Increasing NBA competitive balance
Today, on the "Wages of Wins" blog, David Berri reprises an argument from the book, that NBA competitive balance is low because of "the short supply of tall people." He writes,
"Given the supply of talent the NBA employs, there is very little the league can do to achieve the levels of competitive balance we see in soccer or American football."
I disagree. There are many ways the NBA could substantially increase competitive balance. Here are a few. Some are more realistic than others, of course:
-- add a 4-point, 5-point, and 6-point line behind the 3-point line.
-- make the 3-point shot worth 5 points.
-- make a "nothing but net" shot worth an extra point.
-- make the hoop a few inches smaller.
-- make the shot clock 12 seconds instead of 24.
-- overinflate the ball, like they do in carnival games.
-- make games 20 minutes in length instead of 48.
-- adjust the draft rules so that the worst teams get even more draft choices and the best teams get even fewer, thus more quickly evening out team talent over time.
-- institute a "talent cap" instead of a salary cap, so that teams with too many good players have to get rid of some.
-- count young players at estimated free agent value towards the salary cap, so that teams can't dominate just because of drafting ability.
-- divide the game into seven "quarters" instead of four. Whoever wins 4 out of 7 quarters is declared the winner of the game.
-- like in baseball, allow each player to take only about 1/9 of his team's offensive opportunities.
-- like in soccer and hockey, allow goaltending.
-- like in football, give teams points only when they complete a long sequence of successful plays – for instance, give them a seven-point "touchdown" when they score on six consecutive posessions, or a three-point "field goal" when they hit two three-pointers in a row.
(Just for one example, making the hoop smaller would help substantially. I simulated a simplified 100-possession game between a team that shoots field goals at 50% vs. a team that scores at 48%. The first team's record was .620. Then, I changed the probabilities from 50%/48% to 40%/38.4%. The first team's record dropped to .590.)
The point, of course, is that the rules of the game are at least as important as the supply of talent. For a full exposition of this argument, see Roland Beech's review here. TWOW's recent rebuttal to Beech is here. (My own argument is on page 3 here.)