[mike777]

From Bill James:

"I'm probably repeating myself, but random variation of outcomes is critical to the acceptance of a sport, and the NBA's problems as a spectator sport are 100% derived from the fact that the length of their schedule is mis-aligned with the random variation of the game outcomes. The reality is that, having now played. . .what, a third of the schedule?. . .we KNOW who will be in the NBA playoffs, for the most part, and we know who will be in the finals--therefore, nothing is REALLY at issue in the remaining games, therefore there is little point in playing them.

When I was in college, a friend argued that the "perfection" of a sport was based on the extent to which the better team (or better player) could be expected to win. Tennis was a near-perfect sport, he argued, because the better tennis player almost always wins. Over the years, I have come to understand that the exact opposite is true--that RANDOM outcomes are necessary to make a sport interesting. It is the chance that the better team will lose that drives the sport--any sport. Take that away, and the sport dies. Sports need unpredictable outcomes in the same way that cells need blood, in the same way that businesses need money.

The NBA has too many trials, which have the effect of making the game predictable (that is to say, boring.) The four things they could and should do to offset this are: 1) Lengthen the shot clock (thus reducing the number of possessions in a game), shorten the three-point line (thus making it possible to shoot down a bigger, stronger team), 3) Shorten the game (thus, again, reducing the number of possessions), and 4) reduce the number of games. If they did those four things they would reduce the standard deviation of winning percentage by 30% or more, thus making the games--and the leagues--much more competitive.

NCAA basketball is vastly more interesting AND MORE POPULAR than NBA basketball not because of school loyalties, but simply because the game they play is a better-designed game. If NCAA basketball went to a 24-second clock and a 48-minute game, the certain outcome of that is that MOST of the upsets that make NCAA basketball interesting would be eliminated."

I was thinking about this regarding bridge as well.

[Aberlour10]

 mike777, on 2010-December-30, 16:26, said:

From Bill James:
I'm probably repeating myself, but random variation of outcomes is critical to the acceptance of a sport, and the NBA's problems as a spectator sport are 100% derived from the fact that the length of their schedule is mis-aligned with the random variation of the game outcomes.    The reality is that, having now played. . .what, a third of the schedule?. . .we KNOW who will be in the NBA playoffs, for the most part, and we know who will be in the finals--therefore, nothing is REALLY at issue in the remaining games, therefore there is little point in playing them.

From the European point of view.... The boring aspect of the US professional team sports is the completely lack of the relegations battles in all the leagues. Such a structure; xx teams get to playoff and the not qualified teams make a holidays is unthinkable in the most of european sports. Thinking.. we did not manage playoffs this year, so what? maybe next year, we make holidays...; In Europe the weaker teams have to fight until the last day to stay in the top division. This fight is hard, exciting and sometimes more interesting than what happend at the top of the league.

[nigel_k]

I dunno about this. The outcome of soccer games seems pretty random but they are boring as hell to watch.

I agree that more trials mean greater predictability, but I doubt you can shorten the game and/or reduce the number the games without reducing revenue, so you can hardly expect the people who run the game to do that. What's left is reducing the number of trials by reducing the pace of the game. This would retain the attention of some people who are solely interested in the outcome, because you would go further into the game before anyone built up an insurmountable lead. But I watch it mainly for the spectacle. I want to see LeBron James dunking in someone's face, not some skinny point guard standing there bouncing the ball for ages. And it seems like there are plenty of close NBA games and not much greater predictability of who will be in the playoffs than football, for example.

As far as the application to bridge, we have already tried making bridge less predictable. It's called matchpoints and is very popular with players. Spectators prefer IMPs though.

[ggwhiz]

Is this the gamblers anonymous thread?

I've heard from several bridge types that would like to see shorter matches and every single one was a Director that gets paid by the session. Toronto (and our Unit) have an official policy that the min. # of boards in a Regional pairs or KO is 26 and our Directors just ignore it. They also run 7x7 board Swiss "get outta here" bums rush events on Sundays.

As far as bridge goes, the players seem to want more, the Directors less but at the same pay.

