The Dot is a Sports Taboo

There is a way to change the game for the better with minimal negative side effects on the court of play. It just requires such a dramatic alteration to our cherished numeric symbols that even I’m not in favor of the proposal.

I am quite serious about phasing free throws out of the NBA, though it’s hard to convince people that such an inclination is anything more than a joke. It’s a dead-ball aspect of the game that bores and suctions valuable time from our eyeballs. It’s a part of the game that bears a greater resemblance to golf–one individual, against a stagnant back drop–than to the basketball action that fans cheer on. Obviously, I don’t have the power to remove free throws by fiat, but I would celebrate the movement gaining traction eventually.

There is an impediment to such a movement, though, and it isn’t just tradition. The obvious argument against removing free throws is that the live ball action would be changed for the worse. If, as I’ve suggested, all free throws were instantly converted to points, flopping could increase substantially as teams chase a 2 point value as opposed to the roughly 1.5 point value that an average foul line trip means.

The challenge in creating a free throwless game is doing so in a manner that doesn’t fundamentally change the game, aside from nixing freebies. There is a way do this, though it will never happen. There is a way to erase free throws without increasing flopping, but it requires a conceptual shift that we’ll never be ready for.

The wacky HoopIdea suggestion would be to award 1.5 points for every foul line trip. In this scenario, the rare “And-1″ would result in 1 point, and the rarer three-shot foul would result in 2 points.

We’d be dealing with the ever-awkward decimal on an every game basis. Such a little dot shouldn’t matter, but the tiny circle amounts to more clutter in a messy world. We process the decimal almost as though it were a number, which is why companies advertise their prices sans decimal–so as to make the price appear smaller. The decimal nags like the “The” before “Facebook,” back before technological titan and Grizzlies co-owner Justin Timberlake made history:

While we might intrinsically grasp what a “2 pointer” or “3 pointer” means, decimal usage requires a bit more effort, a bit more grappling with the emotional vagaries connected to concrete numerical symbols. How should you feel when your team is “down 2.5″ as opposed to “down 3″? You know that “up 6″ is still a “2 possession game” but how should you feel when your team goes “up 6.5″ and makes it a “3 possession game”? Also, isn’t a 105.5 to 96.5 score just gross-looking?

There is another end-run around decimals, though this is the kind of rule sequence that’s only feasible when tradition bakes it into the game (Think tennis’ entire scoring system). A foul line trip could count as a silent 1.5 that only becomes actual points when the next foul line trip makes it a three-point play.

We already have the phrase “in the penalty” for when teams go over the foul limit. A silent “1.5″ could be, say, “in the line.” If you’re in the line and fail to capitalize with another foul drawn, you lose those points, like runners stranded in baseball.

Yet another solution, posed to me by Kevin Draper, is multiplication as opposed to decimals. Just make every 2-pointer a 4-pointer, every 3-pointer a 6-pointer, and every foul line trip a 3-pointer. Suddenly, Kobe’s 81-point game becomes an even more impressive 162-point outing. Suddenly, LeBron’s 2011 Finals numbers don’t look so shabby.

It will never happen. We somewhat arbitrarily set up this particular scoring system and a change would be too wrenching, even if the different numbers are representing the same exact thing as before. A comfort level with traditional numbers is as much a barrier to reform as a comfort level with how the game’s traditionally played. Charles Barkley is fond of saying that teams “die by the 3.” It’s too hard to imagine a world where he says, “die by the 6.” Such ideas will certainly die by the decimal or die by the multiplication.


