Win by Six

[Cap]

This one isn’t really a serious proposal, but has its virtues and (IMO) is fun to think about. If you want to talk about reasons it’s unworkable, please feel free; it won’t offend me.

WIN BY SIX

If you lead by six or more at the end of regulation, you win. If neither team does, OT.

Take a six point lead at any point during OT1, the game ends and you win, or win with a five point lead at the end of the period. In OT2 you can win with a five point lead during the period or a four point lead at the end of the period, and so on, decreasing the winning margin by one each period.

Anticipated effects include:

• Reduced impact of officiating errors. You should have lead by six and won at the end of regulation, but a reffing error left you up by only four. After ten more minutes of play, you lose by four. The refs kept your opponent alive, but you got outscored by eight the rest of the way, which takes some punch out of your claim to deserve the win. (If you get to OT5 and next score wins a single call can be decisive, but oh well. Games won’t often get to that point.)

• Fewer foul-to-stop-the-clock situations. Late in Q4, if you trail by a little more than five, you might foul to stop the clock. That’s much like today, except you’re aiming for -5 instead of 0.
  
  In OT, they’ll be rare. In OT1, if you trail by exactly five (you can’t trail by six) and the shot clock is off, you won’t let your opponent wait out the clock. This is the only FTSTC situation in OT, and one FTM ends it.

• Less garbage time. Since you only need to be within five to get to OT, you’re less likely to be in a hopeless situation. If it takes a 15-point margin to make a game hopeless today, it takes 20 to make that game hopeless under Win By Six.

• Many dramatic potentially decisive possessions in OT. “Offense wins with a score. Defense needs a stop to stay alive.” Stop on each end and the situation repeats.

Do you agree with these anticipated effects? What other effects would you expect? What would you expect the average game length to be under WB6? Do you have ideas to make it better or more interesting?

[Superbone]

OK, now you are going out there, man! It's just too weird for my tastes. Unlike any other sport.

[TOO]

With the 3pt shot being so prevalent 6 doesn't seem like enough.

[Superbone]

I think we should add the four point shot before doing something like this.

[Cap]

OK, now you are going out there, man! It's just too weird for my tastes. Unlike any other sport.

Different can be good, bad, or just different. I guess for you it’s bad. Mild , but fortunately it’s not really a serious proposal.

[Split T]

I think Elam ending solves most of these problems better and easier. I do like thinking about ways to make end of games more exciting. Fouling the big thing I’d like to eliminate.

[Cap]

I think we should add the four point shot before doing something like this.

That’s interesting. I also like it for football: Field goal with a line of scrimmage at or outside the 40 is four points; at or outside the 50 is five points. We don’t want to penalize teams for penetration, so an offense closer to the goal will have the option of backing up to try a more valuable field goal. Could be fun in end-of-game situations. 4th and 8, down by 4, keep going for the end zone or back up to try a four pointer?

[Split T]

I’d rather get rid of kicking altogether

[Cap]

I think Elam ending solves most of these problems better and easier. I do like thinking about ways to make end of games more exciting. Fouling the big thing I’d like to eliminate.

They’re similar in some ways. Elam has a winning score; WB6 has a winning margin that reduces by one each OT. I don’t why one is significantly easier than the other, and also don’t understand why you see Elam as “better.” In both systems, a target score/margin eliminates (or nearly eliminates) FTSTC situations in OT.

[Split T]

Elam just eliminates it completely…assuming you use it for regulation as well. That’s really it…if you only use it for OT, then yes it’s pretty similar

[Cap]

Elam just eliminates it completely…assuming you use it for regulation as well. That’s really it…if you only use it for OT, then yes it’s pretty similar

Treating Q4 as an overtime doesn’t make it much easier or better as far as I can see.

I suppose it further cuts down on FTSTC situations, but those aren’t very common in WB6.

[Split T]

Elam just eliminates it completely…assuming you use it for regulation as well. That’s really it…if you only use it for OT, then yes it’s pretty similar

Treating Q4 as an overtime doesn’t make it easier or better as far as I can see.

Not the whole quarter, but I’d play until 2 minutes left and add 5 points to the leading teams score as the goal score.

[Cap]

Elam just eliminates it completely…assuming you use it for regulation as well. That’s really it…if you only use it for OT, then yes it’s pretty similar

Treating Q4 as an overtime doesn’t make it easier or better as far as I can see.

Not the whole quarter, but I’d play until 2 minutes left and add 5 points to the leading teams score as the goal score.

You can still get “next score wins” situations that in WB6 can’t happen unless the game goes long with neither team gaining a meaningful advantage over the course of a lot of OTs. In WB6 the final margin would almost always be more than one or two, so it would be more clear that the more deserving team won.

[Superbone]

Another problem with this is it screws up all historic stats and starts a new run of them.

[Split T]

I’d just simply give the team that is fouled the option to decline the free throws and go side out. I’d much rather watch a team scramble defensively to get a turnover than watch a ft contest. Yes it means sometimes the clock will just run out as the defense is helpless, but I’m ok with that.

I’d also look at a foul just simply not stopping play. Play through it and after the play is over determine if you want to take the foul. You still score, then no reason to take the foul.

[Cap]

Another problem with this is it screws up all historic stats and starts a new run of them.

Because a lot of games will go more than 48 minutes? Few will go much longer. Instead of the current average of 48.5 might be 50.

"Crunch time" stats might be incomparable to earlier crunch time stats because of a different definition of crunch time, otherwise I don't see the problem. Surely "screws up historic stats" less than the four-point shot, if I understand correctly what you mean by it.

[Cap]

I think Elam ending solves most of these problems better and easier. I do like thinking about ways to make end of games more exciting. Fouling the big thing I’d like to eliminate.

They’re similar in some ways. Elam has a winning score; WB6 has a winning margin that reduces by one each OT. I don’t why one is significantly easier than the other, and also don’t understand why you see Elam as “better.” In both systems, a target score/margin eliminates (or nearly eliminates) FTSTC situations in OT.

On further reflection, you’re right, if your only goal is to stop stalling/FTSTC. Elam perfectly eliminates it, while WB6 mostly eliminates it as a side effect of a system that has other purposes.

[Split T]

I think Elam ending solves most of these problems better and easier. I do like thinking about ways to make end of games more exciting. Fouling the big thing I’d like to eliminate.

They’re similar in some ways. Elam has a winning score; WB6 has a winning margin that reduces by one each OT. I don’t why one is significantly easier than the other, and also don’t understand why you see Elam as “better.” In both systems, a target score/margin eliminates (or nearly eliminates) FTSTC situations in OT.

On further reflection, you’re right, if your only goal is to stop stalling/FTSTC. Elam perfectly eliminates it, while WB6 mostly eliminates it as a side effect of a system that has other purposes.

That’s a fair assessment…Elam ending doesn’t solve the reffing issues or flukey one possession games

[Cap]

Another thing I like is how it makes the final score more reflective of the competitive nature of the game. A four point win could happen only after the teams battle through two OTs without either team opening up a six/five point lead, even momentarily. The rare three point win would have to be even closer for even longer. A two point game would be so rare as to be historic. A one point game is difficult to imagine and would be a neat bit of trivia if it ever happened.

[Cap]

Another thing you might consider good or bad (but I consider good): close games will be ended by a decisive scoring play or stop (similar to baseball, which is always ended by a run or an out). It’s only ended by time running out in Q4 if the score differential is six or more (you’d have to be trailing by nine or more at the end to not have the opportunity to extend the game with a score), and only ended by time running out in an OT if the score differential is exactly one less than the winning margin. I mentioned “Offense wins with a score, defense needs a stop to stay alive” being common in OT, but on the last possession of Q4/OT you can also have “Defense wins with a stop, offense needs a score to stay alive.” In both cases, it’s won by a decisive play rather than just time running out.