a soccer player to flop in the middle of the field, it is quite another for a basketball player because those called fouls lead to points more often than not. One of the most vocal critics of the NBA in the media is Bill Simmins who happens to be interviewing the NBA commissioner tomorrow at espn.com. I would ask the comissioner, 'if you cannot make the NBA competition genuine and the league entertaining at the same time, despite your many efforts, why can't we just choose'? And let's choose entertainment. If you can't agree with that sentiment, then I'm sorry to say the NBA in 2007 or the near future is not for you.
That said, outside of the Lakers I really don't like watching the NBA. The last time I watched a non-Lakers finals game was probably back in the Jordan years. I'd rather watch a Devil Rays-Orioles game on Extra Innings than a random NBA game. I'd rather watch a Texans-Raiders game than an NBA game.
The NBA is a 'stars' league, and if the right stars dont match up in the Finals--then you get poor ratings.
Plus, the NBA season is just so long that I think people are tired of basketaball by the middle of June.
Shorten the season--makes every game more meaningful---will lead to higher ratings.
I also think the early entrant rule will make the NBA more popular bc the stars of tomorrow will become better known in college before they make it to the NBA.
I also started losing interest when dunking and getting your highlight on SportsCenter that night seemed to become the engine that drove the game. Dunks were cool and awesome when I first saw them, but they're really nothing more than a playground trick. Watching someone go coast-to-coast through the defense for a fingertip layup is infinitely more exciting for me.
Or would be, if I still cared.
As an example of what really jumped the shark for me -- I dunno it must have been an early 90's playoff game with Patrick Ewing's Knicks. At the buzzer, the ball got in Ewing's hands just in front of the foul line. He may have bounced the ball once, feinted left, ducked right, and took 3 and a half steps to the basket for the score and the win. Announcers gushed over his heroic veteran play.
I think the NBA transition was quite deliberate: They cashed in on the show, and left the sport out to hang. Every televised sporting event is about the 'sport' and about the 'show' around it. League execs and television execs are constantly fiddling with the formula if you ask me. In baseball, you see FOX desperately trying to shower 'value added' over their presentation, but it seems incongruous with the 'sport' of baseball. Basketball/NBA, however, bought into all that stuff hook, line, and sinker by letting its sport change to enhance the show: Most particularly, a relaxation of the travel call and an arbitrary nature to the foul call.
I would watch an NBA game, and a team would really dominate another team for three quarters. Then suddenly, mid way through a fourth quarter, the once lesser team suddenly goes through a run, and pull out the game. I would look at the TV, and feel that the result did not reflect the better team that game. This has happened to me very consistently, even as I watched less and less.
Parallel to this, I think another problem has been arising. The court dimensions, and indeed the game, have been designed when athletes were not so strong and so athletic. The court is too small! It's not the height of the basket, it is two 250 lb centers with gigantic arm spans sitting in front of the basket, it is a 6'6'' forward who is so lightning quick that giving him three steps to the basket is akin to putting every one else in lead shoes.
The court and the rules would have to change to get me back, and here is a proposed starting point: Go to an Olympic style court with larger dimensions and larger key, and start forcing people to dribble the ball to the basket by going back to the old travel rules. The big guys have to move around more with the larger key. The quick guys have to utilize proper holes in the defense while putting the ball to the floor. X's and O's would begin to come back.
Btw, from my perspective the College game has pretty much undergone the same negative transitions as the NBA.
Also, Btw, along with the sheer aspect of athleticism in individuals, the X's and O's are a critical component of viewership. Viewers are, among other things, looking for a shared experience. They can't share extraordinary athleticism, even though they admire it. But they can always share the strategies, and imagine to themselves "I could have designed that play!" The balance between athletic talent and X's and O's can't sway too far to one side.
BTW, I watch the Illini pretty regularly (one of the things Scott and I disagree upon----Boo!! Haweyes!!).
For all the knocks MLB always gets, I think it is the one sport that has actually maintained or improved the quality of the on field product. The NBA has become mundane and the NFL has opted for mediocrity. I hope MLB continues on its own path.
On a more general note, I think if the Spurs and Suns were somehow playing in the Finals you wouldn't be seeing too many "What's wrong with the NBA?" stories right now. Instead you'd be seeing two fantastic teams facing off, just like in the glory years. I know I'd be watching every minute of it.
