I don’t think this is a particularly well written article, but I sort of agree with the sentiment. Basketball just isn’t THAT complex and the talent pool is homogenous enough that most teams can find these archetypes and build rosters that get you to the playoffs.
That said, trends are cyclical. Look at the role of the running back in the NFL. There will always be outlier players like Shaq who will buck the trends and exploit matchups.
“The NBA talent pool is homogenous” is the new worst hn take I’ve seen.
If “most teams can build rosters that get to the playoffs” is true it’s only because the NBA playoffs are so big. I’d assume it’s false based on any interpretation of “can build” you pick.
Realistically only a handful of teams compete for a championship in any given span of years.
My country of Smugistan solved playoff problem years ago. Very simple: every Smugball team makes playoffs. If Americans and Europeans weren't so far behind Smugistanian education system, they would have figured it out too.
1) playoff format rends 6 months of games not very important, the biggest difference is in your seeding. That's..all?
2) another way it makes the previous 6/7 months pointless is that your entire season is based on a single set of games. You can be the best team in the league by far, but then if one player gets injured or you're out of form or unlucky it's over
I just don't like leagues with a playoff system, you either have a league or you have a round robin, both seem directed toward squeezing tv rights, not awarding the best team of a season.
Most sports pretty much have a playoff system to a greater or lesser degree.
That said, basketball has pretty much always been one of the major US sports that can rely on a fairly small number of really good players and the rest don't matter nearly as much. Stars (pitchers, QBs, receivers, etc.) matter elsewhere but probably not individually as much as they do in basketball.
The German Bundesliga has a playoff to see which of the 16th team in tier 1 or the 3rd team in tier 2 goes into tier 1 next year
The English Championship (tier 2) has a tournament of four teams (placed 3rd-6th) to determine who goes up into the Premier League. The final of this is known as the richest game in football, worth £120m+ to the winner.
It could also be argued that the new UEFA Champions League format is a US-style playoff system. Maybe the old format too now I think of it.
These are not playoff systems for a championship but for a promotion/relegation. There are better examples like the Belgian league but they carry over more benefits from the regular season.
The champions league determines the teams going the brackets in 8 "season" games. Instead of > 30.
But even in your bad faith argument the number 1 and for the championship even the number 2 is decided by just the regular season. So they understand that the regular season should mean more than some seeding.
Everyone knows that in 80 games a half are either walkovers or don't mean anything in the end. They are only there for the money and could be cut for a better league. They could, just like 3 pointers, even make it a more profitable option.
These are not playoff systems for a championship but for a promotion/relegation
And again, UEFA CL is NOT (look that up if it is confusing) single country league. Once Chiefs start playing Montreal Destroyers and San Salvador Bulldogs in North America Football league than we can compare US sports leagues with UEFA CL. until then, try to find a country in which there are playoffs after league season is over, only US does this garbage and makes regular season generally un-watchable and meaningless
I mean there's the World Cup though that's a bit different. The US (or US + Canada) is big enough that having large leagues of top-level teams makes some sense to have playoffs.
My point is towards the regular season + playoffs which is imho lame.
Imagine a formula 1 season where you watch 20 races and then the best teams play it out in the last 4. That's a giant nonsense in most sports but somehow it spread even to European basket and volley in the 80s, I guess under the American influx.
That's your choice of course. I suspect that a lot of casual fans (raises hand) may largely ignore the regular (long) season but get more engaged in the payoffs, especially if they have a team they care about involved which has obvious financial implications for the teams involved.
Exactly. ;) (Per cogent upthread analysis about maximizing revenue.)
But even casuals may get excited about e.g. the last few games of the Premier League season which determine the league winner (as well as who survives the relegation battle, which is a whole 'nuther drama).
may largely ignore the regular (long) season but get more engaged in the playoffs
you are saying exactly the right words but arguing the wrong side. that is exactly why shit stinks, make the season ALL there is to it, then see whether it is long / boring / … :)
>My country of Smugistan solved playoff problem years ago. Very simple: every Smugball team makes playoffs.
Not that I disagree with the intent/target of your sarcasm, but there are US leagues where every team makes the playoffs. The Pac-12 did this with its conference tournament for most of its history, for example. One can argue that such is the logical conclusion of separately rewarding the winner of the regular season and tournament.
That said, trends are cyclical. Look at the role of the running back in the NFL. There will always be outlier players like Shaq who will buck the trends and exploit matchups.