Does the NBA stink?

[Tom Petty]

san fran, 3.1 million

 

[fever_dog]

no, i just want to know why ballparks are half full. that is all.
why don't they make the parks smaller? seriously.

philly is brand new, right? it fits 43.6.

i'm not being an ass anymore (honestly). i am seriously curious now why they don't make smaller, inimate ballparks.
my home park always feels empty, and it averages 29k. i just think it's odd.

is it just for a few holidays and weekend dates?

 

[Tom Petty]

2,388,757 in texas with 29,491 per game.

damn dude, you make such great points.

 

[Tom Petty]

no, i just want to know why ballparks are half full. that is all.
why don't they make the parks smaller? seriously.

philly is brand new, right? it fits 43.6.

i'm not being an ass anymore (honestly). i am seriously curious now why they don't make smaller, inimate ballparks.
my home park always feels empty, and it averages 29k. i just think it's odd.

is it just for a few holidays and weekend dates?

most folks who ever turned out for a baseball game is 92k and some change.

giveaway nights and the yankees/dodgers also bring in full houses. also, when you have a good team, you fill the seats. blazers went years and years and years selling out memorial col. that held 12,666. a bigger rose garden doesn't sell out any longer.

 

[fever_dog]

can't ballparks just be built in the 35k range and be near capacity, becoming a "hot ticket"?

my parks holds 51k. it's weird.

 

[Tom Petty]

can't ballparks just be built in the 35k range and be near capacity, becoming a "hot ticket"?

my parks holds 51k. it's weird.

dog - in the past several years, newly constructed parks have been scaled down to give them more "intimate" feels ... see busch, safeco, camden. they've also went away from the symmetrical look, even though some have failed badly in doing so ... see houston.

 

[Starman]

can't ballparks just be built in the 35k range and be near capacity, becoming a "hot ticket"?

my parks holds 51k. it's weird.

dog - in the past several years, newly constructed parks have been scaled down to give them more "intimate" feels ... see busch, safeco, camden. they've also went away from the symmetrical look, even though some have failed badly in doing so ... see houston.

Baseball and football stadiums have been "scaled down," not to give them more "intimate feels" (the owners couldn't give a fork less about that), but to create artificial ticket scarcity, increase the frequency of sellouts, and allow them to jack ticket prices into the sky.

 

[Tom Petty]

can't ballparks just be built in the 35k range and be near capacity, becoming a "hot ticket"?

my parks holds 51k. it's weird.

dog - in the past several years, newly constructed parks have been scaled down to give them more "intimate" feels ... see busch, safeco, camden. they've also went away from the symmetrical look, even though some have failed badly in doing so ... see houston.

Baseball and football stadiums have been "scaled down," not to give them more "intimate feels" (the owners couldn't give a fork less about that), but to create artificial ticket scarcity, increase the frequency of sellouts, and allow them to jack ticket prices into the sky.

obviously you never tried to get a ticket to the old busch.

 

[RokSki]

I'm as big a hoops fan as anyone, and have been my whole life. I like baseball ok, particularly late season and postseason baseball.

The sycophants for each sport (Costas, Will ... and Rhoden, Wilbon ...) are insufferable. I'm tired of hearing how baseball is 'The Perfect Game,' and I'm tired of hearing basketball is 'The Soul of Urban/Black America.' We get it; we got it.

Neither game is in any real trouble. Yes, African-American participation and fandom in MLB is down, and that is something that needs to be addressed, for sure. Where is the extra slack being picked up from the decline in black participation? Latin America and (particularly East) Asia, two continents. Remember, the last census showed that Latin Americans are now roughly equivalent in population to African Americans. That doesn't even factor in Asian Americans. So baseball is going to be fine in the USA. Again, I'm not excusing the dwindling numbers of African American players in the MLB, but let's not overstate the case, either. Same with the fans and the effect on the fans.

Similar case with the NBA. Europe loves basketball these days. Again, another continent as a talent pool (and fan base). Now, there has been more, um, 'resentment' (IMO) from the likes of Rhoden, Scoop, etc. towards European players coming into the NBA than there has been for, say, Asian players coming into MLB, but whatever. If guys can play, GM's will sign them, wherever they're from and whatever ethnicity they happen to be. In addition to Europe, Latin America (Barbosa, Varajeo, Najera (by way of the USA), Ginobili, etc.) is increasingly an NBA talent (and fan) base, as is (to a lesser degree) Asia. And Africa. There is no impending doom for the NBA, although like MLB, the demographics are likely to increasingly shift.

Basketball from about 1990 or so thru about two years ago sucked, relative to what it was in the 1980's. Why? Because, as many have mentioned, 1) Overcontrolling coaches (Riley, Van Gundy, etc.), 2) Defensive muggings (Bad Boys plus) and 3) the ill effects of 3-Pt shooting and the overselling of dunks as the be-all, end-all.

#1 and #3 have already been addressed on the thread, but let me say a little bit more about #2. If Jordan played with the defensive rules that were instituted/re-instituted/started getting called again (no handchecking, no forearms in the back in the post, defensive 3 seconds, etc) two years ago, he would have destroyed - not beaten, crushed - Chamberlin's 100 point record. Especially with the diluted talent base (think Kobe's 81 against the Raptors). Remember the Pistons' 'Jordan Rules?' They killed Mike, as did the Knicks and others. Jordan - prime Jordan, still with hops, stamina and the killer midrange J - in today's NBA could average 45 if he wanted to. Easy.

Thankfully, the rules have changed, and the increasing size of the players and corresponding shrinking of the court has been somewhat counterbalanced. Guys like Nash can be the MVP again, exciting guys, guys who put butts in seats and eyes on televisions. There are still too many guys who take threes who shouldn't (think Antwoine Walker), and still too many guys who need to work on understanding the game versus practicing dunks, but with the influx of the 'old school' Euros, American guys who still 'get it' (Duncan, ...), and the continuance of us getting our butts kicked in international play - all combined with the recent rule changes - things will, and are, getting done to fix the NBA game.

To those who say MLB hasn't had to change its rules hardly at all (save the mound height and the contentious DH), I agree. And in that sense, it is a more 'perfect' game that way. But almost all other pro sports have had to made alterations here and again, usually to the benefit of their leagues (NHL and more offensive focus, NFL and more favorable offensive rules, e.g.). The NBA has started the process, and hopefully will continue, as is necessary.

 

[BTExpress]

If Jordan played with the defensive rules that were instituted/re-instituted/started getting called again (no handchecking, no forearms in the back in the post, defensive 3 seconds, etc) two years ago, he would have destroyed - not beaten, crushed - Chamberlin's 100 point record.

I don't agree with that at all, for two reasons:

1. It is impossible to crush a 100-point game. There simply isn't time to crush it, and the opponents would milk the 24-second clock and foul Jordan's teammates to keep it from happening. Chamberlain had to make a ridiculous 28 of 32 free throws just to get to 100.

2. Yes, defenses were a little rougher in Jordan's time, but guess what? IT DIDN'T MATTER. He got foul calls when nobody touched him anyway. One time in the Eastern Conference finals, Dennis Rodman set a pick for him, Jordan tripped over Rodman's leg going around the pick, and a foul was called . . . on the Heat's Voshon Lenard, who was standing five feet away.

So in the eyes of the officials, Jordan already was playing with much greater freedom than anybody currently playing under the 2007 NBA defensive rules.

 

[Alma]

Sigh, another myth.

Pete Sampras won the U.S. Open in the 21st century with a 14-ounce, 85-square inch racket with a sweet spot the size of a BB designed in . . . 1984, two years after Borg and his wooden racket hung it up.

In an experiment for Tennis magazine, Mark Philippoussis hit serves with his regular racket and with a wooden racket. There was only 3 mph difference. The main difference was in first-serve percentage (which was lower with the wooden racket). But give him --- or any player --- a requisite amount of practice with the wooden racket, and that difference would be shaved significantly.

We're using Pete Sampras, the second greatest player in the history of the game, as our blueprint? Sampras could have won with a badminton racket. He was Sampras.

And your second point with Philippoussis proves my point: You can't hit wooden racket serves that fast with as much accuracy. Hence: You have to slow the serves down. Hence: You have do something a little different than bomb the shirt out of the ball.

Larger rackets have allowed mediocre power players to hit with far more accuracy than they would have 30 years ago.

 

[BTExpress]

It doesn't matter.

Going to wood rackets wouldn't make for a finesse game. It would simply slow down the shots just a little . . . like clay does. People don't radically change their game on clay; they just have to be a little more patient (and in great shape) to win.

There still wouldn't be much "touch" or "finesse" with wood rackets, because touch shots simply do not win points against athletes who can cover the entire court in less than two seconds. It would be like trying to win in the NFL with a wishbone. Impossible against today's speedy defenses.

Players in the wood era simply were not taught to use the torque in their bodies to generate racket head speed to bash the ball. Today's players are taught that way, and they would be taught that way with whatever stick you handed to them. It's like a set shot vs. a jump shot. Players do not shoot set shots anymore. They just aren't taught that way.

With a wood racket the players would still bash the ball as hard as they could. They would simply have to slow down the shot by about 20% for accuracy's sake . . . which means there would be fewer winners, longer rallies and more errors --- a perfect recipe for boredom.