Thursday, January 03, 2013
Base scores
On Bill’s site, he was talking about converting scores in NFL to MLB, noting that 3 football points is like one MLB run. I responded:
In MLB, it’s about 10 runs per win, while in NFL, it’s about 35 points per win. So, conversion is about 3.5 to 1. A 7-4 MLB game would therefore be about 24-14 in NFL (or really 27-17… it’s not just the multiple, but there’s a “base number” that each team gets). This is more obvious in NBA, where it’s about 30 points per win (similar to NFL), so 3:1 conversion to MLB. So, 7-4 MLB is like 109-100 in NBA. There’s a huge “base” number of points that each side gets, and then you do the multiplier. NHL is 6 to 7 goals per win, so 7-4 MLB is 5-3 in NHL. NHL is like MLB in that there’s no “base” scoring.
It also got me thinking how “true” a sport is in its scoring if there was no “base scoring”. NBA gives you points basically for just possessions. A huge amount of the scoring is simply based on having the ball in your hands. Yes, you have to throw it in the basket. But, what I’m trying to say is that the score differential in NBA is about the same as it is in NFL. Basically, if you score an average of 5 more points per game in NBA, that means about the same as scoring 5 more points per game in NFL. But, the total number of points per game is far different.
NFL could adopt a scoring system that gives you say a quarter point for every yard gained from the scrimmage line or something, and then we’d get a scoring system that might look more like NBA. That is, you get points for possessions, but not for actually scoring. I know, I know, in NBA, you get points only for the basket. I got it. When you make analogies, you are not making equivalencies.
It made me think of tennis, where the “points” you get, like yards in football, are not real points. They only matter if you win the game. And even the games don’t matter unless you win the set.
So, you can actually try to do the same thing with basketball. For example, imagine you do tennis-style scoring in basketball. You win a “game” if you get 4 or more unanswered points. Once you have that, a new game resets. So, the back-and-forth of getting two points is a wash. Turnovers become a huge key. If you make it 5 or more unanswered points instead, then you might see alot of 3-point attempts. Imagine for example, you win a “game” if you need at least 5 unanswered points. You score (that’s 2 points), the other teams come up court, but you steal, and score an easy basket (2 points, now at 4 points). But if the other team scores, that wipes out your 4 points, rendering it meaningless. Now your opponent is at 2 points. Would be wild right?
Anyway, and this is just me, so I’m sure I’m in the minority, I don’t follow basketball because it just seems like an up-and-down game. There’s no incentive to not be up-and-down. There also doesn’t seem to be much randomness. Well, I know there isn’t, because I’ve shown that to be true. In a 48-minute game, the better team wins much more than the opponent. I don’t know that that’s the best way to operate, especially in light of how MLB and NHL operate. And even if that IS the best way to operate, I know that having an 82-game season is NOT the best way to operate. And having 16-teams in the playoffs on top of that is not the best way to operate. The NBA sucks as much of the randomness as possible to leave you with a very strong confidence that the team that wins the championship is indeed the most talented team in the league. But, do we really want that? Don’t we want to see some huge upset occasionally? The other sports offer that because of their game structure or schedule. NBA doesn’t.
Anyway, just a thought that popped into my head.