Related posts:

  1. Pro sports and The Singularity
  2. Welcome to the sports world. Kindly check your set at the door
Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
cestvague 5 pts

Ethan,

I agree with the commenter who said the players will become too fatigued, but for me there's another big problem with your idea, which is that by changing the possible value of free throws, you also change all end-of-game scenarios, because someone who is fouling has the chance to take away from the total number of points possible on that possession. It's kind of like when teams decide to foul off the ball when they're up by three-- imagine if you could just foul every shooter, whether you're in the bonus or not, and guarantee yourself the ball back. Wouldn't a three point game then basically become a two possession game? Wouldn't we never see another three-pointer to tie at the buzzer because every time that were a possibility, someone would just clobber the guy and your team would automatically lose by one? Basically, this gives a major advantage to fouling that doesn't exist right now, and it seems like we would see more games decided by someone fouling on purpose, not less.

mhapha 5 pts

Well, if the problem is fluidity of the game, why don't just eliminate time-outs? Here in Europe, we are very slowly adapting to NBA numerous interruptions because of time-outs. But sadly, the NBA pace is becoming reality here, not other way around.

thedissnba 5 pts

I think that's an interesting point Andy. The stoppages in football are definitely one of the things that makes it such an easy sport to view: you can get up and grab the chips, or run to the bathroom, or gab to your friend. Same thing that makes baseball a fun in-person experience: you're only half their to watch the game, and half to drink beer, soak in the sun and talk to the person next to you.

 

I also think that your argument is incredibly American-centric. The most popular sport in the world, by a far, far, far, far margin is soccer, which has almost none of these stoppages. A halftime like every other sport, and maybe you can grab a drink when the ball goes out of bounds for a goal kick, but that's it. And some large amount of soccer's popularity is due to its fluid nature. 

AndyGrimsrud 5 pts

 thedissnba I thought about two things after posting that comment.  One is your point about soccer.  It's a good example that runs counter to my idea that breaks in the game are a good thing for the fan experience.  (Though it doesn't run counter to my point that eliminating free throws would cause players to fatigue more quickly.)  Something about that, though: soccer seems to (I'm not a fan, but watch occasionally and enjoy FIFA games) have plenty of midfield action where a goal is clearly not imminent.  It's not exactly gripping eyes to the screen for the full 90 minutes.  The NBA, with a 24-second shot clock, is pretty difficult to turn away from without missing scores.  Free throws, for fans, might be like those less-exciting moments of a soccer match.

 

The second thing I thought of is that Ethan's perspective is skewed by his profession.  I'm guessing -- based on what his job is and how well he does it -- that he watches a ton of basketball games, almost every night.  That is not even close to the typical basketball fan experience.  Watching 12 games in one night would make free throws a true test of patience.  ("GET ON WITH THE GAME!  I've got 10 more of these to get through.")  For most of us, watching just one game, free throws aren't so bad.

AndyGrimsrud 5 pts

Ethan--

 

In this instance I think you are wrong -- not because of your ideas to reform the game are bad, but because your disdain for watching foul shots isn't shared by many basketball fans.  Sure, there are games here and there with a hack-a-Dwight or general chippiness that breaks up the game flow.  The 2006 Finals was difficult to watch -- or even use for historical performance comparisons -- due to the whistles constantly sending Dwyane Wade to the line.  But by and large, free throws provide occasional breaks for the fans (and players!) from fluid action.  Baseball has them between at bats.  Football has them between plays.

 

By comparison, basketball is more fluid than those games, but less so than hockey, which is generally a less viewer friendly sport, I think, partly for that reason.  Another thing about hockey -- the action never stops and players can barely stay on the ice for more than 90 seconds at a time.  Is basketball improved by wearing down star players and forcing coaches to dig deeper into their benches?  That's a factor here if you're quickly tossing 1, 2, or 1.5 points on the board after a foul and immediately throwing the ball back in bounds. 

 

Free throws don't make basketball more like golf; they make basketball more like basketball.  Removing them from the game is akin to removing relief pitchers or 3rd Base from baseball.  Or removing goal posts and kicking from football.  Or power plays from hockey.  This is beyond tradition, which is more a barrier to reforming things like playoff structure and the draft lottery.  Free throws are part of basketball.  Always have been and always will be.

 

--Andy

Trackbacks

  1. [...] But somehow, many lack the ability to make those stories compelling. Some of this could have to do with numbers themselves. Ethan posted another post on how adding a decimal changes how we view things. Saying [...]

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes