Yeah the Capt and I mostly agree you need to focus on control not motivation.
not sure exactly what you mean by ""control"
but
my strategy is always to seek self-motivation by the principals, to structure the system so that people acting in their own interests are in fact advancing the cause of the agency (in this case, the nba).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
now, i go wildly off topic to make an analogy:
for instance, the new baseball rules (ghost runners, ect).
the baseball commissioner had choices, but he seemed to focus on "penalties and restrictions" rather than "incentives" (to change conduct)
so we have a system where pitchers and hitters are penalized (a ball or strike assessed) if they take too long getting play underway.
and pitchers are restricted from repeatedly "throwing to first" (to hold a runner on) - after two throws over, the pitcher must deliver to the plate.
the overall goal was to "speed up the game", resulting in "shorter" games (and ot DID work - games ARE "shorter")
but to keep the games "shorter", the extra innings format was drastically changed, with a runner being "placed" on second base in each half inning of extra play (to make sure someone scores and the game doesn't drag on for 17 mostly scoreless extra innings).
the alternative (which i favored) would be to "incentivize" pitchers and hitters to put the ball in play earlier (it used to be said of brandon belt that "his at-bat didn't really begin until he got to three and two").
the incentives could have been quite simple.
you create a system whereby pitchers WANT to "come in with the pitch" (throwing strikes) rather than "nibbling at the corners" until you HAVE to deliver a "hittable" pitch
so, you change the "rules"
for hitters:
"if a hitter shall reach base with no strikes in the count (swinging early), he shall be awarded an extra base" (and if that causes other baserunners to be advanced, so be it).
for pitchers:
you use the "immaculate inning" statistic but make it WORTH something.
you initiate a "rule", some version of, "if a pitcher shall throw an 'immaculate inning', his team shall begin the next half inning with two runs on the scoreboard" (pitchers can no longer "drive in" runs *because they no longer "hit", but they CAN use their pitching excellence to score runs for their team).
you probably give a pitcher's team two runs for a standard immaculate inning. but you ALSO add a rule that says, "if a number of pitchers, over the course of two innings, shall retire any three consecutive batters on nine pitches with no ball put in play, (which would be known as an "immaculate outing"}, their team has one run already on the board to start the next half inning"
now you have an incentive based system. pitchers are continually incentivized to throw strikes from the get-go (in order to put a run or two on the board for their team) AND you have hitters LOOKING to put the first pitch in play to both remove the possibility of an "immaculate inning or outing" (runs scored AGAINST their team) AND to get into scoring position on a single (second base awarded if you reach first with no strikes in the count), or put yourself on third with a first pitch double (and the extra base)
sure it's complicated. but imagine taking your kid to a game. under current rules, how the hell is dad going to explain to sonny-boy HOW that guy starts the tenth inning (and every half inning thereafter) on second base. did he get a hit while no one was watching? WHAT? - he didn't EARN his way on base?
whereas with an incentive based system, the hitter or pitcher EARN runs or extra bases for their team by their performance.
either way, it's going to mean "learning new and sometimes complicated rules", but under an incentive based system, you don't have umpires calling a ball or strike BECAUSE "nothing happened" (in a specified time frame) - instead, pitchers have a reason to throw strikes early and often and hitters have the incentive to swing early in the count. so, shorter games.
but the commissioner was interested in shortening "the time between pitches" (using penalties and restrictions), rather than reducing the NUMBER of (overall) pitches in a game (shortening the game that way).
and in an incentivized system, starters stay in the game longer (do you REALLY want to see logan webb removed after five shutout innings because he is approaching a hundred pitches?)
so, this was a brief diversion into "baseball rule changes" and the value of an "incentive based system" versus a "penalty based system"
