More Changes In The Association This Season

Today the NBA announced two important sets of changes for the 2011-12 season: one impacting on-court play, and one impacting off-court business matters. Both developments are positive, in my view.

The CBA
The new Collective Bargaining Agreement contains tweaks to numerous league protocols. Notably, the new CBA allows a player to renegotiate an existing contract for lower annual money but more years, if the annual salary reduction is no more than 40%. This provision would allow, say, Amare Stoudemire and Carmelo Anthony to take a bit less money in 2012-13 and beyond in order to create more salary-cap room for the Knicks to sign Chris Paul or another top free agent. [Reports Thursday indicate that the Knicks intend to sign Tyson Chandler to a large long-term contract that would cover 2012-13 and beyond. The contracts of those three guys would eat up most of the $58 MM salary cap. Theoretically, all three of Chandler, Stoudemire, and Anthony could agree to reduce their salaries sufficiently to make room for Paul at a large number; perhaps each of them could earn $13 MM annually, say.]

The new deal also sets the minimum team salary at (after a couple years of transition) 90 percent of the salary cap, rather than 75 percent. This provision will help further the goal of competitive balance; cheap owners such as Donald Sterling or Glen Taylor will be forced to hire at least a few middling (as opposed to terrible or very young) players to fill out their roster.

The contentious minimum age for draftees was not changed, but apparently punted to be decided by a future union-league committee. I have previously advocated in this space for the age limit to be raised to two years post-college.

GAME RULE CHANGES
The previously over-generous shooting fouls granted in "rip-through" or "and-one" situations, wherein the shooter was clearly not in a shooting motion before the foul, will be curtailed. Travelling rules will be enforced more strictly (LeBron James's "crab dribble", which we reviewed in this post in 2009, will no longer be legal) and timeouts will be made to conform to the billed 20-second or 60-second lengths. Here at JPO, we have long criticized inconsistent rule enforcement, and this news begets great happification in our hearts.

Citizen Enforcement of the Rules

In American law, private citizens' suits to enforce public rules are allowed (particularly in the environmental context) where the issues are particularly local and regulators are likely to be too far removed from the situation to reliably act. (This could be said about a variety of regulatory contexts, including finance, labor, agriculture, and so forth. One wonders, actually, why the US Congress has authorized citizen suits in environmental settings but not much elsewhere.)

In Wednesday night's Charlotte-Orlando game, Bobcats guard Gerald Henderson Jr. decided that Dwight Howard's lollygagging at the free-throw line deserved sanction. Henderson used his fingers to conspicuously count seconds while Howard stood at the line: 1... 2... 3... up to 10. When Henderson hit 10, the referees whistled Howard for a violation of the NBA rule, thus nullifying his FT attempt. (Angered, Howard tossed a ball and earned a technical foul.)



Orlando and its fans may loathe Henderson for being a jerk, but someone needed to prod the referees into action. As long noted, we at JPO want rules to be applied consistently, without regard for the identity or reputation of the players involved. If referees will not whistle Howard for his slow free-throw form, it is efficient for a guard like Henderson, who stands behind the line otherwise doing nothing while watching the FT, to incontrovertibly highlight the violation.

The NBA has a long-standing practice of fining players or coaches who publicly criticize referees. It is fair to say that the NBA does not see a need for citizen patrolling of its regulators; rather, the NBA feels that the referees are sufficiently close to the action that they should be able to see all rule violations. (This is actually a plausible story; an NBA referee can catch a slow FT attempt or a "Jordan pushed off" moment more easily than a regulator in DC or Chicago can find contaminated effluent in rural Iowa. However, a fourth referee on the court would help matters.) Will Henderson now receive a fine for his implicit critique of the Wednesday officials? Seems that the league might lose credibility if Henderson is not fined.

The Dunk Contest

We have long been irked by unequal application of discretionary rules for stars who can potentially sell jerseys and drive TV ratings. After seeing last night's All-Star slam dunk contest, there should be little question that from the outset, the league planned to vault Griffin into the final round. It certainly was handy that Griffin had a gospel choir and the corporate sponsor's car ready to deploy for his final-round dunk, eh?

Clearly, the judging, at least the first-round scoring, was not quite objective. Here is how I would have judged the first round of the contest (assume I am judging each dunk on a 50-point scale; a 50 should represent an all-time iconic dunk):

Derozan: 40 for his first between-the-legs, off-the-backboard-side dunk (the "East Bay Rim Shaker"), which failed to innovate on dunks from previous years. 45 for his "Show Stopper", a consciously spare performance that entailed a one-handed catch, scoop, and jam. [Actual grades: 44, 50]

Ibaka: 46 for his initial free-throw-line dunk, requiring but one attempt. 42 for his teddy-bear dunk involving the mohawked thespianito. Biting the bear off the hoop was in fact a feat. [Actual grades: 45, 45]

McGee: 46 for his double-rim, double-armed dunk (a couple points deducted for his multiple attempts and his relative lack of power on the dunks). 46 for his three-ball dunk (same reasoning). [Actual grades: 50, 49]

Griffin: 46 for his 360 dunk. 38 for his pedestrian windmill dunk off the backboard pass from Baron Davis. [Actual grades: 49, 46]

Based on these grades, I would have advanced McGee and Ibaka to the finals, rather than McGee and Griffin. But neither of those former guys plays in Los Angeles or performs a featured offensive role for his team.

I also wish to note that Turner Sports / NBATV (which is really the same entity) employees were over-exposed last night. The veterans in the Shooting Stars competition were all Turner personalities: Kenny Smith, Steve Smith, Rick Fox, and Steve Kerr. Chris Webber and K.Smith served as dunk contest coaches, while Brent Barry served as a judge for the dunk contest. Particularly in hard economic times, it is easier to use a talent already on your payroll rather than signing someone to a one-night appearance contract, but on a weekend of all the stars, I would have rather seen Cedric Ceballos, Dee Brown, and Harold Miner coaching, rather than Chris Webber, the master of elbow jump shots.

What's The Matter With Kansas (Alums)?

Well, if we were confused about whether star calls persist in the NBA, last Saturday's Wizards-Heat game was sobering. The Heat completed a stout fourth-quarter comeback when Dwyane Wade dashed into the lane, received a foul call resulting from Andray Blatche's fairly incidental contact (of course!) and hit a go-ahead free throw with about seven seconds left. Kirk Hinrich then dribbled the length of the court, drove to the hoop, attempted a layup, and was whacked by both Chris Bosh and LeBron James. No foul call, though. The buzzer sounded and Miami walked off the court with a 1-point victory.

Fast-forward the video to about the 3:40 mark:

Ginobili, the new MJ?

I have long lamented the endemically inconsistent or unfair foul calls in the NBA. Though I write often of other b-ball matters, the titular inspiration for our blog was, of course, a non-call that burnished a great man's legend while telling Utah's fan base that their team is simply less worthy of rule-based protection. A two-game sequence this week led us to re-evaluate the state of "star calls" in the NBA.

In Wednesday night's game against Milwaukee, the Spurs' Manu Ginobili hit a game-winning shot over Luc Mbah a Moute to break a tie at the buzzer. MG's play was fearless and without flaw. The problem with Saint Anthony's miracle, though, is that Ginobili took a step and a hop (even more egregious than LeBron James's "crab dribble") prior to his shot, and the referees bizarrely did not call a travel. In postgame remarks, Bucks coach Skiles correctly identified Ginobili's infraction after the game, but unfortunately, the refs done him wrong. Behold the video:



Perhaps this might simply mean that the referees froze under pressure. It happens sometimes, and there is no recourse if the referee fails to blow his whistle in the moment. Once the buzzer has sounded and the ball is through, you cannot go back in time and claw back a player's ill-gotten gains, even if you feel instant regret for your failure to toot. However, I was further surprised during Thursday night's TNT nightcap game. Against Denver, Ginobili hit yet another clutch shot to put the Spurs up by 1 point with about four seconds left in the fourth quarter. The man impresses, On the ensuing possession, Carmelo Anthony took the ball at the top of the key, seized a step on Richard Jefferson, drove to the hoop, and released a floater that sank through the net before time expired. Unfortunately, in the course of so doing, Anthony crashed into Ginobili, who had smartly positioned himself in a vertical stance just outside the charge circle. The referees whistled Anthony for an offensive foul, negating Anthony's basket and ending the game. The Spurs escaped with their 22nd win of the season, against only three defeats. Here is the [virtual] tape:



The Thursday foul was a good call, and I applaud the referees' willingness to whack Anthony on a late-game drive like that. As the archetypal "Jordan pushing off" moment (and LBJ's crab dribble) shows, referees are too often chary to interrupt a superstar's world-historical performance for a measly thing like rule-breaking. Jordan may have pushed off with impunity, but Anthony charged through and suffered just consequences. That is heartening. On the other hand, this incident came after Ginobili received a significant official favor the night before. Although these are only two data points, perhaps one can infer that star favoritism endures, but it is Ginobili and his 22-3 Spurs who now are the most brilliantly shining orb. We cannot fault (indeed, we must laud) Ginobili for donning that garb; success must be had wherever one can find it.

Should Floppers Get a Tech?

Basketball fans watching the World Cup over the past couple days may have noted that FIFA gives yellow cards to a player who egregiously flops, acting as though his opponent knocked him down, in hopes of drawing a call against his counterpart for supposed unsportsmanlike conduct. Such diving is euphemistically called** "simulation" in the official FIFA argot. A yellow card in soccer is quite like a technical foul in the NBA; two yellow cards result in a red card, which means the player in question is ejected. The footballing penalty is actually more severe than two techs in a basketball game; in the former, the player's team is forced to play with ten men for the duration of the game, while in the latter, the player's team simply replaces the banished player. On the other hand, a technical foul in basketball results in one free throw for the opposing team, usually an easy point with a skilled shooter. All told, a yellow card is probably more serious than a technical foul. One point is highly unlikely to alter the tenor of a basketball game, while playing one man down in soccer probably means you will give up a goal.

Under current NBA rules, of course, there is no penalty to players who blatantly take a dive; Derek Fisher can flop all he wants and live to see another Rondo. And some pundits have argued that flopping has become a greater problem in the NBA in the last ten years as more European and South American players, influenced by soccer culture, have entered the league. Should the impunity around flopping be changed?

We might do well to consider the direct costs of flopping, aside from referee-imposed penalties. In basketball, a defensive flop can give your opponent an easy path to the basket for two quick points, if no foul is called. The enormous size of a soccer pitch, and the number of players on the field, means that a flop by one individual player is unlikely to result in a clear advantage for the other side. So perhaps the risk of an unsuccessful flop (i.e. a flop that fails to draw a foul) provides sufficient caution against would-be basketball floppers. Plus, crashing to the hardwood can hurt weary bones; a trip to the green lawn is far softer.

The biggest problem with penalizing flopping in basketball is the subjective discretion that this would invest in referees. If a player drops, was it a dive, or was he pushed? It would be difficult to definitively demarcate the difference in any written set of rules. Soccer referees indeed do have this discretion, but upper-body contact is less common in that sport and a flop is likely easier to identify as such.

All told, I do not support the penalizing of flopping in the NBA at this time. However, referees must become more chary about calling a foul to reward the player who flopped. If a non-American player (or Derek Fisher) dives unexpectedly, it was probably fake.

**[Warning, large PDF; see page 115]

When the Adjudicator Gets It Wrong

The NBA today took the unusual step of announcing that referees erred in not calling a foul against Utah's C.J. Miles on the last play of last night's wild Jazz-Thunder game. A foul call would have given Oklahoma City's Kevin Durant, down one point, three free throws to potentially win the game. You can review the play below by fast-forwarding to the 1:50 mark of the video (and see the slow-motion replay at 2:07):



I have two thoughts in response to this incident. First, a frequent theme here at JPO has been our revulsion over the inconsistency of foul calls in the NBA, particularly late in the fourth quarter and when star players are involved. (The epitome of this failing, of course, was the original "JPO" play in 1998.) In this Miles-Durant tiff, the duskiness of the timing suggests that I should want to see a foul called, yet the brightness of Durant's renown favors a bias to see Durant not get bailed out. Thus, emotionally, I am not sure how to view either last night's result or the NBA's communication today. Watching the video, it seemed like Miles swiped part ball and part skin, though it would be very difficult to notice that in real time on the floor. So perhaps I should be upset that the referees "swallowed their whistle" in the game's final second, regardless of the identity of the shooter.

My second thought, more analytically, is puzzlement at the NBA's decision to publicly overrule their referees. The NBA rulebook is a body of law. Here in our common-law American domain, law is administered and enforced by a panoply of police, executive bureaucrats, judges, and juries. Law is often thought to be grindingly slow. Accused criminals sometimes languish in detention for months or years while their case is advanced; the "Enron" bankruptcy case lasted over seven years. Law is complicated, and, apparently, our society has decided that we prefer to "get it right" rather than "do it fast" — even if that means financial disputes remain unresolved for ages and people's freedom is abridged. Additionally, criminal and civil litigants are allowed two levels of appellate review should they be dissatisfied with an original decision.


