I've been following the NBA for decades, right back to when I first learnt to play basketball in fact. In the early days, from where I lived, it wasn't easy to get information. It was all about Rugby and Cricket. But over the years that changed and now there are a lot of games on the television and the internet is a godsend.
The games are brilliant entertainment. The skill is exceptional, no doubt about it. But here's the rub, I think the games are manipulated for certain outcomes and the below is my take on how that is achieved.
Firstly, to address this, we need to ask ourselves what the NBA is and what it is not. It is an entertainment business, it is not there to organise fair competition between participants. That said, there is a type of player favoured, no secret this, they must have good shooting skills and be athletic. That generally means taller players, with elevation. But first they must be able to shoot. In this equation, defensive skills are secondary.
What you don't find are teams full of 5'8" defensive specialists. Hmm? Is that a marketable commodity?
Here are the four ways I feel the games are orchestrated. There must be either an express arrangement or at the very least a tacit understanding.
1. Shooters get good looks
That's right, I think the top entertainers are given room to shoot. Time and again players hang off known lethal shooters. Space appears made on the second or third pass in-bounded in the front court, or the second or third pass once the ball comes over the half way line. This is not all the time, but often enough that I've had to question it. The ball handler brings the ball up, then passes off > pressure > receiver passes > second receiver then gets an easy look and he shoots.
The reason I feel they do it like this is not to look too lame. If there is an easy shot every time first pass, well, questions would be asked.
2. Do not pick up in transition
If there is a turnover, the team that is now attacking seems to get an open shot. This happens a lot. Defenders do not pick up players as they come over half way, especially when their opponent is on a fast break. Players should know to shut down fast breaks, but instead defenders routinely allow them. What happens is defenders retreat into the restricted area, seemingly trying to prevent a drive to the hoop. This rarely works as either a shot is open from the outside or the attackers drive and draw a foul.
I think they do not pick up players in transition in order to promote an open style of play, a free-wheeling and shooting style. High scoring games are achieved this way.
What I'm describing is counter intuitive; if the defense put pressure on the perimeter shooters, they'd shut down the chance of a three point shot. Yes, this leaves the basket open and a cutter could score two points, but in this equation you've saved one point. So it makes sense to deny three pointers, not leave players open, and in so doing open the team up to fouls when players do drive or cut to the hoop. It makes statistical sense to instead pick up all players as they come over half way, especially if they're on the break, and to deny them easy looks from beyond the arc.
It even makes statistical sense to foul players on the break in open play, to prevent them getting set. But this rarely happens. What does happen is players retreat to the keyhole and wait, leaving the outside shot open. This happens often enough to be noticeable.
3. Referees collude
There is a body of evidence to show how referees dictate the outcome of games. The most valuable research has been in professional Rugby League. Referees there decide games according to where and when they blow the whistle. The team not favoured is always penalised when hard on defense or hard on attack and this happens most often earlier in the game. This has the effect of either applying more pressure or relieving the pressure on their favoured opponent, and dictates how the game will develop - this is Rugby League (the penalty count is evened up later once the game is effectively over, with a lot of paddy-whack penalties that amount to nothing for the unfavoured team).
In the NBA I believe they do something similar. Referees call off-the-ball fouls on the defender that is less favoured. They do this if the favoured team has not made headway on their first offensive attempt. Thus, the favoured team often gets a second chance.
At the other end of the court, the unfavoured team gets no such luck, they're just as likely to be denied fouls or they'll be called for charging.
4. Not slowing the game down
NBA games must always be up tempo and high scoring encounters. When was the last time two teams scored less than 70 points each? More than ten years ago? (I looked this up, I think it was 2002).
Surely, as a game tactic, it pays to slow the game down to frustrate the opposition and tire them out. But you know what I see too often; a team that wins the ball off a turnover, takes an irresponsible shot early, instead of holding the ball up and making the other team work on defense some more. Bear it in mind next time you watch an NBA game, how often do you see a team having won the ball quickly off a turnover, take a quick long range and low percentage shot and often before their own players can get under the basket for offensive rebounds.
Think about the cumulative effect of irresponsible shot selection. If the team on attack quickly loses the ball and is now suddenly on defense, the team that has won possession should want to slow the game down, to drag the opposition back down the court, if a quick layup is not on, or if there isn't a two on one happening (at minimum a nice high percentage shot from the top of the key). Even if they fail to score, slowing the game down once the easy basket is not available, has the effect of making the opposition defend one more time for the duration of the shot clock, and have them up and down the court one more time each way.
But if an irresponsible shot is attempted, it has to be made good, or the effect is to give the opposition a rest, while their big men wait down the court for their guards to bring the ball up. They are spared having to make the trip back into their own half.
Failure to slow the game when it is tactically appropriate is obvious in the NBA, that's how they achieve high scoring games, with pizzazz. The actual outcome, winner and loser, is secondary to the spectacle, I believe. But seeing as there must be a winner, the team preferred is that which represents the best scoring potential, not the best team defensively.
Does the NBA favour teams from the big media markets? I see no evidence of that. If this was true and the NBA was chasing audience above all else, then the Knickerbockers and the Lakers would be on top, but they aren't. No, each team sits in its own market and the NBA has strong business reasons to see all teams prosper, having their moment in the sun. The way I see this league, they favour the team that provides the best spectacle, and they engineer a certain type of open game over alternatives which are often more defensive.
There you have it, there may be something I'm missing, tell me how I'm wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment