My One Neat Trick to Save the NBA

Thrand-checking? You're welcome, Adam Silver

CBS writer Sam Quinn wrote an article with twelve possible solutions for curbing the NBA’s 3-point boom. It’s over six thousand words, and I must say, is impressively readable for a piece of that length on speculative rule reforms.

Apparently an idea of mine has made the final cut. I’ll post his full contents of the subsection titled, “7. Allow hand-checking behind the arc”:

This is a recent idea courtesy of Ethan Sherwood-Strauss. The thinking here is that if physicality increases behind the arc, players will be incentivized to operate more within it. We immediately have to specify that we are referring to on-ball contact. Increasing the amount of physicality defenses can get away with off of the ball impedes ball-movement, which leads to slower, less entertaining play.

Allowing hand-checking outside of the arc probably does cut down on ball-handlers dribbling aimlessly at the top of the arc before settling for the triple. That's not a bad thing, especially at the end of games. It also could serve to force the ball out of the hands of those stars earlier in possessions, forcing more ball-movement and incentivizing the league's best players (and, in many cases, best athletes) to improve as off-ball players. That's a potentially interesting outcome as well. The idea of, say, Edwards morphing into an elite cutter could create some very exciting plays at the rim.

The obvious danger here is that eliminating hand-checking once upon a time might have saved modern basketball. Does anyone want to see the Pacers and Pistons play more playoff games where the first team to 75 wins? OK, that's obviously an extreme, but remember, the NBA has already introduced more defense to the game through changes that came at last year's All-Star break, and the impact has been significant. NBA teams are scoring 2.2 fewer points per 100 possessions this year than they did last, which is the biggest scoring decrease since the 1998-99 lockout year. How much scoring are we really prepared to sacrifice?

The NBA is a stars league. The most exciting of those stars are the ones that create their own shots off the dribble. Impeding those players through increased physicality ultimately does more harm than good. The NBA just isn't going to be enthusiastic about making life harder for the players fans came to see. The idea does have some merit, but it probably does more harm than good.

Okay, well I guess this is now my NBA rule change attempt at making fetch happen. Thank me later, Adam Silver. Quinn identifies the irony in my One Neat Trick to save the NBA.

The obvious danger here is that eliminating hand-checking once upon a time might have saved modern basketball.

Yep. As I noted in my article about how bleak the mid NBA aughts got, that era’s physical defense dragged the sport into an existentially scary nadir. Banning the hand check liberated basketball, as perimeter superstars flourished. But I suppose running the NBA is a little like running the federal reserve. Sometimes, for economic health, interest rates should be slashed. And sometimes, out of economic necessity, interest rates should be hiked. The sport recently got too loosey goosey as teams optimized for launching as many 3s as possible. It’s time to ramp up the difficulty level.

My evidence for “too loosey goosey” is pretty subjective, but I’d argue it’s compelling: When the NBA secretly changed the rules in favor of defense last season, the reaction was overwhelmingly positive. Fans like offense, but they also want the scoring to feel “real.” When there’s a palpable lack of resistance to the scoring, the magic is gone.

I’m wary of going Full Hand-Check though, for the reasons Quinn mentioned. Constraint across the board has hurt the sport’s aesthetics and could again. That’s why my reform idea is only applicable above the arc. For now, I’m calling it “thrand-checking,” which is a terrible name that will never catch on. The term is a placeholder, hopefully.

If thrand-checking ever comes to pass, there will be much devil in the details. With hand-checking, it was always thus. If you watch a game from the 1990s, you’re likely to see some disputed foul situation regarding a hand-check. It’s difficult to adjudicate how much contact is permissible versus how much constitutes a violation.

Unfortunately, I do not trust Adam Silver’s league to figure this part out. I would if the NBA granted referees some latitude to make subjective calls and police their own standards. But this is the “Two Minute Report” NBA, where every conceivable decision is robotically stacked against the letter of the law versus its spirit.

If you change the game too aggressively, the NBA’s perpetually confused refs will get lost in adjudications. For this reason, I’d advocate for a fairly modest injection of thrand-checking. Allow it only beyond the 3-point line, only on the ball, and the defender must cease contact once the offensive player drives past the line.

There would be some bumps along the way, literal and metaphorical. Players would be incensed when they felt themselves fouled under the cover of “legal” defense. That process, however imperfect, is probably preferable the current frictionless product. It would also give nostalgic fans a reason to tune in. The new NBA is tougher? The new NBA is going back to the future by channeling the 1990s? Nearly every big hit is a new spin on an old thing. Thrand-checking would fit that criteria, though hopefully with a better name going forward.