However, the NBA cannot afford such deliberation. By contrast to public law, NBA rules are administered by three referees alone. Games are unique events that depend on the physical presence of two sets of players under particular environmental conditions. Games cannot be tabled, postponed, or repeated! Thus, appellate review is extremely limited. Certain decisions may be reviewed by referees (the same agents who originally made such decisions) by video during the course of the game, but no higher power may intervene and game outcomes are final once completed. [On extremely rare occasions, Commissioner Stern has the sole authority to grant a re-play in the event of "gross negligence" relating to an objectively documentable mis-application of a game rule. This happened most recently in 2007-08, involving Atlanta and Miami. Prior to that, it had not occurred since Stern took over the league in 1984.]

I write the above two paragraphs to point out that what's done is done. Without appellate review, the NBA really should stand behind its referees to reinforce the psychic finality of disputed finishes. I don't see the public value in overruling a referee. The announcement is moot, so why embarrass him? A Supreme Court justice could shrug her shoulders and say "Yeah, those trial judges screw up sometimes, but that's all right." The public will understand, because decisions ain't over after the trial verdict. But when NBA games are final, an admission of fallibility only frustrates fans. Why do that? The foul call was ambiguous enough that some viewers of the video might "see" whatever the league tells them to. (Have you ever noticed that a pro wrestling match looks a whole lot faker when you turn off the announcers' audio?) To be sure, the league should do all it can behind the scenes to adequately train officials, but in front of the press it should try whatever is necessary (without straining credulity) to persuade fans of referee competence. Even if Commissioner Stern truly laments his refs' failure to call the foul on Miles last night, he should make like President George W. Bush and decline to admit his mistakes.

Wouldn't Take Nothing For My Journey Now

When we began this blog last year, I identified a principal objective to be an assault on unfair refereeing. Heck, our very URL suggests that we don't like "star calls". Hence, I was really quite overjoyed at the finish of last night's Bulls-Cavs game. Watch the video for yourself (fast-forward to the 2:26 mark). LeBron James drives to the hoop with 4 seconds left, down by one point.

I applaud the referees for not calling a foul against Noah or Deng. However, a more egregious depredation occurred on the same play. Watch carefully: after James gathers his dribble, he takes one step, then a hop with both feet. Then he hops again and, in mid-air, attempts to put the ball in the hoop. No travelling call?!

Fly Me To The Moon

Clocks stopped, dogs buried their poop, George Bush slept in late, and all sorts of craziness happened yesterday as — for the first time in our memory — LeBron James was called yesterday for a travelling violation on a potential game-winning play that he later indignantly described as a perfectly valid “crab dribble” (wha~?). And it was surely the right call:

Here at Jordan Pushed Off, we (at least, I) regard as execrable the phenomenon of “star calls” in the league, and we look forward to a time when all men are deemed equal under the rule of NBA law. What the heck is a crab dribble, anyway? A quick google search, looking for the term “crab dribble” but excluding the term “lebron”, turns up only two basketball-related pages. One is an instructional sheet that apparently equates the crab dribble with a basic back-to-the-defender protective stance, often used by pivotmen in the paint or by guards bringing the ball up the court against pressure. I don't know what school of ball LeBron attended, but I don't think a jump, a hop, and a couple steps were what Mr. Naismith envisioned.

The most amusing element of this scenario was James’s postgame defense of his aborted drive:

“You have your trademark play, and that's one of my plays. It kind of looks like a travel because it's slow, and it's kind of a high-step, but it's a one-two just as fluent as any other one-two in this league. I got the wrong end of it, but I think they need to look at it -- and they need to understand that's not a travel," James said. "It's a perfectly legal play, something I've always done.”

James’s deluded protests reminded me of what Saddam Hussein said to the judge presiding over his tribunal in 2005: “But I am the president of Iraq. I do not recognize this court!” Well, yeah, dude, you used to be, before your lack of legitimacy was laid bare. Perhaps this is cognitive dissonance (his perception of bad ball on his part cannot possibly be squared with his view of himself as a Great One) or some sort of hubris-induced visual processing disorder by James: he really looked at the tape and, in good faith, his brain really cannot see the multiple steps. Or, more likely, perhaps he is aware (if only from a hunchy, lay perspective) of psychological evidence showing that lies repeated often can be persuasive when they feed into pre-existing biases. LeBron wants every referee in the league to begin thinking of “LeBron’s crab dribble” as a permitted category unto itself. I also liked James’s claim of a “trademark move”. Usually if you have a technique all your own, you let others point out your distinctiveness.

I liked the Wizards’ reaction to James's defense, particularly that of Butler:

“ ‘Crab dribble’ is when you, uh, travel,” Butler said. “That's the hottest thing on the market right now.”

Let us hope that asset bubble soon bursts!