But then again, the nature of the game changes every decade, so it could be that what we found to be quality has changed with the new generation of players, and the NBA has had a problem catching up with prevailing tastes (as opposed to trying to maintain the highest levels of success from the past).
What was it about Bird and Johnson that made them stars? Not only the unique qualities in their games, but how those qualities affected the rest of the team. Also, their stars seemed more open to collaborating with each other as opposed to competing for marketing attention. The teams that repeatedly went to the playoffs had clearly identifiable stars, or sought them out from teams that clearly could not compete with them.
Today, it seems that the definitions have changed again, but regressed for different reasons. When Jordan came into the league, the NBA was suffering some falloff because the same teams were competing over and over with the same style and same results. Jordan took what Dr. J began (a unique and inventive style of play) and took it to another level, which the game adjusted to as much as Jordan adjusted to the game.
There lies the issue: Today's players are either trying to or forced to compete with Jordan's legend. Even when a team like the Detroit Pistons or the San Antonio Spurs play team ball, they are forcefully compared to Jordan's Bulls, where every player had a name and a specific role in support of the master. The way the game is marketed now is to find and anoint a successor to Jordan, who could make his team better and take over the game by himself at any given moment, as opposed to Jordan's team; without whom he could never have won even one championship.
We don't have that, and since we've gotten used to this, plus we're not getting what we want, we move on. Thus, the down ratings. This is what the NBA has locked intself into, so I don't feel bad for anyone involved.
Perhaps the game gets better in quality if the talent that's chosen and the staff that coordinates and coaches that talent focus on fundamental soundness as opposed to pure athletic ability/potential. But then, those aren't sexy enough to market now, considering again whomever the target market is (maybe the marketing is missing the target or hitting the wrong mark). E@$% shares a lot of the blame for this, as even current star players and coaches have complained that players are focused more on making highlight reels instead of winning games.
I don't even watch anymore, considering that my team is the Knicks{cough-cough}; style over substance, not to mention a healthy dose of egoism and incompetence drove this team to ruin (mediocrity has never been so distastefully lowwww...) and that's only the front office... well, all-in-all, if quality entertainment is defined by style over substance, then it's no wonder we're having this conversation.
I considered discussing how making the court larger would open the game up some, but this would also expose how bad most players shoot from mid-range. I don't know if I blame the 3-point shot, but players don't seem to have a mid-range game anymore.
I do believe making players play in the NCAA for a year will help the league a bit, as it gives people a chance to build interest in them, before they get to the NBA. Sure Oden would have been a big story right away, but most high schoolers are like Kevin Durant, who can really raise their awareness level after a year in the colleges.
I didn't mention my love of college basketball, as I figured most who read here know how big of fan I am of it. I watch every Big 10 game I can, and love all of the NCAA tourney, my favorite sports event. The college game holds up because the physical ability of the players isn't so great that it creates a stalemate on the court. There is no sport I can think of where by being a bit less talented makes for better viewing, besides college and pro basketball.
I do think Eric Enders nails the part about college b-ball is played with a passion level that rarely exists on a pro level.
If the Spurs and Suns were playing int he finals, it wouldn't be much better ratings. Lebron is the biggest TV draw, outside of Kobe, in the game right now and Cleveland is more on the radar for people on the east coast and midwest than San Antonio and Phoenix are. The only team that could have noticeably raised the NBA tv ratings is the Lakers, as Kobe brings in some non-basketball fans. The power of the league being on the West Coast has hurt national ratings, especially with such strong NBA cities like Boston and New York being so bad.
Possumbait brings up an interesting point about how a team can dominate for 3 quarters and still lose. This does seem to happen more and more, when I watch the games. Since I'm not John Hollinger or Dean Oliver, I guess I will never put the time in to discover the statistics of why this is happening.
KAYVMON did the best job of explaining why the NBA is able to get the ratings that it does. I can't get into any sports just for the sheer entertainment of it. If that was the case, why not just have one big slam dunk/3 point shot competition every night. I will admit that the NBA game has lost so much of its charm that I would prefer to watch these type of skills competitions over most regular season games.
The NBA has to be worried about how many fans it's losing in this country. At the pace it is going, within 10 years 25% of its fans will be overseas. This might enable multi-national corporations to fill up its advertising time, but the arenas will be half-full. I don't know what David Stern can do to bring the game back to what it was during the 80's, but he does need to do something.
Here is a radical idea which I know will never happen (meet the Players union), but I do think it would solve much of the current malaise in the game. Instead of 5 on 5, let's go with 4 on 4.
It can happen. Ask Isiah Thomas. Well, don't ask him now, but check his two rings.
One major difference between the teams. Pistons were built for playoff basketball, while the Suns defense is nowhere as tight, as much as I love watching them play.
This is related to the issue of one team being able to dominate most of the game and still lose, though, and you can see it in the way the teams play. As long as the difference is in single digits, nothing that happens, except for injuries and fouls, make much difference before the last 5 minutes. I think this is both good and bad, in that I find myself quite often not even bothering to watch the first few quarters of a game I'm only marginally interested, but I think it also leads to more exciting finishes in general.
Yeah, I have to agree with you there (those Pistons really were custom made for playoff bruising); still, I'm trying to generate some hopefor the Suns from the idea that things might have been different for them against the Spurs without the big suspensions.
Wrong. The crime and thuggery at the NBA is at a significantly higher percentage. That's the difference. A football team has about 4.5 times as many players as a basketball team. So if you have one criminal on your NBA team, that's almost 10% of your roster. A single NFL player is only 2% of the team.
1. The Eastern conference with once historically great franchises like the Celtics, Knicks, 76ers is horrible. I think if the East could truly compete with the West more consistently interest may pick up.
2. As others have mentioned the lack of diversity among the players does hurt the league. I think the NBA players as a whole are better behaved than the NFL, but as of 2007 the NFL is so Teflon that no one cares. Everything runs in cycles and the NFL will have its day of declining interest and ratings.
3. The embarrassing failures of the USA national team comprised of NBA players. They did great for the first 8 years 92-2000 but starting with the 2002 World Championships and the 04 Olympics they have showed exactly why the league has deteriotated so much. Having NBA all star team without a player who can hit a 20' 3 pointer says volumes about the style that American professional basketball has drifted towards.
As I said everything runs in cycles and the NBA will rise again. From what I understand the league almost folded before Bird/Magic and came back to become more popular than ever. Something or someone will capture the publics imagination sometime in the next 10-20 years.
Don't get me wrong, I like shootouts as much as the next man, but I prefer "grind it out" defense
I skimmed, but didn't see what I'm about to address, so forgive me if it's been stated... Competitiveness and predictability are a big problem in the NBA. On the one hand, it's nice to know that the supposedly "better" team almost always wins, but on the other hand, it's kind of demoralizing that virtually every playoff series may as well be determined before the tip of Game 1. This season has been a remarkable exception, with the Jazz and Warriors both coming on particularly strong at the end and pulling lower-seed upsets. The NFL has surprise champions. MLB has surprise champions. You have to go back to 1995 to find an NBA champ that didn't finish first or second in its conference during the regular season, and that was a Hakeem-led Rockets team that was a defending champ! With 16 teams in the playoffs every year, one would think Cinderella has a chance, but she's lucky if she doesn't get mugged as she steps off her front porch, and in all the times she's tried to get to the ball, she's rarely made it more than a block before the cab overheats. (/strained cliche analogy)
For every Kobe or Garnett there are ten high schoolers or underclassmen drafted into the league who are just not ready. Not mature enough. Not polished enough. Never experienced high-profile, high-level competition. Basically, the most physically talented guys aren't the players they should be. Eventually that takes a toll on the game.
That said, the NBA lost me during the latter Shaq/Kobe years. I just don't need the constant and overriding concern about who's top dog on a given team, such that its not good enough just to win championships.
It takes all kinds, I guess. I liked watching the Kings from 99-01, I liked watching the Knicks of the early-mid 90's. The battles with the Bulls, Pacers, and Heat were something else back then. I liked watching the Trailblazers of the late 90's when it seemed they had the deepest team in the league. Seems like so long ago.
- Brad from The Sports Desk at TheNewsRoom.com
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.