Dear NBA: Thanks for Listening to me

The "Basketball for Thought" is a commentary by Kris Gardner.

April 2001

I want to offer my deepest thanks to the NBA Board of Governors, NBA Commissioner David Stern, and the NBA owners for making my topic of discussion very easy this month. The NBA hierarchy has adopted four new rules changes: allow any type of defense to be played; force a defender to move from the painted area in less than 3 seconds unless he's closely guarding an offensive player; force teams to advance the ball past half court in 8 seconds instead of 10; and eliminate fouls whistled for incidental contact.

It's clear none of the higher-ups read my "Please, NBA, Forget About the Zone" commentary because majority vote agreed to allow zone defenses. I'm amazed at the many varied opinions respected basketball people share on allowing zones in the NBA. Some coaches (past and present) applaud the changes while others believe the new rules won't help but hinder; some club general managers love it while other GMs hate it. I haven't seen any players publicly state they love the idea of allowing zones which is very ironic because the players are the ones the rules are supposed to help. Go figure.

Personally, I believe allowing zones will hinder the game tremendously simply because today's players can't shoot the basketball with any high efficiency. Those in favor of allowing zones proclaim zones will promote more ball and player movement and create more fast break opportunities. I'm very much in favor of increased ball and player movement; but, all the motion in the world won't matter if players are unable to knock down open shots. I can't see how zones will create more transition baskets because the floor is balanced in zone defenses which makes it easier for teams to get back on defense thereby making it more difficult to run. Plus, coaches stopped emphasizing running games years ago; so, unless they decide to change that emphasis, no rules changes will have an impact on the game at all.

Instead of "improving the flow and pace of the game", another reason for the changes has been bandied about: to increase the number of European players in the league. Most European players are known for their great perimeter skills; however, many of them aren't successful in the NBA because they aren't good (or quick) enough to play man defense. In his continuing efforts to make basketball global, I wouldn't be surprised if Commissioner Stern broached the committee on the zone idea in order to have more international players in the NBA.

On one hand it's hard to argue with the logic because three of the top young stars (Dallas' Dirk Nowitzki and Sacramento's Peja Stojakovic and Hedo Turkoglu) in the NBA have much more well rounded games than their young American counterparts because they grew up playing against zone defenses. However, why should the league change it's rules in order to allow more one dimensional ball players in the league?

Zones allow teams to "hide" their slowest or poorest defenders. I don't see how that makes the game better. Not every team will play zone defenses nor will any team play zone for a full game because rebounding from zone defenses is very difficult. Also, teaching zones requires many hours of practice and teams won't have much time to learn new zone concepts during the season with little to no practice time.

The NBA game will change because of these new rules. No one knows how dramatic the change will be or if the game will change for the better. Some coaches could be unveiled as frauds because the new rules will force them to be creative with their coaching style instead of adopting the "throw it down low, draw the double team, kick out for a 3" mentality which has swept across the league like a wildfire. I'm not convinced the rules will help one bit; but, I am curious to see how different teams and coaches will deal with the changes. However, I don't see how any changes that give the coaches more control is good for the game. Coaches have too much control already.