Improving the game through changes in rules and regulations - a discussion

Wednesday 27 April 2005

Discussions pop up once in a while about how to improve the quality (scoring) of the game through changes in rules and regulations. I've discussed some of the more common issues below:

10 min quarters vs 20 min halves

I like the quarters system but I can understand why the WNBA sticks to halves - mainly due to broadcast requirements.

40 min games vs 48 min games

I doubt we'll see the WNBA go to 48 mins in the short term because 40 mins fits nicely into a 2 hour broadcast slot.

From a game perspective, I always like to see more basketball but sometimes 48 mins games can feel a bit bloated (especially if it's ugly/one-sided). Also with the nature of the WNBA (players playing all year round and the physical nature of the game), I don't think we need to make the games longer as it may affect their physical conditioning in a negative sense. 40 min games are fine with me.

Shot clock - 24 secs vs 30 secs

The main argument against the 24 second shot clock is that you apparently cannot run a good half court offence in 30 seconds. Frankly, I think that's rubbish because:

#1 The MNBA seem to do fine
#2 FIBA-sanctioned leagues (basically everybody but the American leagues and the MNBL) seem to do fine
#3 The only thing I've noticed the extra 6 seconds does is encourage more pointless passing around the perimeter.

I like the quicker tempo the 24 second shot clock brings and you will have more possessions in a 24 second shot clock game. which will increase the potential for scoring. Bring on the 24 second shot clock for the WNBA.

Ball size

I was against the change in ball size, mainly because I didn't think it was necessary. However, I ran a comparison between the 2003-04 WNBL season (big ball) and the WNBL season 2004-05 (small ball). The results are:

All 8 teams had higher scoring in 2004-05
All 8 teams had lower turnovers in 2004-05
6 out of 8 teams had higher FG% in 2004-05

It is rather unscientific and there are other factors at work (increased talent level for instance) but it is interesting to ponder. Negatives against ball size change include thefinancial costs of changing and the fact that the rings are designed for the bigger ball which may influence shooting percentages (or apparently not!). The change has already been done though and financial costs aside, the game doesn't seem to be more worse off because of it. I guess I'm pretty ambivalent towards it now.

Lowering ring height

This issue occasionally crops up on message boards and is usually shouted down with fervour, but it is worthwhile to take a look at this issue. I can immediately see two problems with changing ring height:

#1 Cost of changing to rings that can change height
#2 Forcing all players to alter shot mechanics

There are two main arguments for lowering ring height:

#1 It will increase the quality of the game
#2 It will attract bigger crowds

For #1, there are several possible interpretations for quality. One interpretation could be increased scoring. Will scoring increase if the ring is lowered? In the short run, definitely not: players will be adjusting to the shorter ring height. In the long run, probably because it would be easier to make shots but is it worth the above costs? (financial and short-term quality) I don't think so. Another interpretation of quality is that the game would be more exciting because of more potential for above the rim play and additional scoring. This is very subjective but my opinion is that I have no problem with the "below the rim" play we have at the moment. I wouldn't object if more players started playing above the rim but it's not something I consider essential.

I think #2 is a myth. Yes, many sports fans will say they don't watch women's basketball because they don't dunk/play above the rim but I think that's a smokescreen. Many sports fans (male and female) will not watch women's basketball because it's WOMEN playing. Even if they lowered the ring and more women started playing above the rim, obstinate sports fans would dismiss it as a cheap stunt on a lower ring. It's no use trying to appeal to this crowd.

Trapezoidal key

Possibly a minor thing but it does give the post players a bit more room to work in the paint. Yes, it's just an extra bit of the floor painted but you'd be surprised at how it changes players' thinking.

'Illegal defence' rules

I think the MNBA's 'illegal defence' rules are ludicrous. It's basically saying "we're too lazy to break a zone" and it's more arbitrary than most calls (at least the new rules are better than the old ones). Yes, I've seen all sorts of basketball games stagnate into defensive grinds because teams cannot crack each other's defence, but that's just a part of basketball. I've even seen it in MNBA games. The WNBA doesn't need these type of regulations - it's just dodgy and seeing a zone cracked is quite enjoyable.

Copyright ©2003–2006 Keegan Tjhai. All rights reserved. All Hail Eris.
Website designed & hosted by Prussia.Net, based on an original design by Andreas Viklund.
Powered by Movable Type.