[matmat]

 Aberlour10, on 2010-December-30, 17:32, said:

From the European point of view.... The boring aspect of the US professional team sports is the completely lack of the relegations battles in all the leagues. (snip) In Europe the weaker teams have to fight until the last day to stay in the top division. This fight is hard, exciting and sometimes more interesting than what happend at the top of the league.

This. There is the added incentive for the owners to reinvest in the club. The top divisions is much more lucrative than the lower ones (not to say that all clubs are in the black, btw.).

Regarding the NBA being less popular than other pro sports, I kinda feel that this is due to it being much more directed at corporate clients. Aren't most courtside seats taken up be celebrities and corporate bigwigs?

[cherdano]

 mike777, on 2010-December-30, 16:26, said:

The reality is that, having now played. . .what, a third of the schedule?. . .we KNOW who will be in the NBA playoffs, for the most part, and we know who will be in the finals--therefore,

Who is going to be in the NBA finals?

[awm]

I've always thought that a big problem with the NBA was that the regular season is so long, yet such a high percentage of the teams make the playoffs. This means that regular season games become nearly meaningless, and that the early rounds of playoffs often include many big mismatches but nonetheless play fairly long series rather than single games. In principle the semi-finals and finals make for exciting games, but with no real reason for me to be interested prior to the semis, it becomes difficult to develop a real attachment to any team or players.

Using other American sports for contrast, the NFL has a relatively short season where each regular season game is potentially critical. MLB has a long season but few teams make the playoffs, so the playoff races are important at the end of the season and the playoff games are exciting.

It also always turned me off that basketball games frequently end with a period where one team is intentionally fouling the other. This slows down play substantially, and also creates a weird impression (isn't a "foul" by definition breaking the rules? why should winning a game require intentionally breaking the rules?)

[TimG]

Losing a trick you could otherwise win is against the rules in ACBL land, yet lots of people do it quite intentionally.

[PassedOut]

 TimG, on 2010-December-30, 23:07, said:

Losing a trick you could otherwise win is against the rules in ACBL land...

I'm guessing that you don't really mean this literally.

[Gerben42]

 nigel_k, on 2010-December-30, 17:36, said:

I dunno about this. The outcome of soccer games seems pretty random but they are boring as hell to watch.

I agree that more trials mean greater predictability, but I doubt you can shorten the game and/or reduce the number the games without reducing revenue, so you can hardly expect the people who run the game to do that. What's left is reducing the number of trials by reducing the pace of the game. This would retain the attention of some people who are solely interested in the outcome, because you would go further into the game before anyone built up an insurmountable lead. But I watch it mainly for the spectacle. I want to see LeBron James dunking in someone's face, not some skinny point guard standing there bouncing the ball for ages. And it seems like there are plenty of close NBA games and not much greater predictability of who will be in the playoffs than football, for example.

As far as the application to bridge, we have already tried making bridge less predictable. It's called matchpoints and is very popular with players. Spectators prefer IMPs though.

A part of the attractiveness of soccer must be that a little team can beat a big team. Sometimes. But I agree with Nigel that for 90 minutes, rather few action happens. I've come to enjoy watching handball

[TimG]

 PassedOut, on 2010-December-30, 23:47, said:

I'm guessing that you don't really mean this literally.

I believe there is an ACBL regulation that says just this. The only time I have heard of it being used is in a case of dumping. Yes, it is (or was) written in such a way as to make things like holdup plays illegal.

It is a bad analogy and really not applicable in this thread. Sorry to have posted it.

[mgoetze]

 nigel_k, on 2010-December-30, 17:36, said:

As far as the application to bridge, we have already tried making bridge less predictable. It's called matchpointsIMPS and is very popular with players. SpectatorsTop players prefer IMPsBAM though.

FYP.

IMP Pairs is definitely more random than Matchpoints.

[y66]

I enjoyed that Bill James post. If his theory is correct, we should be seeing more golf posts in the water cooler since golf outcomes have become increasingly random in the last 2 years. Maybe something else is at work there besides randomness and competition for fan interest from handball. On the other hand, if Tiger finds enough of his game this winter and spring to be competitive, 2011 will be a very interesting year for golf fans, the major events anyway.

p.s. to golfers -- good story here on Jim "Bones" MacKay.

[luke warm]

 cherdano, on 2010-December-30, 22:20, said:

Who is going to be in the NBA finals?

boston and san antonio

mike, how bout dem bears? looks like another possible saints/bears rematch (assuming the saints can get past the west champ)... if g.b. beats the bears this weekend, they go to philly and we go to seattle/st. louis... i look for g.b. and us to win... g.b. would then go to atlanta and we'd go to chicago

[Bbradley62]

 luke warm, on 2010-December-31, 10:36, said:

 cherdano, on 2010-December-30, 22:20, said:

Who is going to be in the NBA finals?

boston and san antonio

Miami and Dallas probably don't think this is a certainty.

[cherdano]

 luke warm, on 2010-December-31, 10:36, said:

boston and san antonio

Is that a bet?

[mike777]

BJOL NBA Power Ratings - 12/31/10

By Bill James

Here are the BJOL NBA Power Ratings for all 30 NBA teams, as of December 31, 2010:

Team Rating
Miami 209.0
Boston 208.1
San Antonio 207.3
LA Lakers 205.4
Dallas 205.4
Chicago 205.3
Orlando 204.2
Utah 202.8
Denver 202.5
Oklahoma City 202.3
Atlanta 201.4
New Orleans 201.3
Houston 201.2
Portland 200.8
New York 200.3
Memphis 199.9
Philadelphia 199.9
Indiana 198.8
Milwaukee 198.8
Phoenix 198.7
Golden State 196.5
LA Clippers 196.3
Toronto 196.3
Detroit 196.0
New Jersey 195.0
Washington 194.7
Charlotte 194.4
Minnesota 194.4
Sacramento 191.9
Cleveland 191.3

-----------


".... but random variation of outcomes is critical to the acceptance of a sport...."

"that RANDOM outcomes are necessary to make a sport interesting. It is the chance that the better team will lose that drives the sport--any sport. Take that away, and the sport dies. Sports need unpredictable outcomes in the same way that cells need blood, in the same way that businesses need money."



But this the main reason for the post, not who wins the NBA.

btw for those who may have never heard of Bill James he is known as a sabermetric baseball expert not an expert on football or the NBA. He also writes on the subject of "true crimes"

[Bbradley62]

 mike777, on 2010-December-30, 16:26, said:

From Bill James: "... and we know who will be in the finals...

 mike777, on 2010-December-31, 12:53, said:

BJOL NBA Power Ratings - 12/31/10

By Bill James

Here are the BJOL NBA Power Ratings for all 30 NBA teams, as of December 31, 2010:

Team Rating
Miami 209.0
Boston 208.1
San Antonio 207.3
LA Lakers 205.4
Dallas 205.4
Chicago 205.3
Orlando 204.2
-----------
".... but random variation of outcomes is critical to the acceptance of a sport...."

But this the main reason for the post, not who wins the NBA.

But, your original post claims that the NBA is uninteresting (largely) due to the certainty of the outcome. That claim cannot reasonably be put forth by the same person who publishes these power ratings which indicate that many games are toss-ups.

[mike777]

BJOL NBA Power Ratings - 12/31/09

By Bill James

Here are the BJOL NBA Power Ratings for all 30 NBA teams, as of December 31, 2009:

Team Rating
Cleveland 207.3
Atlanta 206.6
Boston 206.5
Orlando 205.8
LA Lakers 205.5
Phoenix 205.1
Dallas 204.6
San Antonio 204.5

just for fun here are the ratings as of 2009 12/31

[Fluffy]

If the latter seasson games are boring but the first game sassons are not (wich is debatable) you can get them more exciting by giving them my weight, some factor between 1 and 2, increasing each game till the end. IF you put it too high you will make first season games not worth it, but done properly it would work.

In Soccer play offs are played during next years regular seasson, but teams in the regular seasson don't only play for 1 thing (play play offs or not), they play for 4 primary things (win the sasson, top play off, second tier play off and keep division). And on some countries they even play for up to 2 more (lose division play offs and a form of loser brackets to join second tier play offs). This means that all teams will have somthing to fight for untill the last 2-3 weeks. Wich keeps the public on touch.